Debate on President's Address

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [31 August 2020].

"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:

'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan]

Question again proposed.

1.02 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the President's Opening Address carried a paragraph on how Singapore may finally be at the point where the parameters of discussion about race may be widened. She said and I quote, "Our multiracialism is still work in progress. Each successive generation will bring different life experiences and perspectives. In each generation, some will want to discuss sensitive issues afresh. Younger Singaporeans prefer talking about these issues more candidly and openly, which is a positive development. But the conversation needs to be conducted with restraint and mutual respect, because race, language and religion will always be visceral subjects."

Sir, as I embark on my fourth term in this House, I recall my generation's unique experience of multiracialism in Singapore, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s. It was the era of Mr S Rajaratnam, who's mantra was that we were all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. In the 1980s and 1990s, when the self-help groups such as MENDAKI and CDAC were set up along ethnic lines, it was reported that Mr Rajaratnam disagreed as he saw these as running counter to the vision of having a Singaporean identity, where race, religion and language did not matter.

Speaking personally, my own experience is that of a distinct shift between my childhood where talk of race was discouraged, to today's reality of heightened race consciousness.

Four years ago, in 2016, a constitutional commission chaired by the Chief Justice was set up to make recommendations on how to ensure multiracial representation in the office of the Elected President. In its report, the commission noted as follows and I quote, "The ultimate destination for our society should be a race-blind community where no safeguards are required to ensure that candidates from different ethnic groups and periodically elected into presidential office. Equally, it seems to be common ground that Singapore as a society cannot affirmatively say that she has already arrived. The question, then, is whether it would be prudent for safeguards to be put in place to ensure minority representation in the office, even as Singapore continues on the journey towards that destination. The commission is of the view that it would be, especially since it is uncertain how long the journey will take."

It seems to me that there is no real quarrel that we want to arrive at the destination of being a race-blind state. If this is our desire, it is only logical that we take concrete steps to move in this direction. We have had painful experiences of raicial stife in the past. But as the President acknowledges, society's experiences and aspirations are not static and each successive generation may yearn for, and even demand, a different approach.

To that end, I see some encouraging signs from the recent General Election. Several political parties fielded GRC teams consisting of a majority of non-Chinese candidates and polled well. I should particularly mention and thank the voters of Aljunied GRC who re-elected the Workers' Party team with three minority candidates out of five. I believe that Singaporean voters are not fixated with race and there is cause for optimism for the future.

In choosing to speak on this topic, I am acutely aware that there are different perspectives on matters of race, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat acknowledged in this House yesterday. Nevertheless, I believe it is essential for us to move this conversation along so that we inch ever closer towards the ultimate destination of being a race-blind society. Some may consider that we will never arrive at this destination. But we must ask ourselves how much closer we can be.

I also acknowledge at the outset that the Government's management of these matters arises from legitimate concerns. The Government is responsible for law and order, and fostering the building of a Singaporean identity in a population that is heterogeneous. It is a difficult task. However, as society evolves, all of us need to keep an open mind to listen and understand the perspectives of fellow Singaporeans whose aspirations for Singapore may differ from our own.

Let me now move on to three areas which I think need to be addressed to move towards being a more race-blind society. These are: first, ethnic classifications and data; second, elections along ethnic lines; and third, the HDB Ethnic Integration Policy. I will call for an open review of these matters to move us along in this journey towards being a race-blind society.

First, ethnic classifications and data. The Government continues to classify the population based on the CMIO or Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others, first used in colonial Singapore in 1824, nearly 200 years ago. Fast forward to today. To the Government's credit, it has recognised the increasingly numbers of mixed marriages and in 2011, enabled children of mixed marriages to be registered with double-barrelled ethnicity.

The Government has defended the CMIO classification as necessary to ensure that minority rights are safeguarded. The concept of minority rights itself is problematic as it would be better if we could simply talk about citizenship rights. Furthermore, with more and more inter-ethnic marriages, where the bride and groom are themselves are of mixed parentage, I wonder how the CMIO classifications can withstand the test of time.

CMIO also informs the self-help groups such as the CDAC, Sinda, Mendaki and the Eurasian Association. Over the years, these self-help groups have made significant contributions to uplift the less privileged, especially children. Notwithstanding the good work they have done, the fact is that they reinforce racial consciousness. I suspect that the different sizes of the ethnic pools contributing to these organisations would affect the resources available, with CDAC probably having the most resources. To this end, CDAC has opened up some of its programmes on a race-blind basis.

There is an opportunity here to come together as Singaporeans and contribute to a national pool, helping the less privileged on a race-blind basis. I am aware of an effort to collaborate in this direction in Yishun called the Self-help Groups Centre and hope we can go much further.

Sir, data on race is collected on many forms we complete. For all the race data the Government collects, it is selective on what it chooses to release. It probably has its reasons for this. Though my point today is to move towards being race-blind, it is also true that data is needed to understand issues that may affect particular communities, with a view to narrowing the differences. Let me give an example. As a Member of Parliament (MP), I filed a Parliamentary Question 13 years ago to ascertain the composition of the prison inmate population by ethnic groups. This is information that other governments release as a matter of course. The answer given to my question was that the Prisons Department was unable to share the statistics. No explanation was given.

Sir, society at large should have an interest in whether those serving jail sentences are a microcosm of society or whether certain ethnicities are disproportionately being imprisoned. Why people land in jail is often related to the state of their lives such as whether they have stable income and family relationships. Such serious matters deserve wider study by persons outside the Government such as researchers. There should be public awareness of any challenges faced by particular communities and a whole-of-society approach should be encouraged. We should strive to foster a national culture where every Singaporean is a stakeholder in the lives of fellow citizens.

Next, elections along ethnic lines. Since 1988, the Government decided to run parliamentary elections with requirements for GRC teams to field candidates from designated minority communities. Constitutional amendments in the last term of Parliament have introduced an ethnic requirement for presidential elections, based on a hiatus-triggered mechanism. As stated by the constitutional commission in 2016, there should ideally be no need for safeguards to ensure that candidates from different ethnic groups are elected into presidential office. This would be ideal for parliamentary elections as well, when we are so race-blind that candidates of different ethnicities are elected naturally.

These issues have been debated in the past with arguments for and against ethnic requirements. However, that does not mean that these issues should remain as they are over time and forever. Such requirements tend to focus on minority representation which can put an uncomfortable spotlight on minority candidates. To qualify for parliamentary elections, a minority candidate has to file an application to a committee to determine if the candidate is Malay enough or Indian enough. Indeed, the committee may come back to ask for evidence to be satisfied that the candidate meets the "kosher" test.

I always wondered how I would fair if one day, I had to pass a test of Chinese-ness. Being brought up in an English-speaking family and attending a mission school, I find myself constantly feeling inadequate about the state of my Mandarin. Before I entered politics, my knowledge of Chinese customs and practices was focused on celebrating Chinese New Year. I am not proud of my limitations. But being classified as part of the majority Chinese population, I am not required to prove who I am to stand in the GE. But it is not so for minorities.

Sir, we all value that our Parliament has cultural diversity and that political parties do not campaign along racial lines. Indeed, there are penal laws against sedition and exciting disaffection between different communities. Whether having a multiracial Parliament needs to be maintained through the existing laws on minority candidates or whether there are other ways to ensure candidates of diverse backgrounds are fielded can be an area for review.

Next, HDB Ethnic Integration Policy or EIP. The EIP was introduced in 1989, "to ensure a balanced mix of ethnic groups in HDB estates and to prevent the formation of racial enclaves". There is no such requirement for private estate such as landed houses and condominiums. After 30 years of EIP, how well is it working? From the Parliamentary Questions filed by MPs from both sides of the House, it is clear that the EIP has caused economic hardship over the years. When the quotas are reached, residents from minority communities can only buy or sell HDB flats from someone in the same community. For sellers, this can significantly reduce the numbers of offers available. It can also affect the transaction price by as much as $100,000 in one case I came across. Such a price differential could make all the difference to a family in financial need. Being stuck due to the ethnic quota can leave residents in limbo for months. I know HDB has allowed appeals on a case-by-case basis. But the default is that the quotas apply.

As the EIP was introduced only in 1989, it is useful to look at HDB estates where families moved in prior to 1989 when there was no EIP. For instance, areas like Bedok have clusters where the Malay population exceeded the EIP quotas. We should note that there did not appear to be extraordinary tensions or disorder there. It does appear to me that some relaxation of the EIP is possible.

Fourteen years ago when the Workers' Party suggested removing the EIP, it was met with a robust response from the ruling party. The suggestion was labelled "a time bomb". We are also aware that some Singaporeans did not agree with our suggestion. Today, half a generation later, I hope we can have a more progressive discussion on the issue. While the Government's position is that the EIP was instituted for a noble purpose, its effect in particular cases has been discriminatory and needs to be addressed.

Sir, matters of race are no doubt sensitive issues that must be carefully handled. I do not pretend to have the answers that we need. However, what I am convinced of is that our discourse about issues of race has to go forward.

To this end, I suggest we take the time to have a wide national conversation about how we can move forward on race issues. Way back in 1967, the then-Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin chaired a constitutional commission on minority rights. The time is ripe for us to have a national exercise to study what progress has been made by society since then towards multiracialism and what further steps may be taken to move towards being a more race-blind society.

Sir, I am agnostic about the exact form of the review I am asking for. We should include academics with relevant expertise and also ensure there is fair representation of citizens across different age groups. The scope of the review should involve a wide collective reflection of where society is today on multiracialism, and what steps we can take towards this journey of being race-blind.

As for the scope of such a review, I can suggest that the following be considered: one, the relevance of existing ethnic classifications such as CMIO; two, the scope for more public disclosure of race-based data; three, how not to reinforce tribal instincts in public policies and surveys; four, whether the current self-help groups should be amalgamated within a unifying national body to pool national resources on a race-blind basis; five, whether multiracialism in elections should be preserved under the current framework or can less intrusive methods be used; and six, whether HDB’s Ethnic Integration Policy should be retained and if so, how it can be modified for fairness.

Sir, by naming these areas, it is not my intention to be prescriptive or exhaustive, but we must start talking about these matters to move our racial discourse forward.

Please let me make some concluding observations. I have spoken about Singapore’s continuing journey towards the destination of a race-blind society. I have also suggested a national exercise to review how this can be taken forward, with specific areas that could be reviewed.

When will Singaporeans be ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister? Many would argue that we already are. Is a race-blind Singapore a fantasy? Singaporeans have already risen above tribal instincts on many occasions. We can go further, with the right policies and signalling at the official level.

1.18 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in today’s debate on the Motion. I will like to speak on the issues confronting young Singaporeans and self-employed persons.

The graduating classes of 2019, 2020 and 2021 have it tough. They are certain to find jobs difficult to come by in the next 12 to 18 months. They are uncertain on what their future might hold beyond that. With no end in sight to COVID-19, most companies have already put off hiring, if they have not already let go excess manpower.

Thus, there are three concerns.

First, some younger Singaporeans would take much longer to find a job. The traineeships have helped but are also highly competitive.

Second, there is a much larger mismatch of skills and jobs. In adapting to the new job market, many young workers had to take on jobs that they were neither trained nor studied for.

Third, their medium term prospects are tenuous because they would also have to compete with later graduating classes.

We might possibly have a generation of younger Singaporeans confronted with the most difficult of financial and social circumstances. According to overseas studies on previous recessions, graduates entering the job market in a recession year, experience negative impact on wages for three to eight years compared to their peers who entered in a normal year. According to a MTI study in 2011, the negative impact can be as short as three years if job mobility is high. Job mobility will require them to deepen or acquire new skills.

Because the COVID-19-induced recession is unprecedented in scale, depth and duration, we might reasonably expect the negative impact to last longer. This makes improving job mobility paramount. We have to invest significantly to safeguard the future of the COVID-19 generation of young Singaporeans.

Many of our younger Singaporeans are understandably anxious. The Resilience Budget’s student loan repayment relief is a huge relief for our students. I hope that the Government can also work with the private education institutions or PEI, and banks to provide similar relief for our PEI students. Their tuition fees are unsubsidised and the amount owed can be substantial. We also hope that MOM would allow students to be given a longer moratorium to pay back their parents’ CPF monies used for their education.

We need to help the COVID-19 generation with greater job mobility. For example, companies should be encouraged to convert traineeships into permanent positions after the current nine months. Government can also customise incentives via the Jobs Growth Incentive to employers to hire these trainees on a permanent basis. NTUC would extend its assistance to help younger Singaporeans to navigate the tough job environment and provide protection accordingly.

If the economy has yet to turn around after nine months, we can also consider giving the option to extend the scheme. It would also give our younger Singaporeans more time to pick up and deepen their new skills. We could then consider providing basic employee benefits such as mandatory annual leave if such arrangements are longer.

For some younger Singaporeans, it might be better to stay in school or go back to school, further their studies or pick up new skills. For others, a second diploma or degree over the next 12 to 24 months might be needed for greater job mobility. I suggest that we can help to provide subsidies and loans for their second diplomas or degrees. This generation will require a career booster more so than other generations. COVID-19 will probably manifest a resilient generation. But they would need a helping hand to emerge stronger.

Next, I will like to speak about self-employed workers. COVID-19 has put into sharper focus their lack of protection and income security. Of course, these are not new issues. There are broadly two groups of workers.

First, the dependent contractors who depend predominantly on platform companies for their livelihoods. They are the workers whose lives are dictated by a couple of apps, whether it is ride-hailing or delivery. They are affected directly by platform companies’ policies such as incentive schemes or meeting service standards. They usually have little recourse if they disagree with the policies except to quit and go without their livelihoods.

Second, the freelancers. They are the coaches and artists, and depend largely on service buyers.

During this crisis, both groups suffered sharp drops in income because mass events and consumption have dropped dramatically. The Self-employed Persons Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) proved important to help them tide over this period. In fact, many Self-employed Persons or SEPs are grateful to be afforded support previously only available to employees. Beyond this year’s of support, it is likely that many of them will continue to be in dire financial situation because COVID-19 will continue to shutter events and reduce consumption. I hope that Government can consider to extend targeted support to them.

On a longer term, we will need to examine closely and protect their income security. There are two areas that require closer examination.

One, because existing laws do not allow them to be collectively represented, their voices might not be heard and interests not advanced. Thus, the divide in bargaining powers is vast, especially for the dependent contractors. We need to establish if they are actually contractors or employees. And subsequently, the roles and responsibilities of the platform companies. Only when we can strike an equitable balance can these industries or mode of obtaining services continue to thrive.

Second, for the freelancers, it is also critical to establish the responsibilities of the service-buyers. The current mechanism to manage the fairness of contract terms is via the Small Claims Tribunal or a civil court process. Both difficult and tenuous for freelancers. We perhaps require legislation on unfair contract terms to protect freelancers. These are naturally difficult and market-altering changes and would take time to study carefully. In the interim, we need to, perhaps, have tripartite standards set in place that guides service buyers and freelancers. Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, for self-employed persons (SEPs), the lack of work and income security have always been a problem. The pandemic has aggravated these problems and made us become aware that we must strengthen their protection.

During the outbreak, the income of SEPs are affected severely. The Government should provide what people need urgently. I am pleased to see that the Government has recognised the fact that SEPs are not able to receive support from employers, hence the previous Budgets have provided support such as SIRS to this group of people. This has alleviated their income worries to a certain degree.

Some SEPs' incomes have also been affected but they are not qualified to receive the subsidies. As our economy shrinks, SEPs will face further difficulties in terms of work and income. Therefore, I sincerely hope that Government can strengthen the support to SEPs as the situation evolves.

Of course, providing support such as subsidies can only solve the immediate problems. In the long run, we must examine how to better protect SEPs in terms of career and income.

I would like to make two suggestions here.

First, according to existing laws, SEPs cannot form unions, resulting in their rights and voices not being heard. This is especially the case with SEPs who rely on contracts. There is a big gap in the bargaining power between them and the major platform companies. Hence, we must be clear in definitions: are they contractors or employees? Then we can clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the platform companies. Only by doing this can we ensure that these industries and their operation mode are sustainable.

Second, for SEPs, we must also establish the responsibility of the service buyers. Currently, the way to manage fairness of contract terms is through the Small Claims Tribunal or a civil court. Perhaps, we should consider legislation on unfair contract terms to protect the interest of freelancers.

(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these suggestions and comments, I support the Motion.

1.29 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad for this opportunity to thank the President for her speech which was "a breath of fresh air", and I hope to add value to the debate on two pressing issues of the day – immigration and jobs – which many hon Members have already spoken on.

The President’s speech has highlighted many of the concerns of the Singaporeans who generally feel that the current socio-economic policies are not in their favour and are looking for change.

In particular, they wish to know, why there are seemingly fewer good jobs for Singaporeans while the immigrant workforce has grown rapidly over the last two decades. Does it mean there is discrimination against Singaporeans? Why are there not enough skilled Singaporeans to take up the good jobs in the new industries as claimed, despite having our "world-ranking" Universities? Are there no corrective actions taken to increase the number of suitably qualified Singaporeans in areas where we are lacking? Why are Singaporeans paying higher and higher taxes when there are 40% of immigrants in our workforce whose taxes should have helped to reduce the tax burden? Do we have a net gain in tax revenue after deducting all the infrastructural and social costs incurred in supporting these foreigners?

Unable to get satisfactory answers to the above, many Singaporeans have chosen to believe that the current immigration policy is a bad deal for them and for Singapore.

I credit the Government for responding promptly to the Singaporeans' message. Acknowledging the people's wish for this Parliament to work together for better solutions, the Prime Minister has installed my esteemed colleague, Mr Pritam Singh, as the Leader of Opposition. Over the course of the next few years, we look forward to more information and resources provided to the Opposition for it to function as an effective voice and idea-generator.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Progress Singapore Party, PSP, is a pro-Singaporean, pro-Singapore party. Noting the widespread resentment and objections of our countrymen, we recommend immediate actions be taken to restore the balance of interests between the Singaporeans and the foreigners in our country. We think that our Government might have overlooked the fact that our country is a global city-state and not a global city within a larger state. New Yorkers, for example, can choose to sell their properties, pocket the gains and move to another city in the US. But Singaporeans have nowhere to go without leaving the country.

It is disconcerting to have many of our countrymen live outside Singapore in Johor and Batam while we are housing more than two million foreigners on our island at the same time. Surely, more consideration can be given to Singaporeans who are citizens of our sovereign city-state. We are not being xenophobic or nativist because we have a long tradition of accepting foreigners into our society. In fact, many of us have fond memories of the old foreign talents who have trained and helped us to "eat other people's lunch" and "not to take away our lunch".

Many of them have contributed significantly to our nation-building. From Dr Albert Winsemius, the Dutch economic consultant who worked closely with Dr Goh Keng Swee to develop our economy, to the many unsung heroes like Mr Peter John Bowyer, a British citizen who set up the computer centre at the Singapore Polytechnic, transferred his skills to the locals and then left quietly after the job was done; and Mr John Kovak, my General Paper teacher from New Zealand who planted the idea "the citizen of the world" in my head and coached my school's rugby team. We are very grateful to those foreign talents from the good old days.

The Government, however, had introduced a different brand of foreign talent to us from the turn of the millennium. As a high-profile manifestation of that policy, Mr John Olds was appointed the CEO of DBS Bank in August 1998. At that time, I remembered a senior Japanese banker had called me and commented, "Leong-san, it’s like having a foreigner to run Mitsubishi Bank in Japan. It is unthinkable!".

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my heart, I had supported the appointment of John Olds in 1998. However, I am deeply disappointed now because 22 years later after his appointment, DBS is still without a homegrown CEO. The current financial industry is very different from the time I started my career at the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation in 1986 when "localisation" was strongly advocated and supported by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. During those times, common conversations among my senior colleagues were "so and so has taken over or is slated to take over the top job at such and such global bank". Today, my fellow countrymen are not seeing localisation and have to guard their current positions zealously.

We all agree that to protect jobs is the top priority. Personally, I regard jobs as the foundation of human dignity. If a breadwinner is unemployed over a prolonged period of time, a multitude of undesirable social outcomes will follow. Dr Ang Yong Guan, the former President of the Singapore Psychiatric Association, has said that "economic problems contribute to much of the mental menace we see in our society today". So many social problems can be solved by organising ourselves differently in our economic relationships with one another and in relation to foreigners.

After two decades of rapid immigration growth, the foreigner's share of our population stands at about 40% today. As a result, one can expect the group dynamics at the workplace to have changed drastically and we must take the rumblings from the ground about Singaporeans being discriminated against seriously.

The recent announcement by MOM that there are now over 1,200 companies on the watch-list of the Fair Consideration Framework is one more confirmation of discrimination taking place at the workplace. This phenomenon is hard to swallow because Singaporeans are being discriminated against in our own country. Without stricter regulation, this situation is unlikely to improve as foreigners increase further as a share of our total population. Currently, there are about four foreigners to six Singaporeans in the workforce. But, if the population will to reach 10 million, it is estimated that there will be six foreigners to four Singaporeans. While the 10 million population is not a Government's target, it may still be reached eventually unless immigration is slowed down substantially.

As we are entering unchartered territory, we should give ourselves more time to assess and ascertain the full impact of an outsized foreigner population. We have just been made to pay very dearly by a black swan event – the COVID-19 pandemic – as we try to stop the widespread infection at the dormitories for foreign workers. In the planning of our country's future, it would be wise not to assume that COVID-19 is the worst possible scenario. There may be other risks related to immigration that we cannot foresee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP is a strong supporter of an open economy and society and we believe that the Government must have good reasons to push for the foreign talent model. However, the Government can perform better in its communications. Our foreign talent model is a "free flow of people" model, just like the exporter model, which is based on the "free flow of goods" and the financial centre model, which is based on the "free flow of capital", which we have successfully implemented in the past.

These models can help us attain competitive advantages but there is always a need to balance the conflicts of the foreign and domestic interests in each of them. The foreign talent model which involves the competition for jobs in our own territory is especially sensitive. The Government should provide more timely data to obtain the buy-in for the strategy. For example, regular disclosure on PMET statistics broken down into Citizen and Permanent Resident categories and details of the intra-company transfers under the various Free Trade Agreements would be very useful. Without clearer data, Singaporeans cannot have an informed discussion on whether the existing foreign talent model is benefiting us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the immediate future, we recommend decisive actions to reduce new work pass approvals and renewals in order to channel more existing jobs to Singaporeans. Despite the Government's good efforts, it is difficult to create good jobs in a short period of time and existing jobs are still the best opportunities for employing our people. Going forward, we need to tweak the foreign talent model to improve prospects for Singaporeans while building Singapore's competitive edge.

Borrowing from the experience of the Offshore and Onshore Banks in the early 1980s, we propose the designation of a group of Offshore Companies which have products and services that are sold predominantly overseas and Singaporeans do not yet have the skills to produce. They should also satisfy minimum capital and business spending requirements. We can allow Offshore Companies a freer hand in attracting talents from all over the world provided they uphold the non-discrimination principle towards Singaporeans and follow the minimum salary requirements for Employment and Social Pass Holders.

For all the other companies which we shall categorise as Onshore Companies, we recommend tightening our MOM regulations and procedures to achieve better outcomes for Singaporeans. First and foremost, we stipulate that Singaporeans must be well-represented in the top management and human resource function to ensure that the procedures are followed properly.

Second, we apply a foreigner-to-citizen ratio cap to all Onshore companies and their business and functional departments. This allows us to strengthen the Singaporean Core in our economy and in all the important professions.

An over-presence of foreign PMETs in a particular profession, for example Infotech, may lead to the hollowing out of our locals from that profession in the long run and we will end up lacking crucial skills to run our country and economy in the future.

Third, we reinstate localisation as an important key performance indicator. We should stipulate that there is a succession plan to replace each foreign manager at the end of his visa period. Further visa extension can only be granted if that manager is due for promotion and his previous position is taken up by a Singaporean.

Fourth, we should protect entry-level jobs for our new graduates and give them the opportunities to learn and to acquire the necessary skills. We should require foreign PMETs to have longer working experience before they are allowed to join our workforce.

Last but not least, we would like to stress that citizenship is sacrosanct to Singaporeans who are justifiably concerned about the erosion of national identity and the dilution of our citizenship. Since we are talking about economic relationships, there is no need to put citizenship into the equation. Citizenships should only be awarded to Permanent Residents who have stayed here for a long time and have passed a stricter set of naturalisation criteria. We also recommend that a Citizens' Commission be set up to oversee the award of citizenships.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, all our recommendations above are in support of what the President has said, "As masters of our own land, Singaporeans must have confidence in the rights and privileges of citizenship". The PSP believes that this Parliament must serve the interests and protect the sovereign rights of our people. We will stand-by the Government if it decides to take any decisive action needed to achieve that. We assure you that PSP will uphold this Parliament as a Singaporean Parliament and not a partisan Parliament. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Motion.

