Debate on President's Address

12.15 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "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'."

I thank the President for highlighting in her speech the need to address the potentially divisive issue of competition for jobs from work pass holders and that we will work to further strengthen the capabilities of our workforce in every field and ensure that firms treat Singaporeans fairly when they recruit or retrench workers.

In her words: “In all that we do, the interests of Singaporeans are always paramount.”

Strengthening the Singaporean Core is an important tenet in nation-building. It is important during good times when our economy is growing rapidly and doubly important during bad times such as during this recession where we see numerous layoffs and where many Singaporeans, especially Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs), are impacted.

Over the past few decades, our economy has grown from third world to first world. Accordingly, the expansion of business needs has generated demand for workers with specialised skills such as in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. As Singaporeans may require time to be trained with the relevant skills, we should not close our doors, but instead, complement our local workforce with specific-skilled foreign PMEs to maintain Singapore’s economic competitiveness.

In fact, the COVID-19 crisis has shed light on certain critical sectors, which could be the forerunners in calibrating our nation’s reliance on foreign PMEs.

For example, the development of rapid virus test-kits is testament to the complementarity between local and foreign expertise in the biomedical sector.

Sir, the disruption brought about by COVID-19 and the resulting economic recession has surfaced ground concerns on the increased competition for jobs and employment. In this regard, we must uphold our pillar of meritocracy. There must be fairness and equal treatment and assessment of workers, which is also a fundamental International Labour Organization commitment.

Today, our Singaporean PMEs are well-educated, skilled and seek more in life – meaningful work in line with our values, including meritocracy, equality and progress.

However, PMEs I have spoken to say that this is not their universal experience. At least 20 PMEs have written to me in the past month, sharing with me their loss of opportunities at taking on jobs and at our workplaces, to the extent of feeling somewhat discriminated against.

I cannot help but wonder if, as a result of unchecked conscious and unconscious bias, there may still be instances of nationality bias in hiring and promotion and in today’s context, retrenchments? The reality is, left unchecked, this would exacerbate the glass-ceiling effect and issues relating to job opportunity for our Singaporean PMEs.

In that same vein, I welcome the policy announcements last Thursday by MOM in (a) adjusting the Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass qualifying salaries, (b) imposing new Fair Consideration Framework Requirements, and (c) applying greater scrutiny on EP and S Pass applicants. This will go some way in levelling the playing field for our Singaporean PMEs and providing our Singaporean PMEs fair hiring opportunities.

I am equally glad that Minister Chan Chun Sing, in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry, has emphasised – over the weekend – three very important points. First, that there must be fairness and zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind and tough action has to be taken on firms with hiring bias. Second, the importance of diversity and inclusion, something that I submit is crucial for a developed country and democracy like ours. Third, the efforts of localisation by transferring of skills to develop a pipeline of local talent.

I therefore submit that Strengthening our Singaporean Core requires a two-fold approach: First, the hiring of foreign PMEs must be based on merit – on their contribution to Singapore and how they complement our local workforce. Second, we must equip and enable our local workers through relevant and timely reskilling and upskilling to help them remain gainfully employed and employable.

To augment our efforts to further strengthen the Singaporean Core, I have five suggestions.

First, ensuring Singaporean PMETs are not left behind by the raising of EP and S Pass qualifying salaries. Raising the salary criteria for EP and S Pass is timely. Although the EP salary minimum was just raised in May 2020, I am heartened that MOM has raised the qualifying salaries of both Employment Pass and S Pass holders to further level the playing field for our Singaporean PMETs.

While we raise the qualifying salary of EP holders, I am glad that MOM has put in a place a differentiation of the EP qualifying salaries for sectors such as the financial services sector. In the same vein, MOM should also consider raising the bar for sectors such as Infocomm Technology and Professional Services, where there are generally more companies on the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist.

Since the announcement of these changes last Thursday, union leaders and PMEs I have spoken to have raised concerns that employers would merely raise the salaries or repackage the compensation and benefits of their foreign PMETs, to keep within the boundaries of the rules and retain them – something that is easily done in sectors which traditionally have higher-earning EP holders. To compound matters further, our Singaporean PMETs working alongside these foreign PMETs performing similar or same jobs may not get a similar pay hike, thereby resulting in serious parity issues. It does not help that many of our PMETs are now confronted with wage freezes, restraints and cuts.

For unionised companies, our unions will closely watch the actions of the employers. For workers in non-unionised companies, I strongly urge them to join as union members and organise themselves, so that we can protect them and ensure that they are fairly treated.

Second, strengthening the Singaporean Core at all Levels through strengthening hiring culture, practices and changing mindsets. Strengthening the Singaporean Core of PMETs must be at all levels of the hierarchy and not merely addressing entry or lower level PMETs. In large corporations with deep pockets, hiring more Singaporeans at the bottom balloons the denominator to make them look less culpable in actual percentages and numbers. Our efforts must be to address this at all levels and have a tiered approach in our policies and laws, according to different sectors’ needs and circumstances.

While we introduce new policies to further tighten the various levers, strengthening the hiring culture, practices and changing mindsets across the various organisations which hire foreign PMEs must be at the backbone of these efforts. HR leaders I speak to say they may be supportive of the Singaporean Core but in some cases, the hiring managers may have the final say in the eventual choice of the candidate. In many of these organisations, complex reporting structures and matrix reporting mean that the HR sometimes have little or no say. In short, it is imperative for not just a change of mindset for the CEO or CHRO but also the mindsets of hiring managers and everyone from end to end in the value chain that are involved in the various HR processes.

While foreign PMEs are employed in Singapore, there needs to be more intentional reciprocity by multi-national corporations (MNCs) to offer similar regional and global opportunities to our Singaporean PMEs. In this way, our Singaporean PMEs will be able to gain international experience and in turn, add to the calibre of our Singaporean workforce.

I urge the management within MNCs to groom our Singaporean PMEs as part of their leadership identification and development processes. By the same token, our Singaporean PMEs must step up, step forward and readily accept these opportunities to take lead and uproot to remote parts of the globe for regional and international exposure and opportunities. Increasingly, all Singaporean PMEs must embrace overseas opportunities as possible opportunities and be open to them regardless of where they are at, in their career life-stage.

Third, augmenting the Fair Consideration Framework. I am glad that MOM has heeded my call to enhance the FCF to include S Pass and doubled the duration of the mandatory job advertisement. I am encouraged to also see MOM and TAFEP taking firm action against companies who treat the FCF as mere window dressing. However, more needs to be done to review the current exemptions of the FCF.

On the intra-corporate transfers or ICTs exemption, I take cognisance that ICTs make up less than 5% of EPs in Singapore and that this exemption is necessary in view of our obligations vis-à-vis our Free Trade Agreements’ obligations. However, I urge for more transparency on who are these PMEs who fall within this ICT exemption for greater transparency and accountability.

I particularly like the fact that MOM, through its FCF website, encourages all employers, even if they fall within the exemptions, to post their job advertisements on the national jobs portal. I am not sure if this moral suasion approach has paid off, but it is certainly the right way to go for companies who fall within the size of company and salary point exemptions to the FCF.

Fourth, strengthening enforcement against Triple Weak companies. We can further safeguard the Singaporean Core through stricter enforcement against companies that treat the Fair Consideration Framework as mere window dressing or who continue to be "triple weak" – in other words, companies with highly disproportionate number of foreign PMEs, weak commitment to nurture and strengthen Singaporean Core, and weak relevance to Singapore’s economy and society.

Besides administrative and penal sanctions that are already in place and can be enhanced, enforcement can come in the form of revealing or publishing the "triple weak" watchlist which MOM and TAFEP maintains, so that the potential reputational loss would serve as a deterrence. As a pilot, this can be applied to companies that remain on the watchlist after a period of time, such as one year, and have failed to improve or show concerted efforts to strengthen the Singaporean Core.

Similarly, we can also impose mandatory audits and penalties such as removing preferential tax and other benefits including curtailment of the award of public sector contracts on companies with discriminatory hiring practices and high proportion of grievance cases if no improvement is made within a stipulated period of time.

Many of our economic incentives appear to be granted based on total headcount created in Singapore, with little mention of support for proactive and sustained local hiring. Likewise, there should be proactive and sustained knowledge and skills transfer to Singaporeans by the foreign PMEs. A structured mentoring must be put in place to ensure that skills are transferred from foreign PMEs to our local PMEs. Potential abuse can arise without a tiered approach, for example, economic incentives to expire without more senior Singaporean PME hires within a certain period of time or when there is a failure to transfer skills and knowledge.

Though a very sharp tool, MOM should review if there is a need to legislate areas of the FCF, including providing TAFEP with more legal powers. Pure frameworks, perhaps developed with a fear of losing investments and over-regulation, provide an environment ripe for corporations to circumvent rules.

We need to re-consider the long-held notion of being regarded as "not investment friendly" with legislation. The world has moved on to embrace sustainability and related environmental, social and governance legislation, which encompass fair employment. Similarly, Fair employment legislation has not stopped the likes of London and New York from being vibrant financial centres. I submit that we should explore and consider the utility and feasibility of a Fair Employment or Anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore.

Fifth, possible tougher measures such as EP quota. With the current added measures and above suggestions, I expect to see an eradication of nationality bias and a shrinking watchlist. Should the above measures still fail and does not bear fruit, the Labour Movement has previously floated the idea to look at relevant quotas, as a response to possible interventions to curb the problem and also address problem sectors that have a notably higher proportion of foreign PMEs.

The quota could have two tiers: the first tier consisting of "higher skilled PMEs" with significantly higher salaries and the second tier consisting of "mid-skilled PMEs" who are at the median salary range of the sector or industry. With these two-tier quota, companies will still be able to hire foreign PMEs with specialised skillsets to drive technology-based initiatives. The implementation of the quota can be gradual to address the concern by companies that our local PMEs do not have the requisite skills and experience.

The Labour Movement has consistently advocated for a strong Singaporean Core at the heart of our workforce – a Core that keeps us united as a country, even as we welcome those who contribute to our growth, employed based on merit while equipping our local workers to the best of our abilities. Against current weak economic conditions and employment outlook, strengthening the Singaporean Core is a critical mission for the Labour Movement and an area that needs to be watched carefully and conscientiously. To that end, the Labour Movement will continue to work with MOM, employers and professional associations in the fair hiring and continuous reskilling of local workers.

NTUC has also just announced the formation of a PME Task Force in partnership with the Singapore National Employers' Federation and will look into inducting major employer groups and the extended labour movement family, to explore how we can better protect and enable our PMEs, especially those in their 40s, 50s to 60s.

Sir, Singapore is in a unique position. In many areas such as education, logistics, air and sea transport, biomedical, we aspire and peg ourselves to "best in class" standards – researching and understanding what works well for other countries and positioning ourselves as leaders pushing frontiers. Indeed, it is imperative to introduce the right policies in the face of an evolving economic and domestic environment. We must be mindful of our uniqueness as a city-state and balance our national interests such as the employability of our workers. Both methodology and technology adopted in Singapore must be contextualised for our local workforce and for different groups of workers in their various areas of work and at their respective pace of digital acceptance.

We need employers from both MNCs and SMEs, business federations and associations, union leaders who understand the ground, and also academic institutions to actively collaborate – to ensure that current workers and new entrants to the workforce are able, agile and adaptable to changing technology and demands.

The first iteration of the Industry Transformation Maps launched four years ago, in September 2016, articulated these strategies to sustain growth and competitiveness for our industries with a three to five-year horizon. With rapid disruption, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the next normal, I suggest we embark on an ITM 2.0; to refresh and relook these strategies so that both workers and companies can transform in tandem to meet the challenges ahead. In that journey, we should evaluate the reasons why Singaporeans are unable to fulfil these existing and future PMET jobs and roles and develop an action plan that combines both a sectoral and functional approach, to rectify this for the longer term.

To better enable our local PMEs to take on roles and handle tasks in line with industry transformation, there needs to be continuous reskilling and upskilling and intentional career and salary mapping, through formalised set ups such as NTUC's Company Training Committees as well as the efforts by the National Jobs Council and NTUC Job Security Council.

This would help equip our workers to take up roles, especially in industries that have a disproportionate number of foreign PMEs. Such training would be particularly relevant for PMEs in their 40s to 60s, who tend to be more vulnerable and at risk from technological disruption and during economic downturns.

I verily believe that our intention is not to advocate for closed-door policies. We agree that as an open trade economy with low birth rates, importing foreign labour is necessary to address true labour resource gaps. However, as we have seen, there are still some 1,200 firms on MOM's Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watchlist. Clearly, market failure exists in our current employment framework. We can, and must, improve this – by knowing where to flex and where to tighten measures. We need to guard against abuse of our system, by giving Singaporean PMEs a fair chance at local job opportunities, which will also mitigate any potential brain drain. A healthy dose of market intervention is essential to ensure fair play. This also instils loyalty and fosters a sense of belonging and identity amongst Singaporeans. This is not diametrically opposed to ensuring economic survival for Singapore.

It is time to pivot and supplement our first-class hard infrastructure with an upgraded soft infrastructure. Proper safeguards for our Singaporean PMETs must be put in place to allow our tribe, the Singaporean Core, to flourish and uplift future generations of Singaporeans.

In conclusion, a "Singapore, United as One" requires all who have a stake in Singapore – all of us – to play our part. With our community as the bedrock, strengthening our Singaporean Core, and enhancing collaboration between tripartite partners, academic institutions, society and individuals – each coming together to contribute their unique role to Singapore's success, so that together, we can become more than the sum of our individual parts.

COVID19 has brought about a great reset and the next normal will forever transform our lives in more ways than one. From the health of our people, to the health of work and the economy, in the pursuit of fairness, justice and equality, we will ensure that no man is left behind, so that we can come out of the storm together, stronger than ever. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat.

12.37 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. In my maiden speech in Parliament in 2011, I said all debates in this House will always be guided by one question: how can we best ensure the survival and success of Singapore and improve the lives of Singaporeans? We have over the years examined this question in different ways, in and out of this House. The question has now become more critical than ever.

We begin 2020, full of hope, having just commemorated our Bicentennial last year. None of us could have foreseen what was to come: the whole of humanity locked in by a virus; millions of people infected and lives upended; the global economy plunged into the worst recession since the Great Depression; and the way we earn a living, go about our lives and interact with one another, turned on its head.

In Singapore, we mounted a swift and robust response. To protect lives, we imposed the circuit breaker. Our healthcare and frontline workers responded vailently, keeping our fatalities very low and bringing down the number of new infections. Our people observe strict discipline to keep each other safe. To protect livelihoods, we are doing all that we can to keep our workers in jobs, preserve the core capabilities and our businesses, and support households during this difficult period.

We committed around $100 billion to fight at the pandemic and safeguard our people and businesses from the fallout. But as a small open economy, we cannot defy the full force of this global crisis. The risk of new waves of infection persists, threatening to derail the gradual reopening of our economy. The global economy is projected to contract by around 5% and will remain weak and fragile for years to come. Our resident unemployment rate has climbed to 3.9% in the second quarter of this year and we can expect more job losses. Many who have held on to their jobs has seen significant falls in income. For those in the most affected sectors like aviation and tourism, recovery will be long-drawn.

We have to tackle these challenges admist the underlying shifts that predated COVID-19. There is a backlash against free trade and sharpening nativist instincts because the constant benefits of globalisation have been unevenly distributed. Technology and innovation are reshaping the nature of work, disrupting jobs and businesses. Distresses have, in turn, caused societies to be polarised exacerbated by the proliferation of echo chambers on social media.

The uncertainties created by COVID-19 have only accelerated this shifts. The compound matters, governments around the world have financed massive stimulus packages through borrowing, putting an even greater burden on future generations.

It is against this sombre backdrop that we open our Fourteenth Parliament. As the President said in her speech, we are at an inflection point in our history. Now, more than ever, we must ask – how can we best ensure the survival and success of Singapore and improves the lives of Singaporeans in this unprecedented time?

We can answer this in one line. Adapt to change but stay true to our values. Change will leave us behind if we stand still. That we must adapt is a given. What would define this term of Government, is how we will adapt that will build a better life for our people. Even as we keep pace with change, we must stay true to the values that have enabled us to progress all these years. By embracing change with courage and confidence, we build our capacity to adapt. By staying true to our values, we strengthen our sense of common purpose. By working in close partnership, we advance as Singapore together.

I will speak about how we need to adapt as an economy, a society and a people.

Singapore's economic history over the decades has been one of constant adaptation, restructuring and transformation. Our latest refresh started in 2016 with Industry Transformation Maps to spur sector-specific adaptation throughout our economy. The efforts have borne fruit. Productivity and wages were going up before COVID-19. Industry players have also found new ways of working together to raise the competitiveness of their industries.

Indeed, bearing fruit is not just a metaphor here. I met a fruit seller, Jun Sheng, better known as "Ah Boy" at Block 58, market place in Bedok. In addition to operating a physical store, he sells fruits online and even takes orders via WhatsApp. Many hawkers and small businesses islandwide are also going digital. We must do all we can to support our workers and businesses, big or small and make such innovations pervasive.

While we have made progress in industries' transformation, we must look ahead and prepare ourselves for even faster change and more disruptive change. To emerge stronger as an economy, we must strengthen our capacity in four areas. First, you must take an even more integrated and coordinated approach to economic transformation. In our system, tripartism, the Government, businesses and the Labour Movement, working together has been a tremendous source of strength.

Two years back, as chairman of the National Research Foundation, I visited the Netherlands to learn more about their triple helix model of innovation, where government businesses and academia work together to build knowledge, test prototypes and scale innovation. Like some research triangles in the US, the Dutch have done well. This model is being expanded to incorporate other dimensions, such as societal responsibility and environmental protection.

In essence, the economy is very complex in how allocates resources, generates innovative ideas and in how returns are distributed across multiple stakeholders. While there is a competitive element in this, there are also benefits to be gained from working together for shared prosperity.

Singapore can build on our tripartite partnership to be a test bed that creates deeper linkages with an expanded list of stakeholders, including our education and research institutions, our community groups and interested partners from around the world. By doing so, we can create good jobs for our people and new opportunities for our entrepreneurs.

Second, we must redouble our efforts to develop everyone to their fullest potential. In this way, our people can take on new opportunities and flourish in their chosen fields. We need a holistic approach for this that spans the lifetime of individuals from birth to pre-schools to schools, all the way to lifelong learning as part of SkillsFuture. I am glad that our workers are embracing upskilling, with about half a million taking part in SkillsFuture programmes last year.

And we have to explore new possibilities for developing our people fully. Studies in Singapore by Prof Chong Yap Seng show that the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy affects the brain development and behaviours of their babies. On-going clinical studies will assess if nutrition and other measures taken during pregnancy and early childhood are associated with better outcomes in both mothers and their children. The National Research Foundation is expanding on this by supporting research programmes that address the broader goal of enhancing human potential through measures during pregnancy and childhood, including nutrition, parenting and learning and, later, in our studies on how people learn.

Third, we must strengthen our path-finding capacity to find new bright spots amid economic disruption. Four months ago, we set up the Emerging Stronger Task Force to identify and seize new opportunities in emerging trends. The task force has made good progress and commissioned seven alliances for action. These industry-led coalitions to pilot ideas quickly represent the new action-oriented approach to pursue specific growth areas. The ideas being explored are promising. They range from environmental sustainability to smart commerce, supply chain digitalisation and the use of robotics. This can create new growth markets for our businesses and good jobs for Singaporeans.

We will invest in incubating and accelerating start-ups and supporting established companies to expand their R&D to build competitive strengths. Such a vibrant innovation eco-system will build up our path-finding capabilities.

Fourth, we must find new ways to be a vital node with rich and deep interconnections with the rest of the world. As a small city-state, being open is our strength and opportunity. Unlike other major cities, we do not have domestic hinterlands that buffer us against shocks. We cannot take for granted that, in a post-COVID-19 world, we can continue to be the same kind of hub that we used to be.

We must, therefore, forge new forms of connections, such as digital economy agreements, while deepening our linkages with regional markets to ride on Asia's potential. We must also remain open to investment and talents from around the world.

In this economic climate, we understand that many Singaporeans are anxious about their livelihoods. Our starting point is that our economic strategies must serve the interests of Singaporeans. The foreign investments we attract must create meaningful jobs for our people and strengthen our corporate eco-system. Singaporeans must receive fair consideration at the workplace – a point which Mr Patrick Tay has just emphasised. We are, therefore, adapting our manpower policies, including our employment and S Pass policies, to the changing circumstances to ensure the Singaporeans' interests are upheld.

But to emerge stronger, we must resist any temptation to turn inwards. We cannot close ourselves to the world or make foreigners unwelcome in our society. We must always serve the interest of Singaporeans. The best way to ensure that this little red dot, with no natural resources of any kind but with a determined, hard-working, forward-looking people, is to remain useful and relevant to the world.

We do this by keeping our economy vibrant and competitive so that Singaporeans and other people choose to be here to invest and do business, thereby creating good jobs and opportunities for all of us.

Mr Patrick Tay just spoke about ITM 2.0 – and I thank Mr Tay for mentioning about the ITM efforts. In fact, even in ITM 1.0, there is an explicit linkage between the various components of what we do in developing our people and in job creation. But Mr Tay is right that we should enhance this to create an even stronger linkage in the form of skills maps and in the form of job redesign and job retraining, re-skilling of our workers to take on those jobs. And, in particular, we must also make a deliberate effort to develop Singaporeans for leadership roles in companies so that they can take Singapore forward and that Singapore, as an operational and regional headquarters, has what it takes – that it has people, Singaporeans who grow up in a multiracial, multi-religious and multi-cultural environment can connect with people all around us easily and build deep linkages with our friends in the region. And this is something that we will pursue.

But the same time, we must not undermine the essence of what has made us successful. Even as we adapt to the changing world, we must stay true to our values, our sense of unity as a people, our composition as a multi-cultural society. We must stay true to our value to the world as an oasis of harmony in this fractious world.

Let me now speak on adapting as a society.

Even as we evolve our economic strategies, our society, too, is facing new challenges and needs to continue to adapt to sustain the promise of progress for every Singaporean. We must not let change lead to polarisation.

In the early days of our development, our economy was growing strongly. A rising tide lifted all boats and most Singaporeans saw their lives improved by leaps and bounds. We invested in our people so that they could adapt and grow with our economy. High home ownership also gives Singaporeans a share in the fruits of our progress.

As our economy matured, we also strengthened our social safety nets. For example, we improved healthcare affordability through MediShield Life and CHAS and provided extra support for the Pioneer in Merdeka Generations. We uplifted the wages of our lower wage workers through Workfare and the Progressive Wage Model.

Our social spending has tripled over the last 15 years and this is set to rise further as our population ages.

Looking ahead, our economy will change at a much more rapid pace. Disruption to jobs will be more common with greater adoption of technology, such as automation and remote work.

We must, therefore, take an integrated view of our economic and social policies. As our Labour Movement puts it, "A job is the best form of welfare for our people". The Government will continue to invest in our people, match them to new opportunities and bring out the best in all Singaporeans. This way, we will keep social mobility alive.

At the same time, with major changes in the economy and labour market, will need to adapt our social safety nets and keep inequality in check. More workers will fall on hard times and we need to enable them to adjust and bounce back through this crisis and beyond. Some Singaporeans are taking part in the gig economy, taking on a wide range of jobs, either part-time or full-time. So, our support for self-employed persons will have to evolve accordingly. We must continue to uplift our lower wage workers and enable our older workers to continue working if they wish to.

Various ideas have been proposed on how we can do this, such as minimum wage, universal basic income and unemployment insurance. The Government will keep an open mind to all these ideas. But we must also recognise that there are no magic bullets. Each of these ideas has its merits as well as unintended effects. We have to consider the trade-offs and be clear about what works for our context and our time.

Demands on our social safety nets are increasing at a time when our revenue base is growing more slowly and with sharper competition for tax revenues across countries. So, I must caution against looking for what may appear to be cost-less solutions. Somehow, someone else will have to pay for these schemes. There are trade-offs. If we want higher social spending, taxes will have to go up, or it will mean spending more at the expense of future generations by what many countries are doing – by raising their debt.

We must never forget that we have provided almost $100 billion of support for our people and businesses this year without incurring a single cent of debt because we are able to fund over half of this using past reserves.

At the same time, while we must strengthen our social safety nets, we must do so in a way that reinforces and not undermine an individual's efforts. A strong compact maintains a balance between the roles of the individual, family, community and the Government and helps us better cope with change together. Indeed, social safety nets cannot become a set of shackles. It should not hold down those we started with less. It should not create a dependency such that people who get fish for today never learn how to fish for food tomorrow. It should not breed an entitled class who ask, "What more can you do for me?"

A well-designed social safety net protects the vulnerable, invests in human and societal capital and provides a means for those who fall down to bounce back. It gives hope and builds confidence. It believes in people and lifts the human spirit. It supports every generation to have aspirations and dreams and for everyone to ask, "What more can we do for one another?"

As Members debate on how we can strengthen our support for Singaporeans, let us keep in mind how new enhancements can be funded equitably and sustainably over time and strengthen our people's capacity to not only succeed throughout life but to help others succeed, too. These are the values that we must strengthen even as we adapt.

How can we best ensure the survival and success of Singapore and improve the lives of Singaporeans depends on how well we adapt to change. And I will now speak on affirming our values as a people.

As we adapt – and, in some cases, make major adjustments because the circumstances we face have changed significantly – we must stay rooted to our values and identity and, above all, our unity as one people. I have been encouraged to see how COVID-19 has strengthened our sense of common purpose and brought out the best in us. Many have stepped up to support others.

One example is the Masks Sewn With Love project, a community effort that has sewn more than 100,000 masks for vulnerable families, which some of our Members of Parliament were very deeply involved in. This sense of unity, through both good times and bad, is rooted in the values enshrined in our Pledge and the distinct Singaporean identity we have evolved through the years.

