Overview of Government’s Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [5 October 2020],

“That the Ministerial Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on the Overview of Government’s Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic be considered by Parliament.” – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

1.17 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought havoc on the economy of the world and Singapore and as the virus mutates and countries react, we must realise that our efforts may resemble the labours of mythological Sisyphus – who kept rolling a boulder up a hill, only to see it roll down again and again – at least until an effective vaccine is widely available and may be even lasting beyond that. However, we do need to look beyond COVID and to do that, we have to look before COVID. There were many deep economic trends already gathering pace before COVID, including rising geo-political tensions, nativism and economic nationalism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech today I shall focus only one of these trends – industry disruption.

The rise of Industry 4.0 or disruptive industries more broadly has been much talked about around the world, among economists, experts, business persons, unions, activists and politicians. Industry 4.0 refers to the Fourth Industrial Revolution where data from the Internet of Things and other sources revolutionises economic activity.

Industry disruption more broadly refers to the recent wave of new technologies and business models that threaten or, should I say, promise to disrupt existing industries. Simply put, these refer to new industries like drones which may displace conventional last-mile delivery, including food service delivery, artificial intelligence or AI which may displace clerical jobs or functions like para-legal work or even radiology, autonomous vehicles which may displace jobs like taxi and private hire car driving and quantum computing which is possibly the mother of all disruptions and may drive machine learning, pattern recognition and other activities traditionally associated with AI beyond the bounds of what is conventionally recognised as AI today, in turn potentially displacing many skilled white-collar jobs.

What does the advent of all these disruptive industries mean for Singapore?

A Cisco Oxford Economic Study in 2018 projected the following: 85,000 existing roles will disappear from the labour market, pushing workers into other industries and occupations. Singapore is said, according to this report, to confront a gap in average skill levels of 14.3 on a scale of 0 to 100 – higher than Vietnam at 13.4, Malaysia at 12.7 and Thailand at 8.5.

According to this report, the three sectors in line for most displacement in Singapore are: firstly, wholesale and retail with 80,000 jobs displaced; secondly, manufacturing with 55,000 jobs displaced; and thirdly, transport with 50,000 jobs displaced.

Also, the 2017 Global Future of Works Survey by Willis Towers Watson found that companies in Singapore expect automation will account for an average of 29% of all work done the next three years, a big increase in 14% of work being done using automation in 2018 and just 7% in 2015.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these forecasts were made before COVID. Some may argue that these are alarmist projections. But it is possible that COVID-19 has, in fact, delayed the advance of these disruptive industries by delaying timelines for R&D and new business investment. As COVID recedes, the threat and opportunity from these disruptive trends may return to the old trajectory, which means that many jobs in Singapore will be jeopardised not from COVID but from long-term industry disruption.

Sir, I enjoyed reading former US presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang's compelling book about industry disruption, aptly entitled "The War on Ordinary People". It argues that the threat of industry disruption hollowing out middle market, skilled jobs as chillingly imminent. Among the examples he cited was that of a person who was exchanging emails with another person whom he thought was the secretary of a business associate. He later discovered that the person he was emailing with whom he had exchanged pleasantries and had a fruitful conversation over email was, in fact, an AI-driven bot.

Lest anyone misunderstand my reference to Andrew Yang, let me make clear that I am not arguing for universal basic income or UBI here, as I think the jury is still out on the topic and addressing UBI now would be premature – though it is something we should keep an open mind about.

Sir, the Government has been cognisant of the risk to the jobs from industry disruption. Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in his COVID-19 Statement in Parliament last week spoke about providing holistic support for vulnerable workers and for ensuring that workers have the skills to stay relevant. He also spoke of the even greater urgency for middle aged and middle income workers to gain new skills and transition into jobs with good long-term prospects.

Schemes such as the PCP, CSP, SGUnited Traineeship, Mid-Career Traineeship and others have been put in place, some for a long time, some recently to address the systemic risk to jobs in certain industries as well as the risk to employability among certain segments such as older PMETs. There are various CETs and SkillsFuture programmes for training. The newly formed National Jobs Council has said that it will work with the Future Economy Council on the overall upgrading of the economy, including addressing the issue of future proofing jobs.

However, there are limitations to these schemes. Firstly, these schemes have not yet made a huge impact on the job market. The tsunami of industry disruption that is likely to emerge in future argues for more scalable schemes which induce more workers to join the industries of the future, including industries that are not big employers right now.

In 2019, close to 4,500 individuals were placed through PCPs which is comparable to the placement achievement in 2018. However, this is a very, very small percentage of the labour force.

Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, including PCP and CSP, more than 31,000 local jobseekers were placed in jobs in 2019, similar to the 2018 number. However, not all of these placements would be in emergent disruptive industries.

Secondly, these schemes address certain types of at-risk segments such as older PMETs or those who are retrenched. There is perhaps insufficient attention at the policy level to industries that are doing okay now, like delivery or driving jobs or certain types of clerical and service jobs which are at risk from industry disruption a few years down the road but for whom there is no urgency on the part of employers and employees to prepare for a more uncertain future right now.

To raise the example of jobs like driving taxis and private hire cars which are I and others have spoken about in the past, many of these jobs could be wiped out by autonomous vehicles in the years to come. Many younger entrants to these industries may find themselves on the wrong side of industry disruption when they hit their late 30s, 40s or 50s, at which time reskilling and transitioning to a new industry will be hard. Should we not give some thought to these challenges and encourage these workers to plan for the same?

Sir, let us now look at the same issue from the perspective not of workers but of the economy as a whole. We do want to attract and root disruptive industries in Singapore so that they can become engines of our economic growth. Why? Because if we anchor the technical skills, employee qualifications, business know-how and entrepreneurial talent behind these industries of the future in Singapore, that will enable us to export these skills to the region and the world, thus facilitating high-quality, inclusive economic growth.