1.45 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, before my speech proper, I would like to declare my interest as I work in the financial sector and I work in a bank that I am proud to say has a strong Singaporean Core.

Sir, I would like to speak on our foreign manpower policy, essentially, in two areas: firstly, jobs that Singaporeans do not want; and, secondly, jobs that Singaporeans want.

Let me start with jobs that Singaporeans do not want. We have always depended on foreign migrant labour in sectors like construction, manufacturing and services in jobs that Singaporeans would not want to do, either due to the work conditions, low remunerations or others.

In particular, in construction sector, we have something like 341,000 foreign workers out of the workforce of 457,000; or 75% of the construction labour force. Similarly, in the cleaning and some manufacturing sectors, there are high numbers of foreign workers.

The pleasant reality is that we have always enjoyed very low unemployment in Singapore and that there are always other better jobs available for Singaporeans. Given the limited size of our local workforce and that we are perpetually in a tight labour market situation, especially in the lower wage sectors, companies in these industries would have to look to foreign labour to meet their workforce needed.

Our manpower policy facilitated that, but with a series of quotas and foreign workers’ levies to keep demand within tolerable levels, both physically and socially. We have lived with this system for many years and it has helped grow our economy and enabled us to press ahead with the massive infrastructure buildup – the MRT, housing, ports, airports, hospitals, industrial facilities and many others. But two major incidents or events have brought into focus our foreign workers policy – how we take care and manage the workers as well as the numbers and our dependence of foreign labour in Singapore.

Firstly, of course, is the little India riot on 8 December 2013. In the aftermath, a Committee of Inquiry (COI) was formed and the COI report recommended a series of measures, such as the provision of self-contained dormitories that come with better amenities on site, tighter regulatory framework, among the many measures.

The second incident is, of course, the recent major COVID-19 outbreak at the foreign workers’ dormitories. The high transmissibility among the migrant workers at the dormitories led to a massive response and the mobilisation of resources within our system to prevent the further spread of the virus to the rest of the almost 400,000 workers at the dormitories. Many of the workers needed to be decanted from their existing dormitories to provide segregation and to reduce density so as to minimise the risk of further spread. The entire response has taken a heavy toll on our system and, of course, exerted a high price.

The steep infection rate at the dormitories once again brought to attention the living conditions of the foreign workers and as well calls for Singapore to rethink its reliance and high dependency on migrant manpower.

Following the Little India Riot COI report, there were deliberate efforts to site the purpose-built dormitories away from the residential estates so as to minimise any disamenities to the neighbourhoods. In the process, it has also reduced the visibility of the foreign workers to the public.

But the recent COVID-19 outbreak has, once again, brought the issue of migrant workers back into the limelight. Many Singaporeans were reminded or some were surprised at the sheer numbers of migrant labour in our workforce.

We have, in the past, reviewed our foreign migrant manpower policy on a number of occasions. Besides during the Little India Riot COI, the last major review on the foreign workers policy was in 2010 by the Economic Strategies Committee or ESC. The ESC recommended that we moderate the growth and manage the dependence on the foreign workforce through a phased increase in foreign worker levies and, in tandem, funding support for productivity investments. The rationale for this approach was that foreign labour should not be too accessible to companies as the companies would have little incentive to invest in productivity improvements.

The outbreak in the dormitories highlighted further unanticipated costs in our reliance of foreign labour. So, the overall real costs of foreign workers may not be as low as we have earlier envisaged, both financial and social. In addition, the outbreak also reminded us that we need to quickly improve the living condition of the dormitories and, of course, these enhancements will also add further costs to businesses.

So, how can we reduce our dependence on foreign labour? What is an acceptable number, both physically and socially? Does the cost-benefit analysis still makes sense to have such large numbers?

Do not get me wrong. I am not about say let us just cut migrant worker numbers to a certain lower level. It would have far reaching implications and impact on our businesses and industries and also on our efforts to build capabilities and capacities in both the economic and social infrastructures.

When I spoke to a number of people in the construction industry to seek views on how we can we reduce our reliance, almost everyone was concerned about what I am about to say or ask the Government to do. For example, would I be asking for a steep cut in the numbers of migrant workers?

Well, I am fully cognisant of the realities and that there are no quick fixes. I get it that there is really not much we can do and nothing much can change in the short term. Our industries, especially the construction sector, would not be able to fulfil their contracts if they are unable to get the sufficient workers they need. We continue to need high numbers of migrant labour workers for our current and upcoming projects, such as the MRT, the recently announced RTS, HDB housing projects. Even our climate change mitigation projects will also need workers there to help us build them.

So, if we cannot do much in the short term, what can we do in the medium to long term? Let me start with productivity improvements, specifically, the construction sector again.

There were a number of attempts in the past to improve productivity. I read the report on construction productivity by the Singapore Contractors Association done in December 2016 which detailed measures to improve productivity performance. In the report, it also highlighted the difficulties for firms to invest long term to enhance productivity, given the nature of the businesses where construction companies would tender competitively for contracts, not knowing whether they would win them.

Faced with this unknown of whether they would have work to do ahead of them, contractors would be reluctant to invest in productivity measures in a significant way as they are unsure whether the investment costs can be fully recovered. Large companies can afford to take a longer term view, but not for smaller companies which are just struggling to make ends meet, given the competitive nature of the business. The market would not be able to sort out itself to work towards productivity. So, again, the Government has to come in.

The tender system for public construction projects has to change, with greater scores weightage to tenderers who use more productive construction methods and lesser dependence of migrant workers. These are not new ideas. We have talked about them before. But it has to be well perpetuated and carried out with great insistence to change contractors’ modus operandi.

The other possible radical moves are to identify firms that have invested significantly in productivity improvements and invite them early in the projects to work with planners, architects and engineers on more efficient construction processes that can be less labour intensive.

It will require a mindset shift in the way we look at contract tenders and how we overcome the value-for-money governance. We can always start something as a pilot, perhaps via a “sandbox” approach and, thereafter, finetune the process for greater implementation. The tender price may well be higher. But we can take this as a price discovery exercise to know how contractors will actually cost a project that involves less migrant labour.

On the demand side, we can also do more to reduce the overall demand for migrant labour. We should be more discerning in evaluating if some of our major construction projects should go ahead. Can we do without it? Is it wasteful on resources and materials? What comes to mind are the collective sales or en bloc developments that we always hear about.

It is actually wasteful to demolish a building that is still in good working condition, only to build a replacement one that is quite similar. Besides consuming a significant number of migrant workers, it is also not environmentally friendly from a resource and sustainability standpoint.

We should further tighten the criteria for en bloc development and only allow projects to go ahead for buildings that are much older or there are major changes to the land use, such as intensifying its use through the Gross Floor Area (GFA) adjustment.

We should also scrutinise carefully our public projects and plan more judiciously. For example, in our neighbourhood, we have a Secondary school that went through a major upgrade, only to announce a few years later that the school would be merged with another one and to be relocated.

Sir, COVID-19 has substantially changed the world, our way of life, the way we conduct businesses in the future and rebalancing the risk-reward trade-offs and many others.

One sector that has been most impacted is aviation. We expect air travel to be much reduced post-COVID-19 and may never recover to its previous levels. Airlines may consolidate and hub at cheaper locations and we may never be able to bring back again the major airlines that have relocated out of Changi Airport hub during this period.

So, under this new operating landscape, should we still go ahead with the massive T5 project? Are our assumptions and parameters still valid in the new permanently changed setting? Are the risks now too high to go ahead with this massive investment? Can we work within our existing four terminals, regenerate new value propositions and optimise what we already have with the terminals and the set-up? We can perhaps still go ahead with the new runway but do we need another terminal building?

I hope the Government will review the decision because such mega projects also consume high numbers of migrant workers and crowd out the more urgent demands by other construction projects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now move on to jobs that Singaporeans want.

One of the key hallmarks of Singapore’s economic success is our human resource and the availability of skilled manpower and talents to our businesses. Our approach has always been to maximise the potential and opportunities for our local workforce and complement it by allowing some external manpower to strengthen our competitiveness to the extent that it helps create growth and jobs for Singaporeans.

Indeed, Singapore is able to seize additional growth opportunities beyond the size potential of our domestic workforce because we are able to leverage on external manpower resource. This makes good sense, especially when we are in a positive growth cycle where demand for manpower is high and the domestic labour market remains tight.

However, in a recessionary economic environment like what we are in today where we are increasingly seeing a slack in the labour market, this lever of external foreign manpower can now be used to manage our domestic unemployment and to nudge employers to hire more locally available workers. We should never feel apologetic about that. We have done that in past economic downturns, such as during the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and 2009 where we also reduced the Employment Passes and S Passes.

Hence, I welcome the MOM announcements last week to tighten up our Employment Passes and S Passes, in particular, to step up scrutiny on those employers that have not been responsive to Government efforts to recruit more Singaporean PMETs. This can be a more an effective measure than raising the qualifying salaries.

These measures are necessary steps in response to the very weak labour market that we are in today and the likelihood of rising local retrenchments in the months ahead as the Jobs Support Scheme tapers off.

But make no mistake about it. Notwithstanding these adjustments, we are still one of the most open economies in the world where cross-border manpower flows are concerned. About one-third of our labour force are foreigners. We have about 194,000 Employment Pass holders and 200,000 S Pass holders working in Singapore, not a small number at all.

So, I disagree with The Business Time’s headline last Friday that said MOM's latest announcements may put our financial hub aspirations at risk.

Firstly, Singapore will still be among the most open financial centres in the world including in terms of top talent flows and foreign manpower accessibility. Two weeks ago, MAS revealed that non-citizens account for about 30% of our workforce in the financial sector. And for senior management roles, more than half are non-Singaporeans. There are not many major financial centres that allow this level of openness.

Global institutions choose to set up presence in Singapore not just because of our foreign manpower policy, but also of our many other very compelling attributes. Among others, Singapore is the few remaining Triple-A rated jurisdictions in the world. We are reputed for the excellent global connectivity, the depth and liquidity in our capital markets; sound regulation, integrity and enforceability of our judicial system; and also, importantly political and social stability.

We must therefore be self-assured that from time to time we would necessarily need some re-calibration to our manpower flows in response to the cycles in the labour markets. More importantly, we need to focus on the outcomes; and that is – have we been able to develop our local workforce to take on those jobs that are available in these sectors? These are the jobs that Singaporeans want to do.

How can we more effectively minimise the inherent frictions or the biasness working against achieving these outcomes? We have the data points from our S Passes and EPs – what are the areas of jobs that the companies are asking for EPs and S Passes? These can serve as our "skills demand leading indicator”, where we can plan and curate training programmes and traineeships to target at helping Singaporeans compete and take on those jobs.

Of course, just tightening EP and S Pass alone would not be enough. We need other measures such hiring incentives, training allowances, subsidised traineeships to urge companies to hire more locals. Narrowing the gaps of mismatches and reducing the frictions in job transitions are highly difficult undertakings; we know that. Left to the markets, it may not resolve into the outcomes that we want.

We therefore need concerted efforts involving a combination of measures and workarounds to achieve this; and importantly, with proactive intervention by the Government. And this is now the task of the National Jobs Council, led by Senior Minister Tharman.

Let us not waste this crisis. Let us use the slack in the labour market today as an impetus to help Singaporeans adapt and take on these jobs. Singaporeans, whether they are young graduates or mid-career PMETs, can be up to the task. We just need to equip them, give them the opportunities and importantly, have faith in them. Let us move the needle this time. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh, do you have clarifications?

2.03 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like a point of clarification from the hon Member from PSP about his comments about DBS and I want to declare myself, my interest as a member of the DBS management team.

I did hear, Mr Speaker, Sir, the PSP Member did say of his disappointment that DBS, since the days of Mr John Olds till now, that the leadership of DBS is not to the level of the Singaporean percentage. I want to say that the DBS leadership of now is where all the top management is Singaporean except for one person, who is Malaysian and a PR.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Ms Tin Pei Ling.

2.05 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Speaker, Sir, we debate in Parliament today as we face the "challenge of a generation". We face not just the onslaught of a relentless viral outbreak, but must also deal with the disruptions wrought by COVID-19. We will need to respond robustly to this challenge.

Beyond the shock of COVID-19, our living environment is also seeing secular changes. It has become an increasingly sophisticated world, with a sophisticated population in Singapore. Parliament too reflects this diversity. As we navigate these changes, I believe that we need to maintain a balanced approach, changing with the times but still holding dear to what we find important as Singaporeans. At this point in time, I can think of three key "balances" that we need to strike.

First, balancing between forging ahead versus bringing everyone along. The Wright brothers flew their first flight in 1903, but it took 50 years before air travel became commonplace in the 1950s. Similarly, the steam engine took almost half a century since its invention to disrupt the shipping industry.

Today, a single app, if it is the right one, can change the world within a year or two. Grab first launched in Singapore in 2015, and they quickly revolutionised the way we book private hire cars. Grab has also found its way into our daily lexicon, from getting a ride to getting a bite.

Similarly, Douyin was first launched in China in 2016 and its international incarnation, TikTok, started building steam in international markets soon after in 2017. By first quarter of 2018, TikTok was the number one most downloaded application on Apple's app store and Google Store globally, with 45.8 million downloads worldwide.

Clearly, change has been accelerating at breakneck speed. In the past, breakthroughs in technology would take decades to disrupt economies. Now, only a matter of two to three years. Put it differently, our Pioneers might only see one to two major disruptions for the most part of their career, but the young today will see many disruptions in their lifetime.

As a nation that must constantly adapt to survive and thrive, agility in our economic strategies and the way we govern is crucial. COVID-19 has certainly accentuated this need. Digital economy, digital Government and a smart nation – these are important and have to pick up speed. But this imperative also comes at a price.

Countries like the US and China have huge domestic markets; for example, China's hospitality industry is almost fully recovered with some sectors seeing growth – thanks to domestic consumption. But Singapore is not endowed this way. Therefore, going digital is an important way of helping our businesses to reach markets in the region, if not the world. Going digital will also help our people access a wider pool of international job roles even as they focus on their lives here.

But change is tough. Businesses, for instance, may have different reasons for not digitalising fast enough. Unlike MNCs that have vast amounts of resources at their disposal, SMEs may find themselves lacking the capacity to transform and therefore, risk getting left behind. Our seniors and the more vulnerable, including workers who had a tough start in life, may find themselves unable to acquire the digital skills fast enough to catch up. It can be both painful and frustrating for these businesses and individuals, and we risk losing them.

Does this mean that we should leave them behind as we "chiong" ahead, or should we abandon the idea of transformation altogether, or is there a better, more balanced, way to press on while still maintaining a safe space that allow the smaller ones amongst us to grow strong?

It will be a difficult balance to make. Move too slow, and we risk being overtaken by hungry competitors. Move too fast, and we risk leaving behind a large segment of our population, who face difficulties in adjusting to our rapidly changing society. This is a perennial dilemma that we face, almost cliché to mention. But it will be absolutely critical for us to strike the right balance.

Second, balancing across generations. Singapore is in a time of a changing of generations. The Baby Boomers are now between 56-74 years old, Gen X is now between 40-55 years old, and the Millennials are now between 24 to 39 years old – that includes me, Gen Z, the Centennials, are now aged between eight and 23 years old. At the end of this Government’s term, they will be between 13 and 28.

How do we, as the Government, meet the aspirations of the Millennials and the Centennials? How do we strike the appropriate balance between the wants of the Baby Boomers and Gen X, while making space for the Millennials and Centennials to shape the world which they want to live in?

In 2015, Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told the world before the St Gallen Symposium that our Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew never expected Singapore's model of governance to remain this way forever. We cannot be trapped by our history, and we have to keep evolving. He said that the question we have to ask ourselves is how do we evolve in a way that is self-sustaining. How do we do it in a way that protects the liberties that matter most to people? How do we effect change, while safeguarding freedom of religion, and the freedom to aspire in life and achieve what you want through hard work?

These, I think, are questions that this Parliament has to ask ourselves. Millennials and Centennials have an idea of the future we want to live in. We have a certain view on climate change and protecting the environment. We have views on social justice and social mobility which cannot be ignored. We have ideas on work-life balance and social security which, in many regards, may not completely align with the views of the earlier generations.

As we pass laws and policies, there will be trade-offs. The question is, where should the appropriate balance lie? Let me give an example: if this Government chooses to spend more to advance the welfare of retired seniors, then the younger working taxpayers will have to tighten their belts. Conversely, if we choose to spend more on combating climate change and protecting the environment, for example, then something that is important to us today may have to give. In some instances, it can be a zero-sum game, and there will be trade-offs.

This Government has to weigh the different interests, hear the people, and find balanced solutions that care for the older generations, while creating space for the younger generations to shape this nation into one that they can be proud to call home.

Third, balancing openness and fairness, as some put it, between the foreign and local. Allow me to share that our workforce has also changed. Singaporeans today enter the corporate world armed with world-class degrees from our tertiary institutions. They graduate with dreams and aspirations and expect opportunities, promotions, and progression in their careers; rightfully so.

But many of my residents have also become weary over the perceived injustices at work. Enough Singaporeans have begun to feel that our system does not cultivate our local talent as much as it should. We have all heard anecdotes like this – top managerial positions continue to be filled by foreigners who may not be even as academically qualified as our local graduates.

A second time voter told me during my campaign visit that her boss, her boss's boss and her boss’s boss’s boss are foreigners in the MNC that she works in. She could not understand why even the middle management positions are held by foreigners. Another mature resident, who is now in a senior management role in another MNC, told me about how a European candidate with no relevant APAC experience was chosen over him for an APAC role in a previous job application. Is this because Singapore's education system is inferior and therefore cannot produce capable mangers, CEOs and other senior staff?

It would be strange if so. Our education system is globally recognised. However, this Government must continuously evolve it to prepare it for the future. While paper qualifications and examinations are important, soft skills are invaluable to the working world. Most businesses place considerable value on the ability to articulate thoughts and ideas clearly, to communicate effectively, and demonstrate willingness to collaborate and work as a team. Greater emphasis must be placed on such areas.

Let us consider an example. Perhaps, say, we have two equally qualified employees, but there is only one opening for a promotion to a managerial position. Like for like, one can imagine that the candidate who is more willing to work with anyone, more apt at building relationships with clients and more enthusiastic about going out of the way to network, will secure the post. Our education system has to ensure that more often than not, that preferred candidate is a Singaporean candidate.

At the same time, the Government should formulate a plan to cultivate young adults in our workforce for potential leadership positions. I firmly believe we have considerable talent in our young adults. We just need to equip them, guide them and mentor them.

There are many schemes that focus on building technical knowledge and skills. These include the likes of SkillsFuture and TeSA. There are others that help Singaporeans switch tracks like PCP. These are wonderful schemes that allow Singaporeans to adapt in a fast changing world. But, we also need programmes that help push Singaporeans further along their career path – to become leaders.

There is a need for greater transparency to what firms, especially large firms, are expecting of their corporate leaders. Having a framework identifying the key criteria, skills, behaviours and attitude, needed at various levels of management would offer Singaporeans clarity on what they have to do to attain a promotion. The framework could provide a useful roadmap with signposts to better guide younger, high potential Singaporeans.

On top of that, to create a network for mentorships, whereby prominent, successful and more experienced professionals or business leaders can guide younger Singaporeans in a similar profession or industry. Some of these mentors could be older Singaporeans who have made it big and now want to give back. Or they could perhaps be specifically headhunted from overseas by our Government. These mentors can guide the younger Singaporeans along in their careers, offer invaluable advice based on their wealth of experience and provide insights into how they can be better.

There is, of course, no guarantee that by going through the above, one will certainly land himself or herself in that coveted top position. We need to make clear of this. But, it shows our Government and our nation's determination to develop our young and climb the ladder. If we can find a way to cultivate a critical mass of Singaporean talents who not only are technically skilled but also with leadership skills and acumen, the eco-system will be so much healthier and competitive.

Setting stricter quotas and higher minimum wages for Employment Passes are needed to address systemic vulnerabilities. But it is much more meaningful to have employers preferring to hire a Singaporean not just because they are obliged by our laws, but because they believe Singaporeans are worth the premium. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] State governance is a complex social task involving many aspects including politics, economy, society, culture and law. The Parliament is a place where laws are made, and an important platform for us to discuss issues affecting Singapore and Singaporeans at present and in the future. One can thus imagine how issues debated in Parliament can be equally complicated.

As the world changes and Singapore progresses, Singaporeans' minds have also become more complex. Similarly, this Parliament has also become more diverse and colourful than before. Hence, it is now even more important for us to build a model of governance that is more holistic and balanced, one that can overcome divisions in political ideologies.

The new term of Parliament has just begun, and I believe that the Government needs to achieve balance in three areas. First, balance between the present and the future, grasp opportunities and speed up transformation. We must maintain the right pace for high speed economic growth, while ensuring that no Singaporeans are left behind, and growth is inclusive. Second, balance the needs of every generation, maintain equity across generations and preserve our social compact. Third, strike a balance between maintaining the openness of our society and safeguarding the interests of citizens. While we welcome foreign talents to enhance our competitiveness, we also need to nurture domestic talents, to ensure that Singaporeans are given the fair employment and advancement opportunities that they deserve. Singaporeans should not be considered less favourably.

Here, I shall give you an example.

Singapore is now actively implementing the Smart Nation initiative to develop the future economy. A digitalised future has become inevitable and our youth can easily adapt to this digitalised environment. Therefore, we need to create an environment where young Singaporeans can maximise their potential.

However, there is still a group of Singaporeans amongst us who need help and they include our seniors. Rapid digitalisation has made life difficult for them. For example, when the Safe Entry QR code was first made mandatory, they could not cope. Although they had mobile phones, they did not know how to scan the QR codes, and some of them did not even dare to visit their doctors.

We all know the importance of Safe Entry. To the young, it is very simple and straightforward, but to the elderly, it was extremely difficult. Thankfully, within a few months, everyone has become familiar with how Safe Entry works, and is now more at ease.

Considering this experience, we should constantly remind ourselves to empathize with the elderly and take care of their needs, even as we charge ahead with full speed. At the same time, I hope the Government can do more to encourage seniors to learn technology in a stress-free way, so that they can make use of technology to aid their daily lives. Besides providing subsidies for senior-centred courses, purchase of devices and mobile data plans, can we also give out a "Digital Conversion Bonus" that is similar to the Digital Resilience Bonus, to encourage seniors to use technology and digital payment?

Going back to my main point, it is not an easy task to achieve balance in governance, to take care of the needs of all communities, to ensure that all of us can complement each other and progress together harmoniously.

(In English): These are questions that we need to answer through community conversations and then translated into legislation in Parliament.

I am constantly reminded that as a Parliament, we bear the responsibility of shaping the future for all Singaporeans. We can – and we should – react to the changing tides around us. However, we also need to be deliberate about designing a future that every Singaporean can look forward to and is confident of achieving for himself or herself.

As Mdm President observed in her Opening Address, politics today must be conducted in a manner which cultivates conversations and offers opportunities for individual citizens to be heard. I agree. We need to listen and engage our citizens actively; it is a two-way traffic.

As a developed nation, our children grow up having dreams they want to fulfil and an idea of the future they desire for themselves, families and children. Many of my residents and volunteers do, and they are willing to put in the effort. They know there is no free pass in life, there are trade-offs. But sometimes, the trade-offs that need to be made for that desired future are not immediately apparent.

Hence, we need to have frequent and earnest conversations with each other. We need to discuss and foster an understanding of the trade-offs for each major decision taken. Better still, forge a consensus on the kind of trade-off we are prepared to make.

So, in determining the kind of Singapore we want, the future we desire and the path and speed to get there, how can we balance the need for agility and the need for meaningful citizen engagement?

I do not have a model answer. But I think being more open to explore difficult issues with Singaporeans is a start. It is one way to show trust in our increasingly sophisticated people. We need to rethink how current citizen feedback platforms are designed and to what extent does it have the power to oblige relevant agencies to review and not just defend policies. And of course, we need to make better use of technology so that we can conduct more sessions to reach out to more people.

The Fourteenth Parliament has our work cut out for us. But we can enlist ideas and advice of Singaporeans from all walks of life, to help us chart a balanced path forward. Today, as we rise from the shadows of the COVID outbreak, I remain confident that we will overcome this "challenge of a generation" and work together to bring Singapore to the next level. We can do it, so just do it!