During SG50, we honoured those who have brought us this far, in our journey since independence. In our Bicentennial last year, we explored how we progressed from Singapore to Singaporeans by holding true to our values of openness, multi-culturalism and self-determination and sharing the conviction to stand united and defy the odds as one people.

It will take more effort to maintain this sense of common purpose as our society becomes more diverse. Our society will face new differences along the lines of identity, socio-economic status and political beliefs. There will always be different perspectives on subjects like race, language and religion and the rights and obligations of citizenship.

It is essential that we rise above our differences and find common ground. Occasional setbacks need not trip us in our perseverance to continue to make progress. Harmony in diversity will always be a work in progress. We may not always agree, but we cannot afford to let our disagreement turn into division. Otherwise, change will cause a rupture in society as we have seen elsewhere.

We launched the Singapore Together Movement in June last year, precisely to harness diversity as a strength and create a shared future for everyone. We wanted to build on our experience from our Singapore Conversation to engender deep understanding and partnerships among Singaporeans and between our people and the Government. We know many Singaporeans are keen to play their part and to make a difference.

Two weeks ago, I met Samantha and a group of volunteers who clean up our beach at East Coast Park regularly. Kiat How, Desmond Tan and I had a follow-up discussion with them via Zoom on Saturday to discuss how we can create a more sustainable Singapore. I was very impressed by the passion and commitment. We agreed to work together to turn their good ideas into action.

The process of working together will help to foster a culture of respect and expand our common space. This strengthens our capacity to adapt and change together, and will take time to build up. We want to build on these efforts too, as we recover from COVID-19. So, we have convened the Emerging Stronger conversations, which give Singaporeans a shared opportunity to reflect on the COVID-19 experiences and articulate how we can take Singapore forward together.

These conversations are on-going and will lead to action through our Singapore Together Action Network and other partnerships.

The better we adapt to change and stay true to our values, the stronger we can emerge from this and future crises. The stronger we are at home the more confidence we can be to stick our place in the world and create value with others. This has been our formula for success and survival.

We are determined to whole a rules-based global order which has taken us to where we are today. As a small nation that threatens no country, we want to be friends with all and to work with all. We are both a city-state and a global metropolis. Maintaining this dual identity will not be easy. But as long as we are clear about our values and what holds us together, it will be a source of strength that opens up new opportunities. This is our Singapore premium.

Let us continue to work with like-minded partners to build a better world for Singaporeans for people around the world and for our future generations.

Since our Independence, we have weathered one crisis after another – from the withdrawal of British forces and the ensuing massive unemployment, to the 1973 oil crisis, the Asian Financial Crisis, SARS, the 2001 IT bubble collapse and the Global Financial Crisis. All of us in our 50s and older would have lived through these turbulent periods. Each time, Singaporeans would have been called upon to show fortitude and resilience, and work in unity with our fellow citizens. And each time, we have risen to the challenge, adapted and emerged stronger.

The COVID-19 pandemic could be our most severe test so far. To overcome this crisis, we have to once again draw upon and build on this capacity to adapt and remain united, and stand true to our values.

We can navigate this period of great uncertainty and change, but our policies must set the right tone for the rest of society. This House must fulfill its duty to articulate and debate policy options to build a better life for our people and to advance Singapore's place in the world.

This is the mandate that has been entrusted to us by Singaporeans. I trust that all of us, whether in Government or the Opposition, will share this common sense of mission – to serve in the best interests of Singaporeans and Singapore.

My colleagues and I in Government, have listened to the voices of our people. We have heard and share our people's anxieties. We acknowledge the concerns and unhappiness that some have voiced. As the world and our society changes, there will be greater divergence of views. We will continue to understand our people's concerns and improve your lives. We will have to adapt to these changes, but stay true to our values – the same values that have enabled us to stay united and succeed against the odds.

We welcome the 31 newly-elected Members of Parliament in this Parliament and look forward to hearing from them in this debate. For those who are office holders, I encourage them not just to speak about their Ministries' work, but also to share more about their personal convictions and beliefs. They are giving their maiden speeches and I believe Singaporeans would want to know who they are and what they stand for.

Let me also express my appreciation to the Members of Parliament who have retired and the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) who have stepped down. The longest serving is Mr Goh Chok Tong who served for nearly 45 years, including almost 14 years as our Prime Minister. Mr Goh's years as a Prime Minister, from 1990 to 2004, are remembered as a time of stability, peace and growth during which we became a kinder, gentler society and a more confident people. He steered us through two major crises – the Asian Financial Crisis and SARS. He continued to contribute in many areas, even after stepping down as Prime Minister. Over the years, I had the privilege of working closely with Mr Goh, including on many trips at ASEAN, ASEM and APEC, where his easy rapport with leaders around the world enabled us to forge many new agreements and many new partnerships. It has expanded our external space.

I remember vividly his advice to meet during the Global Financial Crisis when I was Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh was then our Chairman and banks around the world were in trouble. So, when we had to make a momentous decision on whether to seek the approval from the President for $150 billion guarantee on all bank deposits, backed by our past reserves, I was very glad to have his wise counsel and his support for us to take difficult decisions head-on. It was a lesson that stayed with me and continued to guide much of my work, especially during this crisis.

After I entered politics in 2001, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh continues to be a good mentor, with his signature mix of humour and wisdom. Mr Goh has left an indelible mark on many Singaporeans, especially those of us in this House.

When I last met him, Mr Goh told me he was spending more time with Mrs Goh and their children and grandchildren. Let us all thank Mrs Goh and their family for being Mr Goh's staunchest and closest supporters all these years. And I wish our beloved Emeritus Senior Minister a happy retirement. [Applause.]

I also wish to pay tribute to other long-serving parliamentarians, including Boon Wan, Hng Kiang, Swee Say, Yaacob, Charles,Lily, Ho Pin and Cedric. They entered Parliament many years ago. Mr Goh in 1976, I recall.Boon Wan and Hng Kiang were my bosses at MTI. I learned a lot from them and they have done much to advance our standing in the world and create new opportunities for our people. They may all have left Parliament, but I am confident that they will continue to contribute to nation-building in other ways.

Let me also thank Mr Low Thia Khiang who has served an Opposition Member of Parliament since 1991. He is a fiery speaker at election rallies, but when it comes to the crunch, when our national interest is at stake, he stands together with the Government. He has deep conviction about language, culture and heritage, and the long-term success of Singapore. When I last spoke to him, he told me he was very happy playing with his grandchild. I am also glad he has recovered from his fall and wish him good health.

Mr Pritam Singh has taken over as Secretary-General of the Workers' Party and has been appointed Leader of the Opposition. I trust Mr Singh will, like Mr Low, put our national interests first.

As we face the months and years ahead, let us stand united to weather this crisis. Even though we were sworn in at two different physical Parliament Houses – the old and the new – we must always be Members of one House. Singaporeans have elected us to be their representatives. We must put our minds and efforts together, resolve to do our best, to serve Singaporeans in Singapore so that we can emerge stronger from this test of a generation. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

1.11 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion, thanking the President for her Address.

My speech will cover a variety of topics, organised into three main areas. First, I will speak about certain things that have changed in Singapore. Second, I will talk about things that must not change. And third, I will suggest some things that should change.

First, let me speak about a few things that have changed in Singapore in the aftermath of the last election. I will speak about the Government's recognition of the office of the Leader of the Opposition, about how Workers' Party Members of Parliament will be organised in Parliament and finally, I will share some thoughts on the presence of our parliamentary colleagues from the Progress Singapore Party.

Immediately after the results of the General Election were known, the Prime Minister announced the position of Leader of the Opposition and that this would come with support and resources. It would be an understatement to say that this announcement came as a surprise to the Workers' Party and to members of the public. My view is to take the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition and the motives behind it positively. The Prime Minister has signalled a change in the narrative and culture of how politics and government is to be conducted, and I thank him for that.

We look forward to a different tone of political engagement and the Workers' Party accepts the changes as another step towards a First World Parliament.

The appointment has created expectations. The Government, the Workers' Party and the people of Singapore all believe that politics in Singapore is changing and in some ways changing rapidly. My personal expectation is that my Workers' Party colleagues and I will have to work extra hard. We will have to ask ourselves tough questions before critiquing Government policy – the chief of which is, what would we do if we were in charge.

Singaporeans in general would be unfamiliar with the concept of an Opposition in Parliament and as an official part of our political system, let alone the office of the Leader of the Opposition. In the past, popular reference to the Opposition was almost always pejorative, usually centred around the points that the Opposition was out of Government, did not have a mandate, could only talk and as such was ultimately irrelevant. There was a lacuna in appreciating the value of a parliamentary Opposition as a part of Singapore's parliamentary democracy.

With the new changes, it needs to be clear what the Opposition can and cannot do.

The appointment of the Leader of the Opposition is an opportunity for citizens and indeed, politicians, to educate ourselves and understand better what exactly it is that the Opposition does and what its purpose is. What does it mean to be a check and balance on the Government and how exactly can the Opposition propose alternative policies?

My assessment is that the public expects the Workers' Party and the Opposition in general to play a constructive role in Singapore politics. It should advance the interests of all Singaporeans, whether they may be in the majority or minority on any particular issue without fear or favour. The office of the Leader of the Opposition goes a long way to institutionalising an Opposition in Parliament and in our political system.

For Opposition parties to make greater headway in Parliament, we have to understand that today's political context necessitates the development of a rational and responsible approach to opposition politics that places not just the Singapore Citizen, but Singapore at its core.

Mr Speaker, my Workers' Party colleagues and I will set our own standards and chart an independent course, just as my predecessor, Mr Low Thia Khiang did in the face of much resistance including from many personalities in the Opposition camp as he sought to build a credible Workers' Party.

The road ahead will not be easy, but anything worthwhile never is. We will do our best by Singapore and Singaporeans.

But how much we can do and how much the political conversation evolves for the better will be driven by three things.

One, by the quantity and the quality of information that is shared by the Government in Parliament, and separately, released to the public more generally. Two, by the resources given by the Government to analyse and use that information for the benefit of the public. And three, by the willingness of the Government to listen to and implement the alternative ideas suggested.

As far as information is concerned, the Opposition's output will depend very much on whether we can get the input we ask for. We intend to make targeted inquiries of Government departments and public agencies as such information is essential for crafting alternative policies. On its part, the Government should consider how it can put out more information without being asked to, particularly information and indicators benchmarked against other countries.

In early 2018, I asked a Parliamentary Question about the number of Permanent Residents (PRs) who remained PRs for more than 10, 15, 20 and 25 years respectively, and the common reasons cited by these individuals for not taking up Singapore Citizenship. The information provided was far narrower, specifically that about 15% of PRs have been PRs for 20 or more years. Sir, the additional details that were not provided are important so the Opposition can consider and put forward alternative approaches to population and immigration policies. The data will also put into stark relief the relevance of referring to someone as a local in our statistical data when it is clear that some PRs do not want to become Singapore Citizens or the state has no plans to extend citizenship to them.

Mr Speaker, I accept that such matters are sensitive and the Government's unwillingness to provide the data in the format or detail requested, may arise not because of an unwillingness to disclose information. Instead, there could be genuine concerns about how information will be used or perhaps misused to rile pockets of the population since the PR policy is closely tied to immigration and jobs. But it is my case, Mr Speaker, that the Government will have to find a new way of dealing with such difficult matters. And I strongly believe Parliament is an important safety valve and a potential moderator of extreme conversations found offline and online on immigration and population issues. To that end, later in my speech, I will suggest some alternative approaches for the Government's consideration.

As for resources, I would like to share my understanding of the resources that will be provided to the Leader of the Opposition. This is important for the public to know in formulating their expectations. Every elected Member of Parliament is given a budget to hire a Legislative Assistant and Secretarial Assistant. The Legislative Assistant is paid an allowance of $1,300 per month and the Secretarial Assistant is paid an allowance of $500 a month. Based on these sums, these positions are of necessity, part-time ones.

I should highlight that these are the same resources depended on by PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) who are not political office-holders. Each PAP backbencher also has only one Legislative Assistant and one Secretarial Assistant, although I should add that they can avail themselves of the additional resources of the People's Association, including the staff at Community Clubs for their grassroots work.

For completeness, let me say that neither Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) nor Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) are given these resources. This would be an opportune time to thank the Legislative Assistants or LAs, both of the PAP and Opposition parties, who have over the years supported Members of Parliament.

For the office of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government has allocated a budget for three more LAs. Applying the standard allowance for LAs, each of the three additional LAs for the Leader of the Opposition will be paid $1,300 a month. Again, these have to be part-time positions. An administrative assistant has also been made available to the office of the Leader of the Opposition by Parliament.

By contrast, it is useful to remember that a sitting Government has at its disposal the resources of a Singapore Public Service, a very good one – I might add – of 146,000 full-time officers. Of these, 85,000 are members of the Civil Service.

The Leader of the Opposition's office will not have the breadth and depth of the Party in Government in coming up with alternative policies. Nonetheless, the Workers' Party will continue pursuing alternatives we feel are important for Singapore, an example being the proposal for redundancy insurance for workers as put forth in the last term of Parliament. We will continue to advance meaningful alternatives for deliberation and debate, and will strive to improve on the quality of the alternatives suggested.

Another change that has happened that led to the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition is that there are more Opposition MPs in Parliament than at any time since the years following our Independence in 1965.

Mr Speaker, Members of Parliament are vox populi – the voice of the people. To raise in Parliament what the people cannot do directly is the duty of the Government ruling party and the Opposition. The Workers' Party intends to raise matters in Parliament that are important to the people of Singapore that the Government and PAP backbenchers may not. We intend to scrutinise policies to the best of our abilities. To that end, let me set out how the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament will be organised.

With just 10 Members of Parliament – far from the more than one-third necessary to check the PAP's supermajority – it is not feasible for the Workers' Party to set up a shadow Cabinet in the tradition of Westminster parliaments. There are 16 Ministries in Singapore, including the Prime Minister's Office. These 16 Ministries have the resources of 37 political office-holders from Parliamentary Secretary upwards. Of these 37, 20 are full Ministers.

Despite not being able to shadow each Ministry, we intend to organise our MPs to look into five areas that are critical for Singapore and of huge importance to Singaporeans. The five areas are: (a) health, ageing and retirement adequacy; (b) jobs, businesses and the economy; (c) education, inequality and the cost of living; (d) housing, transport and infrastructure; (e) national sustainability – a broad-ranging area that looks at policies and proposals to ensure we leave behind a thriving Singapore that lasts far into the future for successive generations.

The next change that has happened is the first-time presence in Parliament of the Progress Singapore Party. I wish to welcome their two Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs), Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa.

What is the relationship of other Opposition parties to the Leader of the Opposition? In other Westminster parliaments, the Leader of the Opposition is not considered a the leader of all Opposition parties in Parliament. This must be so in Singapore as well. The Progress Singapore Party has its own principles and ideology, that are distinct from the Workers' Party. Mr Leong and Ms Poa may propose policies and promote ideas very different from, and even in disagreement to those of the Workers' Party. It is possible that they may support Government policies that we disagree with or vice versa.

However, where our positions match and are in the best interests of Singapore, I look forward to collaborating with the Progress Singapore Party's NCMPs. Taken together, this would make for healthy debate in this House where policies are debated on their merits and principles, rather than in support or opposition to the Government.

Before I leave the subject of the Opposition, I would add that in the United Kingdom, the Leader of the Opposition is sometimes styled as the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. The term "Loyal Opposition" was coined in the Nineteenth century to make clear that opposing the Government was not considered disloyalty to the monarch, or to the state. I note the Prime Minister also used this term in the aftermath of the last election.

The Workers' Party has always taken the position that when it is in the Opposition, it owes its loyalty to the President, the Republic of Singapore and the people. We have proven that we do not oppose the Government for the sake of opposing. We back the Government when national interests are at stake. Shortly after COVID struck in January, I said to the House from this very Table: "Workers' Party Members of Parliament agree with the Government when we have to, disagree where we must, in the knowledge that we endeavour for the best outcomes for Singapore and for a unity of purpose when politics must take a back seat, like during the current COVID-19 crisis."

That position made in the context of the debate on the Unity Budget is a convenient point for me to transition to the second area I will speak on. That is, things that must not change in Singapore.

First, Singapore's historical position as a trading nation. Second, the Government's policies and actions on defence and foreign policy. And finally, certain things that are now synonymous with Singapore – multiracialism, the greening of Singapore, the quality of our public libraries and our culture of abhorring corruption.

Sir, Singapore has always been a trading nation and open borders are a fact of our lives. Investors should know that Singapore will never close for business, no matter how many Workers' Party MPs there are in Parliament. We make a living by being relevant to the world and separately as a trustworthy and reliable interlocutor. Our Police and security agencies keep our country safe. Our teachers are excellent educators. Our doctors and nurses staff a healthcare system that provides quality care. These are but some of the reasons why foreign investors put their trust in Singapore.

Opposition politics and advocacy for Singaporeans cannot ignore Singapore's place in the world and what we offer to the world. We must still look outward, even as we continually search for a lasting modus vivendi which accommodates the domestic pressures of being economically open, and the reality of a Singapore identity that evolves and crystallises as our nation matures.

Singaporeans do feel patriotic, nationalistic and protectionist even. These are forces that are not intrinsically negative, but they have to be empathised with and understood by this House. In turn, Singaporeans should consider Singapore's relevance to the world from a broad perspective. After all, all of us, no matter what our political preferences, want our country to be thriving and successful and with a big heart.

Moving on to the second thing that must not change. The Workers' Party supports the Government's positions on defence and foreign policy. These must continue as they are. These policies are well-considered and they place primacy on Singapore's interest while seeking long-term mutual cooperation with other countries and international organisations. They also take into account the realism of international politics and the reality of not just a small state, but our peculiar circumstances too.

The Workers' Party backs the Government in involving Singapore in United Nations initiatives, and those of the World Health Organization, the World Bank, UNESCO, the International Labour Organization and other multilateral initiatives. We support the Government's efforts in working with our neighbours to bolster ASEAN. We believe that a successful ASEAN boosts regional security through economic, political and security cooperation. In particular, we support Singapore's efforts to work with ASEAN and other countries to finalise the South China Sea Code of Conduct. As a small maritime nation and separately, a trading nation, the sanctity of international agreements and adherence to the rule of law is necessary to discourage arbitrary behaviour by more powerful states.

Next, we support the Government's work in continuing various things that have become a part of Singapore's DNA. Singapore's position on corruption must not change. Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was able to lead the achievement of something that many thought impossible at the time – the rooting out of endemic corruption from Singapore society.

We are proud of Singapore's success in doing so and support the Government's continuing work in this area. If anything, Singapore's position on stamping out corruption should be strengthened so that extra-territorial corruption by Singaporeans is discouraged with as much diligence as domestic corruption.

Equally important is Singapore's emphasis on racial and religious harmony. These words are almost a cliche in Singapore, and we should be grateful for that, because in many other countries, it is a source of intractable problems. The Workers' Party strongly believes in Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious and multi-cultural community. It is important that all communities support, respect and accommodate each other.

Sir, my Workers' Party colleagues and I look at Singapore as a glass half-full or one that can be topped-up. There is much that is right and which should remain the same. But there is also much that can and should change. This brings me to my third area – things that should change in Singapore. It is my conviction that these changes would improve governance and better look after the needs of Singaporeans.

First, to leverage an independent Organ of State, namely Parliament, the Workers' Party proposes the formation of more Select Committees. Some conversations in Singapore can continue to be divisive unless we decisively create a framework for reasoned conversation. Parliament, using the platform of Select Committees, can operate as an important safety valve and an agent of positive conversations that ought to have a direct impact on policies and laws.

More significantly, in the information ecology of today's world, misinformation and disinformation campaigns are run online and offline, usually in combination, to manipulate content and hijack narratives. This House and the Government need to reframe the public narrative on our more pressing issues.

In many countries today, even the mainstream media cannot moderate the conversation without significant public funding. A recent headline from the magazine Current Affairs put it starkly – the truth is paywalled and the lies are free. An apt description of the dilemma facing the mainstream media in the face of some aspects of social media.

By forming Select Committees that meet regularly on the most sensitive and difficult issues for Singapore, Parliament can play a bigger role in leading the conversation and championing the truth.

There are two possibilities for Select Committees. One possibility is for more Standing Select Committees to be set up to scrutinise the spending, policies and administration of each Ministry. The members of these committees would be drawn from a mix of Members in this House, including PAP backbenchers, elected Opposition MPs and NCMPs.

Such committees are part of the normal political fabric of other democracies. The UK parliament has cross-party Commons Select Committees that check on each government department, also in the areas of spending, policies and administration. Those who follow American politics would also be familiar with the various Senate and House committees that are drawn from both Democrats and Republicans.

This suggestion is not meant to be a blind copying of the British and American systems, but is made because such committees are an example of parliamentary institutions our democracy can benefit from.

Such Standing Select Committees are not to be confused with Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs). GPCs are partisan – only PAP Members of Parliament sit on them. GPCs were conceived in 1987 when Mr Chiam See Tong was the only Opposition MP left after the removal of Mr J B Jeyaretnam in 1986. There were no NMPs at the time, nor NCMPs. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced them as a method of PAP self-checking.

Now, with the presence of 10 elected Opposition Members of Parliament, Standing Select Committees are feasible and indeed desirable for greater accountability. If not for all Ministries, then perhaps for some of them. Of course, certain Ministries such as MINDEF and MHA may require the discussion of classified information. In such cases, cross-party committees could review matters at closed door hearings.

A second possibility for Select Committees would be the formation of more ad hoc committees. Such committees are already a part of Singapore’s Parliamentary processes, but the Workers' Party recommends that more of them be empanelled. The purpose of ad hoc Select Committees is to investigate a specific issue and report back to Parliament. In time, and given their importance, they can be repurposed into permanent Standing Select Committees. These Select Committees must function as investigators, with no pre-determined agenda, hidden or otherwise. They must go where the evidence, obtained through submissions and witnesses, leads them.

The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, of which I was a member in the last term of Parliament, was a good start. But there is scope for further improvement. For example, by giving a longer lead time for submissions to be made; publishing written submissions at least two weeks before the hearings; scheduling hearings over more days; and releasing an interim report for public scrutiny that can prompt more written submissions and additional hearings.

To this end, the President in her Address alluded to potentially difficult conversations that Government would need to have with Singaporeans. Parliament in committee – rather than in session like it is today – is an excellent platform to hear and truly listen to the voices of Singaporeans in an open way.

The next thing we need to change in Singapore is how we manage and accommodate foreigners in our economy. Their presence gives Singapore a vitality that keeps us economically relevant and also provides jobs and opportunities to our fellow Singaporeans. Many of us count the foreigners in our midst, regardless of race, language or religion as our friends. That openness and friendly attitude must continue as a manifestation of the Singapore spirit and the Singapore we leave behind for future generations of Singaporeans.

But it is precisely because we need foreigners to help power our economy that we need to pay more attention to Singapore workers, some of whom feel excluded, some of whom feel excluded from opportunities created in their homeland. In recent weeks, letters in The Straits Times Forum have been published, one by a retired senior Singaporean banker and another by the Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore or MAS, in reply. These appeared after MOM placed 47 companies on the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist. Of the 47 companies, 30 were financial and professional services institutions. On the MOM’s website, examples are given of one wealth management firm where almost three-quarters of their PMET or professional, manager, executive and technician jobs are held by persons of the same nationality. Another example is given of a bank where almost two-thirds are of the same nationality.

The obvious question is: how did those two companies get to those stages without MOM taking action before this? MOM’s website states at one point and I quote, “MOM does not tolerate unfair hiring practices and employers who do not give locals a fair chance in hiring and promotion will face scrutiny and stiff penalties if found to have unfair hiring practices.” However, for three-quarters and two-thirds of the PMETs of two companies to be non-Singaporeans of the same nationality, Singaporeans may be justified in asking if MOM has tolerated their unfair hiring practices for some time.

To be fair, this is a complex issue. For example, there may be some justification if the bank’s customers are not in Singapore, but are from the same country as the PMETs, and if these customers do not speak any of the languages widely used in Singapore. Some have argued that this is what it takes for Singapore to be a global financial hub.

The problem is that we simply do not know enough. And the vacuum has given space for a more toxic conversation to ferment. We should nip this forthwith and some details earlier this week from MTI about inter-corporate transferees and remarks by the Minister for MTI have been important. To this end, more information, and not less, is certainly most helpful. One way for us in Parliament and for the public to know, is for MOM to publish the names of recalcitrant employers. We can then understand the operating paradigm of such businesses and understand how they intend to make the transition to fair hiring practices.

The Government also needs to raise its signature in this regard, especially since this is such a hot-button issue, one generating a lot of heat but very little light. To assist, a Parliamentary Select Committee can investigate the limitations of the workforce and the needs of the economy on the one hand, and the reality of the Singaporean worker in the face of competition and the constraints faced by employers on the other.

Beyond this, a far more purposeful way to prevent companies from hiring unfairly would be for Parliament to pass anti-discrimination legislation and impose penalties for discriminatory practices by egregious offenders. This should be considered alongside a more activist approach by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) in the immediate term. At the moment, the penalty for employers who breach TAFEP’s fair hiring requirements is a debarment of up to two years from hiring or renewing foreign workers, including work pass renewals – and that is for the most serious offenders. There are no criminal penalties for individuals who are responsible for unfair hiring practices. Surely this tempts recalcitrant employers into trying their luck. If they practise unfair hiring, all that happens is that they are stopped from hiring unfairly for two years.

Employers only face criminal prosecution if they make false declarations on fair consideration. And somehow, truthful declarations on fair consideration have allowed two companies to hire up to two-thirds and three-quarters of PMETs of the same nationality. Needless to say, prosecution only for false declarations is simply not enough.

In tandem with a stronger regime of deterrence, there should be an educational credential assessment for all Employment Pass and S Pass applicants, the cost of which should be borne by the applicant. This will ensure that only objectively qualified foreigners may work in Singapore.