If there is an insufficient supply of workers for these new industries, workers whether through traditional industries including sunset industries, that means these new industry investments may not come to Singapore. Rather, they may go to Hong Kong or Bangkok or Jakarta or Shanghai or Hyderabad. Or it could mean that if and when these new industries land in Singapore there would be too few Singaporeans with the will and skills to take jobs there so workers will have to be imported on Employment Passes and special passes. This may mean that it would hard to establish a strong Singapore Core in such industries going forward. It may also mean that these investments may be less firmly anchored in Singapore in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one response to all of this is to say, "We don't want disruptive industries, let's legislate to ban them". But I do not think any serious commentator or stakeholder will really argue this nowadays. Such a move would doom us to economic irrelevance. So, I would not spend any more time addressing that straw man argument.

How then can we attract and anchor disruptive next generation industries in Singapore and, at the same time, and in tandem urge our workers to transition from sunset at-risk industries to these new industries, thus creating a virtual cycle of enhancing employability and protecting jobs on the one hand and attracting and rooting these industries in Singapore, on the other?

There are a few chicken and egg conundrums here. The first conundrum is how do we attract employees to join or to train for riskier, less mature disruptive industries like AVs, AI and so on when they may not feel assured that there will be a job there at the end of their training or that the job will be sustainable.

The second conundrum is how do we nurture the growth of such industries in Singapore when there are few workers with the relevant skills in the short term, without relying on an unsustainable importation of skilled foreign workers?

Sir, to address these questions, I shall conclude my speech with a few suggestions.

Firstly, Sir, I would suggest that our economic agencies study a new model for attracting and supporting investments in next generation industries. Many of these industries rely on highly specialised skills that may not be taught in courses available in Singapore or courses that are widely subscribed to. The lead time to create a critical mass of Singaporeans trained in these skills could be years and the challenge faces the chicken and egg problem discussed above. As in many Singaporeans may not want to invest in such training out of uncertainty about whether it would be worth. However, workers with such skills may be available at short notice in other cities in the world to be recruited for work in Singapore. Silicon Valley, for example, London or Israel or China.

In order to attract and support such investment projects that create jobs, either from foreign investors or from domestic investors and entrepreneurs, can our economic agencies offer limited term foreign work passes for individuals with such specialised skills? The term could be five years, for example.

To attract big investment projects in a competitive investment climate, a mix of fixed term and non-fixed term Employment Passes could be offered. For the fixed term passes, the idea would be that the employer would be expected to hire a Singaporean to fill that position when the term of the pass ends. That fixed term, say, five years could then be used to set up training for Singaporeans to acquire those skills. That could be formal academic training or employer-led training, using one of the many existing schemes that we have. When the term ends, there would be enough Singaporeans with the relevant skills to fill that position; and if they are not and that is proven, the pass can be extended a little longer.

The presence of the employer in Singapore with fixed term foreign work passes will provide some assurance to prospective Singaporean employees that their efforts to train for a role in this new industry would be likely to lead to a good job.

By adopting an approach like fixed term work passes, we can bring in foreigners with rare but future-ready skillsets while buying time for Singaporeans to be trained in those very same skillsets, in a way that gives some assurance to those Singaporeans that the training would have a decent chance of landing him or her a good job in a future-ready industry.

Sir, fixed term work passes will also be attractive to foreign professionals because they would have several years of working experience here. They may also be able to find another employer, perhaps in a different industry before the end of that term. Otherwise, they could be posted to another city by their employer.

Sir, before I leave this point, I would like to make the observation that as the pace of disruption picks up, Singapore would benefit from a redundancy insurance scheme but one in which additional income support can be tied to training and reskilling for growth sectors.

Some economists have argued that the Scandinavian economies succeeded in shifting big sections of their workforce – for example, in Sweden's obsolete shipyards – to more productive skilled occupations, thereby facilitating the upgrading of the Swedish economy at a much faster and more durable pace. In contrast, some states and cities in the US saw de-industrialisation because they did not have concerted state-sponsored retraining and income support policies. This led, in some cases, to entire communities and regions becoming impoverished and facing social decay, in turn fueling populist politics.

Journalist Thomas Gross, in a 2018 article wrote and I quote, "Most Swedish workers who are replaced by machines fairly quickly land another job as good as their old one, thanks to a network of job security councils jointly run by industries and unions, that retrained laid-off workers in skills that are still in demand and out of reach of robots. Moreover, while unemployed and learning new skills, workers are buoyed by a safety net that includes generous jobless benefits."

Sir, going forward, Singapore will need to seriously up its game in both skills upgrading and interim structural income support with the latter tied to the former.

Secondly, I would suggest that the Government look into working with employees and other stakeholders in industries at risk from disruption to get them to anticipate the risks and start planning for what to do if and when their industry gets disrupted and they lose their job.

This is not an idea without precedent.

Denmark's national skills anticipation system, for example, seeks to compile accessible and detailed information on labour market trends and skills demand for 850 occupations in order to: firstly, support the work of job centres in helping individuals find better job opportunities; and secondly, to informed education, employment and skills policies.

Denmark's main skills anticipation activities include: skills forecasting, for example, statistical forecasting of education status and the demand and supply of labour; skills assessments, for example, quantitative sectoral assessments on imbalances in the labour market; skills foresight, for example, sectoral assessments on future needs in the labour market and employer surveys.

Sir, in the past, I have also spoken in this House about the Korean jobs dictionary which aims to compile and disseminate information about the nature and outlook for most types of jobs in Korea. The aims and approach, while not similar to the Denmark example I cited, have some points of commonality.

At this point, let me declare my interest as a CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes research on such issues among other things.

And lastly, we currently have various mechanisms and platforms for workers of the receiving end of industry disruption to receive help in respect of job matching and career coaching. I have referred some of my constituents in Serangoon onto such services and they are not without value. However, it is less clear if the providers of such services practise an approach where one career coach sticks with a prospective employee from end-to-end, seeing him or her through to a successful placement.

The KPIs for such agencies and data on success versus failure are also not clear. What is the ratio of success? How does it vary, based on industry vocation, gender, age, race, PwD status or other variables?