2.22 pm

Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President spoke about securing our future in her Address. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore the importance of careful planning and being prepared for any future shocks and surprises which may hit us.

Let me start with jobs and skills. Two is better than one, one is better than none. Diversification is a vital part of resilience planning.

With the SkillsFuture programme, Singaporeans are encouraged to pick up new and different skills. However, what good is a skillset that cannot be put to use? A worker would be back to starting from square one if he applies for a totally new type of job. There must be a way for a worker to put learning to use concurrently.

Many employers bar their full-time employees from taking on a second job. This thinking should change. For better job security, employees should be allowed to take up two jobs, subject to labour regulations to protect the workers from overwork and also to regulate potential conflict of interests.

The worker could choose to learn and apply new skills to pursue an additional vocation within the same company or in a second job. Encouraging such a practice would allow the worker to develop a broader set of skills that will allow more flexibility in career switches within a shorter window of time should there be a need to.

Companies also need to identify complementary sectors which are sufficiently differentiated to provide resilience through diversification. In doing so, the company could allow their workers take up concurrent positions in different business units.

For example, from a layman's point of view, food and beverage or F&B, is always resilient because people need to eat no matter what. But during this pandemic, F&B is one of the most badly affected sectors. However, the supermarkets and online grocers see a jump in orders. This is because people are indeed still eating – at home. So, if a company runs a restaurant and also sells and delivers food ingredients, it will be able to ride out this storm better.

Stock prices go down, gold prices go up. Brick-and-mortar retail goes down, online retail goes up. A loss here is a gain somewhere else. Maybe conglomerates with diversified businesses can try this first – have their employees take on dual roles in their different companies. Their pay should not be affected.

While this dual-job thinking may seem out-of-the-box, we should recognise that there are many Singaporeans who possess multiple skillsets and would be able to contribute at a higher level within the same company or seek a second vocation to diversify their income sources.

This approach may not suit certain jobs nor appeal to certain people. What I am proposing is to encourage companies and workers who are willing to try to be allowed to do so, without compromising their productivity and work-life balance. The Government could incentivise companies and workers to adopt this approach.

Next, on housing affordability. The President has reaffirmed the Government's commitment to support our young families to own their homes.

We discussed the topic of housing affordability in March during the debate in the Committee of Supply for MND. The Minister had reiterated that our HDB flats are accessible, as our flat prices are kept at below five times our median household income. The Minister also shared that most applicants could use the Government grants to pay for the down-payment. They do not need to pay any cash upfront and can pay their monthly mortgages with their CPF savings with 25-year housing loans.

The employment situation today is less favourable to holding long mortgage tenures, compared to the past. People of my parents' generation used to hold jobs for life. For our generation, most of us would have changed jobs a few times. For the future generations, job cycles will likely get even shorter. More and more people are making a living from the gig economy as well. There is much more uncertainty today.

All these new factors, together with the higher macro-economic risk backdrop, should be captured in the analysis of the affordability of HDB flats.

With lower employment security and reduced market predictability, HDB flat prices should be lower and the home price to annual income ratio should be adjusted downwards to adequately reflect this new normal. Affordability of HDB flat prices should also be measured based on a tenure that is less than 25 years. Should financial circumstances of the buyer change over time, there is then flexibility to structure lower instalment payments by stretching the loan tenure when needed.

The next point I would like to make is on financial assistance schemes. All Singaporeans should be entitled to assistance and benefits regardless of the types of residence they stay in. No one should be left behind as all contribute to society.

Many of our current assistance schemes are based on housing types, with their annual values determining whether one gets certain assistance or not. We have to reassess this basis as we can already see convergence in the value of some HDB flats with the level of pricing ascribed only to private housing properties in the past.

There is a group of asset-rich-cash-poor Singaporeans who have problems monetising their assets during this pandemic. They also need assistance to tide them over this difficult period.

There is also a "sandwiched" group, including low income earners living with family members in private properties which they do not own, resulting in them not qualifying for some types of assistance.

Both groups certainly receive some of the general voucher distributions given to all. But these may not be enough for those who have sunk into financial potholes for various reasons.

We should not lump them together into one big group. Within this group, there are those with genuine needs. I join fellow Members – Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Henry Kwek – in asking the Ministry to fine-tune and recalibrate the schemes and criteria, so that they are not completely excluded from assistance programmes.

We could start by tagging everyone to a category, with or without home ownership. The relevant Committee can also issue cards like it did for CHAS. Once a person is assigned to a category, he gets benefits in that category for two years. The status is reviewed every two years. If there is an immediate change, such as retrenchment or permanent disability, that person can apply for an urgent review.

In this way, those with genuine need for help would be moved to an appropriate category which will receive relevant grants and support. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The President has reaffirmed the Government's commitment to support our young families to own their homes.

We discussed the topic of housing affordability just a few months ago in March during the debate in the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of National Development. The Minister had reiterated that our HDB flats are accessible, as our flat prices are kept at below five times our median household income. The Minister also shared that most applicants could use the government grants to pay for the down-payment. They do not need to pay any cash up-front and can pay their monthly mortgages with their CPF savings with 25-year housing loans.

The employment situation today is less favourable to holding long mortgage tenures, compared to the past. People of my parents' generation used to hold jobs for life. For our generation, most of us would have changed jobs a few times. For the future generations, job cycles will likely get even shorter. More and more people are making a living from the gig economy as well. There is much more uncertainty today.

All these new factors, together with the higher macro-economic risk backdrop, should be captured in the analysis of the affordability of HDB flats.

With lower employment security and reduced market predictability, HDB flat prices should be lower and the home price to annual income ratio should be adjusted downwards to adequately reflect this new normal. Affordability of HDB flat prices should also be measured based on a tenure that is less than 25 years. Should financial circumstances of the buyer change over time, there is then flexibility to structure lower instalment payments by stretching the loan tenure when needed.

All Singaporeans should be entitled to assistance and benefits regardless of the types of residence they stay in. No one should be left behind as all contribute to society.

Many of our current assistance schemes are based on housing types, with their annual values determining whether one gets certain assistance or not. We have to reassess this basis as we can already see convergence in the value of some HDB flats with the level of pricing ascribed only to private housing properties in the past.

There is a group of asset-rich-cash-poor Singaporeans who have problems monetising their assets during this pandemic. They also need assistance to tide them over this difficult period.

There is also a "sandwiched" group, including low income earners living with family members in private properties which they do not own, resulting in them not qualifying for some types of assistance.

Both groups certainly receive some of the general voucher distributions given to all. But these may not be enough for those who have sunk into financial potholes for various reasons.

We should not lump them together into one big group. Within this group, there are those with genuine needs.

We should start by tagging everyone to a category, with or without home ownership. The relevant Committee can also issue cards like it did for CHAS. Once a person is assigned to a category, he gets benefits in that category for two years. The status is reviewed every two years. If there is an immediate change such as retrenchment or permanent disability, that person can apply for an urgent review.

In this way, those with genuine need for help would be moved to an appropriate category which will receive relevant grants and support.

(In English): The important thing is to do our best to ensure that no one gets left behind or left out. I am confident that we have the resources and capability to lift everyone up and together, we will emerge stronger from this crisis. I would like to conclude with my support for the Motion of Thanks.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.

2.36 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. I would like to focus my speech, as Deputy Secretary-General of NTUC, on supporting low-wage workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions to businesses and impacted workers’ livelihoods in an unprecedented way. In her Address, President Halimah Yacob called on all of us to build a fair and just society and to look after our low-wage workers, especially during this crisis.

In Singapore, our way of helping the low-wage workers is via, what I will call, the “Triple Uplift” formula: Progressive Wage Model or PWM, plus Workfare Income Supplement or WIS, and, of course, National Wage Council (NWC) recommendations – using all these three – to uplift their wages.

The strong interlinkages of these three components in the “Triple Uplift” formula have increased the overall take-home salaries and retirement savings of our low-wage workers. Importantly, this uplifting of wages is significant for our workers, without imposing additional burden on companies, especially during an economic crisis like this.

Through this "Triple Uplift" formula, the wages of the lowest 20th percentile have seen a higher annual growth rate of 4.4% from 2014 to 2019, as compared to 2.3% in the preceding five years.

As a result, the income gap between the low-wage workers and the workers at the 50th percentile has narrowed.

The wages of low-wage workers have also been growing faster than those with higher income, hence income inequality in Singapore is at its narrowest in almost 20 years. So, the "Triple Uplift" formula has helped significantly. It is good but it can be better.

Despite all this, I thought this would be an opportunity for me to address areas in which we can improve on this "Triple Uplift" formula.

I will first start with the Progressive Wage Model. The Progressive Wage Model or PWM, championed by NTUC, was introduced in 2014 and aims to help our low-wage workers to upskill and benefit from higher wages and better work prospects. This is done through a four-ladder approach – skills upgrading, productivity improvements, wage progression and career advancements.

In other words, a "wage ladder" is coupled with a "skills ladder". Wages go up as skills and productivity improve. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. But it is different for different sectors. It looks at raising wages sustainably to match the necessary productivity growth for each different sector, which is beneficial for businesses, workers and the Singapore economy at large in the longer term.

Currently mandated in the cleaning, security and landscaping sectors, PWM has helped to substantially raise the wages of workers in these three sectors by around 30% between 2013 and 2018. Cleaners saw their real median wages go up by 30%, while the increases were 31% for security sector and 32% for landscape industry.

For example, the starting monthly salary for a cleaner in Town Councils after we introduced PWM is $1,442 a month. With overtime pay and AWS or Bonuses, this could actually be higher.

However, I must say that these three sectors account for only about 78,000 workers, representing only about 15% of all the workers in the lowest 20th percentile of salary ranges. So, we should do more and expand PWM to more sectors to help more low-wage workers. In fact, over the last few years, SkillsFuture Singapore or SSG, has comprehensively mapped out the skills framework for many job roles. Leveraging on these skills ladders, we should now move towards universal PWM across all the low-paying job roles. This is in line with our ITM wants to achieve; some of the objectives of which are upskilling, job redesign, productivity growth and wage progression.

Some of our efforts undertaken by the tripartite partners prior to COVID-19 will lead to the lifts and escalator sector having a PWM becoming mandatory by 2022. The Labour Movement is also now in discussions with our stakeholders to see how we can implement PWM for the waste management sector.

Understandably, it is not the best time to raise wages during a global health and economic crisis when businesses are facing challenges of cashflow and disruption. Timing is important. We do not want to put businesses out of action through escalating wage costs in an economic downturn, nor do we want to deter hiring of workers in a distressed job market with rising unemployment rate.

As brother Heng Chee How said before in an earlier commentary speech, even as we endeavour to help low-wage workers, we must make sure a balance is struck, so that "low wage" does not become "no wage". As a doctor, I think it is quite clear that there are no magic bullets and there are actually no magic wonder drug that can heal everything without side effects. So, I think in trying to push for intervention, we need to find the right timing but when the timing is right, we must be bold and move quickly.

I hope Tripartite Partners can come together even now to conduct an in-depth study on the universal implementation of PWM across more sectors, so that we can move faster in this aspect when the economy recovers post-COVID-19. If we truly want to build a more inclusive society and narrow the income gap, the pace of PWM implementation across more sectors must quicken.

To build a more inclusive society that President Halimah Yacob spoke about, companies must find a way to translate the increased productivity into tangible benefits for our essential service workers, many of them are in the low-wage segment, so that they can see how industry transformation will benefit them. The Government must also be prepared to use more regulatory levers to widely implement PWM. Clearly, waiting for the market to respond on its own will not produce results we hope to see.

In moving towards universal PWM, we should explore setting a sectoral wage benchmark for companies as a first step in sectors where there are currently no regulatory levers to mandate a PWM. This can be done through leveraging various data sources that we currently have, such as the Occupational Wage Survey data. And inn sectors with a more variegated employment landscape such as food services and retail, sectoral wage benchmarks may help catalyse more companies to embark on uplifting the livelihoods of our low-wage workers. This of course can eventually evolve into a formal PWM.

Next, let me talk about Workfare Income Supplement enhancements. To raise the wages of those in the lower paying jobs, society at large must also play a role. Many low-wage workers are in sectors that provide essential services. During this circuit breaker period that we have just emerged from, many Singaporeans appreciated the work that essential services workers do, to keep our estates clean, our utilities functioning and our transportation nodes running. Members would have also read articles and social media commentaries calling for these essential workers to be better paid for the work that they do.

I hope service buyers would price the contracts fairly, so that our workers can be paid fair wages. The adoption of Outcomes-based Contracting must also be ramped up at a quicker pace. We need more progressive service buyers to start awarding contracts fairly to companies based on performance and quality, instead of just looking at price alone. In this way, we can truly recognise the importance and value of the work performed by our essential services workers.

This means that as consumers we must also be prepared to pay more for essential services. But in reality, there is a limit to how fast we can raise wages and how much the consumers are prepared to absorb price increases, especially during an economic downturn.

Hence, to further boost wages across the board for many low-wage workers in Singapore beyond the PWM, the Workfare Income Supplement or WIS scheme is an important one. This was recently enhanced with the qualifying income gap raised to $2,300 a month and the maximum payout increased to $4,000 per year.

Through this enhancement, our low-wage workers get to experience strong real wage growth. Today, WIS contributes to almost a third of the take-home pay of our low-wage workers. This in itself is an expression of social solidarity that Mdm President spoke about in her address where the larger pool of taxpayers, through taxpayers’ money, has helped to uplift the wages of those earnings less.

In addition, the Workfare Special Payment of $3,000 announced in the recent Budget was a good measure to tide lower income Singaporeans over this difficult period. This was much welcomed by many of the low-wage workers I met. I hope the Government will continue to strengthen this WIS scheme and ensure that the earnings of the low-wage workers keep pace with the rising cost of living.

The third aspect – on the National Wages Council. The broader articulation of this social solidarity is also embodied in the recommendations by the NWC. The NWC recommendations early this year – in March 2020 – have sought to further safeguard the interests of our low-wage workers, particularly those in the front line of our COVID-19 response and earning a basic monthly salary of up to $1,400.

Some of these recommendations include freezing the wages of workers instead of pay cuts when the company is not doing well. Conversely, increasing the wages by up to $50 if the company is looking at increasing wages across the board.

Given the profound impact of COVID-19 on the economy, companies and workers, the tripartite leaders have agreed to reconvene NWC again later this year, much earlier than the usual time frame to review the wage guidelines. I hope during this review the NWC will continue to protect the wages of our low-wage workers and recognise their contributions in the essential services sector.

Mr Speaker, the "Triple Uplift" formula of PWM, plus WIS and NWC recommendations, has led to higher take-home pay and retirement savings for our low-wage workers, particularly those who perform essential services.

To benefit more workers and protect workers from stagnating wages, NTUC calls for PWM to be expanded at a quicker pace and be made universal to cover all sectors. Sectoral wage benchmarking could be explored as a first step towards eventual universal PWM to uplift wages for sectors such as food services and retail industry. WIS should also be strengthened to better provide for low-wage workers.

Taking care of our low-wage workers and giving them the dignity of earning a fair wage must be an important and tangible manifestation of the social solidarity that President Halimah has called upon all of us to do as one united Singapore. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to speak in Mandarin, please?

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions to Singapore’s economy and the employment market. In her address, President Halimah called on us to look after our low-wage workers, especially during this unprecedented crisis, to demonstrate the spirit of Social Solidarity in Singapore.

The pandemic has made us realize the important contributions made by workers in the essential services sector. And there is now more focus on the many low-wage workers in this sector.

In Singapore, we uplift low-wage workers' salaries through three complementary measures- Progressive Wage Model (PWM), Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and National Wages Council (NWC). While these three measures have lifted low-wage workers’ salaries significantly, there are still areas that we can improve on.

Hence, I would like to raise these points below to strengthen our support for low-wage workers.

First, PWM. Led by NTUC, the Tripartite Partners introduced PWM in 2014 to help our low-wage workers in essential services sector upskill and increase productivity, leading to higher wages and better career progression. From 2013 to 2018, the wages of these low-wage workers have increased by about 30%.

However, PWM is only mandated in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors, which benefits 78,000 low-wage workers and represents 15% of all low-wage workers. We should expand PWM to more sectors to help more low-wage workers. PWM will be made mandatory for the Lift and Escalator sector in 2022. NTUC is also in discussion with stakeholders to implement PWM in the Waste Management sector in the near future.

Nonetheless, I hope the Tripartite Partners can quickly conduct an in-depth study on the universal implementation of PWM across all sectors, so that we can move faster in this aspect when the economy recovers post-COVID-19.

At the same time, we should explore setting a sectoral wage benchmark as a first step towards PWM. This could help encourage more companies to uplift the wages of our low-wage workers.

Second, WIS. In addition to PWM, the Government has also introduced WIS which contributes to almost one-third of the take-home pay of our low-wage workers. This is a demonstration of our Social Solidarity as mentioned by President Halimah. In addition, the Workfare Special Payment of $3,000 will help low-wage workers to tide through this difficult period. We do not know how long the pandemic will last. I hope that the Government can increase the WIS assistance to low-wage workers when necessary.

Third, NWC. The NWC has recently made recommendations to further protect the interests of our low-wage workers. Amidst economic uncertainties, employers may resort to pay-cuts or retrenchments. NWC recommends that employers in distress should try to maintain the salaries of low-wage workers, or freeze wages temporarily in order to protect jobs. Conversely, if the employer is doing well and able to raise the salaries across the board, NWC recommends up to $50 increase for low-wage workers. I hope that when NWC reviews the wage guidelines again in the next few months, it will continue to pay attention to and protect the welfare of low-wage workers.

Mr Speaker, the triple uplift formula of PWM +WIS+NWC has effectively uplifted the salaries and retirement savings of our low-wage workers. In order to benefit more workers, NTUC calls for the Government to expand PWM and for it to be made universal to cover all sectors. I also hope that the Government can strengthen WIS to better support low-wage workers. In the face of economic challenges, we can leverage the NWC platform to protect the welfare of our low-wage workers.

(In English): With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

2.54 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, there is indeed a pressing need for solidarity and a shared sense of identity that is crucial to tide us over these uncertain times. The pandemic has posed a threat to Singaporeans in two key spheres – at home and at work. Just as these anxieties have, at a global level, caused governments to turn inwards, it is increasingly tempting for us, as a people, to do the same. This could bring us down the slippery slope of apathy and distrust. Therefore, at every juncture, we must evaluate the lengths to which we go in the name of self-preservation and what it would cost us as a people.

I would like to paint a picture from my childhood where I spent much of my days in a row of shophouses along Holland Drive where my father had his clinic. Though I have not been back there in the past decade since his passing, I have fond memories of the sincerity and kindness the community lived by. I remember the neighbourhood and the people living in the neighbourhood as if it was yesterday. Right next to my father's clinic was the neighbourhood hair salon run by aunties. It was the neighbourhood water-cooler where residents came by, not just for the latest fashion tips, but also to find out how they are neighbours were doing.

Further down the street was a stationery shop run by Uncle Muhammad, an Indian-Muslim from India. He would affectionately call me Ling Ling every time I came back, and remembered the comics I like to read. And I never left his shop without a sweet in hand that he would give me. At Tat Lee Bank next door, all their businesses ran on the currency of trust. Our neighbourhood sole proprietors and hawkers knew the names of the bank staff and sometimes, even those of their families, their children, their spouses. And all the shopkeepers need to do was to place their day's earnings in cash on the counter and could count on receiving a faultless chit the next time they came around.

My father, the neighbourhood doctor, delighted in the service he provided to the community. There were many occasions where he did not take money from patients because they could not afford it. However, without fail, we would receive a gift at our doorsteps from them. If they raise chickens, would get eggs; and if they made sauces, we would a bottle.

The kindness and trust I saw in the community were not naive. It did not ignore the challenges and struggles that faced the community but stood strong despite these trials.

When times were tough Uncle Muhammad had to sell his business and started selling magazines under the bridge, but it never did break his spirit. It never caused us to turn cold towards each other. The bond that held us together as a community ran deeper and would not tear at the sound of trouble.

This was because of the intimate interest we had in each other's lives. My dad knew Uncle Muhammad both as a patient and as his friend. My mom knew his wife, Aunty Gowri, and the troubles she had raising three children. And I knew one of their daughters and chatted with her often when we were growing up.

Within the community, we knew the challenges others faced, and we knew the stories behind these faces and, more importantly, the stories behind the challenges. In the same way, my hope for Singaporeans is that we will continue to be champions for kindness in the community, built on understanding and apathy towards the challenges others in our community might face.

The incessant shouting you might have been hearing at home could actually be a couple in financial distress. The tired homemaker who has been moving furniture at odd hours could have her hours stretched in the daytime because there has been more people at home. It is on us to open our hearts to the stories that run deep and to extend a helping hand to those in the community who might need it.

Sometimes, I wonder: have we been too quick to judge?

When I was previously running my company, we had an employee who had been consistently putting in good performance. However, one day, the HR department came to me and raised some serious doubts. The employee had started to make a habit of sleeping on the job and it caused him to miss many calls. That was an issue because he was a call centre operative. But what we decided to do was to give him the benefit of the doubt and asked him about his recent performance.

As a result and after quite some digging, we discovered that he had recently become the sole breadwinner in a family of seven, and that was because both his parents had lost their jobs because of COVID-19. In order to support his family, extended family actually, he had to take on extra work as a delivery driver from 10.00 pm to 4.00 am every day.

Understanding his story helped me empathise with his situation and allowed us to work out a favourable solution, instead of releasing him on the basis of moonlighting and poor performance, we decided to adjust his working hours to allow him to come in to work later in the day and make up for the lost time over the weekends.

When we are willing to listen, everyone is a winner. Be it at home or at work, it will go such a long way if we all fostered an interest in each other's lives and uncover the stories that lie beneath. I believe that Singaporeans will only be able to build a rich national identity when we allow ourselves to deep dive into the richness of the lives around us.

As many of us spend more time at home than ever before and as we are faced with the anxieties of this age, the bonds we have with our community are exposed. As the saying goes, 远亲不如近邻, better a close neighbour, than a distant relative. As much as the Government will work hard to build social safety nets and implement policies to ensure Singaporeans emerge from this pandemic stronger, norm is but a distant relative. When the rubber hits the road, it is our Singaporean community that must band together. It is these communities that Singaporeans can have to hope to be able to lean back on.

In this House and in the many households across our Singapore, we must heed our President's call to embrace our plurality and diversity, under girding it with a deep appreciation of the lives of those around us. Then, and only then, can we work out community solutions that will allow us to become greater than the sum of our individual parts. Speaker, Sir, I shall continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker Sir, earlier, I shared the challenges faced by our society as a result of COVID-19. While we work to overcome challenges of the outbreak, we must work even harder to resolve the economic crisis brought forth by COVID-19. I feel that while we actively promote training and transformation amongst workers so that they are equipped with future skills, and advocate for diversity at the workplace, we should also relook our definition of a "job".

Is a "job" considered as one only if we work from nine to five? If an employee needs to take care of his family and wish to break up his work hours, will employers be receptive?

This pandemic has prompted some women to return to the workforce to support their family. At the same time, they still have to take care of their family or elderly parents. They would prefer to work on project or freelance basis, so that they can manage their time more flexibly.

I know a nurse who provides home nursing care. She is a kind and capable person who chooses to work night shifts. She has almost no rest days and is always toiling over her patients. I often wondered why she did not choose to work in the hospitals instead. We found out later that she worked so hard because she has to support her adult son, who has cerebral palsy. She is her son's only caregiver. She looks after him in the day, and works at night to earn a decent livelihood for her family after her son has gone to sleep. She is a great mother, taking care of her child in the day, and working hard as a home nurse to support the family at night.

The situation that the nurse is in, is a common one faced by many. I believe that during this period, more women will become freelancers. Some have chosen to reenter the workforce as freelancers because of the economic hardship brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, while others have chosen to go off the beaten path to pursue multiple career pathways. Whatever the reason, everyone hopes to supplement the family income by making use of pockets of their available time. In the future, the gig economy will become a common trend, and there will be greater needs from freelancers. Therefore, there is now a greater need for us to review the policy framework to safeguard the welfare of freelancers, to ensure they have adequate Medisave and retirement funds.

This is why we also need to adjust our human resource policies and change the concept of employment, even as we embark on economic transformations. Only then can we attract more Singaporeans to take on jobs in the emerging industries and to build a more inclusive and diverse workplace with a Singaporean Core.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

3.06 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for her Address. I am heartened by her encouragement to new politicians, like myself, to continue the good work done by those before us, in shaping an effective and sound Government.