Tied closely to the issue of the hiring of foreigners is whether the education system is adequately preparing our citizens for the jobs that are available. The big banks – OCBC, UOB and DBS – all have workforces that are made up of at least 90% Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. It is unclear what proportion are Singapore Citizens. Standard Chartered has said that 70% of its local subsidiary’s staff are Singapore Citizens. Are these really high numbers? What are the reasons why these banks cannot be staffed by even more Singaporeans?

The two main justifications given for the hiring of foreigners are first, that they are unable to find Singaporeans with the expertise; and second, that foreigners do jobs that are undesired by Singaporeans. As it is unlikely that well-paying banking jobs are undesired by Singaporeans, the justification of these banks in hiring foreigners must be that they are unable to find enough Singaporeans with the needed expertise. If that is true, then we need to ask where the gaps are in our education and lifelong learning training systems. These gaps must be found and plugged as soon as possible.

Last Friday, MAS responded to The Straits Times queries on the issue of foreign professionals at financial institutions. I agree with MAS that falsehoods on fair hiring are unhelpful and unfair. On the point of the number of Singaporeans at financial institutions, however, MAS did say that there are some functions and some firms where there is scope to increase the proportion of Singaporeans. MAS has also said that it would like to see more Singaporeans move into the senior ranks of the financial sector. MAS added that there is an urgent need to build the local talent pool in technology-related areas to meet increasing demand.

I was glad to see that MAS made the same points I have made above – that a greater proportion of Singaporeans can be employed at financial institutions and that Singaporeans need to be appropriately educated and trained to take up jobs in the financial sector.

Mr Speaker, I have spent some time on these matters which are on the lips of many Singaporeans because I believe that in spite of COVID-19 and the changes taking place in the world, opportunities are arising that Singapore can take advantage of. For example, the seismic political changes in Hong Kong may prompt some international businesses to move to other jurisdictions. We should aim to welcome those looking to move. But if we do not move purposefully to consolidate and position the Singaporean PMET in a competitive position vis-a-vis the work pass holder, the Government will not be able to secure support or adequate support for its economic agenda and take advantage of opportunities while maintaining social harmony.

Let me now move away from foreign professionals to discuss local tradesmen. Another thing that we should change in Singapore is raising the value of the work of the Singapore tradesmen. In places like Australia, New Zealand and Germany, tradesmen make good wages that match or even outstrip those of university graduates.

In Singapore, although our educational institutions train our citizens for such vocations, not enough is done to protect their trades. The way to protect our tradesmen is to regulate who can practice each trade. Medical professionals, accountants, quantity surveyors, insurance practitioners and even real estate sales professionals have to be properly qualified and certified. This enables them to earn a wage that is protected from undercutting by the unqualified. For example, for trades such as air-conditioner servicing and plumbing, anyone can offer such services.

Uplifting our tradesmen will require a paradigm shift in how workers are viewed and trained. If it succeeds, it will raise the self-esteem and incomes of Singaporeans who may not be academically inclined but who have acquired valuable skills that many of us in this House would not be able to fully master. It is my view that such a decisive shift will fundamentally alter our understanding of meritocracy.

The final point I would like to make on things that should change is on greater help for those who need it most. The Workers' Party believes that the Pioneer and Merdeka generation schemes, for example, are good ones. Indeed, we ourselves proposed policies along these lines, years ago. However, we believe more can be done.

We know that there are trade-offs. Extending more health and other social benefits comes with a cost. Could this result in higher income taxes for many Singaporeans and those who work here, for example? Yes. But the benefits will go beyond mere financial help for those who need it. Will there be a price to pay in terms of higher costs for the end-consumer? This must be expected. Increasingly, there will be a price to pay if we wish to be "One United People" and move beyond the phrase as an aspiration or worse, a platitude.

Many Scandinavians are content to pay higher taxes because they know this would mean that others in their society will be able to live with greater dignity. For those who earn higher incomes, to pay higher taxes is a point of pride for many of them. The Singaporean identity which sees community as a central pillar of its DNA should imbibe such thinking with those better-off paying more. Let us build a kinder and gentler Singapore.

In conclusion, Sir, those are the three things I wanted to speak on today: first, things that have changed since the General Election; second, things that must not change; and third, things that should change.

As history tells us, change can be for the better or for the worse. Around 50 years ago, some Asian countries were prosperous and thriving. Fast forward to today, as a direct result of bad choices and in spite of the best intentions, things have gone awry there.

However Singapore pivots or evolves in the years to come, I believe a reasoned conversation before choices and decisions are made, or not made, will be critical. These will take time and consume much energy, and we will have to guard against conversations which are hijacked to advance sectional interests that demonise those who have reservations or a different perspective.

The Workers' Party will seek to play a positive role in the national conversation both in and out of Parliament to leave behind a Singapore our children and future generations can be proud of. There is much to do.

I support the Motion in the name of Mr Patrick Tay which gives thanks to the President for her Address delivered on behalf of the Government.

1.45 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of thanks to the President for her Address on behalf of the Government.

Sir, Mdm President in her opening address to Parliament last week spoke about “Securing our Future in a Different World”. We are indeed facing a different world. Prior to COVID-19, companies in Singapore have started digitalising to improve productivity, build new capability to access new markets and opportunities.

COVID-19 has accelerated the pace of digitalisation. The way we work, live and interact has significantly changed. I never thought I would see a day where our borders are closed, people not able to interact freely physically and businesses having to limit their staff from working in the office. Virtual meetings, e-commerce, digital payments, deliveries, safe distancing and digital tracking have become a way of life.

I will speak on three areas. First, the concern over jobs and the need to ensure economic growth to support quality jobs. Second, building the Singapore Core and why Singapore must stay open. And third, working together to emerge stronger.

Let me now touch on my first point on concerns about jobs. Conversations have shifted. From my house-to-house engagements with residents, many expressed their anxiety over their jobs. Mid-career residents shared that its harder to find equivalent job opportunities when they lose their jobs, that is, quality jobs. I am also hearing from younger residents – their concerns of finding employment. I met several young residents last week who had recently lost their jobs or had their pay or job scopes reduced due to COVID. Many are concerned about losing their jobs and livelihoods as the companies they work for are not seeing the same demand for their services and hence need to cut back.

With the sudden and severe impact of the COVID pandemic on businesses, support like the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS, has helped companies manage manpower costs and keep jobs. This is, however, not sustainable on a long term. Companies need support to recover and create jobs for Singaporeans to have good and meaningful work.

This COVID pandemic has forced organisations to rethink how and where they do business to stay resilient. This pandemic has demonstrated the need for deep capabilities, diversification of markets and supply chains, and the importance of digital capabilities of our companies and workforce.

While no company is spared the impact of this pandemic, we did see that companies with sound business continuity plans, and those who had invested in building capability and digitalisation, were better able to adapt quickly to keep operations and business going. For small businesses, the ability to adapt and adopt digitalisation has accelerated virtual connectivity and access to new business. A simple example is how stalls in our wet markets and hawkers have overcome the physical access restrictions by adapting and selling online. With access to new customers, some of these businesses are doing better than pre-COVID-19 times.

With the importance of digitalisation, tech and tech-related jobs in data analytics, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, network and software engineering are up and will be in demand. These are quality jobs, but we do not have enough Singaporeans equipped with the requisite skills. We must train our younger Singaporeans and reskill our mid-career workers to be ready for the recovery. Programmes such as traineeship, placements and various skills upgrading initiatives in the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package allows learning beyond just knowledge to real experience and learning from others to prepare and develop people for these roles. Effective execution of these programmes is key. We must also continue to invest in an innovation and learning ecosystem to build deep local capabilities enabled by a world-class infrastructure.

While helping our SMEs go digital and building digital capabilities are important, I am also glad that in its Addendum to the President’s Address, MCI has outlined how efforts will be made to promote the ecosystem, having the eco-system to support digital transformation. International connectivity, growth of local digital champions, progressive regulations and public private partnerships – these are key to building capability and growth of SMEs, who provide 70% of employment in Singapore, as well as markets outside of Singapore which are key for growth.

Now, let me now move on to my second point on why Singapore must stay open. With job losses and as more jobs are impacted, many Singaporeans are hurting, and many of my residents are questioning if we have too many foreigners working in Singapore and competing for jobs.

There is no easy answer to this, but it is a topic that we must discuss. While they are not the majority of companies, there are companies hiring a higher proportion of foreign PMETs than their industry peers. Just earlier this month, it was reported in the Straits Times that MOM has placed another 47 employers (on top of the current 1,200) on the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watch list for potentially discriminatory hiring practices.

MOM has also announced last week that higher qualifying salaries for S Pass and EP will be effective 1 September 2020. With the reduction in the number of jobs available due to COVID, as well as the changes that were seen in the economy to encourage companies to give Singaporeans a fair chance and to ensure foreigners do not undercut Singaporean wages, it is important to have this.

I want to share a little bit about my experience. Although I currently work for a Singapore company, a large part of my commercial career was with two foreign MNCs in Singapore. My tenure with these two companies was for almost 30 years. During my time with both these companies, I worked closely with Singaporeans and foreigners from many countries. I and many of my Singaporean colleagues had development and many good job opportunities. Working with a diverse group of colleagues enabled me to learn and develop both in Singapore and in other markets overseas. Having access to a network of expert talent in and outside of Singapore gave us the ability to compete effectively, build centres of competencies in Singapore or quickly scale up for large projects. We would otherwise not have been able if these specific skills required had not been available, or we just had not had them available in sufficient numbers.

So, I asked myself what is different from the experience many are feeling today? One factor could be that despite some periods of challenging business climates, most times the economy was growing. The other factor which I did not think much about even though it was there was the deliberate People Strategy and Plans that both these MNCs I had worked for had. Even when there were foreigners in key skilled or leadership positions, and I worked for many of them, there were clear development plans and identified succession plans or pipeline for local talent to fill these roles over time, and that was deliberated every single year. I myself held many key leadership positions managing business in Singapore and in the region taking over from predecessors who were foreigners and managing both local and foreign teams across the world. With clear succession planning in place, when I left my last role in the MNC that I was with to pursue new opportunities, the successor to my role is also Singaporean.

I believe that many companies still have such people practices in place. However, it could be that the speed and the scale of growth in the last few years, coupled with the disruptions that we have seen, some of these practices may have been sidelined to meet the demands of business.

I believe that while we do have policies in place, we must have, to ensure fair employment practices, more importantly employers must have People Plans to grow and strengthen the Singapore Core. This requires commitment, not just of the Government, but of the companies both Singapore and foreign to invest and develop skills of Singaporeans, and with a balance of Government policies and enforcement, I think we will get to that balance.

At the sector level, a good programme is the launch of MAS’ $125-million support package launched in April this year. Apart from all the subsidies for training and for manpower cost which everybody talks about in the FinTech sectors and the financial services, what is important is the package has structured talent development programmes for more than 900 Singaporeans amongst the newly hired in the financial institutions (FIs) over the next three years. To prepare local mid-career workers as well for new or transformed roles, MAS is closely working with the Institute of Banking and Finance and Workforce Singapore to train and redeploy workers. Having jobs is not good enough; we need to have the right support for our workers so that they are ready for the recovery. I think that is the thing that worries all of us, not just for Singapore, but for the opportunities outside of Singapore.

While we must continue to grow the Singapore Core, I must say that we must not lock ourselves out as foreigners are required to complement the Singapore workforce. Singapore cannot become a place that is difficult for companies both Singaporean and foreign to operate as Singapore is a small market and dependent on external demand as well as resources to grow and to scale. COVID-19 has shown us what happens to many of our businesses and jobs when demand and supply of both products and manpower is shut off. It is just so stark. It is frightening. During circuit breaker time, that was experiment that I think nobody wanted to see. But that is a big reminder for all of us – shutting ourselves out is not a solution.

The third point want to make is about staying stronger together. The challenge we face in the post-COVID-19 world is not about how in Singapore we become better, but how as Singapore we become better.

While there are still risks, this pandemic as with previous crises has once again shown us that together, Singapore, we can overcome difficulties. What it takes is all of us working together. The Multi-Ministry Taskforce, our businesses and people working together, with each playing our part, has allowed us to keep transmissions low and our people safe while slowing opening up our economy.

We should not wait for a crisis to happen to bring us together. We need to look at how we come together, tap ideas, expertise across Government and across Government agencies, businesses and our citizenry. We should build communities of learning. Singapore continues to be an attractive place for doing business and we have a strong talent base. Together, I am confident that we can and will build a stronger Singapore to meet the aspirations and give Singaporeans hope today and for the future.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the three areas I spoke about highlight areas I feel important for Singapore to secure our future, and most importantly, to give hope to Singaporeans in an ever uncertain world.

First, the need to accelerate the building of capabilities in our industries, companies and, most importantly, our workforce. Without such capabilities, our companies cannot respond to opportunities or provide quality jobs, and our people cannot be ready.

Second, Singapore must be connected and stay open. It allows for access not only for wider market opportunities but also diverse talent and experience which in turn helps to build the Singapore Core.

And finally, we must do it together, whole-of-Government, businesses and citizens. We will learn, innovate and adapt faster to respond and create opportunities as the uncertain world unfolds before us. I support the Motion. [Applause.]

2.00 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 crisis has accelerated change. It is bringing about a new normal. In these unprecedented times, Singapore needs to keep what is good and build on it, refine what can be improved and continue navigating toward a better future. My speech will cover three broad themes – first, financial support for Singaporeans; second, foreign workers’ dormitories and, third, riding the wave of a post-COVID-19 world.

Since the beginning of this year, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat has rolled out four formidable Budgets. These have gone some way to ease the pain felt by people as a result of the pandemic. However, there are some Singaporeans who may not stand to benefit from all these schemes but are, nevertheless, adversely affected by the pandemic’s disruption.

For instance, because some of the current schemes assess eligibility based on place of residence rather than whether the Singaporean actually owns the property he or she is residing in, some people may have difficulty tapping on the support they need. For example, less well-to-do adult children who may be staying with parents; large extended families living together in the same house; Singaporeans who have recently divorced or single parents returning to stay with their elderly parents; unmarried children or grandchildren waiting to move into BTO flats under construction; or families who recently sold their homes under difficult financial circumstances and who have moved back in with siblings or parents.

Sometimes, the consequence is that Singaporeans are excluded from the Self-Employed Persons Relief Scheme.

In light of the above, my suggestion is that support schemes assess home ownership rather than mere residence.

My second suggestion on broadening support for Singaporeans is to assess personal income as an alternative to income on the household per capita basis. Sometimes, people living in the same "household" do not contribute financially towards each other. For example, siblings who are still living in their parents' home but do not subsidise each other’s finances.

Others include situations I have previously described earlier on in my speech. Members of households could draw substantially different wages. In such situations, the person drawing a lower income is disqualified from receiving financial support from the Government even though he or she may not have access to those resources that the income on a household per capita basis attributes to him or her. It also excludes applicants from resources that were supposed to help him or her during the pandemic and, in some instances, prejudices families who are willing to shelter them during this crisis.

Some of the schemes affected are the COVID-19 Support Grant, The Courage Fund for lower income households affected by COVID-19 and the Temporary Relief Fund. To address this, Mr Speaker, Sir, my suggestion is to take personal income as an alternative basis of assessment whenever the income household per capita disqualifies an adult Singaporean from financial support.

My third suggestion on broadening support for Singaporeans is to consider removing the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) for Singaporeans. The Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) already helps to ensure that a Singaporean will not overextend himself or herself but will only get a credit line within his or her means. Revenue can still be raised by retaining ABSD for foreigners. There looks to be demand for Singapore properties by overseas investors due to Singapore being seen as a stable environment. Hence, demand from foreigners may not diminish even if ABSD is removed only for Singaporeans. This means that the property market is kept somewhat stable.

The first broad theme of suggestions in my speech, Sir, was related to support available to Singaporeans. The second theme of suggestions are those relating to foreign worker dormitories. About 20 purpose-built dormitories for foreign workers breach dormitory licence conditions each year, almost half of the 43 dormitories regulated under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act

Each year, there is an average of 1,200 employers taken to task for unacceptable accommodation under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. To put this number in context, it is the same number of inspections conducted by MOM last year on foreign worker housing, slightly more than a quarter of inspections and investigations combined.

The high proportion of contraventions is concerning to me and we need to carefully examine whether the system is being abused by operators and whether punitive measures in the relevant legislation are sufficiently deterrent.

Under the Foreign Employees Dormitories Act, the Commissioner may give a compliance directive if the operations are carried out in a careless or incompetent manner, or to avoid a serious and imminent threat to safety and health of residents. Failure to comply with requirements imposed by a compliance directive is an offence with penalty of a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or to both. My suggestion is to introduce penalties that disgorge a certain percentage of profits to deter repeat offenders and the kind of harm caused by contraventions.

To be fair and encourage responsibility on the part of all parties involved, we could take a balanced approach. For example, if the occupier of a dormitory, that is the one in charge of the premises, can prove that he or she had taken all reasonable steps to achieve the criteria on a checklist, it would be prima facie evidence that they had fulfilled their obligations. On the other hand, foreign workers themselves staying in the dormitory would also have a similar checklist listing out their own responsibilities.

Allow me, Sir, to move on to the third broad theme of my speech – suggestions on how to capitalise on the disruption presented by COVID-19.

The first is in the arena of tertiary education. Many Singaporean students have had to return from universities overseas due to COVID-19 and want to make their first few years done overseas count towards a degree in Singapore. Singapore can use this opportunity to attract an even larger talent pool through Singapore Universities, both with Singaporean students and international students.

Through online tutorials, students not in Singapore can participate in courses that count towards a Singapore university degree. The supply of students is no longer limited to geography. This can enhance Singapore’s reputation around the world and ensure the collection of ideas through the enhanced tapestry of students – Singaporeans and overseas students alike. In this way, we could look to becoming a global thought-leader in online pedagogy.

In this time of disruption, a second area that Singapore could advance in is in industries that produce virtual products. These include not only biotech and biosciences but also media and technology, for example, animation or film.

Firstly, we have a strong infrastructure to support these industries. For example, we have Biopolis which is specially built as a research and development hub at One-North, situated in a place that fosters collaboration between private companies and public scientific and educational bodies.

Fusionopolis was designed to create an environment conducive to growth in information and communications technologies, media, physical sciences and engineering industries. The Metropolis in Buona Vista was meant to be a gateway to One-North with research facilities and business parks situated there and designed to be the headquarters for multinational companies.

From what I have listed, Sir, we have custom-built state-of-the-art facilities for these sectors situated in places that promote collaboration and generate innovation. Hence, we have a sturdy foundation to ride the waves of biosciences, biotechnology, animation, film and virtual technology.

Secondly, we have a strong Intellectual Property or IP framework that supports the development of virtual products. We have accelerated and robust application-to-grant pathways for certain IP rights. For dispute resolution, the Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Act passed in 2019 will streamline IP dispute resolution in the Court system and has clarified the arbitrability of IP rights in Singapore. At this stage, Sir, I should declare that I am a practising lawyer at the Singapore Bar.

Internationally, Singapore is known as an IP hub, with a strong IP office and enforcement working closely with other countries to enable smoother and faster IP protection globally. Indeed, IPOS’ strong reputation likely had a positive impact on Mr Daren Tang’s candidature as Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), which he will commence on 1 October.

Having a strong IP framework is important to encourage innovation in Singapore as it helps generate and protect income from virtual products. Hence, the point that I am getting at, Mr Speaker, is that there is a regulatory framework to protect inventions squeezed out during the COVID-19 pandemic period. This makes Singapore attractive and exceedingly relevant to the region and the world. So, we have got good foundational structures to ride the post-COVID-19 wave.

Our Bicentennial exhibition last year and especially the five excellent Acts performed at Fort Canning, reflected how Singapore has always been at the crossroads of history and was always enveloped by a time of change in a changing world. But, even as we are ever surrounded by change, one thing must remain constant and, that is, unity.

Will Singapore remain exceptional? Will we, as legislators, lay aside our differences to forge a stronger and brighter future for Singapore together? How can we forge a better and stronger Singapore together? As legislators, we come together to debate and refine policy, to lead constructive conversations on what is best for Singapore. The policies and the shaping of them – both the result and the process are important. Often times, especially for fiscal policies, neither extremes are the best, with pitfalls for both. We cannot pigeonhole ourselves or others as "right-" or "left-leaning” but must have the flexibility to be politically ambidextrous, not being a slave to rigid ideology but always with an eye for doing what is best for Singapore and making sure it works for Singapore.

Furthermore, we should also be cautious about divisive politics. That, in my view, is not beneficial for Singapore. Divisive politics occurs when we are so entrenched in our position that there is no negotiation for middle ground. I do not think this would work in Singapore nor would it be beneficial for Singapore. We need to resolve disputes for the best of our country – even if we agree to disagree, the process and the debate allows for a fine-tuning of the points of view. And if a way around can be found, it places Singapore in good stead.

The ideas proposed earlier regarding foreign worker dormitories, how to engage the seismic shift in tertiary education or ride the waves of a post-COVID-19 world with an excellent IP regime are all aimed at bettering Singapore. What is essential, if we are to ride this storm, is that Singapore’s best interests must always be our goal when advancing our points of view as legislators. If we are united in that cause, then Singapore wins. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.15 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I thank Mdm President for her Address and I stand in support of the Motion. The COVID-19 crisis has affected societies and economies around the world. As the situation continues to unfold, many try to make sense of what a post-COVID-19 world will be like. Mr Speaker, I will share three imperatives for change and my concerns on three medium to long-term challenges in my speech. The first would be in English and the latter three will be in Malay.

First, long-term unemployment concerns and possible need for workforce reallocation. Change is never easy, we fight to hold on and we fight to let go. In letting go, we also struggle with making sense of the new norm. Making a mid-career change, especially to a new industry, will not be easy. For many of us, it will be one of the most challenging times in our careers.

Today, we face the possibility of another large-scale job reallocation. The pandemic has a significant impact on our economy. We are facing our worst recession in 55 years. Our economy has shrunk 13.2% in the second quarter, retrenchments have doubled and resident unemployment rate has risen to 3.9%. However, the impact is highly disproportionate across different industries. For now, finance and technology sectors are still doing well, and essential services like healthcare and education are always in demand.

Through SGUnited, the Government seeks to help divert those who are seeking employment to the industries that are in high demand. Yet learning new skills for a new industry is time-consuming and challenging, more so for those that require specialised skills, such as in healthcare and technology.

To continue for the long-term or make a switch to move on to a more fulfilling role, further investment in upskilling and education would have to be required. Would the Government consider more incentives for the acquirement of deeper knowledge, including subsidies for full-time degree courses, for example? And in sectors like healthcare, would the Government look into modified courses so that more people could be quickly trained to get into the jobs and be allowed to upgrade their skills as they serve in the various institutions?

The lower income groups are bearing the brunt of the pandemic. Many of them have lost their jobs and we may expect more job losses to come in the near future. Does the Government intend to conduct any form of structured job reallocation beyond nudging towards the Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs? Can we take this opportunity to direct them to sectors that have been conventionally less popular among Singaporeans and more heavily reliant on foreigners, such as early childhood education, nursing, construction, skilled trades and so on?

Also, what is the Government doing to weed out employers who offer higher pay to foreigners to qualify them for workpass but yet clawback the salary once they get into Singapore? This malpractice must be stopped. I am told the employers would make this clawback clause as part of the terms of employment and often, they are verbally negotiated. F&B businesses run by foreigners are one of the culprits.

Second, coping with the challenges of rising prevalence in remote working and protectionism.

Rising prevalence in remote working and protectionism threatens our survivability as an open economy. In the most recent issue of Harvard Business Review, American economist Willy Shih shared his projection on the state of global supply chains in a post-pandemic world. Manufacturers worldwide will be under greater political and competitive pressure to increase domestic production and grown employment in their home countries. They will have to reduce or even eliminate their dependence on sources that are perceived as risky and re-think their use of lean manufacturing strategies to minimise inventory held in global supply chains. The Japanese government, for example, has set aside S$2.2 billion of funding to encourage companies to shift their production out of China.

With the need to diversify, and rising tensions between US and China, firms are shifting to a "China plus one" strategy of spreading production between China and a Southeast Asian country. Our affordable tax regimes, fair and corruption-free business practices and political stability make us an attractive location for start-up companies, and regional headquarters to oversee new supply chains in the region. I note that Mr Shih also mentioned Singapore's efficient and high-capacity trans-shipment hub as part of the recommended Southeast Asian strategy for moving goods to the major markets.

As part of a longer term strategy, we should continue to build on our manufacturing capabilities, particularly in high-tech and healthcare and biomedical industries. Moving forward, the demand for comprehensive logistics strategies will be necessary for companies to make sense of post-pandemic production and movement of goods and services. The question next is, what plans does the Government have to nurture local talents in logistics and even in the maritime industry?

In the meantime, we must continue to remain attractive to global corporations. It remains uncertain if remote working will reduce the need for MNCs to hire locals, but MNCs stimulate the economy through taxes and creating opportunities for SMEs.

I wish to record my appreciation to our Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and A*STAR for ensuring the availability and continued review of effective and efficient COVID-19 test kits, which would facilitate business travel without the need for prolonged quarantine measures across the board.

Third, Mr Speaker, is building a Singapore Core in a tight labour market. Remaining open to global talent is not mutually exclusive to building a local core. We now have a tight job market with an oversupply of workers chasing too few jobs. It becomes more urgent and imperative than ever to strengthen the Singapore Core and enhance our fair consideration framework as mentioned by many speakers before me. I have raised this in my maiden speech five years ago, focusing on job discrimination practices and had requested for more teeth for TAFEP and also anti-discrimination legislation, five years ago. Back in November last year, I had also raised a Motion on the importance of building our Singaporean Core and tightening our job hiring and employment practices for older workers and minorities.