It would be good for such data to be made public so that success can be measured and debated publicly. In doing so would not mean accepting that the employee has no responsibility for her or his success in finding a new job. It would just mean that some transparency and a proper account management approach may be more effective in enabling us to refine our strategies for finding jobs for displaced workers.

In the UK, for example, around 13,500 work coaches and job centres hired by the department for work and pensions aim to move jobseekers on benefits or income support into employment. A single work coach will follow a claimant throughout their time on benefit, helping to match claimants to jobs that suit their skills and help to fill skill gaps by offering training to claimants who require it. Work coaches are trained to play a complex role, almost like a social worker – in listening, encouraging, advising and ensuring jobseekers have access to support. Work coaches seek to understand the barriers faced by each jobseeker and deliver a personalised approach to support them, sometimes coaching them to develop the requisite skills and confidence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the coming wave of industry disruption and job displacement will affect jobs in a way that is hard to underestimate. And thus has it always been when cars replaced horses, when electric power replaced gas lighting and so on and so forth. It behoves us to prepare for that coming wave by considering ideas, like fixed term foreign work passes, jobs anticipation programmes and end-to-end KPI-driven jobs coaching.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

1.37 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, like many expecting parents, the news of the one-off Baby Support Grant is a welcome one for our family as it will go towards defraying the costs of having a new child amidst the global uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. It is also good to hear the Government reiterate its commitment towards supporting Singaporeans who aspire to get married and have children.

However, the policy start date of 1 October this year has meant that parents with newborns today do not benefit from the grant. Can we consider extending this grant to parents with children born since the onset of the pandemic?

It is noteworthy that the Baby Bonus Scheme was introduced on 1 April 2001, almost 20 years ago, and has gone through numerous rounds of enhancements, the latest being in 2012. Parenthood tax rebates and other types of tax incentives are also given in an attempt to boost the birth rate. The Marriage and Parenthood Package is also stated to cost the Government approximately $4 billion a year. Yet, in 2019, our Total Fertility Rate was 1.19, and appears to be on course to stubbornly remain far below the replacement rate of 2.1 and still ranks amongst the lowest in the world. To make matters worse, we are now anticipating that couples will put off their parenthood plans, which will in turn have knock-on effects on our population's fertility rate.

Singapore is not alone in trying to boost our birth rate, as fertility rates around the world have also been falling. However, we should ask ourselves, are there any blind spots in the way we have tackled this issue? Have we focused too much on the financial aspects of child-rearing, and forgotten to tackle other significant barriers to having children?

The matter needs to be dealt with in a holistic way. It is notable that studies have shown that in developed economies, greater gender equity is correlated with higher birth rates. That is, better support given to women boosts fertility rates.

To address this, one important area would be the role that fathers play in child-rearing. Just last weekend, while visiting friends for lunch, our two-year-old announced that he needed to go to the toilet. My husband stood up to take him, and was immediately met with a chorus of amazement and praise for being such a hands-on father. Would the same have occurred if a mother had brought her child to the toilet? Should we not also think hard about what it says about the roles of mothers and fathers that we are expected to sing high praises for fathers who change nappies or who bring their children out to "give their wives a break"?

To be sure, we should not knock positive changes in fathers becoming more involved in bringing up their children in recent years. Yet, at the same time, it strikes me that we should be making better and more conscious efforts to view parenting as something that both parents have equal stake in, and that domestic and child-rearing work should not be the purview of mothers only.

Looking at this from the other side, I would like my sons to grow up in a world where they have the freedom to decide for what works for their families. If they would like to have children, they should feel completely at ease to choose to stay at home be stay-at-home fathers, and not be seen as a "failure" or "not manly" enough for choosing this path. Every family should have a right to decide what works best for them and their children's care needs. And our policies must support their choices.

As a first step, the Workers' Party has called for enhanced shared parental leave of a total of 24 weeks that would allow couples to decide how best to split the care of their newborn child, with a minimum of 12 weeks to be given to the mother. Our current policy of a new father being able to share only up to four weeks from the mother's leave only encourages the sense that it is primarily a mother's job to care for her newborn.

However, leave policies are only the tip of the iceberg.

As children grow, they require an incredible amount of care and attention. The emotional, physical and time demands on carers have been made worse by the pandemic. And I am not the first to point out that studies from all over the world have shown that parents, particularly mothers of young children, have found lockdowns especially challenging and have seen their share of caring responsibilities multiplied.

Given that the end of the pandemic and its social and economic effects are probably nowhere in sight, we should pay special attention to the needs of young families to ensure that they are not burning out while trying to cope with what is after all a unique situation. We must encourage employers to support greater flexibility and career options and ensure this recalibration of work is accessible to both mother and father. This will allow families to make childcare arrangements that work for their particular circumstances.

This move away from traditional work structures must not be seen as a cost borne by employers. Instead, it is the key to fully unlocking the human capital in their employees. With a bit of trust on both sides, businesses would benefit from better motivated employees with a resultant increase in productivity. Businesses should seize on recent disruptions caused by the pandemic and turn it into an opportunity to rethink about how we work and understand why it is important that we allow more flexible working arrangements in our businesses.

For parents and family members who chose to stay at home to care for the next generation, I reiterate the call I made last month for better support and recognition for informal carers. We often hear jokes about maternity leave being a four-month long holiday, and stay-at-home mothers are idle "tai-tais". But anyone who has had to spend any amount of time being responsible for a young child would quickly debunk these ideas.

However, there have been scant studies and time-use surveys done on parents in Singapore and there is also little research on parental burnout. Now would be a good time to conduct these to enable us to better understand the strains and pressures that these parents face. It is only when we have better identified these problems that we can start looking at the solutions as a whole, and change the narrative to better support and recognise the invaluable work of these unpaid carers.

To add to the mix, our unforgiving and high stakes education system has created significant anxiety around raising children and is cited as a reason why families hold off on having kids or have fewer kids. I hear of parents having to volunteer for many hours to get their child a chance at a top Primary school, of the multitude of tuition or enrichment classes that parents send children to, and the stress that parents undergo whenever a key examination looms.