Globally, this year, economies have been paralysed, businesses decimated and livelihoods impacted. The virus has altered the way we live, work and play. Our resident unemployment rate is at 3.9% in the second quarter, faring better than many countries. But, this pandemic is not going away anytime soon. The CEO of renowned pharma giant Merck has said that a vaccine is at least a year away. So, dealing with this crisis will be like running a marathon – there is a finishing line but the run will be long, exhausting and painful.

Today, I wish to talk about some of the lessons we can draw and how good policies must be complemented with good execution for us to emerge from this pandemic, a stronger Singapore. Let me cite two examples.

The Self-employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS was announced in March to support self-employed workers affected by COVID-19. Over 100,000 were identified as eligible for cash payouts of $3,000 for three quarters. Those not included could submit their applications to the NTUC. However, there has been a lot of feedback from residents about not being able to access the relief package. They are upset and perceive the unfairness of the scheme. I will refer to three categories.

First, those whose appeals were rejected and do not know why. Rejected resident applicants received a rejection letter without any reason stated. Although the NTUC website has been upgraded for answers, it was not clear and specific to their own situation. Many were disappointed and described NTUC's response as cold and not helpful.

The second group are those who know why their applications were rejected but cannot come to terms with or do not fully comprehend with the basis. An example is the use of the property annual value criteria of more than $21,000 that excludes residents from getting the relief. Fellow Members in this House had raised this yesterday and one today, and I share their views.

The principle of having "means-testing" as a basis to identify those needing help is logical and NTUC's website stated that this is "consistent with other Government schemes". But COVID-19 relief is not a normal Government scheme and in implementing this blunt tool, it needs to be recognised that it will exclude residents whom the relief measure was intended to help. Additional data points could have been used proactively to identify those falling in the "should help" category so that a portion of this relief measure can be considered, given this challenging period.

The last group are those who do not know why they did not qualify for SIRS and do not understand the eligibility criteria. Some in the category, includes our resident hawkers and freelancers who have not been declaring their net trade income. Whatever their reasons for not doing so, they are hard hit in this pandemic. Perhaps, instead of an outright rejection, they could be brought back into the fold and set on the right path, by nudging them to, for example, start tax filings and adopting e-payments – a great initiative by the IMDA – to qualify for some portion of SIRS assistance. In this way, we can give the needed help and at the same time provide better guidance of their role in the community to file taxes and for the more successful ones in the future, to contribute their share of taxes too.

SIRS aside, let me provide another example from a different angle that also illustrates how leveraging technology can improve policy implementation as a key imperative. This relates to the task at hand of guiding the re-start of construction projects that is underway.

What we need is the ability to do quick tracing, accurately. However, new COVID-19 cases detected at cleared dormitories indicates we still have not yet implemented better capabilities. The TraceTogether app has limitations such as performance consistency across phone brands, inconvenience, and battery usage even after the software fix to slow down battery drain was done. Perhaps, better wearable technologies or tokens could be prioritised for earlier implementation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the broad point I want to make is this: In a crisis, an effective Government like ours, decisively came up with new initiatives and policies to help citizens. Both the SIRS and the effort on the construction sector are great examples of actions that arose out of this pandemic. I am proud that our country was able to dig deep, accessed its reserves and invested almost S$100 billion in relief programmes to help us steer through this crisis.

However, given the rumblings and the noises at the ground, I asked myself why and what is the real gap? My view is that at the heart of the issue in these two seemly unrelated examples is about the importance of good execution where we fell a little short on delivery. Good governance is not just about "Good Policy" but also about "Good Implementation" that goes hand in hand.

Some Members yesterday also spoke about DBS. And I want to share that the bank focuses on what we call "The Job to be Done". It is the maniacal focus on customer experiences, the practice of agility, applying data analytics and incorporating feedback quickly and so that the targeted objectives are done and achieved. This, DBS, took over a decade to try and get it right.

The challenge for Singapore is how do we continue to refine and develop a more citizen-centric governance model, where policies are not sacrosanct but rather a means to an end?

In concluding, I want to say that on any global scale, Singapore executes well. I can attest to that having lived over a decade overseas and raising my family in the major financial centres in the world. Our President in her Opening Address assured Singaporeans that the Government will listen to and examine new ideas, and that it will continue to evolve its policies and models to cater to new circumstances.

I am also heartened that Deputy Prime Minister assured the nation that the Government will take a stance and be open to improvise and adapt. When we do that, I am optimistic that we can beat the crisis together and emerge even stronger as a nation.

Having world class policies and world-class execution, only then, can we have world-class governance. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the year 2020 is an extraordinary year for everyone. Fighting COVID-19 is like running a marathon, we must persevere.

The Government has introduced many good policies to help Singaporeans. However, to help more people, there is room for improvement in terms of policy execution. For example, the SIRS disburses cash pay-outs to the self-employed and has been of great help to them, but some of them are also disappointed and unhappy over perceived unfairness due to minor issues in policy implementation. For instance, some applicants may have been rejected by the Government because they did not meet the eligibility criteria, but were not given a clear explanation. There are also some people who have been impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak but are excluded from the scheme due to overly simplified criteria, and these include residents who live in private properties as well as hawkers who did not file their taxes in time.

In another example, even though the Government has rolled out many measures to facilitate the resumption of construction projects, some migrant workers still ended up being quarantined again due to gaps in policy implementation. This has caused concerns among residents who work in the construction industry. We all hope that the Government can develop more effective technologies for contact tracing and put in place clear guidelines in terms of division of labour and accountability.

In general, we have good policies, but they need to be executed well to truly benefit our people.

Running a marathon is not easy. Only by helping the slower runners, can we come together as one united Singapore and cross the finishing line together.

(In English): With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.

3.17 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President.

In our recent memory, the most severe economic downturn in Singapore had been the Global Financial Crisis. I was then in the Labour Movement. We welcomed the Government’s Resilience Package. It was worth $20.5 billion.

Barely 12 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers that precipitated the Global Financial Crisis, there was talk about "green shoots". In 2009, Singapore’s GDP did not shrink; it actually managed to grow 0.1%. The following year, our economy powered ahead to double digit growth.

Fast forward to 2020, having battled COVID-19 for about eight months, we see how much more severe the impact is going to be. The Government has already introduced four Budgets of support costing close to $100 billion. Salary support under the Jobs Support Scheme went up to 75% during the circuit breaker, far higher than the 12% under the Jobs Credit Scheme in 2009. Although unemployment has not reached the highs of past recessions, we know this is not a given. We are still in the middle of a raging storm, and it will be sometime before we see "green shoots".

Against this backdrop, there is anxiety and a heightened sense of insecurity about jobs. I understand our workers’ worries. I appreciate it has not been an easy time for many of them. For today’s debate, I want to focus on two groups in particular – workers who perform essential services but do not earn much and PMETs in their 40s and 50s.

For over a decade, we have made concerted efforts to raise wages at the lower end. As part of our social compact, we introduced Workfare in 2007 to mitigate income inequality. NTUC pioneered Progressive Wage Model or PWM, in 2012, which now covers about 80,000 workers in the cleaning, security, and landscaping sectors. In 2016, the Government launched the Silver Support scheme to provide better retirement support for Singaporeans who did not earn as much throughout their working lives. Dr Koh Poh Koon has a slightly different take on the Government's holistic support. He calls it the "Triple Uplift" formula.

Right now, concerns about job and income losses must weigh on us as Parliament debates our next moves in raising wages for workers who earn less. What is our preferred approach to moderating income inequality in Singapore? Specifically, do we continue with the expansion of PWM over time as the NTUC has advocated or do we shift towards a national minimum wage or a living wage, as some parties have called for?

This debate, however, is not new. We have considered it before. Although in Singapore, we have not legislated a single minimum wage across the board, we have in fact implemented features of a "Minimum Wage" through the PWM in several sectors.

Members of Parliament from the Workers' Party acknowledge this too. In March 2015, Mr Gerald Giam urged the Government, and I quote him, "to look into introducing sectoral minimum wages under PWM to more domestic-oriented sectors". On 15 July this year, Mr Yee Jenn Jong said and I quote him, "The Government is also not alien to the concept of Minimum Wage, except that they practise it for selected industries only via the PWM."

At the same time, we have complemented the PWM with Workfare and skills training and the results have been good. In the last five years, workers in PWM sectors have seen cumulative wage growth of around 30%. This is compared to 21% for workers at the median.

Ramli Bin Mohd Hussin, my long-time brother from the Labour Movement, sees first-hand how these schemes have helped workers. As senior operations manager of an environmental services company, he supervises about 120 cleaners. In fact, for many years, Ramli himself worked as a cleaner. Workfare supplemented his wages, but it was PWM that gave him a chance to move up and build a career. At age 47, he has upgraded to a 4-room HDB flat in Yishun. Of his four children, the eldest was encouraged by him to join the cleaning profession. Number two has just completed NS after getting his Polytechnic diploma. Number three started a small business and the youngest is still in school. Ramli also feels a great sense of accomplishment that an ex-offender whom he had been nurturing was recently promoted to Team Leader.

The result of our approach in Singapore is what two local economists, Kenneth Ler and Ivan Png, described as a unique kind of Minimum Wage policy that succeeded in raising wages without apparently reducing employment.

Outside of sectors with PWM, Workfare and the Special Employment Credit or SEC, have also raised wages without risking unemployment.

Take a 60-year-old worker whose employer had been prepared to pay $1,200 a month. When SEC and Workfare are added, the worker actually earns $1,593, 33% more than the employer’s willingness to pay.

Had a national Minimum Wage or living wage been set at, say, $1,600 instead of boosting incomes through SEC and Workfare, would this worker still have a job? Perhaps, if the labour market is very tight but perhaps not when economic conditions take a dive.

Therefore, to uplift workers who earn less, the Government’s preferred approach that is also supported by the Labour Movement, has four prongs.

First, to regularly adjust Workfare to support employability while ensuring that we continue to mitigate income inequality. Members like Mr Gan Thiam Poh support this.

Second, to raise wages in PWM sectors at an appropriate pace, taking care of the need to preserve low unemployment among the workers.

Third, to expand PWM over time to more sectors, taking care to assess the capacity of businesses in those sectors to absorb the change, especially our SME employers.

Fourth, to raise standards of living for lower income workers in other meaningful ways, such as acquiring skills to progress, achieving home ownership, providing access to quality healthcare, education for their children and adequate support in their retirement.

This is a holistic and sustainable approach to uplift our lower income workers, and is an extension of social mobility beyond the schooling years into working life.

We have been building on this approach, steadily and with focus. Earlier this year, we expanded Workfare coverage and raised payouts. A Workfare Special Payment of $3,000 has also helped to cushion the impact of COVID-19 on lower income workers.

Dr Koh Poh Koon called for the universal implementation of PWM. In principle, we are aligned. The real question for expansion of PWM is one of timing.

In the security sector, 38-year-old Raymond Chin has been similarly able to progress to his current position as Senior Operations Manager. However, during a recent conversation, Raymond told me his concerns about security officers earning less this year. When calling for new tenders, clients are asking for fewer workers. Full-time workers have fewer overtime hours or may lose their seniority when displaced. Part-time workers have fewer assignments.

Similar trends are observed in the hospitality and F&B sectors. Businesses are still trying to find a firmer footing. Therefore, any moves to expand PWM into new sectors immediately, in the midst of great uncertainty in the labour market, carries higher risk. Given our overriding priority to preserve jobs, we should proceed with care.

While it may be risky to mandate PWM in more sectors right away, we can still promote its voluntary adoption by progressive employers that are able to do so. To give this effort a bigger push, the Government will work with the tripartite partners to introduce a PWM Mark. Companies that voluntarily pay progressive wages and provide job progression pathways to their lower income workers will be recognised with this PWM Mark. Several sectors, including Food Services and Retail Trade, have the potential to come on board.

For the PWM Mark to work, there must, however, be a broader movement involving society at large. As consumers, we must be prepared to pay slightly more and intentionally support such progressive companies by purchasing their products and services. This will spur more companies to be progressive and adopt the PWM Mark, which in turn will benefit our lower income workers.

I hope Members will agree with me that we must have it in our hearts to consider this a small price to pay for better jobs and income security for those among us who need it most.

Let me turn now to PMETs in their 40s and 50s. Mr Speaker, since this debate started, many Members have spoken passionately about the Singaporean Core and changes they hope to see in our work pass policies – Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Liang Eng Hwa, amongst others. At the same time, they, as well as Members like Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Henry Kwek acknowledge that foreigners are still needed to complement the Singaporean workforce.

In fact, we have adjusted work pass policies regularly and slowed down the growth of EP and S Passes considerably.

In the last five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of EP and S Pass holders has grown on average, less than 9,000 annually. This is less than one third of the average annual growth of 30,400 in the earlier five-year period, and that would be from 2009 to 2014. So, let me say that again. In the first five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of EP and S Pass holders has grown on average, less than 9,000 annually. This is less than one third of the average annual growth of 30,400 in the earlier five-year period.

At the same time, in the last five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of locals in PMET jobs has grown on average, around 35,000 annually. So, we have the 9,000 in growth of EP and S Passes, average annual in the last five years and during that same period, what is the growth in locals in PMET jobs? On average, 35,000 annually. Contrast the 9,000 and 35,000.

In other words, for every new EP or S Pass holder added in the last five years, about four more locals took up PMET jobs. Just think about that.

It should also be noted that throughout this period, the population of PRs has remained stable, at about half a million. It would therefore be wrong to attribute the growth of locals in PMET jobs to an increase in PRs, as some have suggested.

Mr Speaker, in his earlier speech, Mr Leong Mun Wai reminisced about the good old days. But I have a question. Was it really so good?

In the 1990s, about three in 10 locals were in PMET jobs. Mr Leong may not have realised this but it could almost be said at that time to have been the privileged minority. Fast forward to today, nearly six in 10 locals are in PMET jobs. In fact, local PMETs outnumber EP holders – 7:1. For every EP holder that you can find, there are seven locals in PMET jobs.

With COVID-19, the number of EP and S Pass holders has come down sharply. Between January and July this year, it has dropped by 22,000.

While the numbers are moving in the right direction, PMETs in their 40s and 50s are still concerned. I fully appreciate that. In this period of great uncertainty, two questions loom large.

First, when retrenchments become inevitable, will they be targeted by employers because of age and wage-seniority, especially when compared to their younger foreign colleagues? When applying for jobs, will they be passed over, especially with employers having continued access to EP and S Pass holders? Let me deal with these questions in turn.

MOM actively monitors retrenchment practices and looks into how retrenchment exercises are conducted. There are the 10 key questions we ask.

(a) Did the employer implement any other alternatives, such as cost-saving measures before considering retrenchment?

(b) Were efforts made to reskill and re-deploy staff, before embarking on a retrenchment exercise?

(c) Does the business situation warrant a retrenchment?

(d) Did the employers put in place clear criteria to identify workers to be retrenched?

(e) Did these criteria discriminate against any employee on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity or family circumstances?

(f) Did the company provide retrenchment benefits commensurate with its financial position?

(g) In a unionised company, were the selection criteria and retrenchment benefit discussed and agreed to with the union?

(h) Did the company put in place measures to support the workers' transition, for example, engaging WSG or e2i for job assistance?

(i) Did the company communicate its business situation and plans clearly, sensitively and with adequate notice to affected employees?

(j) Lastly, but certainly not the least of it, was the company's Singaporean Core weakened as a result of the retrenchment exercise?

So, 10 questions that we ask. And last and not least of it was the company's Singaporean Core weakened as a result of the retrenchment exercise?

In vast majority of the cases, retrenchments have been conducted fairly and responsibly. Where older Singaporeans have been let go, this has generally been the result of criteria like relevance of skillsets to core functions that the company must retain. This factor explains why in some retrenchment exercises, seniors comprise a higher share. By and large, there has also not been a weakening of the Singaporean Core. In the case of Resorts World, for example, a foreign employee must meet a higher performance bar than his local colleague to be retained. In fact, this is quite an often-seen criterion that companies introduce.

Notwithstanding these reassuring observations, we will remain vigilant. We will also work with tripartite partners to advance sound practices, through updating the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment, for example, or the Fair Retrenchment Framework proposed by NTUC.

Besides actively monitoring retrenchment practices, we will intensify other efforts to ensure fair treatment of locals applying for jobs.

In last week's announcement of the tightening of EP and S Pass requirements, one aspect was not prominently reported. We had made clear that in evaluating EP and S Pass applications, MOM will place additional emphasis on whether the employer has kept up its support of local PMETs in its employment. In substance, this achieves what Ms Foo Mee Har would like to see, a tilt in support of local PMETs that goes beyond fair consideration. Among other things, an employer's record in how it handles retrenchment exercises will certainly have a bearing. For example, is an EP or S Pass applicant a replacement for a local who was only recently retrenched? If so, MOM will ask why and turn down the application unless there are very good reasons.

We will also place additional emphasis on whether the employer has been responsive to efforts by the Government agencies to help it recruit and train local PMETs.

Mr Ang Wei Neng supported a balanced work pass policy that is neither too restrictive nor facilitative for employers. He felt that continued access to EP and S Pass holders can help businesses to grow, which in turn expands opportunities for Singaporeans. Businesses, however, should not exploit this access but must instead make serious efforts to build local capabilities. Ms Mariam Jaafar goes further. She calls on employers to look past paper qualifications and consider local job applicants who do not necessarily tick all the boxes, but who can be nurtured with support from Government.

MOM agrees with both of them. This should, in fact, become pervasive, a regular feature of our employment landscape, the norm and not the exception. Therefore, in specific areas of skills shortages and where there is strong interest from locals, we will also assess if agencies like WSG, MAS and IMDA have been able to get an employer on board their many programmes to strengthen the development of local PMETs. This will also have a bearing on their EP and S Pass applications.

Conversely, we take into consideration whether an employer has discriminated against qualified local PMETs. Of all possible infringements, this is what offends Singaporeans most, that they have the qualifications but lost out to a foreign candidate who did not appear to be better.

To curb such unacceptable behaviour, MOM has regularly taken employers to task for practices like pre-selecting a foreign candidate and disregarding qualified local candidates. We agree with Ms Foo that if, in fact, there are equally or better qualified local candidates, it would be only logical that they be given priority consideration. And this is one of the reasons why the company is in Singapore in the first place.

This year alone, 90 employers have had their work pass privileges suspended because of infringements under the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF.

In one instance of a healthcare multinational, investigators found that 26 local candidates had responded to an advertisement on MyCareersFuture.gov.sg. Although seven out of these 26 applicants met the job requirements, none were shortlisted or interviewed. Two candidates were deemed "over-qualified". Other candidates were rejected for not meeting requirements that were not stated in the job advertisement in the first place, for example, six-sigma certification. The company rejected them, saying that they do not have six-sigma. But when we look back at the job advertisement, it did not say six-sigma certification. This company was clearly not serious in considering local applicants.

As a penalty, it will not be able to hire or renew EP holders for 12 months – one full year. Anyone in business knows that this is serious. To stay in business, they will have to recruit more locals, something they should have done all along.

Mr Speaker, I have outlined these additional considerations for EP and S Pass applications, but they are not new. We are re-stating them to remind employers of the need to step up their hiring practices and HR management, and also the efforts they must make to help sustain a business-friendly work pass policy.

At the same time, we will build on the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF to engage more employers. Since 2016, more than 1,200 employers have been scrutinised under the FCF.

To put the number into context, in the last five years, about 40,000 employers have applied for EPs, at least once. So, we have the 1,200 in the last five years but we also have this 40,000. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 5 October 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 7.]

Some Members, including Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leong Mun Wai, may not have realised this: firms that are scrutinised have not flouted any rules yet, unlike the example I cited above. Instead, we have identified them through proactive surveillance because of their unusually high reliance on foreigners in their PMET workforce, when compared to industry peers. Until they improve, we will reject or hold back their work pass applications.

At the same time, TAFEP engages them to understand their problems and help them strengthen their hiring practices. For example, we found that one firm dealt, almost exclusively, with high net worth clients from a particular country with language and cultural preferences. So, this company need not have been in Singapore. They could have served these high net worth clients from somewhere else – Hong Kong, for example. Nonetheless, through TAFEP’s advice, this company agreed that non-client-facing roles could be filled by locals.

In another instance, the company had been genuinely unfamiliar with local recruitment channels and welcomed WSG’s assistance. In yet another case, the local office sought special approval from their overseas headquarters to expand recruitment criteria to take into account local conditions. They were in fact grateful to TAFEP for having helped to bring about this change with their headquarters.

In all, 3,200 EP applications have been rejected or withheld by MOM, or withdrawn by employers while they were being scrutinised. But these employers have hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs as a result. In other words, this targeted approach has helped to keep and expand local PMET employment in these firms.

If instead we had chosen to vilify them through a name-and-shame approach, we would have frustrated their efforts to expand local hiring. This is ultimately counter-productive, not advantageous to us. In the case of the company that served high networth clients, it very easily could have gone somewhere else. And all of those opportunities would have been lost to us.

Our alternative approach of scrutinising and engaging employers is highly resource-intensive but in fact, a more effective way to get businesses to reshape their HR practices. This is why MOM plans to engage an expanded group of employers to review their hiring practices. This expanded group will include firms whose Singaporean Core has been weakening; or whose EP and S Pass workforce are overly concentrated from a single foreign nationality source. Through active intervention, we will help them reshape their workforce profiles. We will do this together with economic agencies like EDB and MAS. And as Mr Ang suggested, we will also engage the HR community to do more.

Sir, like many Members, I receive direct feedback from Singaporeans. They write to tell me about specific job application attempts where they felt they had been sidelined, or retrenchment exercises where they felt that they had been treated unfairly. They may also share observations about FCF rules being ignored.

MOM takes all such feedback seriously, as they complement our own proactive surveillance. We investigate thoroughly by interviewing the parties concerned and going through relevant records and exchanges – sometimes, mountains of records – to ensure that the retrenchment and hiring decisions have been conducted fairly.

For example, a whistle blower told us his former employer, an IT consultancy firm, had hired an EP holder through the recommendation of another EP holder who was a friend. Sir, recommending friends for job openings is not by itself wrong. The problem here was that the employer had not considered other possible local candidates as well. This decision was cleared with the General Manager which made it worse. As a penalty, the company will not be able to hire or renew work passes for 18 months – one and a half years. I do not think they will forget such an experience.

I hope these examples reassure Members that where there’s evidence of unfairness, we will not hesitate to hold employers to account and lean on them to do better in future. However, such actions do not always bring satisfaction to the victims. Something is inevitably damaged in the process – the sense of fairness and trust in the organisation's value system.

As Members have pointed out, for every errant employer caught, there are other bad hats – at least one other bad hat – who still try to circumvent the rules. This is why MOM calls on employer groups to also step up. No amount of rules will be enough if employers do not have the shared sense of commitment to fair hiring and responsible retrenchment. No amount of enforcement resources will catch enough employers if they are determined to hide.

What we lose then is not just a job opportunity for a local, but the trust that the system is fair, that the odds were not stacked against people who are trying. The Government cannot do this alone. We need employers to do your part: be fair to locals when you hire or have to retrench.

Mr Speaker, in these uncertain times, there have also been suggestions to use levies and quotas to regulate the number of EP holders.

I would like to share some considerations with Members. At the Work Permit level, we use levies on top of quotas to regulate demand because the numbers are big. At the EP level, where the numbers are not as big, our key objective is to regulate quality. By raising the salary requirements, over time, this sets a higher bar that EP holders must be able to cross to work in Singapore. Think of it like high jump. You raise the bar, and the hurdle is higher. You are going to need more skills, more talent to cross a higher bar. That is what the EP salary requirement is – a high hurdle. The other effect of raising the hurdle is to push EP holders at the lower end, down to the S Pass-level where there are quota controls – something which levies will not do. So, you raise the hurdle; those who cannot cross it, what choice do you have? S Passes. And if the company does not have enough quota, well, then, that is it.

In all past adjustments to EP salary requirements, a good number are downgraded to S Passes.

What about employers who falsely declare salaries to meet the higher bar? The answer must be to strengthen enforcement which we have been doing, and not to withhold the raising of the bar. In fact, in the last five years, we have taken action in over 1,200 cases of false declarations or kickbacks and secured nearly 388 convictions through prosecution.

Sir, raising EP salary requirements helps to improve quality over time and subject more foreign professionals at the lower end to quota controls. To similarly impose quotas at the higher end of EP holders is not unthinkable, but it is probably unwise.

When competing for the most cutting-edge investments and sophisticated activities to be moved to Singapore, we need to give agencies like EDB and MAS flexibility. For this purpose, it is much better to use salary requirements to ensure companies get access to foreign professionals of the right quality and marry them with firm-level commitments to build up local capabilities over time.