I urge MOM to consider my suggestion to expand the Capability Transfer Programme (CTP) to support companies to set localisation targets. Now is a good time to focus on transferring capabilities from currently employed foreign employees to local workers, with the aim of localising jobs. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Three long-term challenges.

First, tackling rising household economic insecurity due to job losses and rising inflation.

With mounting retrenchments and job losses comes rising household economic insecurity. Adding on to these challenges is the possibility of rising inflation. It is true that there is little concern about the risk of inflation, but market strategist and financial historian Prof Russell Napier projects that inflation in the next 10 years will be between 4% and 8%. Singapore has no net debt and would have no need to engage in financial repression, but we are an open economy and a price taker, and so we will certainly be impacted by global policies.

For young couples who are planning to start or grow their families, how will this rising household economic insecurity influence their decisions?

Additionally, what will all these mean for our plans to raise the GST and other economic policies? Many young couples cite the cost of living in Singapore as a deterrence from having children. So, how can Singapore be an affordable and conducive place to build a family?

Second, housing costs and healthcare.

Housing costs remain a key concern for young Singaporean couples who want to remain in Singapore and settle down. With inflation, the cost of raw materials will only go up. How will the Government ensure housing remains affordable for young Singaporeans?

Third, economic implications. I will speak a bit more on this issue.

A key question in the minds of many economists is: what would be the long-term costs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic? Even if a vaccine, or more than one vaccine, is developed, and everyone is back at work, but what would be the impact on the nature of economic activity? There is certainly widespread discussion whether the discovery would lead to a U-shaped, V-shaped or L-shaped economic recovery.

The key thing is whether companies and consumers would be able to regain their confidence to embark on a spending pattern. Or would they hesitate, hold back and become risk-averse? And this would become the so-called “scarring effect” that would leave a lasting impact on the economy. It is like a person who, after going through a trauma, recovers but suffers from a scarring effect on his personality and loses self-confidence. We would never know which sector of the economy would be more scarred than others, perhaps it is the travel industry (air and cruise) and the entertainment sector, and many other sectors.

Small businesses and households are reeling from the pain of closures and bankruptcies. More than 8,600 businesses have already ceased and filed to cease operations in April and I am worried that this is only a forewarning of an unforgivably harsh and prolonged pandemic.

Over the last six months, I have met and listened to residents either in-person or virtually, ranging from professional photographers, media professionals and Grab drivers, who sought help, and the Government has provided SIRS and COVID-19 support for them. All these measures are good. More recently, I have seen residents, who are currently restaurant and now karaoke owners, coming to obtain assistance as well as regulatory changes to allow them to utilise their business spaces for more productive purposes.

So far, in the short term, our multiple Budget measures provided the interventions and a kind of insurance to help protect the most vulnerable sections of society and help businesses survive. But what about the long-term effects of such measures? A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis recently showed that policies that help prevent capital depreciation or obsolescence, even if it has only modest immediate effects on output, can have substantial long-term effects. Although Government policies cannot prevent people from believing that future pandemics are more likely to occur compared to what they thought previously, good policies can, however, affect how long the on-going crisis will drag on. The important thing is that we should mitigate the costs of what is known as “belief scarring”. For example, widespread bankruptcies can lead to destruction of specific investments and a permanent erosion in the value of certain types of capital.

I hope that the Government will not just view the prevention of bankruptcies as important, but also place importance on the method of prevention and not underestimate its long-term effects on businesses and families.

However, we may see more investments in the safe industries like healthcare, food and groceries, and technology. Health and safety regulations will likely remain. Global health experts have warned of more possible pandemics to come and we want to stay prepared. So, we will more than likely see less efficient use of commercial space in malls, F&B establishments, tourist attractions, on public transport and planes and so on. That brings me back to my earlier point on risk-taking behaviour. Would firms and businesses be willing to take risks, if they fear that another pandemic may wipe out their hard work and even livelihoods? How can we ensure that this fear does not lead to further decline in investments and, therefore, jobs in the long term?

(In English): Mr Speaker, this scarring effect was seen previously before the 2007/2008 Financial Crisis, few would think of the possibility of a financial collapse. Today, the fear of a financial collapse has always lingered at the back of the minds of many. It is not uncommon to hear or people talking about nothing is too big to collapse after the debacle. So, policy planners would need to address how businesses will be making decisions with the added element of what is the risk to them, should there be another pandemic, not necessarily the COVID-19 pandemic, and how this will impact the appetite for investments for venturing into new businesses for expansion and how to grab opportunities now if possible.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as the saying goes, where there is life, there is hope. While other modern economies are battered by high infections and death rates, we have been able to keep these numbers low in the community here in Singapore. We must resist from the temptation of making comparisons, but take charge of what we can control, such as our own lives and our own health. In the meantime, the Government must look beyond labour issues and take steps to cushion the potential impact of future inflation and sectoral issues, as we pick ourselves up in a post-pandemic world.

2.30 pm

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank our President for her Address. The Fourteenth Parliament is opening in exceptional times. Despite the injection of almost $100 billion into the economy, the pain and frustrations that our people and businesses are experiencing continue. The road to recovery will be harsh and bumpy.

The President spoke about COVID-19 reshuffling the deck – revealing new threats alongside fresh opportunities. Sir, I would like to focus my speech on the new strategies Singapore must embrace on jobs and employment policies to cope in a different world, joining many Members who spoke before me. This must be the priority for this new term of Government.

Sir, I have spoken on many previous occasions in this House on the need to review employment policies to ensure we build a strong Singaporean Core of talent and asked that Singaporeans be given opportunities for the best jobs. COVID-19 has exposed significant risks in Singapore’s over-dependence on foreign manpower. Now, more than ever, in an increasingly protectionist world, our employment policies must tilt towards giving priority to Singaporeans for jobs they can do, and put in place proactive development plans to nurture Singaporeans for the skills and experience they lack.

I have met many middle income Singaporeans, working as PMEs, who do not feel secure in their jobs. They feel intense competition from the influx of foreign talent and describe incidents of unfair employment practices by employers who display a clear preference for foreigners. Why? Many Singaporeans believe that they are being passed over for jobs that they can do because foreigners come cheaper, without the employer having to pay for CPF contributions and deal with National Service obligations, or simply because employers prefer to bring their own friends and families from overseas to fill vacancies.

The Government has announced a set of new measures to raise the bar on the hiring of Employment Pass holders. The focus so far has been on giving Singaporeans fair consideration. Whilst these represent steps in the right direction, I do not think the new measures go far enough.

First, I would like to reiterate the call I have made repeatedly in past sittings, that Singaporeans should be given priority, and not just be fairly considered, for jobs they can do. In other words, between two equally qualified candidates, employers should be obliged – obliged – to pick the Singaporean over the foreigner.

Such a “Singaporean first” employment policy is consistent with other Singapore Government policies where we accord significant benefits and priorities to citizens, whether it be housing, Primary school balloting, school fees or healthcare subsidies. We must move from a neutral position, where we are content with having employers give Singaporeans "fair consideration" to an assertive position where we expect employers to positively favour – and I repeat, positively favour – the hiring and developing of Singaporeans if they have the skills and experience.

During my 20 years as an international banker, I have seen how various jurisdictions around the world enforce employment policies that promote the hiring of local talent even as they recognised the need to judiciously tap the international talent pool. Similarly, even as Singapore continues to welcome the brightest and best from around the world to help our country reach our standards of excellence in every field, we must promote the hiring and training of locals. Both objectives can be achieved concurrently.

To ensure our economy is undergirded by our strong Singaporean Core, our manpower policies must ensure it happens. I urge the Government to put in place four key measures.

First, enforce transparency of selection requirements. Apart from requiring that the job vacancy be posted for 28 days, the selection criteria must be completely transparent. The employer’s final hiring decision must stand up to the scrutiny of others – including the firms’ own employees as well as the authorities. Hiring based on transparent and objective selection criteria is good for business as it fosters a sense of fair play at the workplace.

Two, implement dependency ratio or quota for Employment Passes, with differentiated ceilings and salary levels for different sectors. This will certainly galvanise the necessary action on the part of employers to reduce reliance on foreigners.

Three, ensure capabilities and skills transfer to local employees. For selected sectors, there may be a need to require employers to systematically develop succession plans and capability transfers to locals and have these linked to EP approvals. Sectors with high concentrations of foreigners should then have their renewals of work passes be contingent on the firms meeting local succession and capability transfer KPIs.

Four, hold senior management accountable – require the most senior executive to sign off on employment offers to EP holders, including a declaration that the firm has complied with the above-mentioned requirements. False declarations should carry penalty under Singapore’s laws.

The current negative sentiment against foreigners will ease when Singaporeans believe that the system takes care of their interests and it means something to be a Singaporean when applying for a job. They will be more amenable to hosting international expertise in their midst when they believe that they will benefit from a systematic transfer of skills and knowledge from foreign colleagues. Singaporeans’ attitudes toward foreigners will be more welcoming and the Government can aid this effort by putting the right systems in place.

Sir, during one of my international assignments to Canada 25 years ago, for a recruitment drive to source for bankers of Asian origin to return to Asia, I chanced upon Canada’s Equal Employment Opportunities framework. Even then, 25 years ago, it was against Canadian law to ask candidates about their age, gender, race, maritial status and disabilities – all things we do routinely in Singapore, as part of our employment process. To comply with Canadian laws, HR changed the application forms, removing all reference to these factors and focused the selection completely on job-related skills and experience. This experience left a deep impression on me – that candidates should indeed be assessed purely on their competencies, skills and experience to do the job – and nothing else.

In Singapore, despite numerous Government schemes encouraging the employment of older workers and mid-career Singaporeans, I often hear our citizens’ frustrations that their age and previous pay act as barriers to securing new career opportunities. This, despite genuine effort on their part to lower their expectations of rank and pay. We have also often heard of discriminatory practices against mothers and minorities.

I call on the Government to consider implementing an Equal Employment Opportunities framework to stem discrimination in employment practices. Employers should institute hiring practices that engender blindness in the workplace towards age, gender, race, disability and everything else that they may discriminate against – for a more diverse representation across all groups. Employment equity is a matter of dignity – everyone should have an equal opportunity to work and contribute to society. At the same time, employers stand to gain from a diversified and competent workforce, one that promotes inclusion in the workplace.

Sir, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced the further extension of the Job Support Scheme or JSS, to help keep companies afloat and save jobs. Whilst I support the need to preserve our core capabilities in key sectors such as aviation, I question the sustainability of extending JSS indefinitely. It is about time that the Government transition to a much more differentiated level of support for companies. Well-intended assistance to prop up firms who are not viable in a post-COVID-19 world, may inadvertently provide them with artificial life-support to extend their decline, thus hindering the reallocation of labour and resources.

Instead, we should pivot our assistance programmes to help workers find new careers and learn new skills. As much as we think JSS will help to save jobs, many citizens shared about their struggles of being "stuck" with employers whose businesses are no longer viable, whilst they experience significant reductions in pay and prospects.

Instead of sinking millions into JSS for these companies, why not help affected workers from distressed firms directly? These workers could benefit from the Government’s direct financial assistance – start afresh to seek new careers and undergo training to move to more promising sectors and occupations. Their future should not have to be so inextricably linked to their companies’ ability to rebound. Empower the workers to seek a better future for themselves.

Sir, the poor and vulnerable have been the hardest hit by the pandemic. When lower- income residents lose their jobs or experience salary cuts, they have little savings to fall back on. Every week, I witness the hardship endured by self-employed gig workers, first-hand. I see the difficulty of many laid-off residents to secure employment and feel their frustration. The introduction of COVID-19 Support Grant to help the unemployed and SIRS to help the self-employed are steps in the right direction. At this time of great uncertainty and disruption, we owe it to our people to provide some universal safety net in the form of support for basic income, medical coverage and retirement adequacy, so that families can cope.

In years past, Singapore has managed to avoid implementing these safety nets– but the world has changed and we should reconsider our position on some of these "sacred cows".

Sir, as Singapore faces a challenging fiscal environment given the poor economic outlook, I would like to repeat my call to the Government to consider an even more progressive personal income tax and consider introducing wealth taxes and estate duties – all aimed at building a fairer and more equal society.

In the past, reluctance to do so has been down to the fear of driving away wealthy investors. But I believe that, in a world made more turbulent and uncertain by COVID-19, Singapore’s unmatched proposition of a world class infrastructure, rule of law, financial and political stability and now, best-in-class healthcare, is made even stronger. As a destination for global wealth assets, Singapore offers peace of mind and will continue to be attractive even if our well-structured tax regime imposes higher rates.

The effects of the pandemic, which have recently included surging stock prices alongside mass unemployment, risk bringing about a more unequal society, more disparate incomes, a wider gulf between rich and poor. To be sure, COVID-19 affects everyone, but for lower income citizens, the impact could be devastating. Our people are frightened and worried – they need our help and they need our assurance. We, in this House, must lead with compassion, wisdom and courage. During the recent General Election, many of us promised our residents that, as they faced the struggles of this pandemic, they would not walk their journey alone. It is time we kept our promise to them. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

2.45 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, I joined the workforce 32 years ago as a lawyer. Throughout my life, I had known the PAP as the Government in charge of Singapore. My assessment at that time was that PAP is a capable Government. The values expounded by the PAP Government resonate with me – meritocracy, no cronyism, diligence and hard work, a firm stand against corruption. It is a Government that had performed over the years and gave Singaporeans progress and a better life. It is a Government which I can support.

Today, life has become more complicated. By all measures, we had done well. Our living standard is still one of the best in the world. If you look at healthcare, housing, public transport, education opportunities, security and public order, they are all of a very high standard. But Singaporeans face challenges of higher cost of living, more stress, stiff competition and income inequality.

We also live in a more inter-connected and complicating world order where governments in other countries have become protectionists and more inward looking. As President Halimah said in her speech, "countries are fighting to meet their own needs, fueling a new wave of protectionism".

I believe that many Singaporeans understand the challenges facing us as a small trading nation. Singaporeans, myself included, also acknowledge that the PAP Government is still a capable government and that it will be able to deliver.

There will always be policy gaps which I think most of us acknowledge. There is no perfect government in the world.

Over the past 14 years as a Member of Parliament, I have met and had many discussions with Government Ministers and senior civil servants. I have come to acknowledge that almost all policies are about trade-offs.

Take workers, for example. We all want a Singaporean Core; we want Singaporeans to be employed first and to get the best jobs. But yet, if we do not open our doors to allow skilled and talented foreign workers to Singapore, we risk losing out to international competition for foreign investment. If foreign investors face severe manpower restrictions and they cannot get the best workers to work here and to grow their companies, why would they come to Singapore? Why not invest in another country where manpower cost is lower and there are less restrictions?

Thus, the solution is not to close the door to skilled foreign workers but to ensure that we have policies which do not discriminate against Singaporeans, that we have policies which will help Singaporeans to get better jobs. So, I urge the Government to continue ensuring that Singaporeans remain at the centre of all that we do, and for the Government to do a better job of explaining in very simple terms the trade-offs faced by us as a small nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern about Singapore’s future is not only about COVID-19 and about job losses. This is a pandemic that has caused the worst recession in Singapore since Independence. But Singapore had overcome the Asian Financial Crisis in 1996; we had defeated SARS in 2003 and we survived the collapse of major financial institutions due to the failure of Lehman Brothers. We are a resilient country and together as one people, we will be able to overcome all challenges.

My other concern is about our politics. The People’s Association had done a wonderful job in promoting social harmony and integration, racial and religious harmony. But come election time, as a people, we are no longer united and instead have become divided. Debate on policies is supposed to result in better policies for Singapore. But instead of debate on policies, the social media goes on a frenzy as political personalities are attacked during the election. Just as in many other countries, politics seem to have divided Singapore and this is not good for us as a nation. The amount of vitriol and hate which I read about in the social media during the election campaign saddens me.

During the election, the frequent feedback which I have received is that the Government is arrogant; it is not willing to listen; our leaders are out of touch; the leaders are not humble. Rightly or wrongly, there is also the perception that there is bullying and unfair treatment of people who do not agree with our policies.

So, I am glad that the President had devoted an entire section in her speech about "Evolving our Politics". I also applaud the Government for recognising the Leader of the Opposition. I urge the Government to be more open to constructive criticisms and rational debate. I would submit that the Government must not treat politicians from other parties as enemies. They too are fellow Singaporeans. We must assume that they want the best for Singapore even if they do not agree with all our Government policies. And where politicians from other parties and even backbenchers from PAP have good ideas, I urge the Government to acknowledge and consider these ideas.

After the 2015 election, in my speech to thank the President in 2016, I said that: "Many residents spoke to me about the rejection of confrontational politics. They want a government that can work with different organisations which are committed to building Singapore to become a stronger and better nation."

Two years later after Parliament prorogued, I again called on the Government to "be a more receptive and kinder government when dealing with people of differing views."

I repeat this call for a less confrontational political system, so that Singaporeans can be more united. If we do not get our politics right, there will be continued distrust in the Government and we will not stand united. We will not be able to overcome crises together.

I also urge the leaders of other political parties to condemn the destructive criticisms which push falsehood and twist facts out of context. Constructive suggestions build up Singapore. Destructive untruths will bring down our country because it instils hatred against fair and decent leaders.

Mr Speaker, I just have one additional comment on the President’s Address. When we talk about building a fair and just society, my hope is that this means fairness for all Singaporeans regardless of housing type.

In the past budgetary provisions, we have dug deep into our reserves to help those adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. I agree that those who are low-income and need more help should get more help. But for those who need help but live in homes above a certain annual value, why should they be deemed to be self-sufficient?

I do not agree with this policy. When a Singaporean suffers loss of income, then regardless of his house type, he needs help. He may have family expenses like medical bills, mortgage instalments, school fees to settle. He may have to look after sick elderly parents or look after children with special needs. He may not be able to sell his home during a financial crisis. During good times, he pays all his taxes dutifully. But when times are hard, should the Government decline to help these people just because they have a house with a higher value? Is the COVID-19 crisis something that they could have predicted? Some of these residents are mere tenants of the homes with higher annual value; some are children of actual owners of the property; and some have inherited the homes from their parents.

Our reserves are built on the hard work contributed by all tax payers. Why do we have the expectation that people do not deserve help simply because they have bigger homes of a higher annual value? Should we not look at their loss of income? Should we always insist that these people must sell their homes before they get the short-term help specifically targeted at those affected by COVID-19? So, I urge the Government to review this policy of pegging our assistance to annual values of properties. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

2.54 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a privilege to deliver my maiden speech at the Fourteenth Parliament of Singapore. I would like to declare that I am the Managing Director of the Timbre group of companies, Director of placeM One Pte Ltd, Feed The World Pte Ltd, SMU Enterprise, NP Enterprise, Assistant Honorary Secretary of the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Treasurer of the Singapore Nightlife Business Association.

I rise to thank the President for her speech. I fully concur with her that we must engage and harness the aspirations and creative energies of all Singaporeans.

Our lives have changed so much in the past eight months. This COVID-19 pandemic is providing unprecedented challenges for both our people and society.

2020 has revealed two major realities. First, even well managed companies have been adversely affected due to external factors. For instance, the companies in our tourism ecosystem such as SIA, hotels and F&Bs. Second, the desire of our electorate for a more inclusive society on matters pertaining to race, community and employment. I strongly believe that these challenges provide new opportunities for us to work together as one community, to evolve to meet new realities.

As a fellow Singaporean entrepreneur myself, I stand here to represent and be a strong voice for our companies, especially SMEs, during such extraordinary times. We need to broaden our view of enterprises and entrepreneurs as having not only economic value but deep social value at our core. Our enterprises are agents of social changes. We need more companies to be created with missions that value adds to our society and improves our societal well-being.

Therefore, it is crucial that we shift our perspective from looking at an enterprise as an economic entity but also see it as a unit for our society’s progress. This will mean that at a societal level, each enterprise must reflect our national narrative of "against the odds", "regardless of race, language or religion" and "inclusivity". We must be prepared to "learn, unlearn, and relearn".

We need to support our companies trying to revive and transform their businesses. I agree that this requires a significant change in our mindset, but we must do so quickly in such difficult and unusual times. We need to question existing assumptions and recalibrate our thinking about enterprises.

Looking at entrepreneurs and enterprises as having both economic as well as societal value at the national level will inspire more entrepreneurs to establish more companies in Singapore, especially young people in their 20s to 30s who want to do more than simply make money. With more companies on board, we can offer more quality jobs which attract more Singaporeans who desire to work for these companies because it resonates with their aspirations.

In addition, we should not compartmentalise that Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR is separate from entrepreneurship development. In fact, the concept of CSR is fast becoming nothing more than a "Public Relations". Doing well and doing good comes hand in hand. Authenticity is much talked about and less often reflected. Today, we must think even beyond delivering double bottom lines and instead build businesses out of a core that integrates societal well-being into its operations.

Every enterprise is an organic entity that evolves over time. Those that did not begin in high growth sectors can pivot into it over time. Some successful companies today come from very humble beginnings. We must not assess the success of an enterprise at a single point in time but instead adopt an iterative perspective where all enterprises evolve over time and therefore will have many highs and lows as part of its development. This means that we need to reframe our belief of letting failing companies die to enabling failing companies to rebound and restart.

We must support every entrepreneur or business owner in all sectors because society needs them rather than the belief of spotting unicorn winners and only supporting high-tech entrepreneurs. We need to build into the DNA of the entrepreneur and the enterprise their ability to contribute meaningfully to Singapore society at large. We need to value the individual entrepreneur more than the business and walk this journey of evolution alongside them.

Our approach with our workers is that we cannot save every job, but we will look after every worker. Our approach for our SMEs and entrepreneurs should be the same. While we cannot save every business, we should partner every entrepreneur to evolve, help them with a soft landing, provide them a longer runway and help them re-start.

A good example of a start-up that evolved over time is Alchemy Foodtech. Alan and his wife, Verleen started Alchemy Foodtech to fight our societal battle on diabetes. Together, they invented Alchemy Fibre, a patented ingredient that is gluten-free and made from plant crops such as corn, pea and tapioca, to lower the glycaemic index of refined carbohydrates such as rice, bread and noodles while raising their overall fibre content. When COVID-19 required restaurants to be closed, and more people began to prepare their own meals at home, the Alchemy team created complementary consumer-friendly products that could be easily used for healthier home-cooked meals.

Today, Alchemy fibre is found in established brands like Boon Tong Kee and working with food manufacturers like Gardenia. I have known Alan before Alchemy when he and his wife started a company selling soy-based ice cream. They have evolved from serving desserts to transforming everyday staples. They are a good example of how an enterprise is an organic entity which evolves through time with a mission of improving our societal well-being.

I deeply hope that we can and will do more to help our entrepreneurs and enterprises. As such, I call upon the following five policy moves.

Firstly, we need to enlarge our Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) when we support Singaporean enterprises and assess their broader contribution to Singapore society. Increasingly, the world of investing and corporate reporting is shifting towards the ESG model. Government support measures for our enterprises needs to evolve towards this lens – the way we support and shape enterprises, focus and outcomes.

Secondly, we need to expand our current grant schemes to also include areas to revive, rejuvenate and restart entrepreneurs and enterprises as we need to make "hope" a tangible value in our economic DNA. In this climate of COVID-19 pandemic, we expect to see more business disruptions. Some entrepreneurs will fail because their business models have been destructed if not disrupted by COVID-19. We need to help these entrepreneurs restart much like how we help budding entrepreneurs to start up.

Seasoned entrepreneurs have years of experience, knowledge and networks that can be potentially wasted if they are unable to restart fast. We need to help them with a tangible rebound by assisting them with seed capital and public financing to restart. With this approach, they can contribute to our economy and society quickly, thereby creating new jobs and benefiting Singapore to emerge faster and stronger. To help our entrepreneurs restart quickly, our regulatory agencies will need to process new applications faster as it is important to consider the opportunity cost to our society.

To help our entrepreneurs rejuvenate, we need to be more targeted in manpower policies towards different industries. MOM's recent announcement of raising EP and S Pass minimum salary impacts industries unevenly. Industries, such as offshore and marine, travel and hospitality, construction, retail and F&B are already reeling from the impact of COVID-19. The additional cost levied on these industries are hard to bare. We need companies to survive and thrive. In this way, we continue to help our Singaporeans by preserving their jobs and their livelihood as SMEs employ close to 70% of our workforce.

Thirdly, we need to further enhance support for businesses who face financial challenges. The reality is this: as many businesses re- start, they face a mountain of old debt, be it rental arrears or owing to suppliers. Cashflow remains a challenge. The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act and the new rental relief framework for SMEs have been beneficial and provided some peace of mind for our entrepreneurs. However, it is temporary and the hard reality kicks in after the COVID-19 measures are lifted. Some businesses may want to restart but they have a problem of getting fresh credit. Many also worry about their old debts having snowballed. In the case of rental arrears, these businesses must now cope with repayments due under the rental relief on top of their already strained cashflow situation.

As such, I would like to propose that: (a) a repayment scheme be extended for more categories of debts. This can be patterned along the lines of the COVID-19 re-payment scheme for rent arrears. The new categories can include other obligations, such as liabilities under personal guarantees or insurance bonds, trade financing and term loans. There should be an instalment plan outlining a clear debts repayment schedule with capped interest rates; and (b) we should make it clear that Directors should not be liable for insolvency trading if the insolvency period arises from 1 February 2020. Currently, this relief is only temporary. These additional moves would provide entrepreneurs more runway to pay their debts, ensuring their mental wellness while attempting to restart their businesses.

Fourth, more innovation can take place when companies look beyond its specific vertical and sector. Cross sectoral collaborations provide opportunities where skillsets can be combined synergistically to create new business products and services. To enable more of such cross-industry collaborations, we need to add horizontal layers in our current way of structuring industry verticals. Government officers will need to have horizontal exposure and skill sets to better support our companies. We will need to promote more networking opportunities and collaborations between trade associations. We need to promote more Joint Venture opportunities. Let us keep finding more ways to integrate all our efforts further so that there is more collaboration between partners so that we achieve higher network effect for our enterprises.