We must relieve the pressure on parents and build a more forgiving education regime, where children are given fairer opportunities to succeed from kindergarten and up, and where kids and their families are not made to feel like the next examination will determine their life trajectory.

Reducing class sizes, increasing the support and training for teachers to focus on a more inclusive and nurturing system would be a good first step as we start to tackle the stresses caused by our demanding education system.

Having said all of this, one can only imagine how much more difficult this year has been for single parents who often have less access to alternative resources and support structures.

It is only natural that single parents end up more stressed and burnt out than their married counterparts. Regardless of whether we believe such family structures should be encouraged, their children are innocent and better support for their parents only benefit these children. Therefore, I would like to ask for a clarification from the Minister if single parents too will be eligible for the Newborn Support Grant, and if not, whether they can be included.

To close, the $3,000 of additional payment for families is a welcome. However, the effectiveness of this policy is limited by the extent to which the Government is willing to lean in to encourage and foster greater gender equity in the home and drive more flexibility in the workplace.

This one-time payment must not obscure the importance of doing the hard work of changing the culture around care-giving and what we define as work in the context of family, even if these measures do not have an instantaneous effect like a transfer into a bank account. The importance of getting this right cannot be understated.

Fertility is inextricably linked with sustainability and of increasing concerns about the Earth's finite resources. Even as we work to boost our birth rate, we must take action now to soften the impact and address the concerns of a world where an inverted age pyramid will become the norm with all the economic implications that come with it.

We must no longer operate within the parameters or assumptions that we can keep our economic strategies along traditional population and economic growth models and ensure that we are not at the same time tackling increase costs of our ageing population, while maintaining inter-generational fairness.

Our CPF, care systems and even physical spaces must now begin in another shift towards a society where older people will form part of majority. We must also combat ageism, embrace innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship, for a golden age, and the time to do so is now.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

1.48 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as an educator in an Institute of Higher Learning.

Mr Speaker, I would like to commend Deputy Prime Minister Heng for his Ministerial Statement last week and express my support.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s Statement was an extensive one. I am heartened by the strong people focus in the Statement, placing front and centre, the interests of our people as the Government pushes forth with its plans for the economy.

Not only were the strategies outlined broad in nature, it is also clear that the Government is paying special attention towards inclusive growth to ensure that vulnerable groups also keep pace, survive and thrive coming out of this crisis.

Three areas resonated strongly with me.

Firstly, the prioritisation of skills. One critical message in Deputy Prime Minister’s speech was a strong focus on jobs and in building our human capital through prioritising skills.

I believe that skills prioritisation must begin early – even before commencement of jobs. Here, I am referring here to the Institutes of Higher Learning. Relevant courses must be identified and prioritised at the Pre-employment Training stage, whereas courses that are more specialised should be pushed towards the Continuing Education Training stage.

In that way, all our graduates are assured of a solid yet flexible foundation that can be applied in other disciplines.

For example, an aviation engineering student may be provided with a strong engineering foundation coupled with modules relevant to Industry 4.0. Similarly, a student doing tourism may be provided with a strong business foundation. This will provide them with the much-needed agility in an ever-changing job landscape.

Second is in linking skills and practice. It is important for us to close the skills and practice gap so that Singaporeans can quickly apply and put into practice what they have learnt. This matching of skills to actual practice also creates a synergy between companies and requires skilled manpower and our workers who are equipped with these skills.

The SGUnited Traineeships programme and SGUnited Jobs and Skills package are good examples of the close relationship between in skilling our workforce to meet the actual needs of the industry. Our graduates pick up relevant skills to a job which then leads to a transitioning to more long-term employment. A number of my students are in this programme and so far, their experience has been very positive.

This gives me confidence to request further that we create more apprenticeship programmes so that this notion of work and relevance becomes a mainstay in our overall education to employment pathway.

Additionally, I hope we also give allowance to our workers and grant them flexibility in pursuing new skills. This can be in the form self-development, to break the monotony of work, or a form of further upskilling to increase their value in the profession. We could, for instance, mandate a protected time of half a day during the work week so that our workers can take on courses and enhance their skill sets.

Finally, digitalisation and digital literacy. Looking to the future, leading the digitalisation bandwagon allows us to unlock the growth that comes with it.

We have experienced how technology has been critical in navigating us through this crisis. It has allowed many of us to work, study and remain connected. But in that aspect, I hope that the Government pull all stops to ensure that all Singaporeans, including the elderly and our children, have access to devices and are digitally literate. To be digitally literate means that our people not only know how to use technology meaningfully, but we have laid foundations for them to explore in this area more confidently.

There have been stories of our children being given laptops by their schools, or community agencies, but not knowing how to effectively use these gadgets towards learning. Our elderly too may need more support in adapting to a digital economy. They may own the right smart-phones, but may still struggle to log in to and out of simple apps.

Therefore, as we move into the digital economy, we must ensure that all people are digitally literate. In the schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning, I hope that our curriculums will continue to emphasise digital and data analytics skills so that our future generations are effective at using technology as a tool to solve complex problems. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In his Ministerial Statement last week, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat gave a comprehensive overview of Singapore’s position in dealing with the Covid-19 crisis so far.

The Government is working hard to secure the economy with a focus on manpower skills and further strengthening Singapore's workforce through technology.

I hope that education in Singapore will emphasise the importance of skills, especially those related to the current industries, as the foundation for all courses in Polytechnics and Universities.

In that way, all graduates are assured of a solid yet flexible foundation that will give them the opportunity to try other disciplines.

This will ensure that our children are ready to address the current challenges in the industries and provide them with the much-needed agility in an ever-changing job landscape.

As for technology, it is an enabling tool and can unlock opportunities. For example, companies using digital payment platforms can develop their businesses in cyberspace.

Embracing technology will enable us to continue progressing with the increasingly vibrant wave of digitalisation and I urge that we reap its benefits.

(In English): Being an educator for the past 15 years, having taught from the Primary school to University levels, I have seen how our education system has progressed and evolved over the years.

Our education system is not perfect, but it also has considerable strengths which we should recognise.