Without such flexibility, many of the top-quality investments would have been lost to our competitors and the job opportunities along with them. As several Members have alluded to, there is no shortage of takers ready to eat our lunch. Mr Speaker, I would now like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the usual practice at MOM is to adjust the EP and S Pass salary requirements regularly, based on the situation in our local job market. There is only one reason behind these adjustments, and that is to safeguard the livelihoods of Singaporeans.

Take the EP for example – we adjusted the salary requirements in 2017, and in May this year, there was another round of adjustment. However, because there were drastic and rapid changes in the job market over the past few months, MOM had to take further action. Therefore, MOM announced last week that we would further raise the EP and S Pass salary requirements.

Some people may be concerned that the raising of salary requirements for foreigners may result in employers who insist on hiring foreign employees simply raising their salaries. Then we may end up going nowhere. Some Members mentioned this yesterday and suggested that we impose quotas on EP holders to restrict the number of higher-end EP holders working in Singapore. I can understand these concerns.

To impose quotas on EP holders is not unthinkable, but it is probably unwise. Most of the foreign workers in Singapore are primarily Work Permit and S Pass holders. Therefore, MOM uses quotas and levies to regulate the number of such foreign workers that a company can hire.

On the other hand, the number of foreign professionals that come to Singapore on an EP is relatively smaller. They make up less than 15% of PMETs in Singapore. What we are more concerned about is the quality of these EP holders. For example, they may possess specialised skills that can help businesses venture into cutting-edge fields, and may, in time to come, transfer these skills to Singaporeans. Therefore, the Government updates the EP salary requirements to ensure that the foreigners that businesses hire are indeed top-tier talent.

If the expertise and experience of these foreigners are not commensurate with the salary requirements, then they will not be able to obtain an EP to work in Singapore, but will only be able to obtain an S Pass instead.

In past rounds of adjustment to EP salary requirements, a good number of EP applications were not approved as they did not meet the salary requirements. And if the company's S Pass quota was already fully utilised, these foreigners would not be able to work here or get their contracts renewed.

In fact, the number of EP and S Pass holders has already come down sharply. In the first seven months of this year, it dropped by 22,000. In fact, local PMETs outnumber EP holders 7:1.

Nevertheless, I would still urge business owners in these extraordinary times that if they must hire foreigners because of business needs, they should continue to give fair consideration to local jobseekers. Businesses have a duty to grow and maintain a Singaporean Core in their workforce. This is especially critical in the current climate.

In these difficult times, we will place additional emphasis on these considerations and pay close attention to the hiring practices of companies. The reason is simple. We want to remind businesses of the importance of nurturing their local workforce, and help Singaporean jobseekers find good jobs and return to the workforce.

(In English): Sir, I still have a bit to go.

Mr Speaker: You only have 40 minutes. Unless Leader of the House moves a Motion. How much more time do you need?

Mrs Josephine Teo: May I humbly request the Leader for another 10 minutes?

Mr Speaker: Leader, please move the Motion.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Sir.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Sir.

Members in the House are agreed that while we keep Singapore open, we need to ensure fair treatment and we must also do everything possible to give our people a leg up.

What then can we do to further tilt the balance in favour of local PMETs, including those in their 40s and 50s? How can we enable more of them to take up good jobs created and grow into roles that employers presently hire EP or S Pass holders for?

First, businesses that retain and hire locals get an extra dose of support from the Government. This is exactly what Ms Mariam Jaafar called for. The Jobs Support Scheme or JSS is one. The Jobs Growth Incentive or JGI is another. It comes on top of the JSS. With $1 billion set aside, this is Singapore’s biggest push ever to help employers stretch their manpower budgets and expand the hiring of locals.

Another way to tilt the balance is to support the cost of skills retraining for employers. Take, for example, our Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs. PCPs provide employers with generous training and salary support to re-skill and hire mid-career local jobseekers, with higher support for mature workers aged 40 and above.

This also benefits the PCP employees, with about nine in 10 remaining employed 24 months after being placed, and about seven in 10 earning higher wages after starting in their new jobs.

PCPs have helped Singaporeans like Merly Savantraj. They have helped her bounce back from retrenchment. Merly was with her previous company for the past 13 years carrying out system support of IT certification systems. Unfortunately, she was let go in February. When searching for a new job, she realised that her IT skills had become obsolete, as she was performing traditional IT tasks all this while. Hard as it was, she accepted the need to upgrade her skills. Through the PCP for Salesforce Platform Professionals, she managed to start in a job that she did not have any prior experience for. Kudos to the employer for taking her on as well.

A third way to tilt the balance for local PMETs is by plugging hiring gaps with attachments and skills training opportunities for mid-career individuals. While recognising the preference for a job, these company-hosted attachments and skills training programmes will nonetheless position jobseekers better with industry-relevant experience. When the economy recovers, their CVs will be more polished and they will stand a better chance of bouncing back into jobs they prefer.

Beyond these efforts, agencies like MAS will continue to press on with their bold and significant plans to support and encourage financial institutions to build up Singaporeans for senior roles, like how Ms Tin Pei Ling has advocated. Minister Ong Ye Kung will speak later today and share some of these plans.

In many ways, these specific programmes and initiatives will be more effective in growing the local talent pipeline for the top jobs, complementing broad-based tools like work pass policies. We must, therefore, not miss the woods for the trees, by focusing narrowly on keeping foreigners out, and missing the larger picture of growing the pie and giving Singaporeans the chance of the best slice.

Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that COVID-19 is a major test of our resilience and unity as a people. Our workforce has been severely stressed. We understand the anxieties of PMETs in their 40s and 50s and their concerns about fair treatment and fair opportunities. We also appreciate the need to keep supporting workers who earn less to grow their incomes over time and address income inequality.

Every single day, workers like Ramli, Raymond and Merly remind the MOM team what our work is about. We are always here listening to their struggles, thinking deeply about the support that they need, recognising the constraints, adjusting policies in their interests, finding better ways to protect them against unfair practices, ultimately, helping them to get onto the path of growth in their work lives that they so deserve.

To all the other Ramlis, Raymonds and Merlys out there, we know that, in your hearts, you care most about the well-being of your families and loved ones. You want to do well not just for yourself, but for them. Please know that you, too, are always in our hearts. However long this storm lasts, MOM will walk this journey with you. However tough it may be, we will help you bounce back.

Our mission is to help each and every one of you emerge stronger by never giving up hope and by working with employers in Singapore to treat you fairly to make your hard work bear fruit.

Our work is not yet done. We have taken firm steps forward and we will press on, whatever the challenges, with you, for you, for Singapore. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

4.09 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai: A point of clarification, Sir. I thank the Minister for giving such an informative presentation. Can I clarify one point? The Minister mentioned that from the period of 2014 to 2019, the average increase of PMETs for locals is 35,000. May I know whether the Minister has the data for the number of PRs and new citizens granted during that period? I happen to have a number that tells me that the average increase for every year during that period was 50,000.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, I thank Mr Leong for his question. He mentioned the number of 50,000 of increase every year in EPs and PRs. I think we have regularly reported that, on average, in the last couple of years – not the entire few decades that Mr Leong may be referring to – every year, the number of Singapore citizens goes up by around 20,000 and then the number of new PRs is about 30,000.

However, I think what Mr Leong is trying to suggest is that all of your gains are meaningless because they are all occupied by PRs and new citizens.

First, I would like to point out that he is wrong in imagining that all the new citizens and all the new PRs are in the workforce. A significant number of them are still children, still in school. That is how we top up our population. A good number of those new citizens and PRs are married to our citizens. They are part of family expansion. In case Mr Leong has not noticed, if I remember correctly from my population portfolio, I believe, in today's context, one in three marriages involving a citizen also involves a non-citizen.

Is Mr Leong suggesting that these new citizens are any less of a citizen? Is Mr Leong suggesting, therefore, that we should discount them, not include them? Or do we look at the broader picture and ask ourselves whether over the last few decades from the 1990s to what it is today, from three in 10 locals in PMET jobs, to six in 10 locals in PMET jobs, is an amazing accomplishment not so easily achieved elsewhere – a remarkable accomplishment. Maybe not amazing; at least remarkable. If not remarkable, commendable. If not commendable, notable.

I would like Mr Leong to share his views with us. And do we then say that within the Singapore citizen ranks, we start drawing a distinction between a new citizen of two years ago, 20 years ago, or how far back must you be a citizen to be a real citizen? These are questions that I hope that Mr Leong can help us understand the PSP's thinking.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Minister for her reply. But I would also like to stress that what we are talking about here is actually the pressure on our people, whether it is the original Singaporeans or the new Singaporeans, we actually do not make that distinction. However, if the Minister is saying that there is an increase of 50,000 every year and you have only an increase of 35,000 in PMETs, then we cannot deny the fact that there is pressure in the job market of the PMETs. So, the situation is not as rosy as what the Minister has painted. That is my question. Thank you.

Mrs Josephine Teo: I accept that view. I accept that there is pressure. And we have said right from the beginning that we understand the anxieties of Singaporeans. Having said that, I think it is also important for Mr Leong to recognise what I have just said – which is, if we look at the number of new citizens and we look at the PRs, significant numbers of them are not yet in the workforce; significant numbers of them are also married to citizens. They have a family nexus. Are we to say that, therefore, please do not work, please be out of the workforce? I do not believe Mr Leong is saying that at all.

However, this constant obsession – if I may put it that way, with drawing lines – I am not sure it is good for us as a society.

There have been occasions where Singaporeans have stepped up and asked us, "Your policies differentiate between citizens and PRs. I am a citizen. My husband is the PR. My wife is the PR. Why can they not get the same level of support from the Government too? Have they not contributed? Do they not pay taxes? Is their well-being not important to me, the citizen?"

What answers do we give to this person? Do we then say, "If your husband or wife is a new citizen or new PR, okay, even if they are not working, that is fine." I do not think that is what we are heading for.

So, I call on Members and ask that you consider this very carefully whenever you raise points of this nature. It is not that the question cannot be asked but I think we have to search our hearts and ask ourselves before asking these questions: what is our thinking? What is our attitude and what is the value that we are expressing by even putting these questions forward? It is well and good to say, "This is all about information, transparency" and so on. But dig a bit deeper and ask ourselves: what does this question belie? What sort of values are we trying to reflect in asking these questions?

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong. Would you like to answer the questions posed to you?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Minister again. This will be my last clarification.

Mr Speaker: Are you answering the questions or are you posing another clarification? A few questions were asked of you. Are you answering the questions or are you raising another clarification?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Clarification. Is that okay, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: It is fine if you do not want to answer the questions posed to you.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I just want to clarify that what the Minister said is that the number of dependents from the 50,000 PRs and new citizens, is more than 15,000. Is that right or wrong?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, I did not say that. Sir, I am afraid Mr Leong may not have heard me correctly. I did not say that. I only said that on an annual basis, we have said consistently that in the last couple of years, what the number of new PRs is, what the number of new citizens is. So, I am not sure I understand his question.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Minister.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I appreciate the efforts by MOM to address PMET concerns. That said, I would like to clarify if Minister Teo believes that simply slowing down the rate of EP and S Pass holders is sufficient to ensure that local PMETs do not get displaced. I say this in part because this strategy is a very blunt strategy, and for starters, we need to take into account base effects. So, let me explain.

Even if the rate of issuance has slowed, as Minister Teo has shared, it is misleading to actually compare the two. For instance, a 20% increase, from 50 people, for example, is 10 people. But a 10% increase from 200 people is, in fact, an increase of 20 people, which is larger in absolute terms.

Now, I understand that 35,000 people is larger than 9,000 but the point is that the slowdown in the rate of EP and S Pass issuance is less dramatic than Minister Teo claims. Moreover, we should be aware of the effect of diminishing returns by which I mean many PMET positions may already have been secured by foreign talent and so it is no surprise that the number that is now required actually goes down.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you. Mr Speaker, I merely stated the facts. I did not say that one contributed to the other.

But I thought that I should perhaps address Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's other question: are we satisfied with slowing down the rate of growth of EP and S Pass holders?

The perspective that I would like to share is this. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what does it take to help Singaporeans stay in employment, stay out of unemployment and over time, to achieve income growth, to achieve retirement adequacy. Those are the four things that MOM is always looking at. Then, we ask ourselves what is the best way to achieve these outcomes.

If we can do so without adding to the number of EP and S Pass holders for that matter, continue to deliver good outcomes, help Singaporeans enjoy higher employment, low unemployment, income growth and retirement adequacy without using more foreigners as complements to our workforce, if we can reduce the reliance on unproductive manpower-intensive methods of work in some of our business sectors today, if we can groom more Singaporeans to take up the good jobs that we are creating, then of course, the answer is yes.

But the important thing really is what does it take to deliver and bring about these good outcomes for Singaporeans? And then, we ask ourselves: within the options that are available to us as a tiny red dot, how can we mitigate the difficulties, the shortcomings and the worries that people have, legitimate worries that people have, about a very sizeable foreign workforce.

We are aligned in that regard. I do not think that the destination that we want to head towards is a different one. But we have to ask ourselves, looking at the opportunities as well as the constraints we have as a tiny city-state, which Mr Leong Mun Wai reminds us – we are a tiny city-state; we are not a tiny city. And a tiny city-state has got its opportunities but it also has its constraints. Within those constraints, what is the best way to help Singaporeans move forward? That has to be the answer and not some predetermined ideas about what you bring it down to.

Supposing we can bring it down to zero or even negative which is what has happened in the first seven months of this year. I reported to Members, that in the first seven months of this year, total number of EP and S Pass holders has gone down by 22,000. That is what it is. Suppose we can bring it down to a different number and so on, but at the same time, the job opportunities for Singaporeans have shrunk. Your children, my children one day coming to us and say, "Mom, Dad. Sorry, cannot find a decent job in Singapore anymore." And they really no longer have that opportunity of the six in 10 PMET jobs that we talked about – which many countries have found themselves in that sort of a situation. Is that going to be better for us? Well, we will have to think very hard about whether the answer is yes. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank Minister Josephine Teo for her heartfelt speech. Just one point of clarification as regard the treatment of employers found to be engaged in discriminatory practices.

I think in discussing this issue, a number of Government spokespersons have talked about the process of curtailing work pass privileges as a penalty and that is certainly one lever in the Government's toolkit when it comes to employers who discriminate by nationality against Singaporeans.

My question would really be: how does MOM handle cases where the axis of discrimination is in fact not nationality but something else, for example, gender? And where the employer may not necessarily depend on work passes or that is not a very important thing to that employer and therefore, as a lever of control or influence, that may not be so powerful. What else can be done and how does MOM handle those cases. This is really where, perhaps something like an anti-discrimination legislation could provide a solution. But how is that being addressed right now?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you very much. Sir, for age discrimination, gender discrimination, ethnicity discrimination or discrimination against an employee or prospective employee on account of their family circumstances, all are just as bad. And if we find evidence of it, we can also curtail their work pass privileges.

I think the Member may have underestimated how serious it is for businesses in Singapore to have their work pass privileges curtailed. It means that whoever it is that they have in their workforce, they are not going to be able to supplement with a work permit holder or S Pass or EP holder as they had previously. Not so many businesses are able to operate with a 100% local employment workforce. So, this kind of a penalty is actually much more painful than if we were to say, introduce a fine.

I should also take this opportunity to address the Member's question about how we secure better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups.

It has been mentioned several times in this House that other countries have anti-discrimination law, but the proof of the pudding is whether as a result of those anti-discrimination laws, they have better employment outcomes than us. Are we more interested in the form or are we more interested in the substance? And I think Members of this House have consistently been more interested in the substance.

And the substance is this. You compare ourselves to a country like the UK. They have age discrimination law. But if you look at their senior employment rate and compare it to Singapore, we are above. Actually, we are above quite a few countries in terms of our senior employment rate. And these countries may well have anti-discrimination law. Gender discrimination – look at women's participation in the labour force in Singapore. It is not as high as we would like it to be but it is far higher than in some jurisdictions that claim to have gender discrimination law.

So, look at the substance of it, I think the results are encouraging. We are not giving up trying to push the agenda more. We are concerned about it during this time whether the women, whether the seniors, they will be well taken care of. But the answer to this cannot be, "let us come to Parliament, let us debate a law, pass another law" and expect that it will be done. I think that is not a very realistic approach.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask a clarification from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. He made the point about EPs and S Passes, and the numbers not tallying. If I could ask a clarification, what is his recommendation and what is his proposal in terms of the approach or the numbers that we should take?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank the Member. If I may clarify, Mr Speaker, I was not suggesting that the numbers were incorrect. So, I should be clear. What I was suggesting is that, when we think about decreasing the rate of EP and S Pass holders, and we simply think about applying it as a blunt instrument, by saying that just because reducing it is sufficient, that itself is misleading. I think this was something that Minister Teo clarified – that ultimately we do not want to look for a single number in which we can reduce EP or S Pass holders. What we want ultimately is the ability to think more flexibly about how we approach PMET issues and displacement, potential displacement by the foreign workforce.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: I do not think that that was what was being said by many of us in this House. In fact, in my speech yesterday, that was precisely the point and together with many of our colleagues, that was precisely the point that we made. It is not the only thing that needs to be watched and that it has to be done in a balance. In making that statement, I think you were the only one that was making that statement. And therefore, that is why I was asking, what is your approach then?

Are you suggesting that we stop the number of EPs or S Passes completely? What would the implications of that be and what would that mean for companies? Not just foreign companies, foreigners coming in, but what would it mean for Singaporean jobs as well? Because some of these jobs need to be complemented by some foreign workers as well, or foreign talent. So, what is your suggestion?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, if I may clarify once again, I was not saying that this was anything that I attributed to the rest of the Members of the House. But during Minister Teo's speech, she had explicitly said, that at the lower end one instrument that they were using was through the restrictions of quotas, quotas of EPs and S Passes. So, I wanted to clarify that, that alone was is a very blunt instrument and is insufficient.

And more importantly, I also wanted to clarify that the numbers themselves are misleading. Just as Minister Teo said, the numbers were reduced to almost zero this year. Of course, we all know that the reason why they were reduced to almost zero was because unemployment rates shot up. So, it is unsurprising, of course, that the number of EP and S Pass holders fell dramatically. So, we should not be looking at pure numbers in order to make our conclusions about whether PMETs are being displaced or not.

Mr Speaker: The more important question is can we have our tea break? Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.34 pm until 4.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

(Second allotted day)

Debate resumed.

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been a few months since the COVID-19 virus turned our world upside down. So much has changed and the way ahead is full of uincertainties. The slew of assistance measures by the Government have blunted the full force of this health, economic and social crisis. However, the storm is not over yet but signs of fatigue may be gradually setting in or have already set in. I hope that we can all remain vigilant and push back against the weariness and complacency. The invisible enemy does not rest. At the same time, let us harness our inner reserves of strength and courage for the transformation we need to survive and thrive in the aftermath.

The biggest worry most Singaporeans have now is jobs. I am heartened by the efforts of the various Government agencies and volunteers to reach out to jobseekers. In addition to those fresh out of school and tertiary institutions, there are many middle aged career jobseekers, who have the dual responsibilities of providing for elderly family members and young children. Mid-career applicants may have to consider new roles, even in different sectors. They may have to go for training and learn new skills. It can be a challenging and intimidating process, especially if the required skill sets are very different.

The Ministry has deployed career coaches to advise and guide them. We need more of these certified career coaches to support and journey with them, with more hand-holding if necessary, to encourage them to take the big leap into the unknown. From deciding which sectors to explore to drafting resumes – having a trained and well-informed counselor by your side can really make the difference between failure and success.

We need to recruit and train more career coaches because they are needed not only during this crisis but also in the future, as job cycles become shorter, even as people live longer and work well into their 60s or 70s. For Singapore to remain competitive and relevant in the world market, we have to support Singaporeans as they may have to change jobs every decade in the new, fast-evolving economic environment.

Our countrymen should never be alone in their search for work and opportunities, regardless of economic cycles. The Government should always have their back, while working in close partnership with employers and investors for a win-win outcome.

For the last few years, as a nation, we have been working to strengthen the Singaporean Core in our workforce, in every sector and at every level. It is not only to protect Singaporean’s labour rights and privileges but also to ensure that our citizens have key competencies and knowledge necessary for national sustainability, independence and security. As this crisis has highlighted, we should strive to be as self-reliant as possible, even in the face of our limited resources.

For certain jobs and sectors, we have not been able to grow our local core because the jobs and sectors are not attractive to Singaporeans and we have to depend heavily on foreigners. Jobs that immediately come to mind are construction workers and sanitation workers. We should intensify our efforts and review how these jobs can be redesigned and done differently, supplemented with technology or incorporate new work processes to make them more attractive.

Second, as a nation, we must be prepared to pay more for services or goods made by fellow citizens, so that they will receive better wages, as the President has pointed out in her Address.

The Progressive Wage Model or PWM has lifted wages for workers in limited sectors. We should escalate the implementation of PWM for more jobs and in addition, raise their wage levels.

We should continue to professionalise the training, upgrading, licensing and organisation of our local workmen and tradesmen. They are an important part of our local economy and they provide essential services to our population. We should provide options for them to access certification exams in languages that they are comfortable with, or even allow for verbal rather than written assessments, or even practical tests, given the nature of their work.

The same goes for skills upgrading and training, where we should continue to encourage them to learn new skills and go digital, but in a format that is accessible to them. If they can offer additional new services or reach new customers through digital platforms, this will ensure their livelihoods and the survival of their trades.

At the other extreme, there are jobs desired by Singapore Citizens, such as Professional, Managers, Executives and Technicians or PMET positions, but seem to be taken by a significant number of foreigners, giving rise to complaints that our citizens have been discriminated against.

I applaud the efforts to increase the level of government scrutiny to ensure fair hiring practices by both local and foreign firms. Last month, one of my residents, a PMET, shared with me, in tears, that she was retrenched, a plight which she accepted, in view of the economic crisis. However, she later found out that her job was given to a foreigner, who performed all the same tasks that she used to do in her company. We must do more to prevent employers from abusing our system.

Just as it is the Government's responsibility to look out for Singaporeans, it is no surprise that companies focus on their own organisations' priorities, such as profitability or their own national interests if they are foreign entities. In other cases, the hiring biases could be due to the inherent cultures and working environments within the organisations, which may make it more favourable for foreign employees to land jobs and thrive.

I urge MOM to do more to rein in errant employers. It is important to nurture Singaporeans by giving them the opportunities, exposure and experience provided by these coveted jobs.

While I appreciate and support the higher qualifying salaries for Employment Passes, more can be done as I feel the measure is not enough. We need to step up oversight of the hiring processes, the actual hires and the types of roles that are going to locals and foreigners.

We should also fortify our reporting hotlines to make it easier for employees and whistleblowers to make reports and complaints, and provide more resources to our investigative teams. Investigation teams should take every report seriously.

Next, I would like to request that going forward, MOM and MTI adopt a consultative process to work more closely together with employers to find out what difficulties they have faced in hiring the right local citizen talents for the jobs and to work through these issues in a constructive manner. While higher qualifying salaries, penalties and levies can be effective, these are blunt tools that may end up driving up costs for companies.

As the global economy is undergoing extensive transformation due to the COVID-19 crisis and the trade tensions, this is also a good opportunity for us to take a deeper look at how our economy and jobs are transforming, and to make the process a beneficial one for employers and Singaporean employees.

Though it is important for us to remain an open society, we should also keep an eye on the statistics to ensure that we are on track to reach our goal of building a strong Singaporean Core within our desired time frame.

I would also like to appeal for more social assistance, including family counselling, for our sandwiched class, many of whom are middle-aged with young children and elderly parents to support. They are under a lot of stress under these difficult times and may not be aware of our myriad of assistance programmes in place.

For families in crisis, it does not take much to derail them. We need stronger and more holistic social support networks to catch them at the first signs of distress and quickly put a stop to prevent them from sliding further.

In addition to greater publicity and a bigger presence in our heartlands, I hope MOM can work with MSF to be alerted in the event of any job termination. We could proactively send materials to employees and families affected or contact them, checking if they need help to tide them over difficult periods. Knowing that processes are in place to ensure that their children’s and elderly’s basic needs, such as food, housing, healthcare, education and transport, are taken care of will lift a load off their minds, allowing them to focus on the next step – training and trying new jobs. We need more family counsellors during this critical period to share with them how to avail themselves of help and take care of themselves and their families. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Finally, I would like to appeal for more social assistance including family counselling for our sandwiched class, many of whom are middle-aged with young children and elderly parents to support. They are under a lot of stress under these difficult times and may not be aware of our myriad of assistance programmes.