And, last but not the least, beyond support measures, the Government needs to also foster the best environment for our SMEs and entrepreneurs to succeed. I am heartened that MTI has convened a Fair Tenancy ProTem committee. COVID-19 brought structural imbalances of the landlord-tenant relationship to bare. For many SMEs who are tenants, they rely on an equitable partnership with their landlords to thrive. Those who are fortunate to have landlords who adopt a partnership mindset have a higher chance to thrive and as they grow, their landlords benefit too as they take up more space. As with all types of relationships, there needs to be trust and trust is built on transparency. We need to ensure a fair and transparent relationship between landlords and tenants so that both can grow in a sustainable manner with the end goal of providing societal well-being.

In a nutshell, we need to: (a) view our Singapore enterprises as having both economic and societal value. As such, we need to broaden and recalibrate our performance indicators when supporting them; (b) we need to enhance our existing grant schemes to enable our entrepreneurs and their enterprises to revive, rejuvenate and re-start; (c) we need to provide an assured legal framework on insolvency and debts repayment for targeted companies and entrepreneurs to enable them to restart now and after COVID-19; (d) we need to develop an eco-system to enable more cross sector collaborations; and (e) through a Fair Tenancy Framework, provide a conducive and fair environment for our SMEs to thrive in Singapore.

Through the above five policy advancements, we can leverage our inherent capacities of our enterprises and entrepreneurs who continue contributing to the overall Singapore economic and social footprint, creating good jobs for Singaporeans and thereby securing their livelihoods. We must provide more hope and heart for greater value to emerge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that our entrepreneurs and enterprises has the grit and gumption to overcome current disruptions and challenges. Let us walk this journey of "revive", "rejuvenate" and "restart" and with our entrepreneurs. Let us partner them as societal agents of change, facing each challenge with the conviction of carving out opportunities for sustainable good. I believe together we can evolve Singapore Inc which will ultimately not just provide good jobs but great livelihoods for the families of Singapore. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.

3.09 pm

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Manpower and Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, good afternoon. First off, I would like to thank all Singaporeans for the opportunity to be part of the team entrusted with the responsibility to help steer Singapore and Singaporeans through COVID-19.

This is unquestionably the worst crisis in a generation. We have had to strike a fine and delicate balance between protecting Singaporean lives and preserving their livelihoods. This pandemic has presented an unprecedented threat to our society and economy, as it has been more virulent and widespread than any other outbreak that we have dealt with in the past. As such, we have had to constantly calibrate our responses based on the evolving global and local situation, and the attendant risks and complexities of the various scenarios.

One very good example is the whole-of-Government effort to manage the COVID-19 outbreak in our migrant worker dormitories. In early April, we convened a Joint Task Force comprising officers from MOM, MOH, MCI, SAF, the Home Team and other agencies, to provide support to migrant workers and dormitory operators in the fight against COVID-19. After close to five months of intensive effort, the Joint Task Force has completed the mammoth task of screening migrant workers in all dormitories, and the vast majority of them have been cleared to go back to work.

Now, we are transitioning towards a more sustainable approach of maintaining and preserving the health of our migrant workers for the longer term. The Joint Task Force has passed the baton to the newly-formed MOM Assurance, Care and Engagement Group, or ACE Group for short.

The ACE Group will continue to maintain the discipline as well as the cadence of screening, containment, isolation and active contact tracing of cases. Beyond that, they will also play a larger role in the assurance and engagement by ensuring safe working, safe living, and safe rest days for migrant workers, as well as reach out to at-risk workers to provide additional medical and mental health support. To engender a strong support network for migrant workers, the ACE Group will also partner representatives from amongst the workers, the dormitory operators, employers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

And even as we plan ahead, we will not let our guard down. We will make sure that we reduce the risks of a resurgence of the outbreak in the dormitories. We will provide comprehensive and accessible healthcare services to migrant workers through three main channels: first, they can visit one of our 12 medical centres providing primary care services island-wide; second, they can also seek medical attention via telemedicine anytime on their smartphones, through a mobile application; and third, mobile clinical teams will be activated in the event of an emerging cluster, so that we can mitigate any outbreaks.

Other than the physical health, we are also focusing on the mental health and well-being of our migrant workers. Our Forward Assurance and Support Teams, or FAST Teams for short, work closely with NGOs, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), MOH officers and the migrant worker community to identify and assist workers who are in need of mental health support. We have also been regularly disseminating mental health materials in the native language of migrant workers, to teach them how to identify symptoms of distress, practise relaxation techniques, to look out for one another, and also provide information on how and where to seek help, if needed. This includes general helplines and tele-counselling services run by NGOs, such as the Migrant Workers' Centre and HealthServe.

We are also actively engaging dormitory operators and owners to make infrastructural changes to purpose-built dormitories, so as to enable our dormitories to become more resilient and to prevent new public health threats to our migrant workers. For example, we are looking to improve ventilation and spacing of the living areas and communal facilities. In addition, we will make available 25,000 beds in Quick Build Dormitories by early next year, with another 100,000 beds coming onboard within the next few years. These are temporary structures, the 25,000 beds in the Quick Build Dormitories. The 100,000 beds, they are in more permanent structures. These temporary structures can be constructed quickly, so that we can put in place measures soon to house workers further apart for better social distancing.

The situation is complex. It will continue to evolve but our mission will also evolve alongside with it. We will remain ready, we will remain responsive to tackle the new challenges that COVID-19 will bring to us and we will ensure that our migrant workers and our Singaporean community continues to remain safe and healthy.

Turning back to the present, our economy continues to be battered by the storm and difficult days remain ahead.

We need to strike the right balance between saving lives and saving livelihoods. This is a constant daily challenge for all of us, as we methodically reopen the economy to our varied trading partners and foreign visitors, whilst ensuring that Singaporeans remain protected from successive waves of infection.

As a small country reliant on external trade, we are susceptible to rising nationalism worldwide as well as growing tensions between our major trading partners. We will need to remain resilient to the very real possibility of disruptions to our global supply chains, which depend heavily on the modern-day business concepts of just-in-time delivery.

As most of you would have known, I have spent all of my working life in the private sector, so I can closely relate and resonate with what businesses are going through right now. There is a Chinese idiom: “创业难，守业更难”, which means “to start a business is already not easy, but sustaining a business is even harder”. Indeed, the challenges that face our businesses today are significant. This is regardless of whether you are a start-up, a small, medium enterprise (SME) or a large multi-national company (MNC).

Even in normal times, there were no past precedents or protocols that you can refer to when you get curve balls thrown at you. And this happens frequently, sometimes, even on a daily basis. Just like during this current COVID-19 crisis, one, our teams at MOM and MND, our Multi-Ministerial Task Force chaired by Minister Gan and Minister Lawrence Wong on a daily basis, they have to constantly think on their feet, to adapt and to adjust as the situation evolves, as more information comes onstream. The only way we can stay ahead is to continually keep ourselves engaged with the situation as it evovles. 我们要随机应变。

Competition is also relentless for smaller firms. It does not stop when you survive and become larger, because then you face even more capable competition not just locally but regionally. Those that make it to the big leagues, internationally, they then have to pit themselves against other large conglomerates with a wealth of resources and expertise to compete with you, and contend sometimes with protectionist rules and regulations in foreign jurisdictions that curtail the ability to compete in a fair and equitable manner.

To expand on the sentiment in the Chinese idiom, I would add: “创业难，守业更难! 要改革企业更是难上难!” While sustaining a business is harder than starting a business, when you finally have to pivot your business, or even an entire country's mindset, to be ready for new challenges is even more complex and is infinitely difficult.

Even before COVID-19, our businesses and workers were already transforming themselves to prepare for the future economy and the future of work. This crisis has accelerated the changes to our economy and has highlighted the fact that we must be flexible, we must be nimble in pivoting to new areas of opportunity and different ways of operating even after this pandemic recedes. This will not be an easy feat, but our Government will walk with workers and with our businesses to forge ahead on this path, even as we tackle the immediate challenges presented by the crisis.

We want to walk with our workers to secure good employment outcomes for every generation. As we navigate through this crisis, we must always remember that our workers are at the heart of our economy and we must help our workforce to emerge stronger from this crisis.

We will make every effort to come together and ensure that we do not have a “lost generation” of workers. We will support our workforce by securing “Fairness at Work” – upholding fair opportunities, fair hiring, fair competition and fair support for everyone to progress at every stage of their working lives.

We promise to walk with every worker, even if we cannot preserve every job. Our national effort to do so will be through the National Jobs Council, led by Senior Minister Tharman. We will ensure that our jobseekers have fair opportunities and equitable ones at a good job by bringing together 100,000 such opportunities through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.

I am particularly concerned about the growing concentration of disengaged Singaporeans in two key groups: one, the young graduates; and two, mature workers.

Walking with our young graduates. Firstly, I have heard feedback from residents on how their children who have recently graduated are worried about securing a job in the current challenging labour market and how this may affect their aspirations, their ambitions and their career trajectories.

We are working very hard. We are working very hard to keep our young workers engaged and inspired as they embark on their journeys into the working world amidst this crisis. I want to assure all of our young Singaporeans that although you may seem to have been dealt with a difficult starting hand, we will do all we can to ensure that your generation will still flourish and fulfil your potential.

Even though some of our young workers may find it challenging to secure a job opportunity during this period, we are committed to helping them to build their professional skillsets, experience and networks, through the SGUnited Traineeships Programme.

As an example, one such young graduate is Mr Foo Sek Eng, he is a 26-year-old who graduated from the Nanyang Technological University in July 2019 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Sek Eng was looking out for suitable opportunities that would allow him to pursue his interest in technology and product management, and was attracted to the wide range of traineeships on offer. He has since joined Singtel as a trainee in July 2020. As part of his traineeship, Sek Eng has been applying his engineering background to address product innovation and data analytics issues. He aims to develop a well-rounded skillset through his traineeship, honing not just his technical competencies, but also his project management, business development and interpersonal skills.

We are very heartened by Sek Eng’s positive attitude and his enthusiasm in learning and growing through his traineeship opportunity. Even though it is a traineeship role, it has been a meaningful experience for him to build up industry-relevant skills, as well as networks and this will stand him in better stead to secure a good full-time job and I hope, perhaps, spur him off on this entrepreneurship journey to do a start-up in his own field of interest, especially when the economy recovers and I hope his example inspires many others in his generation, and this will give our young workers confidence that there are opportunities to flourish in spite of this crisis.

We also want to foster the grit and innovative spirit of our young entrepreneurs, whose companies will be a key part of our strong Singaporean core of enterprises that can compete internationally and offer high-end quality jobs locally.

One such other enterprise is Lucence, which was founded by Dr Tan Min-Han in 2016. He chose to set up his own company to build world-class medical technology in a very highly competitive industry. Why did he do this? Because he wanted to strike out on his own, he wanted to put his name and Singapore’s name on the world map, and successfully compete with global conglomerates. In doing so, his company has achieved outside as the only US federally-licensed medical diagnostic lab in Southeast Asia. Lucence has also developed the world’s first blood test that detects both cancer-causing genes and viruses in order to identify the best treatment for cancer patients, and it has been used for thousands of patients across the US and Asia. The company has also pivoted in this COVID-19 crisis to developing a more sensitive saliva test kit using this deep-throat saliva and we are now doing studies to see how we can adapt it for use locally. On top of that, the company has also established laboratories in Silicon Valley and Suzhou Industrial Park and continues to expand their operations amidst the global pandemic, and they have plans to hire more research and medtech professionals in Singapore.

Walking with our mature workers. This group – mature workers – is near and dear to my heart, because I am in the age group. Our mature workers in their 40s and 50s have contributed a good part of their lives to our economy so far. Most of them continue to be willing, and they are able to contribute to our economy for many, mnay more years to come, but even before the pandemic struck, many were already concerned about their job securities and the challenges of how they can adapt to the new technology and how this new technology has transformed their job scope and their work.

With the current weak labour market conditions, many are worried about losing their jobs, having to compete with younger counterparts or even foreign workers for limited job opportunities.

The reality is that many sectors and many jobs that have been worst-hit by this crisis may take a long time to bounce back, and some of them may never, never come back. So, these companies would have to pivot their operations or ride on new opportunities that arise. These permanent job opportunities will change in scope, they may remain scarce until the economy picks up again. We have thus designed opportunities for mid-career individuals under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, to allow our middle-aged mature workers to seize this opportunity to upskill and reskill for quality job roles and good future careers.

As our mature workers strive to prepare themselves for new job roles, we must also make sure that employers consider them fairly and offer them good opportunities for improvement and progression. Meritocracy is the foundational principle of Singapore society and we must demonstrate this to the world by taking a stand against employers that discriminate against workers based on nationality, age, gender or any other factors that are irrelevant to the job.

Mature workers possess a significant treasure trove of experiential knowledge and practice wisdom. This experiential knowledge and practice wisdom cannot be replaced by or gleaned from academic pursuits or qualifications. Like what they say in Chinese: 姜是越老越辣 – the older the ginger, the spicier it gets. There is significant value for companies to leverage on that expertise, and the skills sets of our mature and experienced Singaporeans.

I want to also reassure our businesses that we are neither inward-looking nor are we turning away global talents and investments. We will continue to welcome those who bring in valuable skills in short supply. Such top-tier workers allow our businesses to build the best teams in our country so that we remain globally competitive, while also helping, at the same time, to attract high-value investments and anchor high-value activities in Singapore. Our local workers can also learn from the expertise of such skilled foreign workers.

And to this end, I am glad that Mr Pritam Singh and the Workers' Party also agree and align with us on the need to support the growth of our Singapore Core, infusing it with global talent.

The two examples that Mr Singh cited with regards to MOM, these two companies amongst the 47 companies being added to the Fair Competition Framework Watchlist and asked why we had allowed them to hire as many as they did before deciding to put them on the watchlist. What is important was that if you read from the same media release, the companies actually hired 2,800 local PMETs, more than the 2,000 E Passes than they had given out. And the universe that we are looking at, there are more than 35,000 companies in Singapore that hire these EPs. Some of them will have problems of higher concentrations of foreigners compared to their peers, even though prima facie the EP applications have met qualifications and salary criteria.

Regardless, we will not allow companies to practise wanton discrimination against our local talent. MOM has been enhancing these frameworks. We have been stepping up the surveillance and enforcement. In fact, we expect businesses operating in Singapore to invest more effort in strengthening the Singaporean Core. In the current difficult economic climate, it is all the more important that our workers are given fair opportunities to find meaningful work. And rest assured, we at MOM, not only have we been working doubly hard to monitor compliance amongst these companies, we have continued to step up surveillance and enforcement action against egregious offenders.

In the long run, curtailment of work pass priviledges is not an adequate measure. I have come from the private sector all my life. I have run a sizeable, global conglomerate in healthcare. I think that if we think we can choke off key manpower supply by curtailing Employment Passes or establishing a quota, I think this is going to be infinitely more painful for the companies than any other penalties that you can think of imposing. So, I would seriously and crucially advise against that kind of thinking.

At MOM, we will give Singaporean jobseekers a stronger boost by working with businesses to give more serious consideration to Singaporeans when hiring, especially those who are willing to adjust their expectations and adapt. We will also scale up our proactive efforts to increase our Singaporean jobseekers' chances of landing a suitable job.

At the same time, I would also like to make an appeal to all of our jobseekers, regardless of age and background – in this difficult economic climate, we may have to be a bit more realistic in your expectations. We have to keep an open mind on the available opportunities. With support from the Government, this will give us the chance to embark on a new career path in a sector or role that some of us may not have considered before.

We also want to walk with employers, to emerge stronger. The Government will also support businesses through a variety of targeted steps. First, for businesses that are seeing new opportunities, such as those in the ICT, biopharma, agritech, advanced manufacturing sectors and those developing low carbon technologies, we will help them grow. We will create a more attractive environment for co-opetition, which is for businesses to compete and to also cooperate with one another for new opportunities.

One recent example of this cooperation was between FormLabs, TÜV-SÜD, NUS, NUH and companies with 3D-printing capabilities, to rapidly develop swabs used in COVID-19 test kits. They formed a consortium to leverage on digital manufacturing, and took only seven weeks to reach product readiness.

Local companies Structo, Eye2Eye, and Forefront Medical, they were involved in the conceptualisation and the entire production development cycle, and seized the opportunity to repurpose their available 3D printers to mass produce 3D-printed nasopharyngeal swabs; there was a massive run on this particular item, this is key to doing that swab in our nasopharyngeal to pick up the virus so that we can send it for PCR testing. So, there was a huge shortage in global supply due to demand surge and supply chain disruptions.

The ability of our private sector, our research institutions and our Government agencies to come together quickly to meet new needs and to seize new opportunities, puts us in good stead for co-opetition – to compete globally and also to cooperate globally.

Secondly, for those businesses that are facing lower demand now but will eventually recover, we will help them preserve their core competencies, their core capabilities. This continues to put them in the best position to seize new opportunities when the economy recovers.

For businesses in industries that have permanently changed, we will help them reinvent themselves and help them pivot into new markets with new products. Many of the mass market tourism and social entertainment companies are already thinking along these lines. In fact, there are opportunities within these industries for Singapore to lead the way in the development of new business models that can be adopted globally.

For example, to prepare for the safe resumption of meetings, conferences and other business-oriented events, STB has developed a Safe Business Event Risk Management Framework in consultation with the industry and in alignment with international best practices. STB is trialling this framework with two pilot events before scaling up to other events. The first event, the IEEE International Conference on Computational Electromagnetics, was held successfully just a week ago, from 24 to 26 August 2020.

So, to stay ahead, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is also crucial that we develop a strong Singapore Core of enterprises that can grow and compete internationally, and offer high-end, quality job opportunities to our workforce. This is not going to be an easy feat, given the fact that our domestic market is too small to sustain them.

To succeed, we must find new ways to transform and innovate; not just incubate these ideas, but developing generations of Singaporeans that can put these ideas into action and commercialise them with strong intellectual property protection and validation by our Government agencies.

We have started to do this with business leaders through Singapore Together Alliances for Action, set up by the Emerging Stronger Taskforce. The Alliances are industry-led coalitions that will rapidly prototype and execute ideas in key growth areas for Singapore, such as robotics and supply chain digitalisation.

We have launched National Innovation Challenges to develop industry-led solutions to the challenges faced by businesses. For example, the Safe-Reopening: Construction challenge led by BCA and Kajima Group seeks to establish a system that enables construction-site continuity planning. This will allow project development activities to resume safely and sustainably.

We must also continue to encourage partnerships with internationally renowned institutions, share and learn their best practices, and cooperate and invest to expand our talent base and our repertoire of ideas and innovations. This is something I hope I can contribute to and achieve in MTI.

To conclude, we must never waste a crisis, because in every crisis, there are also opportunities : 危机—有危险就有机会。Together as a nation, we must overcome our differences in ideologies, beliefs and personalities and we must unite together in constructive feedback, in constructive engagement and we have to work together to overcome this pandemic and the pains that it has brought us.

I hope, and it is my sincere and earnest disire, that all parties can come and work together to develop a new spirit of resilience, fortitude and unity that reflects the same tenacity and grit of our forefathers. Then, hopefully, years from now, we can look back and say that we overcomed the crisis of a generation and we have continued to live long and prosper.

Already, many of our agencies in the biomedical ICT sectors are making significant inroads in the development of novel test kits for COVID-19. Several of these areas include the use of automation and robotics to improve turn-around times in the processing of these tests, whilst improving the safety and protection of our lab technicians and bolstering the contact tracing applications. Given the huge amount of creative and intellectual capital in our country, we have the means and the resources to transform many of our industries and services and to come out ahead.

Every country dreams big. In Singapore, we not only dream big, we also make it happen and we bring our dreams to reality – think about Jurong Island, think about Changi Airport – because we work hard together, because we have a collective desire to build a better and brighter future for Singapore together, not just for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren and hopefully, our great grandchildren. To continue to do well and thrive in the brave new world, we must be exceptional. Exceptional in the way we dream, in the way we hope, in the way we aspire, exceptional in the way we implement, in the way we execute.

But most important of all, I hope that we can be exceptional in the way we care for one another and in a way we carry one another. Because this is the only way I know that our country, of less than 4 million fellow citizens, can transform, leapfrog, thrive and prosper in this brave new world. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.39 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

DEbate on president's address

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh. Apologies, I missed your hand earlier; must have been too hungry just now.

Mr Pritam Singh: It is okay, Mr Speaker, thank you. Sir, I have a clarification for Second Minister for Manpower, Minister Tan. This pertains to his reference to my speech and specifically the bit on fair hiring. I would like to refer, for that purpose, to an article that was in The Straits Times on 21 October 2019, entitled "Ensuring Level Playing Field for Singaporean Job Applicants". And reference was made there to a local IT firm found to be unfairly favouring job applicants who are foreigners. The firm was barred in mid-2017 from hiring foreign staff until it improved its practices – which is the standard form of what happens to employers of who practise unfair hiring. The next line is interesting: "But it was uncooperative until six months later when a TAFEP officer received a call from their CEO".

My question pertains to the point that the Minister made in his speech about stepped-up surveillance and enforcement. Can the Minister share what really this entails, going forward, in light of unfair hiring practices, how is the system going to change from what it is, what it has been? FCF was introduced in 2014 – it has been five over years. Is the Ministry still seeing employers who are errant and who essentially do not cooperate? And if the Minister's approach is, "We have to engage them more", can the Minister please outline how would this be done to improve the status quo?

Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the question. What we have started is an increase in terms of the surveillance with regard to the Fair Consideration Framework. Where we have started is, first and foremost, the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF where we are monitoring all these companies that have problems in terms of over-concentration.

On top of that, we also work with these companies, with the HR directors, to see where the problem is. Sometimes, it could be, for instance, concentration in one particular sector industry. In other instances, it could be because of the skillsets, whether they are lacking or whether it could be the fact that Singaporeans do not want those jobs.

That is the kind of engagement that I was alluding to. So, suffice to say, today, we have stepped up, we are all working very hard to make sure that the companies work with the relevant authorities to ensure that this fair hiring, non-discriminatory type of practices is more prevalent across all the companies in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Minister, for that clarification. Just a quick follow-up. Does stepped-up surveillance and enforcement also entail increasing the budget for TAFEP, for example, or increasing manpower for surveillance purposes? Because there are thousands of these companies in Singapore and across an incredible number of industries. How will TAFEP be able to have an effective handle over some of the discriminatory or unfair hiring practices and improve the situation from yesteryear?

Dr Tan See Leng: We certainly will look at beefing up the resources. At this particular point in time, given where we are in terms of dealing with the COVID-19 crisis, we have also stepped up resources in terms of taking over from the JTF, morphing it into the ACE Group, as I have alluded to earlier on. Together with that, with the TAFEP part, that actually takes care of the rest of the industry. We certainly are beefing up the resources.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.05 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by thanking the residents of Hougang for giving me the chance to serve them as their elected Member of Parliament. God willing, I would certainly do my best to serve each and every constituent and to perform all my duties as their Member of Parliament in these difficult and uncertain times that our nation is facing.

Even as we are battling the crisis of a generation, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the opportunities that is before us today, and I rise today to speak of seizing the opportunities for our politics, our social safety nets, our manpower policies and our transport policies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 2020 is a watershed year in Singapore politics for many reasons. We have been through a General Election that has many firsts in our political history. A GE with many restrictions and additions imposed on campaigning and a polling process including the first GE without physical rallies. A deeper focus on online campaigns, a much more vocal electorate willing and able to make their voices heard online and not letting the ruling party to impose its narrative on certain election issues. It was notable that many voters rejected gutter politics and embraced the need for a diversity of viewpoints.

The President talked about evolving politics in her speech, adding on to the discussion of good politics by her predecessor in his speech in the Opening of the Thirteenth Parliament. Good politics must entail mutual respect between members of the ruling party and other parties, whether in Parliament or back in our constituencies. I myself had some experience with petty and bad politics in this election, which makes me wonder whether the ruling party has gone backwards in time in the in the way its campaign had been conducted in Hougang.

During the GE, two complaints were made to ELD about our election posters. Part of the first complaint included 13 allegations of my election posters being below the requisite height of 2.2 m. With respect, my experienced volunteers were puzzled as they were all very sure that they had installed the posters at the right height.

The complaints were made two days apart. After the first complaint, my volunteers inspected and made the necessary rectifications. Two days later, a second complaint was made which comprised, among other things, a repeat of 12 of the 13 allegations made earlier. This was even more puzzling.

During the election, one resident told me that she had witnessed the PAP team pulling down our posters from the original height. She showed me where they allegedly took place and I have no reason to doubt what she said.

Separately in the middle of the campaign, the PAP team planted their flags in front of some of my banners, effectively blocking a clean sighting of the contents of my banners. The PAP team also planted many flags around some of our Hougang coffee shops.

Back in 2015, I remembered I had a much different experience contesting at Fengshan SMC with the hon Miss Cheryl Chan. I did not have these negative experiences with Miss Chan; it was a fair and honourable fight, full credit to Miss Chan and her team.

Given what has happened, will that mean that the PAP should now also expect and allow Workers' Party to do likewise in constituencies where PAP are the incumbents? I should think not, lest a tit-for-tat culture manifests itself and create a divisive political culture that only hurts Singaporeans. Instead, we in this House have a golden opportunity to evolve our politics positively. Even as we contest our ideas in this Chamber, we can do so in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, knowing that even if we differ in our ideas, we are in the end One Singapore. I hope the ruling party can start to accept that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 2020 is also the first year in our nation's history where we had not just one Budget but four Budgets. While many businesses and individuals have received assistance through the above, times are still tough for many Singaporeans. Many have lost their jobs in the last few months. Individuals that are still employed see the slow business and fear they will lose their jobs. The self-employed, poor business conditions continue to put a strain on their financial situation.