Coming from the Normal stream, I am heartened that our education system has shifted to the subject-based banding, concurrently slaying one sacred cow.

However, the elephant in the room remains, and that is your PSLE. Like how different perspectives may see this elephant, we have to be mindful of the many trade-offs that may come with it. If we do do away with PSLE, what is the alternative? It may become a pure through-train system and this may worsen the pressure in Primary 1 registration, as you all have known by now. Regardless, I do believe that this is one area that we should continue to explore.

Being a physical education or PE teacher myself, I am heartened to see the shift of focus from the more academic subjects to PE, to the Arts and even Music. Contrary to what some Members of this House may perceive, I believe that this is one clear indication of how our education system has become much more holistic.

I am confident that having laid such solid foundations in our education system, it has prepared us sufficiently for the future.

This COVID-19 situation has exposed the strengths of our teachers. Their dedication and their ability to adapt is amazing. Our teachers work hard to ensure that we meet the diverse needs of our diverse students. I believe that there should always be a balance between drills and free exploration, formative and summative assessments, group work as well as individual work, and of course, the mingling and teaching, based on the different and diverse abilities of our students.

Our teachers have been amazing in ensuring that. And I hope as we move forward, we continue to provide them with the best support and work-life balance as it is possible. Mr Speaker, I support the Statement.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

1.58 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Supplementary Budget continues to lend support to hard-hit businesses and workers even as the state of the economy remains precarious. It also begins the important process of repositioning the Budget away from crisis support to crisis recovery.

That said, I have a few additional thoughts. I will share about how I believe the process of de-globalisation is both on-going and persistent, and about how we need to do more to pivot away from our historical focus on being an entrepot for the rest of the world towards fostering internally driven growth focused on raising the productivity of our domestic firms, especially small and medium enterprises or SMEs.

Before I proceed, allow me to declare that I am an educator at a business school and that I have occasionally provided economic and strategic views for an investment advisory firm.

Minister Heng stressed the importance of enhancing connectivity to ensure that our economy is ready for when the pandemic is behind us. He reiterated our commitment to reviving our air hub and transshipment capabilities. As a student of the international system for the past few decades, nothing would make me happier than to see a revival of such a globalised world. That said, I believe that it is imperative for us to have a Plan B if this does not occur.

Mr Speaker, the pandemic is often viewed not so much as a harbinger of new trends, but an accelerant of existing trends Minister Heng himself alluded to this – the possibility of structural shifts.

In this vein, it is worth pointing out that the breakdown in global integration significantly predates COVID-19.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 marked the beginning of a dramatic turnaround in global financial flows. Several years ago, the McKinsey Global Institute observed that cross-border capital fell from 12% of global output for the decade until 2010 to a little more than 7% since then. Global banks, especially those in advanced economies, have divested at least $2 trillion in assets. Even in financially open Singapore, capital flows have steadily eroded as a share of our national product and we experienced a surge in outflows in the most recent quarter.

The financial crisis did not just usher in a decline in financial flows. The aftermath saw a massive collapse in international trade and despite fitful starts and stops, global merchandise exchange has pulled back from peaks of more than half of global GDP to about 44% last year. The global trading regime is fraying with the World Trade Organization operating a dysfunctional dispute resolution system and repeated violations of open trading principles by major economic powers, most notably in the Sino-American trade war of 2018 and 2019.

And closer to home, our historical entrepôt model is challenged as never before. Our trade in goods as a share of income, fell by more than 40% over the past decade and these trends are hardly positive, with the growth of non-oil exports dipping into negative territory through most of 2019, way before the pandemic visited our shores.

And now COVID-19 has completely devastated the global movement of people, with the international tourism virtually vanishing overnight, and even typically more resilient work-related migratory flows are under threat, as corporations rethink their need for business and conference travel, and upend historical cross-border relationships in favour of reshoring previously outsourced business operation and shortening international supply chains. The fear, then, is even after a vaccine is discovered and the world is able to return to normal, that new normal and encompasses permanent structural changes in a manner by which the world conducts business and pleasure.

Mr Speaker, these trends are worrying from the perspective of our banking on a return to connectivity as a key source of our economic growth. If anything, major economies are turning inward, with China's stressing "internal circulation" – a euphemism for a domestic turn – Europe is preoccupied with ensuring the integrity of its own union, and the United States – once the bastion of globalism – eschewing the multilateral system that it once used to champion.

If this fracturing into a multipolar world persists, our traditional approach of positioning ourselves as a global intermediary could face unprecedented stress.

Thankfully, it is possible for us to prepare more deliberately for a Plan B. Minister Heng also spoke about the importance of Technology, Innovation and Enterprise – a theme that he has mentioned in speeches at least since 2016. Clearly, the Government is aware of this alternative model.

What I am suggesting is a willingness to commit to this shift in a more decisive fashion.

Although many forms of international exchange are in retreat, there is one channel that has been further advanced by the pandemic – the even greater importance of global information and knowledge flows. As borders shut down worldwide and work-from-home arrangements become the norm, the information has become the lifeblood of many organisations and countries trying to stay afloat.

Service-based businesses digitised their back ends and sought to bring their front end operations online. And goods oriented firms were forced to resort to online strategies to keep demand afloat. Many of these digitally transform functions and automation disintermediated jobs will never return to their pre-pandemic states.

It is therefore time for our small and medium enterprises to make the bold transition as well. The Government has rolled out a host of grants such as the Enterprise Development Grant and Productivity Solutions Grant, aimed at this very purpose. This is important because such firms account for 99% of our local companies, but only contribute to half of our national income. However, we have precious little information as to whether these funds have succeeded in raising the productivity and enabling the digital transformation of these firms, as the Government has not released systematic studies of either the coverage nor the efficacy of these programmes. To know whether we are on track, we have to know how far we have come and how far we have to go.