For families in crisis, it does not take much to derail them. We need a stronger and more holistic social support networks to assist them at the first signs of distress and quickly prevent their situation from worsening.

In addition to greater publicity and more satellite career centres in our heartlands, I hope the Ministry of Manpower can work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development to be alerted in the event of any job termination. We could proactively send materials to employees and families affected or contact them, checking if they need help to tide them over difficult periods. Knowing that assistance policies are in place to ensure that their children's and elderly's basic needs, such as food, housing, healthcare, education and transport, are taken care of will lift a load off their minds, allowing them to focus on their next step – training and trying new jobs. We need more family counsellors during this critical period to share with them how to avail themselves of help and take care of themselves and their families.

(In English): Sir, in conclusion, we face a daunting task ahead of us but I have faith that we can overcome this crisis. We are a resilient and determined people who are not afraid to work hard. Let us put our trust in one another and fight this good fight together. We are not alone. Together we stand and we shall emerge from this crisis stronger than before. I conclude with my support for the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address.

Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.

5.09 pm

The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. I join Members before me to address the issue on foreign manpower.

As a member of the Board of the Monetary Authority of Singapore or MAS, I will talk about the issue from the perspective of the financial services sector, the people who work in it and the people who want to work in it.

This is a key sector of the future economy, a very bright spot in a COVID-19 stricken economy. Through agility, hard work and good fortune, we have carved out a place in the borderless and fast changing world of global finance.

The fundamental challenge we have is this: how do we defend and grow this position, against very tough global competition, in a way that provides the best opportunities for Singaporeans?

Let us talk about how we grew into the global financial hub that we are today. It all started in the late 1960s, when we seized the chance to become an international foreign exchange trading centre. It was born from a simple but powerful insight. Due to our time zone, we could seamlessly bridge East and West, to facilitate US dollar transactions after the New York market closed, before London opened. This became the Asian Dollar Market or ADM, which grew into a vibrant activity in Singapore.

The earliest banks to obtain licences to operate in the ADM market were foreign banks, the first being the Bank of America. The early traders were mostly foreigners. But over time, these foreign financial institutions trained a whole pipeline of Singaporean talent.

Wealth management is another important case study. Singapore is now one of the top international wealth management centres today. To get to where we are, we had to overcome our initial lack of knowledge, expertise and networks. So, we attracted a critical mass of global players and international talent to get us started.

UBS was one such player. Today, it employs close to 3,000 employees across its various business lines. Sixty percent are Singaporeans. It has instituted a range of training programmes, including converting our former Command House into the UBS APAC Business University, and one of its objectives is to develop local talent. Last year, it appointed a Singaporean to oversee the bank’s entire business in the Asia Pacific.

So, we have come a long way, from the ADM in late 1960s to a complex eco-system of activities today, from retail and corporate banking to trade finance, investment banking, insurance, wealth management, infrastructure finance, FX and derivatives trading.

What has underpinned this growth? In essence, keep bringing in new activities, keep developing new capabilities. In the build-up phase, inject foreign expertise where necessary – people with track records in the area. But over time, grow our own timber and when Singaporeans gain the expertise, we take on more roles in multi-national teams, here as well as abroad.

Using the same approach, we are now developing FinTech and Green Finance. As a result, the sector continues to create jobs. About 22,000 financial sector jobs were created over the past five years, with 15,000 going to Singaporeans. There are also positive spillovers, contributing to jobs in the legal and accountancy fields, many of which also go to Singaporeans.

This is one of our most promising sectors, especially for the young. We observe this in the way financial institutions and our fresh graduates mutually seek out each other. For example, every year, up to a third of SMU fresh graduates, and that includes this year’s graduates, are hired by the financial services sector. Being a former Minister of Education, I observed the same pattern from NUS' Business Administration faculty. Students from other disciplines such as Accountancy and Engineering also find the financial sector a very attractive destination.

The financial institutions know that our education system prepares our young well for this sector. And then our students know there are bright careers in the sector too.

So, there is no doubt that being a global financial hub has benefited Singapore. I also think that, by and large, Singaporeans are not uncomfortable with this approach. Why then has foreign manpower raised concerns amongst Singaporeans?

We need to take the concerns seriously. So, let us start by examining some of the data, including the details of manpower in different activities and at different levels that MAS has been painstakingly compiling in recent years, and which it has released recently.

At 13% of our economy, the financial services sector employs about 171,000 workers. Based on MAS’ estimates, about 70% of the workforce are Singaporeans, 14% PRs and 16% work pass holders. If we zoom in on the more senior roles, Singaporeans account for 44%, PRs 20% and work pass holders 36%. These proportions have remained stable in recent years.

The non-Singaporeans in senior roles have diverse backgrounds. They come from over 50 countries. The largest group comes from Europe, with other significant nationalities across Asia and North America.

When MAS released its figures recently, one concern came up, which was that 44% of senior positions going to Singaporeans could be too low. The worry is that the large number of foreigners in senior positions may then crowd out Singaporeans. This concern is understandable, and I will address it.

The reason for a higher share of foreigners in senior roles is mainly due to the large international component of activities here. Singapore has grown as a global financial centre as more financial institutions set up regional or global functions in Singapore. They have made us the hub for expertise, networking and oversight of operations in other markets.

This is an enviable position. And I think if you ask Singaporeans if this is a good thing for our country, I think most will also say yes. These functions tap on growth outside of Singapore, support the region’s development and in so doing, they bring opportunities and bring jobs here.

Moreover, for financial institutions to site these operations here is a concrete show of confidence for Singapore. It raises the stakes the world has in Singapore, and makes us safer and more secure.

But the staff profile of regional and global activities, like in any leading financial centre, tends to be more internationally diverse. This is especially so for senior roles. As MNCs, financial institutions will fill these ranks with global expertise that they deploy across their offices around the world.

We can see this in the data. As MAS has shared recently, in 2019, for senior roles in retail banks' local functions, Singaporeans accounted for 70%. In the non-retail banks, where there is a higher concentration of regional and global functions, the proportion is lower, at about 40%.

But this does not mean that Singaporeans are getting the short end of the stick, because it is not a zero-sum game. Let me give you two reasons.

First, while the share of Singaporeans in senior roles has remained steady, the absolute number of Singaporeans in these roles has increased. This is because as we grow as a financial centre, the base has expanded significantly. So same share, but of a growing base.

To illustrate, MAS estimates that from 2014 to 2019, the number of senior positions sited in Singapore grew from 3,900 to 5,900. And the absolute number of senior jobs that went to Singaporeans increased correspondingly from 1,700 to 2,600. That is more than a 50% increase in five years, or an additional 900 Singaporeans taking up senior roles, embarking on a new and fulfilling stage in their careers.

The second reason, when these functions come here, Singaporeans gain precious global and regional expertise. This complements overseas assignments and exposure, which are key to preparing Singaporeans to assume senior management roles in global firms.

There are promising signs that more locals are taking up roles with international exposure. We spoke about the Bank of America being one of our earliest licensees for the ADM earlier. Today, the bank’s electronic FX business in Asia Pacific is headed by a Singaporean, who is now based in Hong Kong after having previously worked for them in Singapore and in London. Or take Standard Chartered. It currently has 140 Singaporeans working overseas, in key markets like Indonesia, China and the US, and as far afield as Nigeria.

There are many more Singaporeans working overseas in the financial sector. MAS and EDB are in touch with about 2,000 such overseas Singaporeans. About 120 of them are C-suite executives, Singaporeans working overseas; another 750 hold Director/Vice President positions or higher. Compared to the good old days, the financial services sector has grown to become a global hub. There are many more opportunities. There is competition but Singaporeans are seizing the opportunities, and taking up these important positions.

Still, there is more that we can do to create opportunities for Singaporeans. MAS is working with the industry to groom Singaporeans to be leaders and specialists in financial services. One such scheme is the Finance Associate Management Scheme or FAMS, which supports financial institutions to hire and groom Singaporeans through structured talent development programmes. Another is the International Postings or iPost scheme, which incentivises financial institutions to send Singaporeans for international exposure.

A further concern that I have heard, is that amongst some firms there may be an unconscious bias amongst business heads towards hiring people from their own nationality and they do not give Singaporeans a fair shot.

We know that it is within the cultural DNA of most international financial institutions to cherish diversity, and this is a value Singapore strongly believes in because of our multi-culturalism and openness.

So, let me also be very clear – there is no place for unfair hiring practices for the financial services sector. MAS holds our financial institutions to high standards and will not condone firms that fall short of fair hiring practices.

We are aware that there are financial institutions that are on MOM’s Fair Consideration Framework Watchlist. MAS has been engaging these firms actively to understand the reasons for this. Where their HR practices are found wanting, we will make sure improvements are made.

Another concern is the high concentration of one nationality in the technology departments of financial institutions. It happened because the adoption of technology is a worldwide phenomenon. There is an explosion of demand for technology professionals and we are unable to fill all the posts domestically.

We are furiously growing our local talent pipeline in this area, through mid-career skills upgrading and expanding computer science places rapidly in our Universities. But this is not likely to meet the demand, and foreign manpower is still needed.

So, the concern will remain and we will need to address it. After all, over-reliance on a single source leaves us more susceptible to unexpected disruptions. We saw this as borders began to shut amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. MAS has been stepping up engagements with the top leadership of key financial institutions on the need to maintain robust HR practices that are merit-based and support workplace diversity.

Another possible approach is to encourage the offshoring of certain business functions that are lower in value-add, and which employ a disproportionate share of foreign manpower.

But any such measures must be approached with a lot of caution, because it may not be straightforward to dissect a business into high value-add and low value-add, and then outsource the latter. There are often linkages across different functions.

So, foreigner-heavy technology functions may move offshore together with some good quality jobs in Singapore for locals. We have to look at this very carefully and not rush to chop off businesses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude with a question: where does the financial services sector go from here? I think the discourse can go either way.

Today, the world is globalised and digital with its attendant benefits and problems. The apprehensions are real, but are also shaped by the social media. So, in times of economic difficulties and job insecurity, nativism, and the "us-versus-them" perspective may take hold. We have seen how toxic the discussion can become in other countries and how it can change the course of history.

This is not a discourse Singaporeans deserve, nor do I think this is what Singaporeans want. The more widely held view, I think, understands the international character of our financial centre, but wants to see Singaporeans do better, with greater assurance of fair hiring practices that put us on a level playing field and these are valid concerns.

The fact is – small and young as we are, we are emerging as one of the nerve centres in the global financial system, sharing a stage with places like New York, London and Hong Kong, and with the largest chunk of jobs going to Singaporeans. But the competition is relentless and our competitors are hungry. We cannot take this position for granted.

So, this is not about growth at all costs, or accepting "trade-offs" for the sake of growth, but about whether as a people we can strengthen our place in the financial world, hold our own, develop the expertise, seize the opportunities, to make Singaporean lives better.

We have forged a very close partnership with our financial institutions over the years. We could not have come so far without them. They are here because our location, our rule of law, our stability as a country, our inclusivity, our openness, the ethos and talent of our people, make us a great place for them to put their business here. In turn, we work with them to catalyse new areas of growth and create new opportunities for Singaporeans.

We must continue to work in concert, to further strengthen this partnership, grow this international financial centre in Asia, invest in and grow our Singaporean talents, and make lives better through the generations. [Applause.]

5.28 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to make my maiden speech as a Parliamentarian. I am honoured to be here today and I am humbled to be allowed to serve my country and my community in these challenging times.

The spread of COVID-19 around the world has affected all of us in one way or another. The economy has also been affected, and the impact will be a lasting one.

Mr Speaker, I would like to speak on three issues: first, acknowledging the social value of essential workers; two, supporting our care-givers and addressing mental health illness issue; and third, uplifting Madrasah education for which I will speak in Malay.

The social value of our essential services workers and being a part of the Labour Movement family in these last few months has opened my eyes further to the plight of our workers, especially those in the essential services. Many of them have bravely stepped up and continued their work as front-liners during this time of crisis.

This pandemic has made us rethink the social value of many jobs that society has not always viewed as important such as cleaners, security officers, waste management workers and building maintenance personnel. The services provided by these workers are necessary and without their hard work, Singapore would have come to a complete standstill.

I am heartened that, as mentioned by Mdm President, this Government will continue to look out for our essential service workers and once this crisis has passed, I hope that we continue to value the work of our essential workers. I urge the tripartite partners to continue to support them and their efforts to continue to upskill and earn a dignified living.

While much has been achieved by the tripartite partners, there are still many workers who stand to benefit from this framework. I am encouraged to hear that Government is keen to expand Progressive Wage Model or PWM into more sectors. NTUC stands ready to ramp up discussions with industry players and I look forward to playing a part in realising the vision for these industries and our workers.

I am also inspired that these workers' needs have also been considered during this pandemic. To complement the PWM, many workers in the essential services have their incomes and retirement funds supplemented by the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme or WIS. In the recent Ministerial Statement by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, the Workfare Special Payment will be extended to include more workers.

While this effort should be applauded, let us not rest on our laurels and continue to work to enhance the WIS Scheme to benefit more workers and their families and strengthen our social security net. I urge Government to consider suggestions such as providing a higher WIS payout to workers in the essential services to acknowledge their social value and to have greater differentiation in the payouts for full-time versus part-time workers.

Sir, while our workers continue to be the backbone of our economy, we must not forget our care-givers at home. Despite their sacrifices and selflessness, I have met residents who struggle to cope and face financial, physical, mental and emotional stresses. Their struggle is further impacted by an inability to find gainful employment to support themselves and their loved ones.

Recently, I had visited a resident in her early 30s who is facing the uphill challenge of being the sole care-giver for her father, while surviving on the salary of her elder brother who is working as a security guard. One can imagine her stress of not able to earn a living, socialise with peers of her age and more importantly, build a family of her own. As a community, we must ask ourselves what more we can do to not only provide her sustainable employment, but also peace of mind when she is at work.

Currently, while there are grants to defray the cost of care-giving, we should also consider households that only consists of a care recipient and the care-giver such as a youth who may be schooling looking after an elder. Difficult questions such as would additional counselling be conferred to youths who are juggling their academic and care-giving responsibilities, and if there are necessary safeguards put in place to ensure that youth care-givers have adequate access to support networks, need to be asked. We must rally ourselves around these care-givers and I encourage businesses to adopt flexible work arrangements and for our Government to strengthen our current policies around care-givers.

Sir, another important subject that must be addressed is mental health. As a society, it does us no favours to continue to tiptoe around mental health issues as they may have life-altering consequences. Instead, we should consider mental health and physical health as equally important and in tandem with one another.

Part of this change must include more frank conversations on mental health issues, especially when concerning our youth. In a recent study done by the Institute of Mental Health last year, it was revealed that Singaporeans aged between 18 and 34 were more likely to have experienced mental health issues. Silver Ribbon Singapore, an organisation working to dispel myths surrounding mental illness, also observed an increase in youths coming forward to seek help during the COVID-19 outbreak for depression and anxiety. This statistic is alarming, but we must bear in mind that these numbers represent the portion of our youths and they are empowered and are able to seek help.

Many youths may not be comfortable reaching out for help due to social stigma and the fear of being viewed as weak. This is further compounded by families who may not be supportive due to reasons ranging from the impact this will have on securing scholarships and jobs, to the social impact a diagnosis may have on the family.

One way to tackle some of the mental health issues faced by the youth is to equip educators with mental health knowledge so that they can identify warning signs and refer youths-at-risk to counsellors or other resources. We should also seek to create safe spaces for youths, parents, teachers and school counsellors to talk about mental health issues in a safe and supportive way.

I look forward to understanding the concerns and working together with our stakeholders on this issue. It is important that we continue to raise awareness and educate ourselves about mental health for people of all walks of life so that we can build a more resilient and caring society. Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another area of interest that I would like to focus on is the improvement of our madrasahs. Since the introduction of Compulsory Education and the formation of the Joint Madrasah System (JMS), the academic performance of madrasahs has improved significantly. Between 2017 and 2019 alone, the number of PSLE students assessed to be suitable for secondary school rose to 99.6% and the percentage of students with at least three or five 'O' level passes is close to matching the national average.

In addition, with the M3 Framework, madrasah students have also been able to understand the needs and concerns of the community. Much good work has been done by M3@Towns to organise events, conduct house visits and galvanise resources to uplift and aid the community. This opportunity for them to interact with others, share learning experiences and build friendships, will help integrate them further in the community. I hope that more of such initiatives can be adopted.

While the academic standing of madrasahs has improved over the years, there is a need to find a sustainable model to uplift and support madrasahs and their students so that they further develop as educational institutions. Part of the role of our madrasahs is to nurture future asatizah, who will guide the community to practise Islam within Singapore's context of social cohesion, peace and economic progress. Madrasahs will thus need to anticipate the emerging challenges and needs of the community. I look forward to the implementation of the recommended ideas put forth by Committee on Future Asatizah or COFA.

Achieving this vision, however, will require effort from many different stakeholders. Given the finite community resources, we must explore how else madrasahs can be better supported to ensure that the community's vision of future asatizah is achieved.

While this is a difficult undertaking, I am looking forward to working with government agencies and stakeholders to continue to provide the madrasahs with better resources and training opportunities so that the students can receive a more enriching learning experience. As the Malay proverb goes, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well.

(In English): In conclusion, Sir. As a country, we have just celebrated a very different National Day in a very challenging time. But what continues to hold true is our aspiration of a more inclusive, resilient and caring society.

Today, I spoke on three issues, first acknowledging the social value of our essential workers through better wages, welfare and recognition; second, supporting the care-givers and addressing mental health issues especially for our youths; and thirdly, uplifting the Madrasah education towards achievement of national goals such as social cohesion and economic progress.

While some of these are tangible changes like better wages and welfare of our workers and a more sustainable model to uplift our Madrasahs, more importantly we strive to make intangible improvements like a better social safety net and the destigmatising of mental health issues. I will strive to work on these issues and more with the support of my colleagues so that together we can emerge from this crisis with a brighter future and a better Singapore. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

5.42 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, after a year of weak economic growth in 2019, a devastating pandemic starting in January, a global economic crisis not seen since the Second World War, four COVID-19 Budgets and a General Election, here we are – the Parliament that has to see off the crisis and deal with the post-COVID world, the Parliament that has to rise up to the next geopolitical and economic order, the next arena of national economic competitiveness, the next challenge of social solidarity, the next chapter in our history.

This Parliament and one united people must and will rise to the challenge that will define our generation. We are all of one mind that the crisis should be a pivot towards emerging stronger. What should we pivot towards?

I wonder, Mr Speaker, Sir, the example of the Titanic in 1912 can serve as a useful metaphor here. The Titanic was the engineering marvel of its time the product of all the best that capitalism and technology had to offer. It was deemed unsinkable and yet it struck an iceberg and sank, killing over 1,500 people. The disaster occasioned major reform of international maritime methods. The link between what went wrong and the lessons that were drawn is interesting. If you will, let us use the Titanic as a metaphor in considering Singapore's condition

One sobering fact about the Titanic was that it did not carry enough functioning lifeboats for everyone on board, leading to a change in norms after the disaster. The civil servant who inspected the Titanic and recommended more lifeboats later revealed that he felt his job would be threatened if he did not give the ship the go-ahead to sail.

Sir, Singapore social safety nets are our lifeboats. Insufficient lifeboats will undermine the confidence and peace of mind of Singaporeans, not to mention desirable risk-taking and entrepreneurial behaviour. Many of us in this house would have been inundated by appeals from Singaporeans whose SIRS' applications have been turned down. Had we instituted a redundancy insurance scheme much earlier and given it time to build up funds, that would have acted as an automatic stabiliser kicking in during a crisis without Government discretion and reducing the need for executive disbursement surveyed.

Some commentators have asked if now is the right time to introduce such a scheme, but that is precisely the point, should have been done earlier. And even now when we debate such issues, those debates should be guided by what we should do to meet the next crisis.

Some would say that our system of social safety nets contains some sand in the system. Appealing for help when in distress for example, through schemes like SIRS, ComCare, MediFund and even a reduction in HDB resale levy when downgrading, involves multiple steps. One often needs to come down physically to a meeting, bringing multiple forms of the applicant may, or may not have – though to be fair, exceptions will be made for those with disabilities as clarified in an exchange I had in this House last term.

Sometimes, the officers processing the claim will ask to interview relatives to ascertain if the applicant receives family support. This is a process that can be excruciatingly embarrassing to the applicant to the point where I know of people who withdrew their applications for that reason. These processes also consume the time and resources of social workers and public servants.

Is there a better lens through which to think about such issues? Can we focus not only on social justice, which is paramount, but also pragmatism, a value much lauded in Singapore.

Some applicants need help from society. But by helping them, society may actually benefit in the longer term. If they fail to get that help, they may, for example, not obtain timely medical interventions, which may lead to a worsening medical condition and more state and social cost downstream if they need a more costly medical intervention. For example, many such cases may raise MediShield premiums or the fiscal burden of state hospital subsidies, or the applicant may cut expenses for their children for meals and miscellaneous school-related costs, which could hurt their children’s prospects later in life, curtailing the future talent pool and tax base for our economy.

When there are applications for financial aid, could we, for instance, ask applicants to make declarations that they do not receive family support, bearing the risk of penalties for false declarations? Could we ask applicants to provide permission to the agency to access financial or other records on a need-to-know basis, rather than requiring them to bring physical copies to a physical meeting? Could we handle more interviews remotely using now ubiquitous videocall technology?

Next, Sir, I turn to the economy, and in doing so, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy.

Coming back to the Titanic metaphor. The designers of the Titanic engineered it to be unsinkable, thanks to the latest fail-safes, and yet it failed. The dominant narrative holds that our economy has also been brilliantly engineered and painstakingly maintained through sound policy, but the post-COVID landscape is changing, with many of the deeper trends having been accelerated, but not fundamentally caused by the COVID crisis.

It is a commonplace to say that economic nationalism is on the rise. There is globalisation in global trade growth. National governments are doing more to root economic activities like manufacturing and food production domestically. In time, foreign direct investment, or FDI, may be harder to win; but there are also more subtle changes taking place.

Countries and companies are becoming more conscious of food safety, sustainability and unfair labour, trade and tax practices. The UN’s sustainable development goals, or SDGs, are a widely recognised attempt to address such concerns. National governments as well as multinational companies, or MNCs, will come under increasing pressure to address such things.

The COVID crisis has crystallised a few key questions about our economic strategies. While unemployment and underemployment affect many Singaporeans, many foreign, special, and employment pass holders continue to hold jobs that many Singaporeans would see as desirable.

To be sure, Singaporeans as a whole has never rejected a role for foreigners in the workforce throughout our history, and I certainly do not. Talent from abroad can augment our economic prospects. There are some jobs that Singaporeans are not attracted to – based on current job design. But have we thought hard enough about why not enough Singaporeans have the requisite skills for some of these desirable jobs? Why Singaporeans who faced skill obsolescence and so-called sunset-industry jobs are not re-skilling fast enough to sunrise sectors?

Many local SMEs have struggled to weather the storm. After years of schemes to support SMEs and start-ups. Do we have enough regionally and globally competitive companies to anchor this local pillar even as the external pillar becomes more challenging.

Sir, I would like to share a few suggestions about these economic challenges.

Firstly, as a policy making principle, we should relook at existing incentive schemes to slightly enhance incentives to our companies to hire workers specifically from industries that are likely to face obsolescence in the next decade to bring these workers into new and more future-ready industries, including Industry 4.0 sectors.

There are several industries that are facing structural disruption. Many jobs in delivery and driving will be replaced by autonomous vehicles and drones in the decades to come. For example, the same can be said for jobs that involve pure coordination and narrow clerical functions which may be overtaken by AI-driven bots.

For example, we could look at programmes like Scale-up Singapore, a programme to scale up promising local start-ups and incentivise them to hire locals specifically from such so-called sunset sectors and give them opportunities in fast-growing companies and industries. I am sure many of these workers would value the opportunity to prove themselves in such an environment.

Secondly, we ought to take a serious look at the entire sector of workers on work permits and set long-term targets to substantially reduce, not eliminate, but reduce, our dependence on such foreign workers.

With sufficient time for local firms to adapt and with strong support given to local companies to retool and invest to make that transition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, lest anyone misunderstands my words here, I am certainly not advocating a sudden and radical reduction in the foreign worker population before local firms and other stakeholders have the opportunity to adapt.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our foreign workers. But having such a large population of foreign workers raises questions about longer term sustainability. As my colleague Ms He Ting Ru said in one of our panel discussions, the countries exporting foreign workers today may not remain poor forever. There may come a day when they do not want to come to Singapore to do such jobs or, at least, not at current rates of pay. What will we do then?