Jobseekers have difficulty securing jobs, be it the fresh graduate looking for their first job or the middle age workers seeking to find a replacement position. Many residents have sought help to appeal for assistance under the various schemes set up by the four Budgets after the GE, for example, COVID-19 grant and SIRS. Not all have succeeded as they fall foul of the criteria.

Many have been doing well until early this year earning incomes as either employees or self-employed. They have also been sensible with their financial commitments. However, many of them are now with considerably less income and, in some cases, zero income. Paying for the same financial commitments becomes an issue as they dig deeper into their savings. They get into trouble if their savings are relatively limited and selling their property may not be an option.

As a resident told me last week, unsubsidised childcare fees and even the cost of diapers and infant formula all add up to the pressure when one has no income. While I understand the Government has drawn a line when dispensing assistance, the challenge remains as to how to help more of such people in this sandwiched class, especially if the crisis is going to go on for longer.

While efforts at retraining may be helpful in the medium or long term, many still need help to tide them over until they find new jobs. They need the breathing room to pick themselves up to overcome the fall they have just experienced. Can the present schemes be extended to help more such people, especially if these difficult times are here to stay for some time? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to thank the Hougang residents for giving me the opportunity to be their Member of Parliament. I will serve each resident to the best of my ability.

Mr Speaker, this is the first time in our history that four Budgets were passed. A large number of businesses and Singaporeans have received help, but many are still facing difficulties. Many have lost their jobs in recent months, and those who still have their jobs worry about losing their job due to declining business in the company they work for. For self-employed persons, the current situation has put pressure on their finances. Jobseekers of all levels and age groups are finding it difficult to get a job.

Many residents have sought help under the relief measures, such as the COVID-19 Support Grant and Self-employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), which were rolled out under the four Budgets. However, some have fallen through the cracks as they do not meet the criteria for receiving the assistance.

Many of these residents, up until early this year, had income as an employee or a self-employed person and they have also been prudent in meeting their financial commitments. But now, many of them have seen their income dropped significantly and some even have no income at all. If their savings could only last them for a few months, servicing their financial commitments would be a big problem.

Just as what one resident told me last week, when one has no income, the cost of unsubsidised childcare fees and even the cost of diapers and milk powder would add to their burden.

The Government has set out the criteria and drawn a clear boundary when distributing assistance resources to the people. However, it remains our biggest challenge to find ways to help the sandwich class more, especially if the crisis may last for an extended period.

From a mid- to long-term perspective, retraining Singaporeans may be helpful. But many of these people will still need some help to tide over the difficult time before they can land a new job. They need a breathing space to allow them to rebound and overcome the plight that they find themselves in now. We know that the difficult times may persist for some period to come. Therefore, is there a possibility to extend the existing schemes and measures to assist more Singaporeans?

(In English): Sir, as retrenchment and unemployment increase, we must not be afraid to seize this opportunity to ask ourselves whether the Government should take greater steps to ensure Singaporeans are given fair share in the workplace. As the competition for scarce jobs heats up, re-looking at our Employment Pass policy is necessary. I therefore welcome the announcement revising the minimum salary requirements for Employment Passes and S Passes. However, are the new revised salary requirements sufficient to address the concerns of Singaporean PMETs and other workers losing their places to EP and SP holders?

We have heard much anecdotal discussion online or in the coffeeshops about the notoriety of the finance or IT industry having a relatively higher number of foreign workers or how many managers have recruited people from their own countries. By way of an example, I know a small to medium size insurance outfit with a UK Head Office and international ownership. It has established its Asian office in Singapore more than 10 years ago, dealing with largely Singaporean and Asian customers. From the beginning a large number of employees were expatriates from its UK Head Office who variously ran the office and took charge of various business functions such as claims in underwriting. These expats were on expatriate packages. The people who ran the office heading the various business functions here, were mid-level executives with qualifications and experiences comparable to their Singapore PMET counterparts. In my view, there is no lack of local talent in Singapore who can run this outfit and its various business functions. However, the manpower situation in this company has not changed much till today.

I am perplexed to learn that businesses like this can continue to operate in Singapore for such a long time without making any serious effort to have or to increase the Singaporean component at its management and senior levels. Should we not challenge ourselves to take advantage of this opportunity to re-examine our assumptions behind employment and economic policies more holistically so as to better encourage or incentivise, or if necessary, ensure that companies make a greater effort to engage the Singaporean core at different levels of their company.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we deal with the pressing needs on COVID, there remains the need to relook at policy areas and ensure sustainability in the medium term. With lighter loads on our public transport system now, there is an opportunity to review our public transport policy to better serve Singaporeans. Singaporeans are highly dependent on our public transport system as we seek to build a car-lite society. Our starting point must then be, to put our commuters first over other stakeholders and be world-class leaders in areas such as reliability, affordability and quality, a point I made before in the previous term of Parliament.

However, the furrow that has erupted over an announcement by LTA on planned changes to certain bus services in Bukit Panjang has illustrated the underlying tension between what the authorities perceive as prudent fiscal spending and the proper provision of public transportation to our commuters. The Minister for Transport has mentioned on social media the subsidies needed for maintaining the affected MRT and bus services. While I see the need to ensure a degree of sustainability of our public transport, without those subsidies to build the connectivity require for a car-lite society, how can Singapore achieve the goals to reduce the reliance on cars and properly connect Singaporeans to the places they want to go in a reasonable and efficient manner?

We should also not forget that Singaporeans have underwritten through their tax dollars over the years, the necessary improvements in expansion to our public transportation system. Singapore should rightly expected that the public transportation system must serve the public good without the need for excessive profit-seeking behaviour after the improvements that Singaporeans had paid for and maintain that high level of performance.

We, in the Workers' Party will support Singaporeans in demanding the high standard they should expect for our public transport system. Can there be more buses servicing areas in (need?) that are not yet connected by our MRT? Is the bus contracting model able to cater for sufficiently flexible deployment of bus services in growing estates as they look to be less short-term pains for public transport? We must review the medium term vision of our public transport system.

Maintaining the sustainability of our public transport system must not be viewed in isolation, line by line, but as a holistic policy objectives to ensure the society at large is well served. And if the Government's position is that taxpayers and commuters must contribute more to achieve this, it should provide detailed figures and arguments for better public debate and understanding so that the public can decide where they wish to draw the line.

Mr Speaker, Sir, former US President John F Kennedy, famously said in his speeches that when written in Chinese, the word "crisis" or "危机" represents both danger and opportunity as Minister Dr Tan has also mentioned. There is wisdom about our crisis using unique opportunities that we can seize. We must be aware of the danger, but recognise the opportunities in this crisis so that we do not just overcome the crisis, but truly emerge a Singapore we can all be proud of.

4.20 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask a clarification from the hon Member of Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan. If I heard him correctly, he mentioned of his unhappy experience in GE2020, something to do with the height of posters and the direction by the Elections Department or ELD. He juxtaposed it with the experience in an earlier election against hon Member, Miss Cheryl Chan. May I ask him whether he would accept that ELD would really deal with all these complaints in an even-handed way? And if he accepts that, what is the basis of him suggesting that PAP would use the power of incumbency against opponents in an unfair way?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the hon Member for asking the question. I think his question is too general. Yes, in terms of the poster height, ELD informed us of a complaint being made and asked us to rectify. So, as I said in my speech, my volunteers went to rectify it and they informed ELD that after the first complaint, the rectification had been made. Two days later, another complaint was made to ELD and we were told about it. Our volunteers went to inspect the complaints directly and made the necessary rectification. And that was when they discovered that actually 12 of the 13 complaints made were actually similar to the previous ones.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am actually repeating myself. I also mentioned about the flags, planting of the flags. So, my point at the end of that section of my speech is really this – that the PAP team at Hougang has planted flags all over, around coffeeshops, a lot of flags around the coffeeshops. And this is something that I think back in 2015, I would never envisage planting Workers' Party flags around the Fengshan Block 85 market or around the coffeeshops in Fengshan. I mean, that was unthinkable to me. My point really is that having seen what happened recently, if this is going to be a precedent that is going to be set by the PAP, perhaps the team in Hougang maybe, then really it raises the wider question of where do you want to draw the line with this kind of behaviour.

Because certainly for me, my own standard is, certainly as I said in 2015, I find it unthinkable that I would have gone to Fengshan and plant the Workers' Party flags around the market. So, I made that point, but I think I also ended that on a different note. I said that we have to move beyond this. We cannot do a tit-for-tat in that sense and certainly –

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan. Mr Murali was asking you about ELD and if you believe it was even-handed; and you have not quite answered.

Mr Murali Pillai: I am grateful, Sir.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for reminding me. Yes, to answer the question, yes, ELD was even-handed in handling the complaints. But what ELD did was, basically, it received a complaint and it asked us to go and rectify it, right? This is what it did. This is specifically referring to the incident about the poster height. I think I have answered the question.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, just a very short response. Firstly, I am grateful to my hon friend, Mr Dennis Tan, for clarifying. I respectfully suggest that my question still remains unanswered. It is my hon friend's view that ELD has not been even-handed in its dealings during GE2020; and what is the basis of suggesting that the PAP would use the power of incumbency against opponents in an unfair way?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the hon friend for repeating his question. I am not suggesting the PAP is using the power of incumbency to do those things. But I have raised various incidents that have happened as a result of the actions of certain people. And my point really is that these are all very petty and bad politics, and we should not encourage it. Have I answered your question?

Mr Speaker: Let us proceed. Mr Henry Kwek.

4.25 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about three things today. One, rethinking our social compact with our private estate residents; two, strengthen our Singaporean Core in the private sector through fine-tuning our Employment Pass (EP) policy; and three, co-creating our Climate Change policies with Singaporeans.

Let me start with rethinking our social compact with the private estate residents, this is especially so, since I have five private estates within my constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for decades, our policies has created ample opportunities for Singaporeans, including private estate residents. They fund the lion share of our tax revenue while consuming a limited amount of Government assistance. This is the right balance. As economic winners of our society, it is appropriate that they contribute to help the rest of Singapore move along. And the majority of them have benefited from Government assistance during COVID-19. Business owners and professionals benefited from Government support such as the Job Support Scheme or JSS, and corporate tax rebates.

However, a number of my private estate residents feel there it is time to review the social compact. This group include: (a) retired seniors who are asset-rich but cash poor; (b) residents above 50 facing greater career uncertainty; (c) residents who do not own the home they stay in; and (d) residents who are deeply impacted by COVID-19.

As such, I believe we should review our policies in at least three ways.

One, the Government must create more ways to help asset rich, cash poor, private estate residents better tap on their housing equity. Of course, residents can selling their houses and downgrade. But this will mean they are uprooted from the neighbourhoods they so cherish, especially in their golden years.

Seniors who are financially savvy can also make adequate financial planning to make sure that they can benefit from annuities and dividends. But not all seniors, especially our Pioneer Generation seniors, are financially savvy to navigate the tricky global economic waters. Therefore, I believe the Government must actively work with the banking and insurance sectors to create reverse mortgage options for the private estates. I spoke about this several years ago. With the pressing economic conditions, this issue has become more urgent.

Our Government can also work with our banks to remove barriers for our people to borrow against their housing equities at a feasible age, even beyond the age of 70. I understand the banks' current reservations in lending to seniors. Perhaps we can mandate the banks to lend against housing equity if that senior, who is Singaporean, have a Lasting Power of Attorney, so that the banks have somebody they can work with, without involving expensive legal remedies, should their clients fall ill and are mentally incapacitated. If our people can tap on their housing equity effectively, I believe most Singaporeans in the private estates would prefer to stand on their own two feet, instead of relying on the Government assistance.

Second, we can look at our means testing framework for those without much assets or income. Instead of using annual value of houses as a key determinant of means testing, we can look at a combination of non-housing assets, income, and most importantly, per capital housing equity of the occupants. Beyond using a different yardstick, we can also consider tiering Government benefits, so as to remove the big difference of benefits between public and private housing residents.

We also could review our policies on housing grants for seniors and their next generation who want to move from private housing to public estates, especially if they do not have a lot of net worth. We can add pathways for downgrading hospitalisation ward class and therefore, cost of healthcare. We can also review our criteria on COVID related assistance programmes such as Self-employed Person Income Relief or SIRS, and the COVID-19 Support Grant or CSG. The Government can also communicate a clear and consistent whole-of-Government approach towards means-testing for private estates.

Several years ago, I recall Minister Edwin Tong, in his capacity as a backbencher, giving an eloquent speech on the subject of reviewing means testing with regards to private estate residents. During the debate, I noted that while various Ministries exercise discretions in helping specific cases, the level of discretion varies from Ministry to Ministry. Now, it is a good time for the Government to do a thorough review and to spell out the core principles of means-testing for private estate, which can form the basis of a new social compact with our private estate residents.

Thirdly, I think there is more we can do regarding infrastructure and accessibility for private estates. As our seniors age, there are some estates with unique terrain that require some infrastructure upgrading. A good example is the Teachers' Housing Estate within my constituency, which is nested within a valley. Many of the seniors struggle to walk up two storeys of steep stairs, just to access the bus stop.

As such, I hope that MND and MOT can work together to form a task force to come up with a masterplan for liveability and accessibility for the seniors and frail living within the private estates. This task force can at issues such as identifying low cost outdoor lift and escalators options to promote accessibility; promoting more power-assisted devices with shelters or roofs for seniors, and to prioritise cycling and walking paths construction in private estates with challenging terrains and a high density of seniors so that they can use PADs to get around.

We can also consider building more rain shelters and sheltered linkways to serve private estate residents in some selected areas.

We can also beef up the budget allocated to MSO for private estate upgrading projects, so that decent-sized projects can be implemented outside the EUP when the situation calls for it.

Next, let me speak about strengthening the Singapore Core in our private sector. The Government has made some excellent moves to preserve and build on the Singapore Core in our private sector. This includes JSS, strengthening the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF, creating 100,000 jobs and training opportunities, and the recent increase in EP and S Pass salary thresholds.

But while much has been done, there is one particular area that I think we should also closely examine, and that is preserving and growing the base of middle and senior Singapore management and professionals, especially within international companies.

Compared to say a decade or two ago, Singapore professionals have gained significant experiences in some of the world’s most competitive areas, including areas like asset management, investment banking, management consulting, urban solutions, architecture and engineering services.

A number of Singapore outfits, staffed by largely Singaporeans, can hold their own against the best in the world. This includes DBS, Dymon Asia, Quantedge, Surbana Jurong, Ong and Ong Architect, Woh Hup, just to name a few.

Yet, there are also many international companies that have yet to build a strong Singapore Core in their middle and senior management ranks.

In fact, as many international companies look to downsize during this pandemic, many worry that whether we will regress, rather than progress, in building our Singapore Core.

Building a Singapore Core among amongst middle and senior positions is not an easy task – I fully admit to that. But there is urgency for us to take a fundamental relook at this approach. And we must start by asking ourselves: are these companies making a genuine effort?

I am the first one to acknowledge the difficulty in measuring sincerity of effort. However, we can explore different ways of identifying tell-tail signs of systematic issues, starting with the diversity of their workforce.

One way is to mandate all companies with more than 200 staff and with more than 25% EP holders to declare the country of origin of their EP holders along four annual renumeration bands: one, from $60,000 to $120,000 a year; two, from $120,000 to $250,000; from $250,000 to $500,000; and beyond $500,000.

After all, if the EP holders are dominated by one particular country, despite our very diverse expatriate workforce, how can Singaporeans be persuaded that there is diversity in these companies’ hiring and renumeration policy, and how can Singaporeans trust that they have a genuine intention to build up a Singapore Core?

There are, of course, legitimate reasons why high paying EP jobs go to expatriates from a particular country. For example, an international company like Samsung, with their regional headquarters in Singapore, would likely have a high number of Koreans nationals in their management. The IT consulting and implementation arm of Deloitte would likely have many Indian nationals because Indian IT professionals form the bulk of available IT talent in our region, and because IT capabilities are critical for our industry transformation. Also, a company from an emerging and promising industry might also need to bring in specialist talents at the start to get a new industry moving, and these talents are available in some specific countries.

But short of these selected circumstances, given the talent and ability of our Singaporeans, I do not see why we cannot build up a stronger Singapore Core.

I strongly believe that majority of international and large Singapore companies are responsible and the vast majority of Singaporeans I speak to do understand the need to stay open to foreign talent even in middle and senior positions. But we must do everything we can to call out irresponsible employers so as to maintain broad public support for manpower policy during this challenging period.

My final point is on how we can co-create climate change policies with our people in the spirit of SG Together. As Singapore matures as a society, our society’s definition of good governance evolves.

Talking to my residents, I get the sense that most Singaporeans think of good governance not just in terms of quality of outcome, but also in terms of transparency over process, as well as empathy and simplicity in communications. And I believe that this Government is committed to doing exactly that.

Some time back, when Deputy Prime Minister Heng launched SG Together, he highlighted that there are many policy areas that the Government can co-create with our people. I cannot agree more.

In areas of defence and foreign policy, foreign and domestic intelligence matters, and reserve management, we must maintain confidentiality, as we are living in an increasingly dangerous world. But in most other areas, we can do more to open up the processes, empower our people with facts, so that Singaporeans can make tough choices together.

One particular area for co-creating with Singaporeans is climate change. There is this African proverb, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” And the longest term challenge that Singaporeans must face together is climate change. Therefore, I propose that our Government open up the hoods of the Government workings on Climate Change to Singaporeans, so that our citizens have the information and incentive to co-create policy, including making difficult policy trade-offs.

As a start, we can level up our environmental groups and our youths with the latest policy research and technology innovation through high-powered forums. By that, I mean going beyond the occasional consultation exercise. It means ensuring that all stakeholders have access to the same set of core facts.

The Government can also publicise, apart from a white paper spelling out the details of our emission tracking framework, the mechanism for regulating emissions including administrative measures and on how we arrive at carbon taxation. We can also regularly share how are we faring, at a programme level, not just at the whole national level, against our ambitious targets.

Having spoken to various Government officials, I am aware of the tremendous efforts and resources that our Government is pouring into this area. Our Government is actively pursuing changing our energy imports for power generation away from natural gas and towards cleaner sources of energy, not just solar energy, but also green hydrogen. We are also examining how to reduce and transform industrial emissions through carbon sequestration, and through mineralisation of carbon so as to transform emissions into sand or ammonia. We are also adopting electric vehicles.

These are concrete and exciting plans. I am proud to say that Singapore is one of the few countries in the world that has real political will and resources to meet our climate change obligations. Therefore, why not we share the nuts and bolts of these exciting plans, including the implementation cost and expected emissions reduction, with our people?

Despite our Government’s best efforts, however, it is likely that our current plan can only allow us to meet a bulk of our long-term emission targets. This is where we have ample round room to co-create policy.

I hope the Government can share the gaps openly and transparently, and then work, in the spirit of SG Together, with our environmental groups, industry, and our people to close these gaps. This could also include putting up more calls for industrial collaboration and to elicit solid proposals from our environmental groups and our youths.

But whatever ideas that we gather must hold up to the highest standards. We must make sure that these ideas are implementable and cost effective. In fact, I further believe that Singapore should set up an independent environmental impact assessment and audit outfit, perhaps in collaboration with the UN Secretariat for Climate Change, or with a think-tank with deep expertise such as the McKinsey Global Institute. This outfit can assess the cost and benefit of emission reduction efforts from not just the Government, but also the proposals from the industries, environmental groups and Singaporeans.

Having an independent body to evaluate the impact will allow us to make the trade-offs so that we can decide how to best meet emission targets while preserving economic opportunities and quality of life.

And also, we must also give our environmental groups, the industries and Singaporeans who have come up with these ideas the opportunity to see them through because they care.

Indeed, there are ample opportunities on how our Government bring passionate people to deliver on Government objectives. This includes getting our VWOs to deliver Government-funded social services, and also getting rights groups including ACRES to run the Government’s wildlife rescue service.

If we can achieve all that, I am confident that the vast majority of Singaporeans, including our youths, will be proud of not just achieving our Climate Change obligations to the world, but also how we can do so together as one Singapore.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of both the long-term Government plans as outlined by the Presidential address, as well as the Motion of thanks from the hon Member Mr Patrick Tay.

4.41 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion. I would like to thank Mdm President for laying out the key priorities for this new term of Government, which will help to see Singapore safely through the current COVID-19 crisis and secure our immediate future in the post-pandemic world.

Prior to the crisis, our economy was already facing immense structural challenges and shifts. Examples include an ageing population, the shift towards the gig economy and the increasing use of automation driven by Industry 4.0. COVID-19 has merely accelerated the pace of this transformation, at an unprecedented pace, causing our future workplace, which many had thought would happen in decades to come, to become a reality much sooner.

All jobs and all workers will have to transform, or risk becoming obsolete. No job is safe. In recent years, much of the work traditionally done by accountants, lawyers and even doctors have been automated and accomplished with greater accuracy. Real estate agents and financial planners are already starting to be phased out by digital apps. Our work and our workplaces are transforming. But are our companies, our workers and the Government ready?

Let me first start with the shape and form of the future workplace. In my view, it will be smarter, leaner and more connected.

In the manufacturing sector, artificial intelligence and automation will mean that mundane jobs will be phased out. As technology redefines existing job roles into smaller tasks, more jobs will be increasingly taken over by robots. As Minister Ong Ye Kung once aptly put it, “If you work like a robot, you will be replaced by a robot”. Our workers of tomorrow will need to learn the latest technologies and be able to work with them.

One example is how autonomous vehicles (AV) will drastically redefine our land transport industry. Locally, AV technology is already being trialled in areas with complex traffic conditions and we will soon see large-scale trials in Punggol, Tengah and the Jurong Innovation District. What will happen to the livelihoods of more than 10,000 bus drivers? What about the 100,000 Singaporeans who hold a Taxi or Private Hire Car vocational licence, many of whom rely on driving today as their source of income? Since 2016, I have been highlighting in this House the impact of autonomous technology on the livelihoods of our transport workers. Every year, we get closer to this reality.

Mr Speaker, transforming our workforce for the future of work will require a whole-of-nation effort, from the private sector, to the Government as well as our workers.

I am glad to see that some forward-looking companies are already taking steps to gear up their workforce for the future. DBS, for example, has partnered with Amazon Web Services to equip 3,000 employees with basic knowledge in artificial intelligence and machine learning. The bank, which was one of the first to embrace digital banking, has also invested significantly in its digital learning tools to enable their employees to upgrade their skills and acquire new knowledge, even while they work from home.

While big companies like DBS have the resources to plan for the future, our small and medium enterprises or SMEs are faced with a different reality. The impact of COVID-19 on SMEs has been more pronounced and many SMEs are currently operating in the survival mode.

Some are so focused on their day-to-day business that they neglect to plan for tomorrow. I urge the Government to do more to support our SMEs in adopting technology and at the same time upskilling their workers.

We would also need to move upstream to prepare our future workforce. Data literacy and coding will be important skills that our young will need to be familiar with. We should make Computer Science a compulsory subject in Secondary schools. I am not suggesting that we train every Singaporean child to be a coder or an IT expert, but to understand computers and to be able to work with robots in the future workplace. Countries, such as Japan, South Korea and the UK, have already taken steps in this direction, with coding and programming incorporated into the mandatory education for students.

The low latency provided by 5G technology means that working from home will become the default and remote working possibilities are endless. Competition for jobs will truly become globalised, blurring the divide between local and foreign workforce. So, while I welcome the recent announcement by MOM to further adjust the Employment Pass and S Pass qualifying salaries, my question is: will our work pass and Employment Pass system continue to be relevant when companies no longer need employees to be physically based in one location to perform the work?

Can Singapore continue to compete for investments and bring in the best companies? Can Singaporeans continue to compete for good jobs? As Mdm President noted in her Address, we will need to be more resilient and more nimble than others when responding to change in order to thrive in this global world.

But how can we better support our fellow Singaporeans to compete in this new world, especially when they are already facing many challenges? PMETs, particularly in their 40s and 50s, tell me that it is not easy to juggle between the many responsibilities that they must shoulder every day – looking after their young children, managing the healthcare needs of their elderly parents and trying to set aside funds for their own retirement needs. With this overwhelming "sandwiched" feeling, many are unable to think beyond their daily struggles. I hope that the Government will recognise this and look into how we can better support and alleviate these burdens.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken about how technology has the potential to significantly transform our work and our workplaces in the years to come. But can we tap on technology to make our future workplace safer and healthier?

With technology, dangerous work at the worksite can be done remotely, in a safe and comfortable location. Smart PPEs and wearable technologies will also reduce fatalities and the severity of injuries if an accident happens. Smarter workplaces must lead to safer workplaces. And I hope that the Government can accelerate the implementation of these technologies at our worksites, starting with the high-risk sectors such as construction and manufacturing.

As we improve workplace safety, we must not neglect workplace health. These past six months have taught us that blurring the lines between home and office has its challenges. A recent study by the National University of Singapore found that those who work from home faced higher levels of stress than our frontline workers. I hope that the Government could expand the list of Occupational Diseases under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), to include mental health illnesses related to work stress. I also hope that the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health can be expedited, so that those who are currently struggling with mental health issues related to work can get the necessary support that they need.

With more working from home, is it also time that we consider a "Right to Disconnect" legislation, which was pioneered in France, where employees can negotiate with their employers on answering work calls and emails outside of office hours? Similar laws have been implemented in other countries like Italy and the Philippines. I am sure having a dedicated break will help reduce employee fatigue and burnout.

Sir, we also need to pay special attention to our freelancers, who are inadequately protected under existing WSH legislation. Freelancers do not enjoy the same WSH statutory benefits as employees, such as coverage under WICA, medical group insurance and medical leave. The lack of adequate WSH protection effectively means that freelancers are cheaper to hire, which pushes more companies to adopt such self-employed arrangements to avoid costs. This is a gap that needs to be plugged!