And as much as financial assistance, especially in the recessionary environment, can help our SMEs eke by, financial support will only go part of the way toward helping our companies realise their full potential. Beyond relieving financial constraints, SMEs need to build stronger fundamental business skills and capabilities. Such skills in marketing to a diverse regional market, adopting best practices in bookkeeping and budgeting and inventory management are not sexy skills, but essential ones. Programmes of this nature such as Startup SG Founder, Enterprise Leadership for Transformation and various business tool kits can be made more proactive in identifying and approaching qualifying individuals and firms, especially in industries that have lagged in terms of adoption.

Similarly, we have to ensure that those who have undergone SGUnited jobs and Skills Future re-skilling programmes, continue to closely meet business needs. This can help avoid mismatches that can lead to disappointment and discouragement and experience that one of my residents, Danny, shared regarding the continued difficulty faced by his colleagues in securing work despite having undergone retraining.

More generally, what is the return proposition of such training and how is it evaluated? How much are we expanding per a trainee, and what is the placement rate for programme graduates? It strikes me that a dedicated unit within Enterprise SG, tasked with identifying, supporting, disseminating and evaluating skills development can be an important complement to our primarily financed focus efforts. My colleague, the hon Leon Perera has also offered a host of additional considerations.

Similarly, many public-private venture funds such as Startup SG tends to privilege technologically oriented firms. While such investments are appealing in that they can lead to the next Carousell or Grab, we cannot leave the vast majority of old economy firms behind. Moreover, raising productivity levels in such firms is not limited to deploying the latest technology or adapting AI solutions. They are often derived from much more modest sources such as focusing on improving core management practices. Such practices in performance evaluation, conflict management, team motivation are skills that could be lacking in smaller family run businesses, inhibiting their ability to grow. Our iTalent and iSkills programmes are one such way forward, but the current participation rate, involving a few dozen firms, remain a drop in the ocean.

Moreover, our funding and support policies should look beyond just the infotech or biotech space. Growth can arise from what many may dismiss as pedestrian businesses, such as coffee roasting and brewing, automotive repair or elderly care. What is required is a willingness to disrupt the existing market regime, but rather than promoting winning firms or championing winning sectors, we should strive to create an environment where every firm, especially SMEs, can potentially succeed.

At the aggregate level, what this means is that our regulations could be prepared to be more flexible to ease the wrenching shifts that will accompany structural transformations in our economy. Some sectors may, despite our best efforts, may be destined to shrink and we should ease the teething pains for those poised for expansion. SMEs that have traditionally focused on trade in goods must evolve to add value higher up the ladder. And those who provide services must learn to deliver these across borders.

This may also mean greater regulatory forbearance on the part of Government. For example, finance start-ups often find themselves held to reporting requirements comparable to those of establishing comments, while there have been occasional initiatives toward easing pilot regulatory sandboxes as well as easier ACRA reporting requirements during COVID-19, executives from a number of fintech start-ups I have spoken to, reveal that they still find these standards that regulators hold them to, impossibly stringent.

We should also be more aware of the unintended consequences of our policies, even when enacted in good faith, especially in terms of how they affect small businesses. One owner of a hawker stall in Lucky Plaza, for example, shared with me about how recent policy to only allow either odd or even numbered IC numbers into the mall resulted in the complete decimation of foot traffic, rather than just a halving.

On a positive front – the number of permissible businesses allowed under existing programmes such as the Home-Based Small Scale Business Scheme can be re-examined and expanded if possible. And if the world does eventually carve itself out into multiple regional markets, our firms must be ready to compete within our economic sphere – which is southeast Asia. This means recognising that a Singapore firm is essentially an ASEAN firm.

The Government has understood this for a long time, but we have to make sure that our workforce and our people fully embrace this identity. Doing so has become even more imperative in what is promising to become an increasingly balkanised world. Our workers should be prepared to spend time in our ASEAN neighbours, learning specificities and idiosyncrasies of our neighbouring markets and returning to Singapore to disseminate the knowledge they have gained and their experiences, either with their sending firms or by starting new companies of their own.

Government can play an even greater role in fostering this expansionist mindset, beyond internationalisation grants. It can do so with a wider recognition of ASEAN languages in the schooling system, incorporating exchanges and internships in Southeast Asia as a required component of Secondary and post-Secondary programmes, further enhancing the exposure of local firms in exhibitions at regional trade shows and co-financing early career stints for PMETs in other regional capitals.

After the Allied bombing of Japan in World War II, many major cities there were destroyed. In principle, the architects of post-war Japan could have chosen many other locations to site their new economic hubs. But ultimately rebuilding occurred in those very same cities that experience some of the greatest destruction, a testimony to the incredible resilience of cities.

Our forefathers have already made Singapore into a globally competitive city and we will rise again after the crisis is over. To inherit this destiny, we have to be willing to be even more economically nimble, to recognise the limits of further leveraging our trade and transportation infrastructure alone. The strength of any modern city is his ability to be a gathering place for innovators to exchange debate and improve their ideas. We must ensure that our SMEs fully participate in this knowledge based future economy.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to recap. In the globalising world, we need a Plan B to cater to the possibility that the post-COVID-19 world will be more fractured and insular. We must transition our economy urgently and decisively by increasing the contribution of SMEs to our growth engine. Government can help in this process with more than just financing, which is still our major focus. It can do so with moves to improve the productivity of these businesses via enhance business skills and management training, exercising greater regulatory flexibility to foster a stronger risk-taking mindset and pushing additional educational and experiential initiatives that strengthen our regionalist worldview. Undeniably, the germs of many such programmes already exist. My contention is that we need to accelerate and scale up these efforts.

Notwithstanding these additional suggestions. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

2.15 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, "ensuring that the last, the lost and the least are being adequately taken care of" is my impression of what our Government and the community have endeavoured to do in a decisive and united manner for the past several months when tackling with this COVID-19 Pandemic.

I speak in support of the Supplementary Bill and will be emphasising my speech today on the following two points: one, the efforts to better support our seniors in their transition towards i-banking services as our country steps up on its Smart Nation initiatives digital connectivity; two, the suggestions with regard to building environmental sustainability within our community to fight climate change.