Low cost today may not mean low-cost tomorrow. As my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, and ex-Non-constituency Member of Parliament Mr Yee Jenn Jong, spoke about on the same panel, there is scope to redesign some of these jobs in the construction sector, for example, for locals at higher rates of pay and higher levels of productivity to minimise the impact on costs. For decades, this has not been done.

Thirdly, there are many foreigners who occupy senior corporate positions. Some employers anecdotally comment that it is not easy to find enough Singaporeans who have the higher-order skills to lead large teams at the local, regional or global levels. Skills like resilience, strong communication abilities, finding unconventional solutions to novel problems, and so on.

Sir, in saying this I do not, for one minute, mean to say that this kind of feedback, when we hear it, is necessarily accurate. There are some employers who engage in discriminatory practises against Singaporeans. That is deplorable and needs to be address. Indeed I and other Workers’ Party Members of Parliament have often spoken about this.

There are many Singaporeans who have been incredibly successful as business leaders in MNCs and local firms. But can the Government consider engaging with employers to understand this kind of feedback where it exists? Assess if there is any basis to it and circle back, as it were, to our curriculum development in our school system to understand why locals with these skills are not being produced in sufficient numbers, if this is indeed the case.

Fourthly, Sir, I would suggest that in the uncertain world that faces us, domestic entrepreneurship and innovation are going to be more important in driving growth, vis-à-vis FDI attraction. Are we doing as well as we could on entrepreneurship? How do we fare in global indices of entrepreneurial performance? In the global entrepreneurship monitors, Entrepreneurial Eco-system Quality Composite Index, for example, Singapore is simply not featured as a participating country. Do we have enough entrepreneurs, including, and especially, women entrepreneurs, who can start up and scale up? If not, why not? This is a subject that warrants serious study. If there are impediments to entrepreneurship as regards access to financing, for example, an unlevel playing field due to gaps in competition policy, for example, or any other such issues, these should be identified and addressed.

And lastly, Sir, on the economy. Many developed country governments and MNCs are facing pressures to ensure traceability in their supply chains in respect of sustainability, fair labour and trade practices, food safety and so on – concerns given expression in the UN's SDGs.

Being ahead of the curve of these attributes can be a competitive advantage for Singapore firms. Our economic agencies should consider deploying relevant tools to incentivise and nudge our local firms to develop tangible programmes that ensure traceability of supply chains and sound practices in these respects. This will enable them to more competitively export to developed economies in North America, Europe, Japan and elsewhere. Over time, this can be expected to become a bigger advantage.

Our companies could also be supported in their efforts to help their local suppliers and partners adopt such practices in ASEAN countries like Indonesia and Vietnam that will help ensure that Singapore FDI in ASEAN is welcome, and may even bolster our public diplomacy efforts, and the Singapore National brand in our ASEAN neighbourhood.

Sir, before leaving the subject of our economy, let me touch on the need for good intelligence to support economic planning.

On the Titanic, the lookouts had no binoculars, and the wireless operator dismissed the key iceberg warning.

So, we collect unemployment data using the labour force survey every month and publish data every quarter. In times of crisis, more frequent data on how many people are losing their jobs would help inform decision-making and public debate. We should make retrenchment data reporting mandatory even for micro-SMEs employing less than 10 persons.

With the data published every fortnight, during crises like the current one, this would provide a more comprehensive, sensitive and useful data set in times of crises, compared with current unemployment reporting or even the job situation report published on 11 August.

Sir, finally I would like to speak on our social balance of solidarity as a nation.

Going back to the Titanic metaphor, despite the strict women-and-children-first policy, a greater proportion of men in first-class survived than of children in third-class.

The COVID crisis is testing our fault lines of class. The gap will widen between those with plenty of future-ready skills, financial and social capital, versus those that have less.

How do we deal with this as a nation?

As our social fabric becomes increasingly tested by these powerful forces, we must ensure that our social contract, our political institutions, culture and norms will not crack under the pressure. COVID has illustrated how, in this new era, Singapore needs to build an overarching political social and economic eco-system that is not fragile. The writer, Nassim Taleb, who has studied this issue, writes and I quote, “It is far easier to figure out if something is fragile than to predict the occurrence of an event that may harm it.” And in a separate quote, “The classic example of something antifragile is Hydra, the Greek mythological creature that has numerous heads. When one is cut off, two grow back in its place”.

That means the systems do not over concentrate power, thought leadership, social capital and initiative in one organisation, grouping or class, unless fragile. And in the new world that is dawn in Black Swan events, may be effectively unpredictable, and antifragility may become more important than efficiency.

Singapore is characterised by a strong and well-resourced state, but a less strong civil society in a political landscape that is less plural than in almost all other developed countries. A stronger civil society with a louder voice may bring that element of diversity in debate that can enhance resilience, rather than over depending on a strong state apparatus that is dominated by one political party. There is, Sir, a pragmatic case for pluralism, not only a philosophic one.

Many Singaporeans have asked if the explosion of COVID-19 cases would have happened if we had heeded the warnings of civil society groups about our current system of housing foreign workers. Some groups had repeatedly warned of the risk of outbreaks of infectious diseases in these dormitories. Do we have a sufficiently strong civil society, meaning independent not-for-profit organisations, or NPOs, media academia and so on.

In a speech in 1967 on how the intelligence here can make the contribution to society, Dr Goh Keng Swee attacked what he called a curious view that the Singapore Government’s disapproved or dissenting opinions. I quote from an intellectual biography of Dr Goh by Ooi Kee Beng which describes Dr Goh’s speech as saying that the marginality of open debate in Singapore was serious and had to stop. What was valuable was open debate unencumbered by timidity and carried out by intellectuals who linked abstract principles with experience of ground reality.

How do we address these impulses? I will share a few ideas.

We can do more to nudge and incentivise wealthy Singaporeans to set up philanthropic foundations that not only provide charity but engage in research on policy issues to provide alternative perspectives and ideas. We do have some. For example, I cite the Lien’s Foundation’s paper on pre-school education in 2012, which was impactful, but we need more.

Next, we should address the perception that NPOs who receive state funding, to some degree, risk that funding if they publish research or ideas that contradict Government policy or are seen to criticise Government policy to some degree. Anecdotally, that perception still exists.

Actions like the Government's removal of a grant from cartoonist Sonny Liew’s award-winning comic book due to its interpretation of Singapore history do not help matters.

Next, we can be more aggressive in providing matching grants to NPOs that aim to address issues of public policy with a proven track record of making good contributions to public debate. We must do more to reboot our notion of meritocracy as the President alluded to in her Address. To celebrate unorthodox pathways to success, redefining what success is. To be honest, this is not an easy undertaking and requires the whole-of-society effort.

One suggestion I have would be to identify those who have succeeded in some way, making an impact in life by pursuing unconventional pathways and accord them the status of ambassadors of the unconventional as it were or some such term. These individuals could be engaged to speak to students in IHLs, to TACs in the professional groups.

To promote unorthodox pathways, we also need to uncage unorthodox thinking. Here again, I would like to return to the education system. All of those who are parents are familiar with Primary school examination questions where extra points are awarded for expressing the right answer in the right way, rather than the right answer in an unconventional way.

Can we not rethink practices like this? Habits and mental models ingraining from an early age tend to stick. We must not educate our students to always be aiming to second-guess what the right answer is and provide that answer in a formulae fashion. That can easily translate into a future workplace attitude of second-guessing what the boss wants rather than figuring out the best solution for the customer of the company or the company to achieve the end goal.

In the world they will grow up in, there will be no one right answer but rather different answers, approaches and strategies that could all be equally consistent with the facts.

In conclusion, Sir, in the real life story of the Titanic, unlike in the movie, there were heroes but no real villains. Rather, the villain was a system that was as adaptable to every conceivable circumstance as the hubris of the designers led them to believe. It is up to us to do better from this crisis to equip our successes for the next.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

6.03 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to seek a clarification from Mr Leon Perera. He seems to suggest that it is because we do not have redundancy policies in place and hence our self-employed persons could not be adequately supported during this crisis. This suggestion seems to be premised upon that self-employed persons are necessarily self-employed due to redundancy and not by choice. It seems rather sweeping to me. Does Mr Leon Perera have anything to substantiate or to ascertain that people necessarily become self-employed chiefly due to redundancy and not by choice?

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Member Ms Carrie Tan for her clarification. I said in my speech that self-employed persons who are receiving various forms of aid like SIRS have to go through multiple steps and there are different ways of thinking about the process that they have to follow to pursue those steps and to obtain the aid that they need. I spoke about this. I did not say that self-employed people are self-employed because they are made redundant or that self-employed people are somehow not worthy of help.

So, I think perhaps also the Member may be alluding to my reference to redundancy insurance. My reference to the redundancy Insurance scheme, which we have proposed in the last term of Parliament in this House is not specifically about self-employed persons. It is about people who become involuntarily unemployed. I just hope that that serves as some clarification for the Member.

Mr Speaker: Minister Teo.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask Mr Leon Perera, in all humility, whether he is aware of any other country that has introduced a scheme, not like SIRS, but perhaps something else that has delivered as quick support to self-employed persons that we could learn from, that we can do better. Just to remind the Members of the House, all in all, SIRS has helped about 180,000 self-employed persons in the last couple of months. Perhaps he could share with us so that we can learn.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Minister for her clarification. I think she asked about specifically about the SIRS scheme. I am aware that it has provided help to a large number of people who are in need of help, who are self-employed. I will say in all candour that I am not aware specifically of any country that has a similar scheme. But having said that, I have not specifically researched into that issue.

The point that I made in my speech was really about the process of application for SIRS and in fact, for other forms of aid and how we could improve on that process. For example, by applicants being able to make a declaration that they are not receiving family support rather than having members of their family interviewed for the degree to which they support them. So, that was one aspect of the speech that I made.

But I think the point is well taken that in times like this, in times of crisis, forms of aid had been delivered by the Government to persons in need including those self-employed. And we have seen forms of aid being delivered by governments in other countries as well. There are eight packages that are certain percentage of GDP.

The point that I made in my speech was not to take away or detract from the value of SIRS that has helped a number of applicants but really how that process could be improved. I should state since the Minister raised this point that perhaps one other area of improvement that I did not allude to, would be when cases are turned down, if there could be more specificity about the reason why they are being turned down, that may actually be helpful to make the appeal process or the follow-up process a little bit more efficient.

Mr Speaker: Minister Teo.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I accept Mr Perera's point about improvements in the application process but I also want to speak in defence of the NTUC. When COVID-19 hit us in the most unexpected ways, we had to think of a way to help self-employed persons. They are, by their very nature, not captured easily by our systems. So, how to reach them, how to deliver the help to them in a very timely manner, that is not an easy question to answer.

Nonetheless, we designed a system that eventually delivered help automatically to 100,000 people. To do that, over the course of a couple of weeks is actually a very challenging thing to do. We started with a certain budget. In the end, NTUC put up their hands and said, "Look, this criteria is very useful. However, we believe that there is still another group that will not be captured. Therefore, we stick our necks out. We will put ourselves in a position of taking in applications or appeals." I do not know of any other organisation that stepped up to try and do this.

Having done so, we accept. The system did take a while to try and ramp up. I should say that NTUC was doing this under very, very difficult constraints. We were just about to enter into the circuit breaker period, it was very difficult to get people to come on board and set up the system, get it properly tested and ensure that it was able to respond to the volume of appeals. But NTUC, to its credit, accepted that if there were appeals, it must mean that there is a need. Therefore, they soldiered on and put a lot more manpower, which they did not really have the budget for.

Having done all this, I think, as a result, an additional 80,000 people eventually got their SIRS payouts. So, from MOM's perspective, on behalf of the Government, all I can say to NTUC is a huge "Thank You". [Applause.]

Had we not had a symbiotic partner like the NTUC that was prepared to stick its neck out, even though it knew that its capabilities in this area had been untested, even though it knew that as a result of that, they could get a lot of flak. But thinking on behalf of the self-employed persons who might need it, they did it anyway. I think that has got to be the spirit and I think acknowledging all the areas of improvements, that is well and good. We would want to do in the next time. But let us not forget what the NTUC stood up to do. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Minister for that explanation. And I think that the NTUC has certainly processed many cases and attempted to do well in very trying circumstances. I just have one point of clarification.

The Minister spoke about how NTUC raised its hand. The Minister, if I heard her correctly, also alluded to how NTUC perhaps did not have the the resourcing necessary to take on this task. So, my question would really be: could the Minister shed some light on the Government's thinking why the administration of SIRS was given to NTUC rather than to a Ministry or a Statutory Board?

One imagines that an organisation like the NTUC, being a collective, a union, has less experience and less resources when administering a national level policy likes SIRS, as compared to Ministries and Statutory Boards. I just like to ask for a little bit more clarity on the thinking behind that decision.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, it is not unusual for the Government to have partners. In the case of the SGUnited Traineeships Programme, the Singapore Business Federation put its hand up and say that, "We would like to be a part of it." And we saw that they had some capabilities that they could deliver this programme and so we partner with them.

On different occasions, we have different partners. This is really not such a mystery. We have partnered the NTUC for other schemes before. We had partnered the Singapore National Employers Federation for other schemes before. And so, when the opportunity presented itself, other organisations besides the Government wanting to deliver help to Singaporeans, we do not stop them. In fact, we welcome it.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.

6.14 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. Before I begin, on behalf of the NTUC, I want to thank Minister Josephine Teo for her acknowledgement of our partnership and of our symbiotic relationship. We will never shy away from stepping up at a time of need to look after workers, to look after everybody who have to earn a living, to work with the Government, to work with our symbiotic partner, to do the right thing.

We believe in action, we believe in learning. We will do our best and we will do better. And it is always hard when you are doing things, something that was not pre-existing; and you would learn. But we are committed to that and our actions and our results speak for themselves in that they have touched lives. And in that, we take comfort. [Applause.]

Sir, as the President has highlighted, jobs will continue to be the top priority for the next few years. Singapore depends greatly on trade and global demand for manufacturing, logistics and financial services. A big chunk of employment is also dependent on tourism and air travel, as these directly and indirectly create jobs for the air hub and related services, tourism services, local transportation, hotels, retail, F&B and so on.

The economic and social disruptions brought about by COVID-19 and by geopolitical and trade tensions have upended lives and livelihoods throughout the world.

The unprecedented four Government Budgets in the first half of this year, totalling close to $100 billion, helped blunt the worst effects. They helped to save jobs and reduce retrenchments even when most companies and industries have little or, in some cases, no revenue.

The world today continues to be shrouded in COVID-19 infections. There is also a rising number of countries facing new resurgence of COVID-19 infection, forcing them to re-tighten on the painful restrictions.

So, when everybody freezes up, that has an impact on a trading nation, on a logistics and air hub. It means that our economy will continue to be squeezed which then means that jobs will be lost and the labour market will see jobseekers chase after vacancies, instead of the one that we are a lot more familiar with for years which was jobs chasing after workers.

In this scenario, which may persist for quite some time, I want today to speak up for a segment of the workforce who will then face an increased risk of job loss.

Sir, amidst all these wrenching changes, one might think that there are no constants anymore – everything is flux. But there are, and one of them is ageing. It happens – that is, ageing happens – regardless of whether there are geopolitical or trade tensions. It even goes undeterred by COVID-19.

Sir, I have spoken in this House many times before on the need for our country to prepare well and in advance of the needs of an aging population and ageing workers. Previously, overall conditions were more benign. The economy was growing and there was a chronic shortage of workers in most sectors. Coupled with low population fertility, both the need and the benefit of enabling older workers to continue contributing is obvious – obvious to the older workers themselves, obvious to their companies and to the country. Also, with the economy continuing to grow, companies and workers had the time to adjust.

Sir, I am afraid that this time the situation is different. In the months ahead, we will see more companies shedding workers through downsizing or even closure because demand and revenue conditions will not return to normal for many industries, while cost and cash pressures will continue to bear down on businesses.

Given this, the most critical outcome for Singaporeans is indeed jobs, jobs, jobs.

The question is: whose jobs will go, and who will get the chance to be hired for the new jobs?

Many in this House have spoken already of the need and the means to protect and safeguard the Singapore Core. I support these efforts to secure our Singapore Core. I also strongly believe that we must clearly signal that job displacement and job hiring must not become areas for discriminating against older workers as a category.

Senior Minister Tharman, in an interview dated 17 June this year, said and I quote, "This is, and must be, a national effort. And it needs new thinking among employers, to give middle-aged and mature Singaporean workers a fair chance to prove themselves." He said, "Employers need to reorient their management philosophies and their human resources and talent management practices."

"No Singaporean who is willing to learn should be 'too old' to hire. And no one who is willing to adapt should be viewed as 'overqualified'", he said.

Sir, if ageism rears its head and age discrimination results in age-based retrenchment, and becomes the easy way for employers and HR practitioners within companies to cut jobs to save costs and then to systematically deny rehiring opportunity, then much of what we have all laboured for so many years to build, including our hard-won increases in employment rates amongst older cohorts of workers and the raising of the statutory retirement and re-employment ages, all these accomplishments can very easily be eroded away. Therefore, i just want to call attention to this – do not take this lightly. I know the situation is difficult, I know everybody says that they are the most important, "Look after me" but do not take this as the easy way out. These two deserve due consideration and serious consideration too. On this I want to thank Second Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng yesterday for speaking out also for fairness for older workers and also Minister Josephine Teo earlier.

Furthermore, older displaced workers will have a harder time finding new work even in a buoyant economy and often face a significant drop in wages when they do find new jobs. If a displaced older worker remains unemployed for a longer period, then that unemployment may turn sticky or become structural. There will then be a knock-on effect on retirement adequacy and that will in turn impose a heavier call on community, family and state financial resources, not to imagine what it does to the morale of the people.

I say all these not to pretend that all older workers are somehow better at work than younger ones. I am not saying that. I am saying this in order to help forestall a resort to a quick fix by stereotyping older workers as a category and then making hiring decisions unfairly on that kind of a basis and denying them a fair go. That is the one that I am warning against and let us pay attention to it. The risk of this happening goes up in a recession and we hear on the ground anecdotes of such thinking and such behaviour. We must therefore warn against and stand up to it.

Sir, how do we stand up to it?

I propose a five-pronged approach, which I will use the acronym "Heart". H-E-A-R-T.

"H" is for Holding On to Jobs. Of course, this is the most preferred of options. The Government on its part has set aside much funding to help improve the cost effectiveness of employing older workers. In the 2020 Budget, there was indeed a Senior Worker Support package comprising the Senior Employment Credit, the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant and the Part-time Re-employment Grant. The extension of the Jobs Support Scheme will also help to defray payroll cost of older workers, as it do other workers. In the most recent announcement, Deputy Prime Minister Heng allocated an additional $1 billion in the Jobs Growth Incentive aimed at spurring the hiring of workers aged 40 and above.

Why am I rattling off all this? This is to remind employers of all these special fundings for the hiring of older workers and giving a fair chance to older workers, so that they will not neglect these facts when making decisions concerning their older workers to continue their employment and hiring.

At the same time, schemes such as e2i’s Lift and Place programme which keeps workers on payroll while they are on temporarily seconded to other jobs in another industry should be tapped wherever possible to minimise and delay retrenchments.

On the part of older workers, I also want to continue to stress the importance of looking after our health the best we can while at the same time demonstrating a positive work attitude and willingness to adapt and be flexible. This makes it easier for employers to adjust their operations. Such an older worker would also more attractive to an employer compared to another who is not like that.

Next, "E" for Employment Assistance. Despite best efforts by all, some workers will be displaced. When this happens, the most important task is to help the person get back into work as quickly as possible. Prolonged unemployment erodes hiring prospects, especially for older workers.

In this context, the work of the National Jobs Council under Senior Minister Tharman and the NTUC’s Jobs Security Council led by NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng, which leverages the Labour Movement network, and now acts in concert and in support of the National Jobs Council – these are important arrangements. Within the NTUC it is not only the Jobs Security Council but there is also another network which is the Company Training Committees or CTCs.

I just wanted to make reference to this because the hon Member Mr Leon Perera talked about the Titanic. The Titanic once it is made and it sets sail until it comes back into port, that is what you live with. He warned against a Singapore economy that it is like that.

Fortunately, Singapore economy is not like that. That is why we have from the Government side, indeed, industry and tripartite efforts and we came up with the Industry Transformation Maps or ITMs. I recall Deputy Prime Minister Heng also in his speech talked about 2.0. So, in other words, we knew that it is not invent for one time and then just use until it falls apart. This is not the truth of our economy. Our economy is one that is constantly changing. In fact, the very name "Industry Transformation Maps" tells all of us that we know we have to transform. In fact, it is not fast enough and that is our worry; not that we are so fixated with this sophistication of our model that we say we do not need to change. We say we need to change, we have to transform, how to transform. So, in that sense, we are not the Titanic.

For the Jobs Security Council, what does it do? One of the things that it does is instead of doing job matching, jobseeker by jobseeker, it goes in and works with industry partners, participating companies, by industry, to say, "What are your needs? Who is having vacancies, even in today's situation? Who is having impending excess manpower? Let us know and then you say how do you match ahead, retrain and go."

So, this is exactly what Mr Leon Perera was talking about just now. "What is sunset? What is sunrise? Find out early, make the arrangements, help the workers go." So, on this we are agreed that it is important and we are doing it.

The NTUC Jobs Security Council, for example – it was reported in the papers recently – has matched 20,000 jobseekers to new job openings. We will press on to continue to help more.

One critical success factor in job-matching is indeed the availability of jobs. Aside from public and private sector vacancies in existing and growth areas such as health, long-term care, biomedical and logistical fulfilment for online sales, there are also many other initiatives. I recall Minister of State Gan Siow Huang elaborating on all the different initiatives under the SGUnited banner. I have a whole list here, but I will not belabour the point – anything from jobs to traineeships, support for training, satellite centres.

I do urge our National Jobs Council to closely monitor the job matching, switching and retraining efforts and outcomes for older workers, which is my subject matter today, and to make the necessary adjustments, enhancements and interventions in the weeks and months ahead, in order to prevent the build-up of a sticky or permanent precariat of older involuntarily displaced workers.

So, H-E. Now, A. "A" for Act Fairly. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices or TAFEP works closely with MOM to promote and police fairness at work. In the area related to age, it has actively and steadfastly upheld the principles laid down in relevant tripartite guidelines such as those on fair employment practices, re-employment of older employees and non-discriminatory job advertisements when dealing with complaints.

The NTUC has over the years also pushed for protections for older workers and these have been variously incorporated into laws such as when we amended the Industrial Relations Act and the Retirement and when we created the Retirement and Re-employment Act as well as introduced various tripartite advisories, guidelines and standards. We will continue to pay attention to this and to do what is right by our older workers.

We do that in order to reflect the fine balancing of interests between companies and older workers. In a recession, saving jobs is paramount. Flexibilities between the parties can be discussed, will have to be discussed because we are in a serious situation. So, let us not pretend. We have to discuss. But whatever we do, the spirit of how we do it and do it together, and hold together not only now but for the long term, that is important. Those principles are important and we must adhere to that spirit as we discuss.

Where it is really unfair and in egregious cases, then we all know, TAFEP also works with MOM to add bite to its advice and recommendations for improvement. To have teeth in something like that is key if you are to be taken seriously. And TAFEP borrows the teeth from MOM. What I want to say is, in the situation we are facing today, it is of a scale and depth that is quite unlike things that we had done before, that we had faced down before. We also have to continue to look at this situation.

I know Minister Teo had elaborated just now painful curtailing work pass privileges can be, and it is indeed so. And so, we will monitor and we will see what other regulatory teeth might be needed as the situation goes. But I would much rather that companies treat every worker, including your older workers fairly. Then, we all work this out together and we emerge together.

So, H-E-A. Now R. "R" for Relief. For mature workers who are displaced or who face severe wage cuts, the journey ahead will be tough as they seek to provide for themselves and meet family commitments. I support MSF’s stance to “leave no one behind”. I urge MSF to consider a second tranche of the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) and the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF) to provide more relief to workers who may be displaced in the months ahead. I also seek MSF’s support to empower the Social Service Offices or SSOs with greater flexibility to help displaced workers promptly to cope with family expenses arising out of COVID-19 through ComCare and other schemes – give them more leeway to exercise.

As the slowdown wears on, calls by individuals to tap into their CPF savings to tide over this difficult period will grow. While I hope that MOM and the CPF Board, when they receive such requests, that they will look at each case sympathetically and be flexibe as much as possible, I am also very mindful that early drawdowns will inevitably translate into weaker eventual retirement adequacy for those workers who have to resort to such early withdrawals, if approved.