Finally, I hope that the Government could revisit my numerous proposals for a mandatory WSH representative in every company. We are already half a step towards achieving this, as companies are now required to appoint Safe Management Officers or SMOs, as they re-open for work. Let us expand the role of these mandatory SMOs beyond the pandemic so that we can work towards creating a safer and healthier workplace for our workers, today.

Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has accelerated the transformation of many industries at an unprecedented pace. The future workplace may be upon us sooner than many of us expect.

In my maiden Parliamentary speech in 2016, I spoke at length about the importance of tripartism – the crucial ingredient of Singapore's success story. Five years on, tripartism is even more critical now, as we deal with this immense scale and unprecedented pace of change that is coming our way.

The Government will need to support the transformation of our businesses and our workers. Working together, let us turn this crisis into an opportunity. COVID-19 will pass. With united resolve, we can emerge stronger and secure a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

4.53 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. But first, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank you for your inspirational speech for all of us to come together and to stand against polarisation. This indeed reflects the President's call towards unity and common purpose.

And if I can be frank, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an aspiration, but it is one that may not be politically possible. Let us not be naive and pretend that the drama of politics and disagreement is something that cannot be constructed. There is no "common purpose" to be found unless there is a will to do so.

Our hope, therefore, must be that here is not just a common purpose, but a will for this common purpose to be found.

But while this commonality may be hard in politics, it can be easy and abundant in public life. Mr Speaker, Sir, you, Mr Pritam Singh, and I – we all love football although we support different teams. And having played football with both of you, I can say that Pritam is the best player amongst the three of us, by far. But we all love football. And, of course, we all served in the SAF. And Mr Speaker, Sir, you were a Brigadier-General. And both Pritam and I, I think we are many ranks below that, but you are certainly a better soldier amongst the three of us. So, we all have different vocations, but in our own ways, we all love our country and we want to make lives better for all.

So too my aspiration for Singapore. Our unity must lie in the small things – care for each other, love for the family, fighting for the person next to you. And in difficult times, to help, to be kind and perhaps harder than it sounds, to cut one another some slack.

This is the bedrock and the simple philosophy behind two suggestions I would like to make for this new term.

The first concerns discretion in Civil Service. There is a rising culture of blame, finger pointing and moral panic in our society. As a result, there is a corresponding increase in risk aversion among our public servants. This is not a criticism but a vote of sympathy on my part. If you do not make an exception for a case, you are hard-hearted and ruthless. If you do, and you are taken in by a fake application, you are a simpleton being duped and lax with public monies. The pain is real.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you had a case, an appeal for subsidies for a sheltered home for an old man. He is already in a home and under the care of a social worker. You speak with the man's wife and his daughter.

One of the eligibility criteria for a subsidised sheltered home is that the senior is living alone and does not have any family or care-giver. This man has family support and is therefore not a suitable candidate for a subsidised sheltered home. You discuss with the case officer some more and decide that day care services would be the best option for the old man at the moment. And this is how it appears to a busy officer, who probably has quite a lot of cases on his desk. And for him to deny subsidies is entirely sensible.

But this is not how it appears to me. I come to this case via a resident of mine – actually, it is a very recent case – who had a fall and she was then admitted to hospital. And during her stay there, the doctor found that her condition was bad due to overwork, advised her to stop working and rest so as to let her body recover.

But she needs to support the family. So, after discussing with her supervisor and employer, they arranged her to work for four hours a day instead of working full-time. And so, her pay dropped to about $1,200 per month. After she was discharged, she still has to take care of her husband in his daily needs with her daughter's help.

Yes, this resident is the old man’s wife. The old man had had a fall and was admitted to a hospital and later a community hospital. To be allowed to go home, he needed someone who can take care of him at home. But she cannot take care of herself, let alone her husband. So, they have to put him in a home.

What about the daughter? She unfortunately also had major surgery and a serious illness. But she did not want to tell her mother and add on to her worries. She works as a freelancer but does not have many jobs now because of the current pandemic.

Looking at this family from the outside, the social worker may think that they want to push away their responsibilities and put the old man in a nursing home. The fact is that they have no ability and no money to take care of him.

What follows is a heartfelt note from my Residents Committee (RC) Chair who knows the family well and has been helping them for a while. She wrote to me and this was just a few days ago and I quote her, "I feel for them, can understand how helpless they are now. They wanted to take care of their father and husband but their own health does not allow them. They felt sad sending him to a home but they are left with no choice."

I read this email over and over again, especially the last line. And I quote her again, "I really don't know how to move forward to help them after trying all I can; Mr Seah, you are our only hope now. So sorry you need to read this; it is like an essay with so many words. Thank You. Stay Safe."

All of us on both sides of the House would have read or seen cases like these – so many words, but still, not enough to write out a solution.

This is the emotional labour which defines our days and nights as Members of Parliament. It is our mission to bear what cannot be borne alone and to be the "only hope" for our residents, so that they do not lose hope nor the will to carry on.

It is an honourable purpose and I ask for the Civil Service to join us in one very specific way. I ask for civil servants and officers in Statutory Boards to be given more authority to exercise discretion. I also ask that they be given some leeway to "make mistakes" that is, to err on the side of being kind. I also urge for all of us, members of the public, everyone, well to put it bluntly, to calm down!

Every couple of days, there is a moral panic – someone showing how virtuous, how right, how generous they are and how hard they fight for the underdog. Often, there is a villain of the piece – the rich driver of the big car, someone who is the wrong place, said the wrong things, the heartless, hapless civil servant, or the politician. Politicians signed up for this and we must be tough enough to take whatever criticism whenever we are called to account.

But for agencies and officers, if they are to exercise greater discretion, it might perhaps be useful to have and rely on groups of volunteers and social workers who visit and assess hard cases, so that those who fall through the cracks will receive the help they need in an expeditious manner.

These cracks they fall through are not wide. Indeed, over the years, MCYS and, now, MSF and many other parts of the Civil Service, they have already covered many holes and made any cracks a lot very narrow. However, the current cracks are not just narrow but they are very now specifically shaped. We cannot address these by ever increasing the number of rules.

President Halimah herself said this in her Address and I quote, “We are entering an era of volatility, uncertainty and disruption in people’s lives. Individuals will need greater social support than before.”

The temptation is to construct this support by having yet more schemes, yet more rules. What I am arguing for is the reverse of rules – fewer rules, more discretion and kindness.

Next, I want to talk about SMEs and how we can look out for each other. So, this same philosophy of kindness and looking out for each other can also apply in the world of business.

If I now put on my hat as the Group CEO of NTUC Enterprise, let me just share how, in our own little ways, we have done so through our various NTUC entities: Orange Aid, which is part of NTUC Income, works with community partners through social investment in programmes that contribute to empowering youth-in-need through education. Orange Aid’s flagship, Future Development Programme (FDP), supports tertiary students from ITE and Polytechnics from the lowest income households in Singapore.

Beyond providing financial assistance for their school fees and living expenses, Orange Aid also equips them with financial literacy skills and giving them personalised career guidance. For this year, Orange Aid will be giving out bursary awards amounting to over $1 million.

Moving to education, our NTUC First Campus’ Bright Horizons Fund, they give out about $1.75 million this year, 50% higher than last year and, in the process, this will help some 4,700 children from the lower income households.

For NTUC Fairprice Foundation, we will be increasing our donations this year to the tune of over $6 million.

But it is more than money which, no doubt, is useful and will complement the various support schemes that the Government is extending to help the many different groups of individuals. Beyond this, I would also call out to companies and organisations which are doing well to also help others, especially the SMEs, to do well, too.

So, again, if I can use Fairprice as an example, we have in place the SME Suppliers Support and Development Programme primarily to help small local SMEs. First introduced in 2009, the programme gives more favourable trading terms to some 485 SMEs, such as paying them earlier than normal.

Here, I would like to make a shout-out to all to, where possible, support local firms, local producers and local products. This, in part, is to help our local economy, create jobs, strengthen our local products' resiliency plans and more. So, again, as you know, I am also the Group CEO of NTUC Fairprice, we, too, try to play our part. As an example, whilst Singapore imports some 75% of its eggs from overseas, mostly from Malaysia, at Fairprice, about 55% of all eggs sold are from local farms.

An egg is an egg. But I feel proud each time I eat one from our local farms. And I do love eggs.

President Halimah said, “Singapore can endure and secure her place in history, only if Singaporeans feel passionately about our country and put our hearts and souls into making this a better home.”

This feeling for Singapore is not something abstract. It lies in the friends we play football with, the eggs we eat, the trust we have in our public servants; it is that feeling of when we are being kind to one another and, perhaps, most of all, when we are proud of the “Made in Singapore” brand. Sir, I support the Motion.

5.05 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address to the nation.

We are going through the most trying period of our generation and we must unite in our effort to overcome this crisis. People with different backgrounds and experience will naturally have different outlooks and opinions. We should listen respectfully to one another and try to understand different perspectives. We must not allow our society to become polarised. Let us seek common ground, agree to disagree and be willing to cooperate on solutions acceptable to all and do what is in the best interest of our people and our country.

Today, I would like to speak on how adjustments to our employment policies are needed to help older workers and employees and how we can help the sandwich class. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During this difficult period, workers and employees are increasingly worried about their livelihoods, even more so than the COVID-19 virus. To-date, we have managed to contain the spread within the community and we look forward to snuffing out the virus in the workers’ dormitories.

Singaporeans, especially older workers and employees, are worried about jobs and competition for jobs from foreigners, especially in the financial and ICT industry. Singapore is a very open nation and welcomes foreigners who can contribute. The employment situation in some other countries is bleak and it is not surprising that there are quite a number of foreigners who are keen to work here.

Our citizens are our priority. We need to ensure that the Singaporean Core is strong in our workforce. My concern is the difficulty of monitoring how companies recruit and whether they adhere to fair hiring practices, especially if the companies are foreign firms or have foreigners in charge of their hiring. It is possible that a minority of such firms or hiring professionals would prefer their fellow countrymen over Singaporeans because of cultural affinity or familiarity or just patriotism, resulting in a bias against Singaporeans. Hence, the controls over the number of foreigners working in Singapore have to be tightened.

I would like to urge MOM to consider introducing quotas and levies for Employment Passes (EPs). I welcome the higher qualifying salaries for EPs and S Passes. However, I heard that there are also ways around this system. I have heard about how some employers collect monthly fees from their staff. Both parties benefit from this practice – the bosses can receive additional incomes and the employees qualify for the jobs.

We must also monitor the number of foreigners in each sector and job function to ensure that we have a strong Singaporean Core to retain industry knowledge and competencies.

There is a social cost to having too many foreign employees in our workforce. More resources will be needed, such as accommodation. Their presence has an impact on our environment, transportation and medical resources. We are just a small country. There is a limit to our space. There is an opportunity cost to the influx of foreign workers to Singapore. We need to weigh the benefit and the cost. We must not overlook the cost to our society that may prove too much to pay.

For the sake of social stability, we must pay attention to the number of foreign nationals working and living in our country, taking into account their background details and their impact on the fabric of our society. Balance is key. But the most important thing is to confirm, to ensure whether that company is really recruiting qualified Singaporean employees, rather than just going through perfunctory processes, "putting on a show", ostensibly to toe the line for MOM's Fair Consideration Framework but, in reality, using "a thousand gestures and poses" to come up with reasons to justify the applications to hire some foreign employees. Of course, we still welcome foreign talents who can genuinely fill the gaps and really contribute to our economy in special technical areas, as well as visitors to our country for holidays and exhibitions.

In truth, during the Circuit Breaker period, many jobs could be performed at home. As such, is it necessary for companies to insist on bringing in foreign PMETs to work here?

We need to accelerate the increase in productivity and methodologies in the construction industry to reduce the reliance on foreign workers, allowing our construction sector to retain experienced, skilled, trained and disciplined foreign workers in the continued efforts to increase the productivity of our construction industry. The Government should lead in the use of methodologies that will help contractors boost productivity.

On the other hand, Singaporeans must not have the misconception that the competition is only local. We need to remember that we are facing global competition. We need to be able to produce better products than our peers globally. As consumers ourselves, we also want value for money. Likewise, if we cannot offer value for money, others will not be buying from us either. If we lose our competitive edge, we will lose our incomes and jobs. Therefore, we must make sure that we continue to upskill ourselves to stay relevant and employable.

One of the challenges facing employers is their difficulty in getting insurance cover for their older workers, especially those aged above 60 years old. With longer lifespans and a non-replacement birth rate, this is a problem and could be one of the factors driving some employers to retrench older workers, even if they are good at their jobs. I hope that MOM will look into this and work out a feasible and sustainable solution between employers and insurance companies.

I would also like to request that MOM consider the grant of a $1,000 Wage Income Supplement each month for the lower income workers. A boost in their take-home pay will make a significant impact and improve their families’ lives. The retention of the newly implemented wage support for employers to employ and retain senior workers and a higher proportional foreign worker quota will reward employers for employing and supporting senior workers with periodical skills upgrading.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, amongst our sandwich class are young families, mid-career workers, middle and lower income families. Quite a number of PMETs have been affected during this pandemic as well.

I would like to request for a more holistic social assistance framework to help them during this crisis. Do we have enough family counsellors to guide them through the array of schemes which they can tap into for help?

I would like to appeal for the income ceiling for first-time buyers to be removed. For the young families, getting married and bringing up children pose a unique challenge during this crisis. Let each and every Singaporean have a chance to get their own BTO flat if they so desire. BTO flats are an integral part of the Singapore Dream.

Some young couples shared with me that they are frustrated they could not qualify for the BTO flats they had been attempting to apply; their salaries had increased beyond the income cap over time.

Even though they can afford resale flats and private apartments, they still prefer BTOs. In today's environment with less job security and more market uncertainty, their desire to be more thrifty is commendable and should be supported.

I would also like to suggest that HDB build more bigger flats, which are increasingly popular among our young families. Four- and 5-room flats are often their first pick. With more people working from home, they need the additional space. Working from home looks set to become a permanent feature. Our flats need to be re-designed and enlarged to be relevant and useful. HDB had often cited land constraints as a limiting factor but we can build upwards. Forty-storey blocks are becoming common, the norm.

The Government should also consider providing free childcare for all children under age of seven, before they enter Primary school. Nowadays, both parents are working and more seniors are retiring later. Providing free, reliable and good quality childcare services is necessary to encourage couples to have more children, in view of our declining fertility rate.

We are in the midst of a crisis but life must go on – supporting procreation, making it easier to have and raise children in Singapore. I look forward to the Ministries' support.

5.19 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, I had a chance to visit the Changi Business Park. When I stepped into a lift, there were many well-dressed people, apparently foreigners, and were speaking in a language that was foreign to me. For the first time, I felt like a foreigner in my own country.

However, Minister Josephine Teo in MOM's Addendum to the President's address last week, stated that nearly six in 10 locals in the workforce today are employed in professional, managerial, executive and technician (PMET) jobs, which is among the highest in the world. This sounds impressive.

But then why some Singaporeans feel like a foreigner in our own country? When I checked the MOM's statistics, I noted that there were 193,700 Employment Pass or E Pass holders and 200,000 S Pass holders as of December 2019. Why are there so many?

I reckon that this is due to the low Total Fertility Rate or TFR in Singapore. Thirty years ago, Singapore's TFR was 1.8 babies per female. Today, it is only 1.1. This means that for every one local employee, we need to supplement it by almost one foreign worker in Singapore, so as to maintain the existing size of the Singapore workforce; otherwise, our labour force will shrink and Singapore will be in trouble.

That is well and good, and something which many people probably accept in good times when their jobs and incomes are secure. However, Singapore is experiencing deep recession now. Make no mistake about it. Retrenchment is on the rise. Unemployment rate hits a record high of 3.9% in the last quarter, the highest in 10 years. When Singaporeans lose their jobs and foreigners are still holding on to PMET jobs, many will be unhappy. Thus, it was timely, important and pertinent that the President spoke about securing jobs for Singaporeans, and this is the top national priority.

On this note, I am glad that my parliamentary colleague, Mr Patrick Tay, will co-chair the task force to protect local PMEs in Singapore. However, we need to do more than that. Protecting the Singaporean Core of PMETs is not something that should end once the economy recovers. We must continue to safeguard this, across all industries and not just pay attention to the financial sector.

As the CEO of a private company, I often have to collaborate with technology companies, banks, financial institutions and other MNCs. Through these interactions, I have had my fair share of instances where I think to myself, "This is not right".

In one such instance, I had the opportunity to have lunch with a Head of a delivery company in Singapore before the circuit breaker. The delivery company is a subsidiary of a MNC with headquarter in Germany and the country Head in Singapore is a Frenchman in his early 30s. He admitted that it would be very difficult for him to find a similar opportunity in France given its high unemployment rate. He added that many of his expatriate friends had the same experience, that is, it is easier for them to look for good jobs in Singapore. Have we made it too easy for foreign "talent" to work in Singapore? Especially those in the middle to top management level?

In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I feel that Singaporeans can fill many regional or senior management positions, which are filled by foreigners right now and it is not that they are lacking in any way.

Just recently, I caught up with an acquaintance who used to work as a regional CEO of a start-up company. Unfortunately, the said company was forced to shut down and he became jobless. There are many similar regional roles, in big companies, which he may be suitably qualified. But he is having trouble getting these opportunities. Why is that so?

Let us look at what other countries are doing to protect their citizens. In Australia, the government had tried to improve "social cohesion" by abolishing a 457 visa in March 2018, which was often used by skilled migrants to work in Australia, including middle and top-management level executives like CEOs and CIOs. The 457 visa was replaced with a more restrictive visa.

The government also required employers to first try, to try very hard to find an Australian citizen or permanent resident for a job, and only bring in foreign talent when there is no local talent available.

On this, a South China Morning Post article stated in its headline, "The Australians first policy that ban 457 visa scheme for skilled migrants will only hurt the economy." Most recently in June 2020, US President Donald Trump suspended foreign worker visas, including the H-1B visa used by the tech industry to hire highly skilled workers. The move was obviously to protect jobs for the Americans.

In a world which is increasingly nationalistic and inward-looking, this is probably not what we want. Fundamentally, Singapore needs to stay competitive. Preferential treatment can be detrimental to a country's prospects, especially in Singapore which is international in nature.

There are many complex reasons why a person is promoted or retained, or why a foreigner is brought in. But at a basic level, Singaporeans should be given the opportunities to compete. The critics may ask is there a need to intervene at all?

At the base level of zero intervention, strong believers of market forces might argue that natural attrition and adaptability would gradually toughen up Singaporeans who would naturally evolve to compete. In other words, do nothing and let Singaporeans rise to the challenge.

At the other extreme, policies could be tweaked to strongly encourage or penalise companies, with the intention of forcefully creating a Singaporean Core.

There is a middle ground of "soft power" and gentle persuasion, where the Government can work together with businesses and unions to jointly seed the appeal of developing a Singaporean Core and explore together how this can best be done.

My suggestion is to set up a National Human Resource Committee, working through the Industry Transformation Maps or ITMs which have been developed in great detail for 23 industries.

This National HR Committee could work through the six sub-committees under the Future Economy Council, which oversee ITM developments, to take into account the development of a Singaporean Core. They would ensure that Singaporeans are a part of the ITM transformation on a meaningful level so that Singaporeans are not left behind.

There are three main objectives of setting up the National HR committee. One is sending a strong signal. The National HR Committee can have regular meetings with the Head of HR of the major companies in Singapore to understand their manpower concerns and their commitment in building a Singaporean Core in the management team. By the way, whether the head of HR of the major companies is helmed by a Singaporean could be a reflection of their dedication to build a Singaporean Core. Whether the company is "major" would be defined in terms of specific turnover, profit and/or number of staff in Singapore.

Second, the gathering and sharing of data gives us an effective platform to discuss meaningful strategies moving forward. It is said, "We don't know what we don't know." By gathering data on PMET workforce composition in major companies will give us an early warning indicators before the situation gets out of hand. After all, just like when it comes to disease management, it is much easier to prevent, than to rectify.

We do not want a situation where MOM starts to place employers on the watch list for possible discriminatory hiring practices after discovering that they have many Employment Pass and S Pass holders, outnumbering local PMEs. I am referring to the news in early August where 47 employers were blacklisted by MOM and majority were from the financial and professional services sectors.

The third objective is the active dissemination of best practices. The Committee could work with these companies to share best practices that develop Singaporean core at the middle and top management levels. The sharing of data and best practices could push companies to level up. For instance, knowing that a company in a particular sector hires 60% to 70% of Singaporeans for its mid and top management levels, might compel other companies in the sector to do some soul-searching.

Over time, the National HR Committee could develop guidelines and blueprint based on the best practices across the industries. For instance, if a company has a regional HQ in Singapore, it should have a plan to give their Singaporean executives regional exposure, which might open up opportunities for promotion later on. This is important because I realise that Singaporeans sometimes lack regional or global exposure, as they are not given opportunities to get it. As a result, they are side-lined.

The same committee can also receive feedback from these companies and work with institutions of higher learning or training providers, to train Singaporeans who can take on higher level jobs in the near future.

In short, we do not want to impose a strict quota on recruiting foreigners in leadership positions for companies based in Singapore as that will stifle Singapore’s competitiveness. Neither can we remain status quo where we allow more than 1,200 companies to flout the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), because they might have bad discriminatory hiring practices.

We need to take the bull by its horns. We do not want major companies in Singapore to be able to hire foreigners in leadership positions too easily. We want these companies to nurture and grow the Singaporean Core. On this note, I am heartened that Deputy Prime Minister Heng has just reiterated that we need to do all things possible for the benefit of Singaporeans.

We cannot leave things to chance. We need a fine balance and this could be maintained by a National HR committee led by a Minister. As we move forward, with our focus on getting good jobs for Singaporeans, this is an aspect which must become part of our conversation. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our current employment situation is very challenging, with frequent retrenchments. A few days ago, when I was making house visits, a resident lamented that several of her foreign colleagues had been sent home after their contracts expired. Some have even been laid off. She felt sad about it. I comforted her that, at least, her Singaporean colleagues and herself were able to keep their jobs. Indeed, we must try to keep Singaporeans employed.

However, our birth rate is low: an average of only 1.1 for each female. If we cannot increase the birth rate in the long run, we will still need immigrants or foreign workers to supplement our labour force. Of course, we must maintain a fine balance between the two. I suggest that we set up a National HR Committee to have regular meetings with the Heads of HR of major companies in Singapore so that we can more effectively build a Singaporean Core in every major company.

There are three main objectives for setting up the National HR Committee.

Firstly, we want to send a strong signal to all major enterprises in Singapore that every company must treat their local employees fairly and give them opportunities for promotion. When the National HR Committee discovers that some of these major companies do not even have a Singaporean as the Head of HR, this would be a reflection of their weak dedication towards building a Singaporean Core. On discovery of such things, the Committee may issue proper guidance to the companies.

However, we should not simply copy other countries by legislating how many local employees a company must have. This will scare off foreign companies from investing in Singapore and, hence, reduce local employment opportunities.

Secondly, the Committee can release data on the average number of foreign employees in major sectors on a regular basis, including data on the number of local employees among the senior executives. If a company finds out that the number of its foreign employees are disproportionately higher than the sector average, it will feel some pressure indirectly and might make the adjustment accordingly.

Thirdly, the Committee may also encourage major companies to share best practices to build a Singaporean Core and learn from one another. Based on these best practices, the Committee can give some guidelines so that foreign companies that have set up operations in Singapore can quickly build up a Singaporean Core.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign investment and foreign companies setting up regional headquarters in Singapore have created jobs for Singaporeans and benefited Singapore. We welcome them. At the same time, these foreign companies have also benefited from Singapore’s eco-system, Singapore’s strategic locations and Singapore’s business-friendly infrastructure. Thus, they also have the obligation to grow the Singaporean Core in their workforce and their management team in Singapore. The National HR Committee, working closely with the National Jobs Council, can help to accelerate that and I hope MOM can consider the proposal positively.

5.36 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address. The President spoke about securing Singapore's future. I would like to begin by sharing my thoughts on matters close to my heart, whose vitality and success are necessary for the prosperity of our nation. They are our small and medium-sized enterprises and our youths. As we progress, we must not forget the disadvantaged ones.

Sir, I shall be speaking in Mandarin. Before that, I would like to declare that I am an employee of a Singaporean bank, a council member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants administering a supporting small medium audit practices, Chairman of an Institution of Public Character, as well as a member of the Institute of Mental Health's visitors' board.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The past few months have been challenging for many of us as we battle against COVID-19. There have been profound changes in so many areas of our lives here in Singapore and around the world. None has been spared, particularly the business community.

This year, the Government has provided a number of useful loans to our SMEs. These include SME Working Captial Loan, Productivty Solutions Grants, Loan Insurance Scheme, the Enterprise Financing Scheme or the Enterprise Development Grant. The Government has shown its support. If more banks and financial institutions participate in these schemes, I am sure that SMEs who need cash flow will be able to receive the loans more quickly and enjoy lower interest rates as well.

The job situation for our young graduates today is also not ideal. There are layoffs in a number of industries and the situation looks uncertain.

Allow me to share a little about Kwang Jun De, a youth volunteer from Brickland in my constituency. His aspiration is to become a business owner who is able to make time to help and serve the community. Jun De is a business graduate and former President of the NTU Rotaract Club which organises charitable activities. With the COVID-19 pandemic, it was harder for him to secure interviews with companies he was interested to work in. He has taken up a traineeship and is looking forward to picking up new skills and finding out more about the industry that he intends to venture into. He hopes that the experience would be useful in the future should he proceed to set up his own business.

The traditional model of work may not be sustainable for youths like Jun De. Over the next few years, we should focus on building a pipeline of fresh talent and support our youths who aspire to become entrepreneurs.

Yet, a poll in 2019 showed that young people in Singapore are far less keen on being entrepreneurs than their peers across the region. The poll questioned 56,000 people aged 15 to 35 from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. It found that just 17% of those polled said they wanted to work for themselves in the future. This was in contrast to five other nations in the poll by the World Economic Forum and an International Internet company.