In relation to the first point, pertaining to digital banking for seniors, Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the face of COVID-19, many senior citizens, especially those living alone, feel helpless and are at a loss. Before the outbreak, they often went out with like-minded friends. They will participate in community activities, they will go to a coffee shop or hawker centre and sometimes, they will order a cup of coffee and spend the whole day chatting with old friends.

However, when the circuit breaker came into effect, all of a sudden, they seemed to be at a loss: "I don't know how to use a smartphone. How can I get online and have a video conversation with my grandson?”, “I am alone at home facing the four walls. I am so bored. When can I go back to the CC with my friends and do our health dance?”, “The queues at the wet market are too long, I am too weak to stand for such a long time.”, “When I go to the supermarket, I am too slow to compete with others. Is there a way to improve the situation?"

These are the complaints I often hear from them.

Fortunately, the Government has worked together with businesses, community organisations and Singaporeans to overcome these challenges. For example, our digital ambassadors have helped the elderly to take the first step towards digitalisation and help them acquire digital skills at three levels, so that they can keep in touch with their friends and relatives via video link, make e-payments at hawker centres and markets, and use SafeEntry in the SingPass mobile's visitors registration system to log in and out of wet markets.

Our local enterprises such as NTUC FairPrice have also set aside a special time for senior citizens and persons with mobility issues to purchase daily necessities in supermarkets with peace of mind. In addition, their neighbours and Residents' Committees have also demonstrated the kampung spirit by helping them to buy food and essentials items and deliver them to their doorstep.

Yet, one thing that cannot and should not be done by someone else on behalf of the elderly is bank transactions involving money.

In recent years, all the banks have undergone transformation by introducing more artificial intelligence, encouraging customers to use online transactions and making banking more invisible. These moves have reduced banks' operating costs by a lot, for example, in rentals and manpower. This is also in response to the Government's call for technology transformation and further strengthening Singapore's position as a global Asia node of technology, Innovation and enterprise.

But my concern is: have our seniors kept up with this technology advancement?

Recently, in Woodgrove, two local bank branches around Fuchun area were closed; one in mid-August and the other is undergoing renovation. Residents who need counter services have to walk about 30 minutes to go to the branches in the shopping mall. This is very tiresome for the elderly and those who have difficulty moving around.

Many elderly living in the seniors' Studio Apartments told me that they live off their CPF retirement money and government subsidies every month. Because of this, they will personally go to the bank at least once a month to use the counter services to withdraw money. Some of them are illiterate and some have poor eyesight. Hence, they are less inclined to use ATM cards to withdraw money. Most of them do not know how to use Internet banking either; they are fearful that they may transfer their lifetime savings to others if they click wrongly.

Another advantage of counter services for senior citizens is that they form a line of defence against fraud. Frontline bank staff are specially trained to sense suspicious transactions and would verify with the customers repeatedly, so that they do not fall victim to fraud syndicates.

If Singaporeans, especially our senior citizens, are to keep pace with technological changes and accept and use online banking services, the banks should fulfil their social responsibilities by using their resources to work more closely with the Government and the community.

Banks can work with IMDA to set up e-banking training kiosks at bank branches in the neighbourhood centres and digital transformation offices at CCs, to help seniors apply for online banking tokens, and teach them how to use online banking services with peace of mind.

I am confident that with the guidance and help of dedicated people, our seniors will gradually accept and move towards a more diverse digital life.

(In English): Like many First World countries, Singapore has begun taking steps to address the issue of climate change and environmental sustainability. While this is a good first step, it is important to ensure that this movement continues to gain momentum amongst our Singaporeans.

J F Kennedy once said, and I quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country."

Apart from the Government's efforts in transforming our industries to build a sustainable economy and providing opportunities for the green section to be a growth industry in its own right, every individual in Singapore should also play our part to ensure the preservation of the environment we live in.

Semakau Landfill is our only offshore landfill in Singapore. For the past few decades, we have relied on it for our waste disposal while being fortunate enough to be unaffected by any harmful toxins, awful smell and appearance. However, Semakau Landfill has been filling up faster than expected, with our projections for reaching capacity changing for the worse.

This is attributed by several different factors.

One, being a general increase in consumption by residents without sufficient implementation of the 3Rs. To rectify this, we will need to encourage responsible consumption of resources, such as food, water and energy, while advocating for environmentally-friendly means of disposal for non-perishable items such as electrical appliances.

The second being that many recyclables are being disposed as general refuse, which in turn wastes landfill space and energy to incinerate. A renewed focus on recycling will go a long way towards slowing down the landfill’s rate of usage.

The other being that residents are largely reluctant to repair broken items which typically cause many faulty electrical and electronic appliances to be thrown away as rubbish instead of repairing it and extending its lifespan.

With these factors at present, how should we step up our 3Rs efforts nationally in order to achieve measurable outcomes and a positive impact for our environment?

Mr Speaker, in Woodgrove, we have a G.E.L mission. "G" pertains to Green Living initiatives. Through the feedback which I have gathered from our Woodgrove residents and various community partners, I wish to suggest a few ideas for consideration.

Firstly, Education. I believe that education can go a long way towards inculcating values that favour the 3Rs. We should therefore endeavour to educate every student and resident on good 3Rs practices through experiential learning. MOE can also consider incorporating Responsible Resource Consumption Saving Tips as part of the school curriculum.

Over the years, various schools in Woodgrove have participated in North West CDC’s Reduce@Northwest, where students would conduct door-to-door house visits to encourage families to reduce energy and water consumption and food wastage in their homes, while also imparting knowledge on fighting climate change.

The schools also adopted another North West CDC’s initiative called WeCare We Recycle @ Northwest, where students are educated on proper recycling practices to counteract the high contamination rate of existing blue recycling bins. As part of this initiative, active recycling points are set up within the participating schools, enabling our students to put the knowledge that they have learnt into good use by taking the lead in active recycling.

It is important to continue to engage schools as partners and educate our children on these recycling and energy saving tips, so that they will in turn educate their parents and influence the people around them to conserve resources and adopt eco-friendly practices at home and in the community.

Secondly, we can measure and reward the amount of savings on electricity and water by each household.