I therefore still hope that the CPF savings of our older workers can be safeguarded for as long as possible, as much as possible.

To help provide greater support to our older workers who face financial hardship, especially those of lower wages, I hope that MOM could consider reviewing and expanding qualifying criteria and parameters for schemes such as the Silver Support Scheme and the Workfare Income Supplement or WIS. These are already schemes that are already there to help seniors, the lower wage workers. There is already within the WIS, also a certain extra consideration for older workers and I thank MOM for that. But in this situation, can we look at reviewing it to help them in a more timely and effective way, and a more meaningful way, because more would need this, and we do not want the build-up.

Older Singaporeans will also face higher medical expenses compared to younger citizens, on average. In this regard, I would also hope that MOH would please consider whether there could be higher thresholds or caps on CPF-Medisave for older Singaporeans, or greater flexibility on a case-by-case basis to help with coping with cash expenses without sacrificing or delaying medical treatment.

Just last night, at my Meet-the-People Session, I had such a case where the bill was $800 and because of the cap, $300 was allowed to be deducted from MediSave and the resident had to come out with $500. He said that it was really very, very difficult to do so. It would be better if they could be allowed to withdraw more, maybe on a temporary basis during this crisis period. I think we should consider that but in terms of the cash impact, to families who may not have the financial resources.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, T. H-E-A-R-T. "T" for Tough it Out Together. Beyond the specific help measures, it is the collective will of the people to stand as one, to not let adversity cow us, split us or break us that sets the tone of our society and decide our fate as a nation.

This is a time like no other. So, let us gather our strengths and our wits, and tough it out to emerge stronger together. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

6.38 pm

Ms Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this House. At the outset, I wish to express my gratitude to the voters of Sengkang for sending our team to this House to represent their voices in what is an immensely challenging time for our country because of prevailing systematic problems, tough economic times and the pandemic we find ourselves in the midst of today.

Singaporeans know that times are tough. But Singaporeans are also tough people whose resilience runs deep. When I think about resilience, I think about my Apa, my father, who was an exceptional student but had to drop out of school at 14 after the death of his father. He dropped out out of necessity to support his mother and siblings. His first job was a labourer at a factory and at night, he would wash the petrol station. Though this story of his rise to success is inspirational, it does not negate the fact that he suffered immensely for it. Not only was he subjected to labour-intensive work at such a young age, but he was also unable to continue his education. He often speaks about how he could have been a surgeon if not for his family's circumstances.

This was in the 1960s. But my Apa's story is not unique. Two weeks into my role as a Member of Parliament-elect, I received a plea from my resident, a father, for help. He wrote to us and his first line was that he was the sole breadwinner in the house, living with his lovely wife and is a proud father of four daughters. He went on to share that his second daughter, a graduate from a local Polytechnic, wanted to pursue further studies at university. She found a place at one of the private universities last year but has been unable to secure a loan or financial aid. Should she have received the aid she was looking for, she could have been just starting her first year at university by now.

We must, as a society, ensure that we have equal opportunities in this country. I believe that the meritocracy our past leaders have placed so much importance on, has achieved a great deal for generations of Singaporeans. But in the midst of this pursuit, we have inevitably left many behind, short-changed, and sadly, made to believe that they deserve their stations because they were simply not good enough.

The Primary school student who feels discouraged from even trying to score in exams anymore while watching kids in other classes go for expensive tuition classes outside of school. The teenager who stops dreaming of what the future could look like. The pre-university student who can sense the condescension from relatives upon telling them he or she will not be going NUS or NTU. The eager young graduate from a private university who keeps applying to the Public Service for a job but never gets a call back. And even, the NUS graduate who suffers from imposter syndrome because he or she is simply not good enough to apply for jobs their peers seem to have in the bag.

It is time that we shift our perception of what being a good Singaporean means. A good Singaporean to me is someone who is able to define successes in their own way. It is often argued that under our meritocractic system, Singaporeans enjoy equal access to opportunities, and that this access drives social mobility. This to me, is a simplistic argument.

From Prof Syed Hussein Alatas in the 1970s to Assoc Prof Teo You Yenn today, academics in Singapore have long painted detailed pictures of inequality on this island within the framing context of local reality. Our task moving forward is similar. There are few questions relevant to our local context. We must confront every one to give young Singaporeans a better deal.

Firstly, we must ask whether we have mistaken the availability of opportunities for the accessibility of opportunities. There is a deep sense prevailing in this country that even in 2020, one's socio-economic background is still too tightly linked to the accessibility of opportunities one enjoys.

Reforms have been made and will be made to our education system where grading and testing are concerned. We will need to take steps to better support students from young. We need to train teachers to be adapt in not just providing academic guidance but also holistic support to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We need to be prepared to have open, honest conversations about whether recent reforms in grading, streaming and testing are working. And we need to be prepared to go beyond these reforms. And also reforming teaching and learning in a careful but ambitious manner to support learners with different skillsets.

But we should not just stop there. We need to assess and track the accessibility of opportunities at every phase of education and in the workforce too. Make jobs in the Public Service and Civil Service more accessible to candidates from a wider academic backgrounds which would help improve the diversity of skills, perspectives and talents our administration can draw from.

More broadly, introducing schemes like a national Minimum Wage and redundancy insurance improve workers' accessibility to opportunities.

Secondly, we must ask whether the opportunities available to young Singaporeans are complementary to the ways in which they most productively to find their success and vice versa. Put simply, how can we maximise the opportunities available for young Singaporean students and workers.

We need a bolder, long-term approach to creating jobs for young Singaporeans. Let us look for these opportunities everywhere we can. Let us give young creatives more opportunities by setting up an independent body for the arts to oversee licensing and funding, and by reforming our media landscape which has far too long has suffered from a lack of competition.

Let us make a concerted effort to support the creation of green jobs in industries from manufacturing and retail to finance and hospitality, by recognising the reality that economic growth is contingent upon social and environmental needs. And let us not forget to educate Singaporean students to re-imagine the possibilities which lay ahead.

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, putting aside the issue of the accessibility of opportunities, we must also ask whether there are Singaporeans for whom that availability of opportunities in the first place is not as real as you may imagine it to be.

Job discrimination is a real problem that has real consequences for Singaporeans. Workers looking to make an honest living to support their families should not have to face employment discrimination in the job market because of their age, gender or race, and certainly should not be discriminated because they wear a hijab. We must legislate to this end not only because fostering an inclusive job market for Singaporean workers makes economic sense but also simply because this is the right thing to do. Many young Singaporeans of all backgrounds I have spoken to have echoed these views.

Mr Speaker, if we want young Singaporeans to thrive in our next phase of development, we need to enable them to have a seat at the table. These young people are more than willing to start the conversation and contribute their ideas. We see it in young people who organise rallies and beach clean-ups, who want to see Singapore do its part to tackle climate change. We see it in young people, who time and time again, have stood up to speak out against sexual harassment. We see in young people who have been using Instagram, Twitter and even TikTok to convey, convince and correspond on issues that matter to them. And young people whose activism also extend beyond the bounds of social media and in the offline world too.

For starters, we should consider lowering the voting age to 18 to give more young people a say in Singapore's future, propel them to follow politics and legislation more closely and include their voices in the process. I believe that this is what young people envision for a country. We envision a country that is able to have open and frank conversations about the direction we would like to see our home move towards. We may be young in age and less experienced in life but it does not mean we do not understand the important issues that the country faces.

Young people worry about their future just as much as any of our country's leaders do. We worry about our parents' retirement, job opportunities and living a life that is fulfilling. We too have anxieties about starting and providing for a family. Young women today, many of whom I have met, continue to be torn between the decision of growing the family or pursuing a fulfilling career.

I hope that Parliament will listen closer to the hopes and the worries of young Singaporeans and have them inspired as in making the changes we need for a better future, a better Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

6.49 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. In my maiden speech in this House in 2016, I spoke of imagining a Perfect Storm, "… a global downturn lasting many years; divisions of race, language, religion; social class, inequality and culture; a fractured national consensus, divisive politics. And then having to face a major crisis – a terrorist attack on Singapore soil, a pandemic, or a regional conflict where old friends ask us to choose between them."

It has been nearly five years and a storm has gathered all around the world. Not quite a Perfect Storm, but still a hurricane. COVID-19 pandemic – worldwide. US-China relations – full of uncertainty. Economic crisis – all around the world, the worst in the history of independent Singapore. Some say it will be as deep as the Great Depression of a hundred years ago, or even worse.

Sir, in crisis, all the more important that we look after our people at home – our fellow Singaporeans. We must be clear-eyed about where policy and implementation can be improved. As I said in this House in March 2016 during an Adjournment Motion, it is about "seeing through the eyes of our people". This includes looking after our people in sickness and in health.

I will speak on five areas, on health – our elderly; our workers; access to insurance; access to new treatments; and our nurses and our allied health staff.

Supporting our elderly. Sir, we know of many elderly in our estates who are less mobile. Some in older flats that cannot easily have ramps installed through the EASE programme and these elderly cannot afford to pay for transport assistance to get to the clinic. In our community outreach, we do our best to help. But I ask, has MOH systematically studied seniors in such a situation? Are such seniors less likely to keep up with primary care appointments and necessary follow-ups? Are they more likely to be admitted to hospital? And when they are hospitalised, do they stay longer when they are admitted?

On mobility and medical assessments. Sir, some Government programmes require a doctor to assess an elderly resident. I have met elderly seniors who tell me that when they apply for a personal mobility device, they were told part of the process involves a doctor signing off on the paperwork. But some seniors, Mr Speaker, are confined to the home because they are not mobile, to begin with. Some have a care-giver who also has mobility needs and is home-bound. Some do not have family to bring them to the doctor. So, it becomes a difficult situation – have to go out to see the doctor as part of the process to get the mobility assistance, but they need that assistance to more easily go out.

Again, in the community, many of us in our constituencies are trying our best, but we must continue looking at improving the implementation. We must make sure that residents do not fall between the cracks of policy implementation and we must continue to try and improve.

Digital access. I have older residents who have mixed feelings. Every time there is a new Smart Nation app or digitalisation programme, some are excited, the more techno-savvy uncles and aunties. They are excited that Singapore is innovating with new technology, new platforms. But there are some older seniors who are less IT-literate.

Sir, digital access must not become a digital divide. Otherwise, digital progression broadly will have regressive impact on the less well-off, the less IT-savvy, and all those elderly who are less literate. So, again, we must continue pushing, to inculcate IT skills in our elderly, but we must also continue to keep the face-to-face and telephone option open for interacting with Government services. And the telephone option must be meaningfully available, which means not a half-hour wait on the line before there is a human voice. It maintains the human touch to have that face-to-face, that human telephone option. And in an economic downturn, it is an opportunity to hire many more Singaporeans with people skills and life experience to help fellow Singaporeans.

Sir, my second point – supporting workers. There are low-wage workers and those without flexible working arrangements, who cannot get time-off for a polyclinic consult during the day. If they go to a GP after hours, the cost is higher. Sir, I call upon MOH to work with MOM, to look even deeper into the health situation of low-wage workers, including gig economy workers who are especially vulnerable.

Sir, for low-wage workers going to a CHAS GP after hours, can we identify them, subsidise them better, so that the out-of-pocket cost can be comparable to polyclinics, or even equivalent to a polyclinic consult?

Sir, in the COVID-19 crisis, I have also met residents, workers, brothers and sisters who have lost their jobs. Some have lost their employee healthcare benefits. Just because their workplace had healthcare benefits, does not mean the workers were rich to begin with. Our residents, especially in the COVID-19 crisis, should not face unnecessary challenges to means testing when trying to return to subsidised healthcare. I have filed a Parliamentary Question on this, so that we can look at this issue further.

Thirdly, access to health insurance. Mr Speaker, in a Straits Times Forum letter published on 29 August this year, the Singapore Medical Association shared that some insurers are no longer allowing claims for diagnostic endoscopy, even when medically necessary. This is a serious development, implications for patient care and patient safety. It is also a very visible sign that individual patients and customers do not have bargaining power to stop insurance companies from such practices. When an insurance company moves the goal posts for an integrated shield plan, it is not so easy for a patient to switch provider because existing conditions become pre-existing conditions under the new policy.

We have also seen from the SMA letter that even individual healthcare practitioners, despite assessing a diagnostic procedure to be medically necessary, in some cases cannot move the insurance companies.

Mr Speaker, the invisible hand of the market appears to have become unbalanced. I call upon MOH and MAS to look at this, and to see if the visible hand of the regulators needs to come in to level the playing field for patients and our people.

Fourthly, access to new treatments. Sir, as a small country with a small market, we cannot negotiate based on market size alone. We must find new ways to ensure affordable access to the newest treatments, not just for today but for tomorrow. For new and emerging treatments, such as cell-based therapy, which are capital intensive and where very few firms currently have the capability, we should invest in our own domestic capability, so that we can shape the local and regional market, and not be held ransom by overseas manufacturers who will charge what the market can bear or what the wealthiest segments of the market can bear, as we have seen in some other jurisdictions.

Are there also ways to relook our patent system so that cheaper but equally effective medications can more easily enter the market, while still allowing our pharmaceutical industry to create jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans and maintaining our forward position as an intellectual property hub and intellectual property thought leader? I am sure that MTI and MOH can explore this further.

Sir, fifth, and importantly, our healthcare workers. Many residents in this COVID-19 crisis have shared how COVID-19 has been a reminder of the contributions and good work of our healthcare workers, especially our nurses, our allied health workers, our healthcare frontliners. In a pandemic, our frontline healthcare workers are part of our national defence. If the pandemic frontline cannot hold, Singapore will be overrun.

Some residents have asked if we are paying our nurses enough and if we can have more Singaporean nurses and staff in our public hospitals. I have met older uncles and aunties, pakciks and makciks. They say there is something comforting about having a fellow Singaporean looking after them in the hospital wards, even just having someone bringing them between the ward and the clinic an assistant who understands them, with whom they can connect instantly, someone who can connect in our seniors' languages, in their dialect, it is that much closer. As one auntie said in Mandarin, "有这个亲密感, 有这个亲切感" – someone who can be a familiar-sounding voice in difficult times for our seniors.

So, I would like to ask the Government: how often does MOH compare the pay of our nurses and allied healthcare workers across the public and private sector? Can we pay our nurses and allied health workers more? The Minister for Finance has spoken about fiscal prudence but, in a deep recession, we should also be willing to spend counter-cyclically, to invest further in our fellow Singaporeans and further build up capabilities within Singapore and in our public sector healthcare, especially in areas where the market alone may not generate the most optimal outcome straightaway.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, outside Singapore, it is a world of troubles. But to survive and surmount these challenges, our domestic policies at home must also be ready for the future – looking after our people, making sure no one is left behind or falls between the cracks.

Mr Speaker, health is key, because it touches all our lives. When a grandparent falls ill, it affects the grown up children and their own households. Is Ah Kong, is Ah Mah going to get better? Would Ah Kong be there when "didi" finishes his PSLE? When a breadwinner is struck down, the whole family worries. When a child is unwell, the hopes and dreams of an entire family are at stake.

Mr Speaker, healthcare is about our people’s lives – your life and mine, the lives of our loved ones, the lives of every Singaporean, regardless of background. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

7.03 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Speaker, the President gave a very solemn and meaningful message that touched on key issues affecting Singaporeans. We are facing tough times but it is during times like these that our mettle is tested and we are given an opportunity to shape our norms as a nation. We decide how we respond and the path we take. Singapore, as always, has to evolve. She needs to adapt and change to adjust to the changing global environment. She needs to evolve economically, politically and socially. But she can choose to be different from everyone else and do things the Singaporean way.

Politically, we are maturing. For some time now, there has been a call for alternative voices to represent the diverse interests in the community. I am encouraged to see our electorate maturing and many people from different backgrounds stepping up to contest during the last General Election, offering different perspectives, aspiring for a better Singapore.

What we have in Singapore is an adversarial process. This process, when carried out in the best traditions of democracy, brings out the best in all of us as we seek to continually improve. Healthy competition is good, as we challenge each other to do better and, in the end, the nation benefits.

However, when people take the adversarial process to its extreme and assert their opinions in a very vicious manner, there is a danger of the society being divided and polarised. During the campaign, in the online space, we saw some constructive discourse but also some malicious comments being passed, vitriolic remarks being expressed and personal attacks being made which strayed from the substance of the debate and became an attempt to bring people down instead.

An election, is an emotive exercise, I appreciate that. However, all of us must continue to push for decorum and constructive debates always. As we evolve and mature as a nation, we have to find a better way to have discourse and for each of us to express our views and challenge opposing ones.

We have been seeing some negative conduct on the Internet for some time now. There is increasing cognisance of the "cancel culture" which is causing some concern. "Cancellation", basically, refers to an attack on someone’s reputation by a determined group of critics because of an opinion or action of that individual that is deemed to be unacceptable. It is a targeted effort to destroy the individual, to get them de-platformed or put out of business.

Conceptually, the "cancel culture" is not new. Society had always rallied against what it deems wrong and groups of people have campaigned against individuals to censure them. However, the Internet and social media have amplified and caused an evolution of this phenomenon and its repercussions. For one, online, a certain issue or matter can get viral very quickly and a mob mentality can form long before facts can be verified or discussed. Secondly, the distraction from all the attacks takes attention away from the substance of the matter which is often then lost in the flood of comments and criticism. Thirdly, people are quickly pushed to take sides and the very person or groups that need to be edified about the error of their ways, or to be shown different perspectives, are then disengaged. A more serious side effect is that those with genuine views become muted as they fear being judged or lynched by the angry mob.

The cancel culture can manifest itself in many different ways. Several months back, there was an issue that arose within the Malay/Muslim community. A popular podcast channel was criticised when it was found to have certain episodes where comments which were misogynistic and degrading to women were made. Many women and men, called out the hosts. Misogyny is unacceptable and has no place in a progressive society. However, what was actually an opportunity to address an important issue, turned out to be a highly polarising exercise for the community. Online, people were pushed to take sides – you are either on the camp asking for the hosts to be de-platformed or are seen as their supporters and, by affiliation, accept misogyny. Some people I spoke to about the matter felt that there was so much negativity and people missed the point about the need for the community to address misogyny.

We must take a stand against things which are morally unacceptable. However, we need to learn to do so constructively so that the community can learn, have discourse and shape new and better norms.

Another trend that we have been seeing is the online movements that have been waged in other countries to change norms and push back against years of repression. Power has shifted to the people, with the Internet and social media platforms as accessible battlefields. We have seen the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements in the US. There is value in rallying people to call out injustice and shift norms to be a more just and fair society. We should encourage people to be conscious of social issues and do their part to bring about positive developments as a society evolves and matures. However, we must be conscious of the impact to the community. Inevitably, there will be different opinions and we need to ensure the expression of opposing views does not cause polarisation. The movements in the US have had their fair share of criticisms, even among liberals. So, even as we may be inspired by some of these developments abroad, we should not follow them blindly but, instead, find the Singapore way to evolve.

We have much to learn from the experiences of other countries. However, as we look to others for lessons to develop norms in our nation, we must pause to appreciate the impact of the same in our context. We should be cautious not to jump on the bandwagon and copy and paste the playbook in other countries without adjusting the same for our needs.

In particular, we must be keenly aware of our special demographics as a multiracial, multi-religious society. Multiracialism is a value we hold dear. We must, therefore, ensure that in our debates and discussions, we are mindful of the impact of our comments and the danger of fraying our social fabric if we pit one group against the other.

We must, therefore, take the necessary action to ensure that we shape the norms of discourse in our nation. What can we do?

We all need to play a part in creating a safe space online that encourages meaningful debates and curbs vitriolic discourse. I sit on the Management Committee of OnePeople.Sg (OPSG) and have been involved in a few discussions with our youth volunteers and participants of our programmes recently. We were discussing what were acceptable boundaries when discussing race and religious issues and whether current laws or frameworks need to be adjusted to changing times. The youths shared that it was not so much the laws they were afraid of. They feel afraid of expressing their views online because they fear backlash from others who have different views. So, while the Government can do its part by putting in place laws and regulations to set the necessary boundaries that circumscribe our discourse, as individuals, we all have a personal responsibility to behave fairly and call out any action that threatens healthy discussions.

Beyond having safe spaces for discussions online and even offline, to truly shape norms, we need to translate our discussions into real action. We need to walk our talk. For this, too, we all must play a part. Some policies or legislation may need to shift to shape behaviours. There have been concerns by some in this House about the issues of discriminatory conduct on the part of employers and we need to review and look at the frameworks in place and improve them. However, we must also take individual responsibility. We must ensure that we ourselves do not discriminate, especially in our conduct with others who are different from us and that we teach the right values to our children. Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We are increasingly seeing various views expressed on current issues affecting Singaporeans, especially online. What is good is that it shows the maturity of the community in discussing important issues such as Government policies or community norms. What is bad is that sometimes the discussions that we see online are very negative, leading to personal attacks on someone and running away from the original topic of discussion. This is worrying because we can see how online campaigns and cultures that spread in other countries, can divide society and lead to violence.

Therefore, it is very important for us to ensure that, in Singapore, we develop our own norms and ways to conduct online discussions, especially when touching on hot and sensitive issues. Issues related to religion and racism, or discrimination issues, for example, are important issues that we should face in a plural society. We must be bold enough to speak out and be firm in calling something out if it goes against our societal values. We should also want to continue contributing suggestions that can improve the lives of our people. But we must always rely on facts, and not just accept all the stories that we hear; and when we are faced with different views, we need to discuss with wisdom and have a constructive attitude.

We are indeed facing challenging times. But in times of difficulty, our character and integrity as a society are tested. We have the opportunity to shape the norms in our country. I hope, we can choose our own way, the Singapore way, in debating important issues in our country.

Hopefully, with constructive contributions, Singapore will continue to grow and become an inclusive society, where we all have the opportunity to work, build families and achieve our aspirations.

(In English): How we treat each other will determine how we evolve as a nation. Our individual actions accumulate to create the culture of our society. I hope to do my part to make this world kinder, more compassionate, more accepting of differences. I hope to make this place a better place for my son, Ayden. Ayden, as many of you know, has Down Syndrome. As a parent, I worry about how he will be treated when he grows up. I wonder if people will be patient with him, whether they will be kind and whether he will have the support he needs to live well.

I am happy to hear that there will be stronger support for special needs students by training educators, opening new special education schools and upgrading current ones. The efforts in improving the support and infrastructure has been a work-in-progress. We have made many big strides and Ms Denise Phua deserves special mention for all the efforts that she has done in this House as well as outside to champion the needs of the special needs community. We can and should continue to build on these efforts.

I do hope that when we look at reviewing some of the support given, we go beyond lip service and truly work towards changing attitudes and norms. I hope that we truly learn what empathy is. We should not tick boxes and be content to just address one feedback at a time.

When we talk about improving infrastructure, it is not enough to just build ramps and a few inclusive playgrounds. We must really nudge behaviours to facilitate and make it convenient for those who have disabilities to join in all the activities that others are involved in. When we talk about creating awareness and being inclusive in workplaces, it is not enough to just incentivise employers to employ people with disabilities. We must encourage understanding and conversations amongst employers and co-workers. We must learn to see the value and contributions of people who may be differently-abled. When we talk about building the capacity and capability of educators, it may not be enough to just train a select group of teachers or provide basic training for all teachers. We must provide the skills to all educators to identify needs, teach the right values and attitudes and inculcate a culture of pervasive inclusivity within our education system. We need to also look at enhancing the career pathway of educators in the special needs sector.

The reality is that embracing and supporting this community bring great value to Singapore as a whole. There is great economic value in empowering this group with the necessary skills to take care of themselves and be as independent as possible. If we deal with this issue upstream, we will spend less in providing support for them in the future. When we enable people with disabilities, we enable the whole community. More importantly, they are differently-abled and should be seen an equally valued member of the community. People with special needs are conduits through which we all learn to be kinder and more compassionate. This I have learnt from you, Mr Speaker. A kind and compassionate society is one that can brave through difficult challenges and emerge stronger.

It is so important that in the midst of all the turbulence, we remain steadfast in preserving and shaping our values as a nation and remain a fair and just society, a society that is truly embracing of diversity.

It is a great honour and privilege to be able to debate in this august House. As I have said in my maiden speech, in this House, we may not always agree with each other, but we debate respectfully. I believe this decorum can extend beyond this House and I hope, as a nation, we always seek consensus, not conflict. I hope, as a nation, we embrace our differences and be kind and compassionate always. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]