Across ASEAN, working for SMEs is viewed less favourably by youths. Traditional SMEs could face challenges in recruiting and retaining the right talents.

How do we ensure that more youths continue new modes of learning by working in SMEs or starting SMEs of their own?

Could we build a pipeline by allowing youths under the age of 25 to use SkillsFuture to learn more about entrepreneurship? I am glad that first-time entrepreneurs will be able to access a higher start-up capital grant of $50,000 to help them launch their business ideas. I am optimistic that this will boost local start-ups and create jobs during the pandemic.

Could more initiatives like the "Youth Action Challenge" be organised with Government grants so that more students and youths might step forward? Participants were asked to pitch their ideas to four judges, outlining their projects, its social impact and how they would implement it before being judged on project feasibility, impact and validation of problem and idea. This is good training for the real world.

The Government adopts a "kueh lapis" style of diversified approaches to help the underprivileged. The Government uses similar approaches to help our SMEs through several Government agencies, such as ESG and IMDA, to launch many financing schemes, industry-led training programmes and SME Go Digital programmes to help SMEs. I hope that we will have better inter-agency programmes to combine all these projects into a “set-meal” with more synergy, so that the "kueh lapis" can melt easily in their mouth.

In addition to helping SMEs, we also have to remember to support the less privileged in our midst. I shall be speaking in English to elaborate my points.

(In English): There has been a marked increase in anxiety and stress among employees in Singapore since the COVID-19 outbreak. Our overall unemployment rate of the Singaporean Citizens has risen to more than 3% in 2020. Those who have lost their jobs would be stressed. Those who are still employed worry over the likelihood of losing their jobs. Fresh graduates are anxious about getting suitable jobs in the sector that they desire. It is a difficult time for everyone.

Before COVID-19, Singapore’s social compact was predicated on good economic growth, high employment rate, own responsibility and, as I had said earlier in my Mandarin speech, the "kueh lapis" style social security system.

Post-COVID-19, this new compact needs to be practical and yet creative to ensure there is affordability, availability and quality in the key areas of social security, housing, healthcare, education, public infrastructure and the environment. The Government has a critical role not only in ensuring socially desirable outcomes, but also in pursuing outcomes that are consistent with Singaporeans’ dreams, while not compromising fiscal means and maintaining work incentives.

The bottom rung of the blue-collar households has difficulty making basic ends meet, while the sandwiched class have fewer discretionary savings and therefore may be more vulnerable to ad hoc occurrences of unemployment and illnesses. These scenarios impede social mobility.

The construction of this new social compact requires the Government to review and discard long-held beliefs and rigid policy mindsets which are the hurdle and can no longer leave it to market forces to help the less privileged ones.

To me, meritocracy is the key principle which is crucial to Singapore's success. I spent the first few years of my life living in a rental flat. I was brought up by my maternal grandparents while my parents took on various odd jobs to support me and my younger sister. My father worked as a delivery man and later on as a taxi driver while my mother assembled electronic parts at home and later on, she became a part-time cashier when we were older. Through perseverance, bursaries and opportunities given to me, I would say that I am doing fine today and hope to give back to the larger Singaporean community.

Ultimately, it instilled in me the idea that, in Singapore, no one will be denied of opportunities if he or she works hard and has the courage to fight on. When I was serving in the School Advisory Committee of a neighborhood Secondary school, I came across cases whereby the students skipped classes because they had to take care of their young siblings or sick grandparents as the parents were either in prison or were working long hours. Their poor academic results are only symptoms and their family issues are the root causes.

Therefore, we must still ensure that everyone has a similar playing field to start from. And that should start from as young as pre-school. No system should stop parents from investing in their own children, but any system should attempt to minimise inequalities. It is heartening that we have more Allied Educators now and I would suggest that this be moved upstream to MOE Kindergartens and the ones operate by the anchor operators. We can formalise the tripartite partnership between the schools, Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs) so that the pipeline of cases can be reviewed regularly. More budget can be set aside to scale up the KidSTART programme. Despite the KidSTART programme's success, it remains very costly to sustain.

I also urge the Government to allow medical records stored in the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) be shared with the Social Service Offices (SSOs) in a secured manner after been authorised by the client so that the deserving cases can be helped expediently. In the same vein, SSOs' records should also be shared with schools so that the Financial Assistance Scheme and the School Pocket Money fund which are administered by MOE does not need to be applied separately. I also urge new Family Service Centres (FSCs) to be housed together with the SSOs so that there is a better handshake process as clients do not need to repeat their circumstances. The above-mentioned suggestions illustrate different ways on how we can help the deserving underprivileged Singaporeans.

Finally, let me now share what I have experienced so far as a Member for Parliament for the Brickland division of the Chua Chu Kang GRC. It is a precinct with many BTO flats and executive condominium units. There are many young families concerned with unemployment as a result of the economic downturn. Some have young children and are concerned about their future. I had met many residents who had lost their jobs or had suffered pay cuts. For one particular case, his nine years old daughter had contracted a rare disease. I had also met a single mother with two special needs children. She suffers from depression as she is constantly worried about her kids and the tight financial situation. Her former husband has gone missing so she has no alimony to rely upon.

Besides financial assistance, I hope the Government can invest in providing respite care for this group of care-givers just like what we have done for the care-givers of the dementia patients. It is extremely stressful when disadvantaged families have family members who suffer from chronic illnesses, mental illness or have special needs kids.

Financial distress is often intertwined with mental stress. We must have an awareness of mental health and aim to reduce stigmatisation at a very young age so that mental health patients will have more confidence in themselves and have fewer challenges navigating their life in Singapore. I propose for the Government to incentivise employers to recruit mental health patients so that they also have the financial means to take care of themselves. The United Nations highlighted in May 2020 the need to prioritise mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that whilst it is a physical health crisis, it has the seeds of a major mental health crisis as well.

I hope that everyone has the opportunities that I had. A whole-of-Singapore inclusive approach, where all Singaporeans matter, is key in ensuring that we will continue to maintain a cohesive society while recovering from the pandemic.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

5.49 pm

The Minister of State for Education and Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said about how COVID-19 has impacted the world, claiming lives, disrupting economic activities and changing our way of life. In Singapore, the Government has acted decisively to contain the spread of the virus and is injecting close to $100 billion to contain the impact of COVID-19. This has helped many Singaporeans and has cushioned the impact on our GDP and employment.

I would like to speak on how we can use this crisis to strengthen the Singaporean Core. These include urging employers to hire fairly and retain Singaporeans over foreigners when both can do the job. I also like to urge Singaporeans to build up their skills so that they can enhance their suitability for the jobs that are being made available. I will also share my perspective on the hard truths confronting our nation as we strive to maintain a strong Singaporean Core in the long term.

Today, excluding foreign domestic workers, two-thirds of the workforce in Singapore are Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents, while the remaining one-third are foreigners. Prior to COVID-19, our economy was growing steadily and we were able to attract foreign investments as well as a sizeable foreign workforce to complement our local workforce.

Due to the impact of COVID-19 on businesses, our resident unemployment rate rose from 3.3% in March to 3.9% in June this year, based on preliminary estimates. Although the rise in unemployment rate is lower than what we have seen in advanced economies, such as the United States, we should still be concerned because, unlike many other countries, Singapore has no natural resources to give us buffer. Our people are our only asset and every Singaporean counts.

How should we strengthen the Singaporean Core through this crisis?

Some may say that it is about increasing the proportion of Singaporeans in the labour force and reducing our reliance on foreigners. This is necessary when there is slack in the job market, as we are experiencing in this crisis.

However, if we want to reduce our reliance on foreigners in a sustained way, we would need to increase our work productivity to bring down our overall demand for labour. We have made some progress in raising productivity in the last 10 years, but it takes much effort to keep up the momentum. And while we have a highly educated population and dynamic workforce, our local labour force is ageing. Last year, the median age of residents in our labour force was 44 years old. The median age will gradually creep upwards. At the same time, the proportion of Singapore citizens between 20 and 64 years old will decline. This is the group that forms the bulk of our labour force. In 2019, around 63% of our citizen population were between 20 and 64 years old. Ten years from now, this is projected to drop to around 56%. To stay competitive against a younger global talent pool, we would have to keep upgrading ourselves or risk being squeezed out in the global competition for good jobs as we strive to grow our economy.

With our low birth rate, our local workforce will peak in the next 10 years. We will need to improve our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) so as to maintain a critical mass of Singaporeans in the labour force and not overly rely on foreigners to sustain our economy. Increasing our work productivity and "life productivity", which means having more babies, are both not easy to achieve, but we must keep trying.

In the more immediate term, there are two other areas that we should address to strengthen the Singaporean Core. First, employers need to be fair in hiring, retrenchment and developing local talent. Second, we need to ensure that Singaporeans have relevant skills and are adaptive.

With growing unemployment this year, there is a heightened sense of anxiety among Singaporeans about job security. Some people have expressed strong sentiments about foreigners here, especially if they have been retrenched and see that other foreign workers remain in employment. This is compounded if the Singaporean's job search journey has been unsuccessful and companies are still hiring new foreign workers.

In Marymount, residents have similarly shared with me their anxieties about finding jobs. Many have families to support and expenses to upkeep. I can understand the immense pressure that they are facing.

In trying to make sense of the continued presence of foreign workforce in Singapore, I find it helpful to look at three categories of jobs that we require foreigners to do.

The first category are jobs in essential services that are not so popular with locals, such as construction workers and cleaners. For this category, the reality is that locals may not want these jobs even though we try very hard to transform them. We will need the foreign workforce to complement locals. Having said that, we ought to move towards a reduced reliance on foreign workers. How then do we "upgrade" these jobs to make them more appealing to Singaporeans?

A good example is in the construction sector. The adoption of new technologies and digitalisation in construction has created new and higher skilled jobs in the sector. With the push for Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, more construction work has shifted off-site to automated production facilities that require production managers and quality assurance personnel, as well as logistics and supply chain planners. These jobs offer better work environment for our local PMETs. We should push for similar transformation and job re-design in other sectors, so that we can create good jobs for Singaporeans while reducing our reliance on foreign workers for essential services.

The second category of jobs are those that locals want and can do, such as engineers and IT professionals, but for which there are not enough Singaporeans to meet the demand during periods when our economy is growing. We have foreigners working alongside us in these roles so that jointly, we expand the economic pie which all Singaporeans can benefit from.

In the current crisis where there are not enough jobs for locals, we need to work with employers so that Singaporean jobseekers will be viewed favourably when applying for jobs, especially given the Government incentives such as Jobs Support Scheme, Jobs Growth Incentive, SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit and career conversion programmes. In circumstances where retrenchment is unavoidable and employers have to choose between foreigners and Singaporeans, I urge employers to lean towards keeping the Singaporean. In short, if employers must retrench, retain the Singaporean over foreigner.

A strong presence of locals in your company not only improves the support for your business in Singapore, but also enhances the resilience of your business in times of border controls that could impact the supply of foreign workers for your company. And most importantly, by showing due consideration to the Singaporean Core in this difficult time, the trust that is forged between your Singaporean employees and you will be further strengthened. This will augur well for you when your business picks up in the future and you need the support of your local workforce.

The third category of jobs are those in global and regional companies that require global teams and certain professionals with highly specialised skills. Our goal is to get Singaporeans to be part of these global teams comprising diverse foreign and local talent. We also want companies to contribute to grooming our local talent so that Singaporeans have a fair chance at senior and top management positions.

One company that has done well in this area is Shell. Ms Tan Chee Wei, a 46-year old Singaporean, is Shell's Vice President of Human Resources for the Asia region. In her 18 years of career with Shell, she rose through the ranks from a HR generalist to a global HR Leader. She spent a few years in London as a Global HR Advisor and also took on regional roles in organisational development and talent management, before being promoted to Vice President this year. Shell is an employer that values and invests in our local talents. I hope that more companies would do likewise.

Our foreign workforce policy has largely been driven by the need to support economic growth, so as to create good jobs for Singaporeans. We need to continue to stay open and provide businesses with access to global expertise and talent. But with rising unemployment in this crisis, we had to tighten work passes for foreigners, and work more closely with employers and unions to uphold fair hiring and retrenchment. Ultimately, for every additional Employment Pass or S Pass that is issued to a foreigner today, we need to be clear that it is so that even more job opportunities will be available to Singaporeans in the future.

While we ask employers to be fair in hiring and retrenchment, our local workforce needs to be adaptive and skilled in diverse fields, to remain highly employable even as the nature of work changes.

COVID-19 has caused major disruptions to our work and lives. Some people have lost their jobs as a result. Some are waiting for the economy to recover before they go back to their previous occupations. Unfortunately, it is hard to tell whether some of these jobs will come back again or will disappear in the new normal.

The National Jobs Council is creating close to 100,000 jobs and training opportunities. As at July, we have helped place 25,000 jobseekers into new opportunities. Amongst the remaining places available, there are over 47,000 jobs, 16,000 traineeships with different companies, and more than 10,000 training places in various Institutes of Higher Learning and other training providers such as NTUC LearningHub.

I have been encouraging my residents and friends who are looking for jobs to seriously consider the SGUnited training and skills programmes. I cannot guarantee that they will be able to get a job immediately after going through one of these courses, but they will certainly be more employable if they pick up new skills and knowledge.

Thirty-two-year-old Muhammad Iskandar Bin Ismail is one example. Iskandar was an operations officer in the tourism and aviation sector when his job was affected due to COVID-19. To enhance his employability, he took charge of his own upskilling journey and completed a series of courses. These included service-related Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) courses, as well as supervisory-level courses on problem solving and decision-making. Iskandar used his SkillsFuture Credit to defray part of the course fees. Equipped with new skills, Iskandar successfully found a job as a full-time customer service officer in the retail sector.

Under normal circumstances, we would have preferred Place and Train programmes where a job seeker goes for training as required by his employer after he has secured a job. As many businesses have been hit by COVID-19, there are now fewer companies that are prepared to hire in advance now. As such, we are pushing for more Train and Place programmes with the hope that Singaporeans who attend these courses will stand a better chance of getting a job when the economy recovers.

For employers who are concerned about finding Singaporean workers with relevant skills to fill your business requirements, you can consider partnering with our Institutes of Higher Learning to offer Work-Study programmes and provide structured on-the-job training for potential hires. These programmes are modelled after the vocational training and apprenticeship track in Germany, where about a third of upper- and post-Secondary students pursue an apprenticeship programme.

COVID-19 has presented us with both challenges and opportunities. We should take this time to re-invest in building our skills. The best course of action that we can take now is to add to our skills, and remain open to available jobs and training opportunities. Deepening this culture and spirit of lifelong learning will position our local workforce better in the long term.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Iast year’s SG Bicentennial events affirmed three fundamental values that underpinned Singapore’s history – openness, multi-culturalism, and self-determination. Openness – our forefathers came from different lands to pursue their dreams on this island that is open to the world. Multi-culturalism – despite differences of race, language and religion, our forefathers worked together to build thriving communities here. Self-determination – our people knew that we had to take our fates in our own hands. So, we fought for the right to chart our own destiny.

These values are still very much within us and alive today. I met some Secondary 2 students from Catholic High School recently and they shared with me their reflections on “The Singapore Identity – What makes a Singaporean?” The students had studied the history of different towns in Singapore and conducted surveys to understand what brings Singaporeans together. I was heartened that elements of openness, multi-culturalism and self-determination surfaced in their independent analysis of what makes us Singaporean.

Our Singaporean Core may be limited by the size of our citizen population, but we can be mighty if we differentiate ourselves from others by being identified with the values of openness, multi-culturalism and self-determination.

As a society, we will chart our own destiny, overcome adversity and find opportunities in this crisis. We must stand together and take care of one another so that no one is left behind in the storm. When we have fought together as a people in the battle against COVID-19, the Singapore identity will become even stronger than before.

Finally, I would like to share something that one of my residents in Marymount reminded me about the duty of the Government: “为人民遮风挡雨”, which means protect our people from wind and rain. The Government will do our best to ensure fair opportunities for Singaporeans to get jobs and to support Singaporeans in acquiring skills. We will spare no effort to strengthen the Singaporean Core and walk the journey with every Singaporean. Because our people are our only asset and every Singaporean counts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

6.06 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interests as Managing Director and Partner of a consulting firm that does work in the area of skills development.

As we work together to emerge from this crisis of a generation, it is with a glad heart that I support the President’s call to strengthen our social safety nets and social mobility. Today, I would like to talk about a necessary pre-requisite – Singapore must continue to remain competitive.

This year, Singapore was again ranked the world’s most competitive economy in the annual IMD World Competitiveness ranking. But we cannot take this for granted. As an executive from a big automative MNC told me: “Many years ago, Singapore was the only place in the region our expats wanted to live. But now other cities are pretty nice and when we think about where we want to set up, Singapore doesn’t have what we call the 'halo effect' because the domestic market is so small”. Sir, in the race to attract and retain our investments, our neighbours are not standing still.

Technological, social, economic and political forces are reshaping the world, along with Singapore’s place in it. I think Prime Minister Trudeau put it so well at Davos in 2018: "the pace of change has never been this fast, yet it will never be this slow again." In such a world, the winners will be those who learn faster than others and adapt to change.

I believe Singapore can build a lasting competitive advantage by being the nation that learns the fastest. Today, I will focus on two things we must prioritise to do that: one, investing in our people; and two, giving them opportunities.

Investing in our people and giving them opportunities. Since 2015, Singapore has embarked on a bold experiment to get our people to embrace lifelong learning. This is of course SkillsFuture. It is still early days, but I think it is an experiment so bold in its intent and approach, that I think we owe it to ourselves to continue.

Nonetheless, with the fallout from COVID-19, more and more Singaporeans will hope, will want, will demand the courses they attend to lead to a job.

In the late 19th century, the German psychologist, Hermann Ebbinghaus, was among the first to perform experiments to understand how memory works. The result of his experiments was the Forgetting Curve, which shows that learners will forget 75% of what they learnt within six days, 90% within the first month, if they do not apply what they have learnt. So, while we talk about steep learning curves, let us not forget about steep forgetting curves.

Mr Speaker, I believe it is time to go full throttle to help our people quickly acquire job-oriented skills, and, crucially, to provide them with immediate opportunities to use those skills in meaningful work.

For this to happen, employers must be a bigger part of the solution. First, they must take greater accountability for their employees’ learning. Second, they must be willing to give more Singaporeans a chance, and look beyond paper and past experience, instead making their hiring and career progression and retention decisions based on skills.

One of my residents in Woodlands in Sembawang GRC, I will call him Mr Lee, he is in his 50s. He wrote to me a few weeks back. He had just been retrenched, and wanted my help to support his application for a role in a Government agency. Reading his resume, I was impressed – he had good technical competencies and he had been promoted several times in his company. So, I thought why settle for the role that he was thinking of. So, I asked a friend with a big data start-up to run it through this fancy matching algorithm that his company had built, that matches people with available job openings, based on the skills on their resume. I got a list of job openings that had a high match for Mr Lee.

When I sent the list to Mr Lee, he wrote back to say he appreciated the list, but he did not meet the educational qualifications required. Sure enough, when I checked the job profiles, they all specified Degree holder. Mr Lee has a Diploma. Mr Speaker, I did not sleep well that night – it bothered me because I know how to read resumes and I know Mr Lee’s experiences suggested he could definitely do all those roles. The next morning, I emailed him, to suggest he try and apply anyway. He has yet to get a single interview.

Can his story be different?

Last month, Google launched its new Google Career Certificates programme, a collection of six-month long courses designed to help participants get qualifications in high-paying, high-growth job fields without attending university.

Google said, I quote, “We will consider our new career certificates as the equivalent of a four-year Degree for related roles”. After completion, Google promises support in the job search as well, with over 50 companies signed up to participate on exclusive job boards and interview days. Google has also announced 100,000 apprenticeships. The cost of this programme? For example, the IT support certificate costs US$49 a month, or US$300 for six months. It is less than what you and I get in SkillsFuture credits.

Whether you are a millennial eager to climb the corporate ladder as quickly as possible, or a mid-career professional looking to make a career change, that probably made you sit up. And if you are a university, you would probably sit up faster than you can say technology disruption.

Of course, we do not know how many of those who complete the Google Certificate programme will actually get jobs as a result, but it does paint what the future could be like: employers developing their own or collaborating with higher learning institutes and other partners to offer pre-skilling, up-skilling and re-skilling opportunities, from apprenticeships and traineeships, to short courses, to re-skilling bootcamps, along a lifelong learning path where they are able to quickly apply what they learn.

Here is the thing. For most employers, it actually makes business sense to do this. You see, all businesses need to transform; yet, the skills required for transformation – hard digital skills, transformation skills and soft skills – are all in short supply. A company can buy, borrow or outsource these skills to people like myself, but I believe building them by investing in our people, has the biggest payoff in the long term, and is even more relevant today given the global pandemic that restricts movement, and the increased scrutiny on the contribution of business to society. Ultimately, being known as an employer that invests in and develops its people will help companies attract and retain the best talent.

To increase opportunities for jobseekers, in particular, we also ask companies to consider if they can hire a little ahead of demand, or to loosen their screening criteria and take a chance on Singaporeans who may not look like the perfect fit in terms of paper qualifications and past industry experience, but have sufficient relevant skills to get in the door and the attitude to learn the rest on the job if they are just given the opportunity.

Some companies will require support to do all this. For example, for SMEs, Government can play a bigger role, creating platforms to train their employees at scale and at speed, while simultaneously helping the SMEs to transform and redesign their jobs where necessary. And of course, the Government is already helping. Adapt and Grow, SGUnited Skills Programme, SGUnited Trainerships are all great schemes, offering much needed hope to our jobseekers.

Since the SGUnited Traineeships Programme started on June 1, more than 16,500 vacancies have been approved and 1,000 trainees placed on the programme. According to media reports, they are converting the sceptics. We need to have more of them and make them sharper. Today, big data and AI give us insights into the supply and demand for a multitude of skills and using machine learning allows us to be much more surgical in our learning interventions and give us a better shot at landing a job for our people who can use the skills that they have.

But even while we turn to AI, I hope we will always stay open to new possibilities to make our schemes more human. Take the SGUnited Skills Programme. With a training stipend of $1,200 a month, for the mid-career worker with children and ageing parents, it is quite a difficult sell. "We are paying you to learn", they are told. Yes, but let us not forget, they also need to survive. So, we must find ways to make it easier for our people to take the pathway of learning.

A good policy, in itself, is not enough. People must also trust the implementation – trust that they will be given a fair chance. But we all know the best schemes do not always work out for everyone.

We have all met them among our residents, our friends – Singaporeans who do not feel they are being given a fair chance. The 50-something PMET who was retrenched when his company was acquired and has gone for countless interviews, only to be told he is “overqualified” for the roles; the 40-something banker who was first put on no-pay leave and then let go because he was told there was no business need, only to see a foreigner take his place two months later while he himself is unable to get back into an industry that is supposed to be still growing; the 30-something Malay accounts clerk who goes through countless job advertisements and interviews only to find that many of the jobs are for Mandarin speakers only, as if computers and ledgers can only speak Chinese; the 20-something graduate, a few years out of school, who goes for interviews for jobs that ask for experience, only to be offered a salary that he believes can only be called a low-ball offer, lower than what a fresh graduate should be making.

If people get a bad taste that, no matter how hard they work, the system is stacked against them, it leads to cynicism. And because we Singaporeans actually have a strong sense of fairness and rooting for the underdog, if people see too many people around them like that, it can lead to polarisation, which only hurts our competitiveness.

We have seen that efforts are being made with the recent interventions already highlighted by many of our colleagues today. But perhaps we can do more to ensure fair employment is ingrained in the legal and regulatory framework and strongly enforced with TAFEP and other relevant agencies stepping in to intervene on behalf of Singaporeans of all walks of life. We must continue to address prejudices and correct negative stereotypes and to encourage inclusive workplaces and be willing to have sensible dialogue on these issues.

If we all – Government, employers and citizens – step up to the plate, our Singaporean workforce will surely be well-positioned to be the fastest in getting the right skills and the most adaptable, able to hold our own against anyone in a competitive and rapidly changing market. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have spoken today about how the Government and, especially companies, can do more to help our people acquire skills and to give them opportunities, looking beyond paper qualifications and past experience. Many efforts are already underway.

But we know that the best schemes do not always work for everyone. We all know friends and family members, who do not feel they are being given a fair chance. The Government has committed to address discrimination and prejudices through enforcement, education and dialogue. At the same time, we need to focus our energies on taking advantage of the schemes available for us to learn and progress.

If we all – the Government, employers and citizens – step up to the plate, I strongly believe we can be the nation that learns the fastest, which will give us a unique advantage, allowing us to remain one of the most competitive economies in the world.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by addressing two distinguished groups I now have the incredible privilege to belong to – our Members of Parliament and our business leaders.

As Members of Parliament, we are the ones that people turn to for help when they are at their lowest. “You are my last resort" – I have heard this too many times.

How we lead during the coming years could make or break their spirit. This is what I think about a lot as I try to comfort, encourage, guide and help my residents through these challenging times. I am sure we all do.

We are used to the Government telling us we have to be better, faster, work harder. Do excuse my use of a Hokkien word: "mo chai".

How do we also provide support and inspiration? How do we open doors for them to ease their way through this world? Call it social capital, call it the human touch. The battle for hearts and minds can only be won on the ground and we must lead the way.

As business leaders, this is our chance to lead a renewal of the economy through working together with the Government, unions and our employees on thorny issues of labour market practices, costs, regulation and discrimination.

It is time for us to ask ourselves how the organisations we lead can be better corporate statesmen and women, and proactively contribute to addressing critical societal issues in order to strengthen our social contract with society in order to earn the social licence to operate.

Today, in this House, we must answer the President’s call for the Government, Singaporeans and, I will add, companies, to work together, learn faster and to create a better and stronger Singapore on the other side of this crisis. I support the Motion. [Applause.]