I believe that we should measure the reduction of resources consumed through the use of monitoring systems powered by digital applications. It can be difficult to understand one’s contribution towards the greater whole while adhering to the 3Rs; if we can show them that tangible change is occurring through their actions, I believe residents will be further encouraged to continue these good habits.

Meanwhile, we can also introduce new initiatives to encourage the use of energy or water saving devices and appliances in every household. If coupled with the aforementioned monitoring systems, we may see increased adoption islandwide.

To jumpstart these schemes, we can first work with grassroots volunteers and schools to engage residents via a pilot project that "adopts" a pioneer batch of select blocks, which students will visit and share energy saving tips with every household.

These blocks can thereafter be monitored and their outcomes measured to evaluate the results of these measures. To further incentivise adoption of the energy saving measures, we can grant the block showing the highest drop in energy and water usage with rewards such as grocery shopping vouchers or ActiveSG credits.

Lastly, ground-up initiatives. I believe that the People's Association or PA, as the foundation of the community, can eb a valuable ally in our mission to encourage ground-up initiatives by the community for adopting of the 3Rs wihtin our community.

For a start, our Community Clubs, CCs, especially those that are to be built or scheduled for renovation, should endeavour to achieve the BCA Green Mark "Platinum" certification. The BCA Green Mark is the national green building rating system which evaluates a building for its environmental impact and performance. Not only will this raise awareness of the importance of green living, it also ensures that the CCs islandwide will attempt to reduce their own emissions as a result.

Next, the PA can also help to provide platforms for residents to exercise green living, for example with organising events that encourage residents to pick up the 3Rs. Some CCs and RCs in Singapore have already begun doing so, through collaborations with the Northwest CDC, Tzu Chi Foundation and NEA with a monthly "recycling day" where residents can bring out their recyclable waste for sorting and processing, fostering good habits and also presenting an opportunity to bond as part of a community.

Another option that we can consider to do is to hold regular flea markets for the exchanging or trading of pre-loved items between residents in the halls of our CCs. On such flea market days, we can take the opportunity to also welcome community partners or residents to share tips on adhering to the 3Rs.

One of my residents in Woodgrove Zone 5, Christy, she shared with me her hobby of "Turning Trash to Treasure" – she would often go around the neighbourhood, sometimes to pick up and collect abandoned broken furniture. What she will do is, she will clean it up, she will refurbish it with a new coat of painting and transform it into fashionable new furniture as gifts for the community.

I believe that introducing such concepts can raise awareness and encourage more residents to conserve resources by sharing and reusing pre-loved items to minimise waste generation.

Just like the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change is a very challenging global issue that cannot be resolved overnight. That said, I am confident that together, we will overcome these challenges and emerge stronger as a nation.

2.33 pm

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I announced the Baby Support Grant or BSG last Friday, a one-time cash payment for all Singaporean children born from 1 October 2020 onwards for two years. Parents of babies born in October and expectant parents are happy and we are happy for them.

At the same time, however, since the announcement, we have received feedback and appeals asking why 1 October 2020, and whether the commencement date can be brought forward to cover children born prior to 1 October 2020. Members, too, have asked about it in this debate. Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Saktiandi, yesterday and Ms He Ting Ru, today. Ms Tin Pei Ling¹ and Miss Cheng Li Hui² have also filed Parliamentary Questions.

I fully understand that parents who are not eligible to receive the Baby Support Grant are disappointed, especially since this has been a challenging year for everybody. The questions asked are fair ones and it is only right that I should address them and explain our considerations when designing the scheme and also our approach to the appeals that have come in.

In a NPTD and MSF Survey in June, three in 10 Singaporean couples said that they were planning to delay having a child due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They expressed worries about the global COVID-19 health situation, as well as job and income insecurity. This is understandable as having a child is a major decision and a long-term commitment.

We know couples consider many factors when deciding on when to have a child – whether care-giving support is available, the impact on their career plans, and most fundamentally, whether they are prepared mentally and financially. The pandemic has affected our lives and livelihoods in a major way. Employment and financial stability have therefore become even bigger considerations for many couples and made them rethink if they should have a child in the next one to two years.

So, the fact that couples are considering delaying having children is a cause for concern. We are also concerned because we recognise that fertility declines with age and chances of conception are much higher when couples start earlier. Hence, we developed the idea of the Baby Support Grant to augment the existing Baby Bonus Cash Gift to provide extra support for parents who wish to have a child, so that they will not postpone their parenthood plans.

When designing this scheme, we explored several options for the start date. Given the policy intent to encourage more couples to proceed with their parenthood plans, we could have taken a very strict approach and if you take a strict approach, it would mean that the start date should be nine months after the date of announcement, which would actually be July 2021. Indeed, one of the residents wrote in to say that "if the grant was meant to encourage couples to have children, then children born in October 2020 should not qualify, as the child is already conceived prior to the grant announcement". But this would mean that all babies born between now and July 2021 will be left out.

We then considered providing this additional support only next year, with effect from 1 January 2021, and then drawing on next year's Budget. However, we felt it was important to get the support out as quickly as we can, to help more Singaporeans with their parenthood aspirations. Announcing the plans next year could mean that couples may delay attempts to have a child in the meantime. So, we tried hard to see how we could do this earlier.

While the Government's fiscal situation is tight, due to the support given to Singaporeans and businesses throughout the year, we were able to set aside some Budget this year, to provide additional support to more Singaporean parents starting as soon as we could. Hence, we decided to make it effective from the month of announcement, that is, 1 October 2020.

I know parents of babies who are not eligible to receive the Baby Support Grant are disappointed and I can fully understand why. They would have experienced inconveniences and challenges in caring for newborns this year, especially during the circuit breaker. From coping with new visitation guidelines and restrictions at healthcare facilities, to making quick adaptations when they could not get sufficient help to care for newborns, to juggling care-giving duties while working from home when infant and childcare centres were closed.

However, we would like to seek the public's understanding that specific start dates are required for any new measure or enhancement. Regardless of the effective start date, there will always be some babies who are born before it. The appeals we have received to change the start date of the Baby Support Grant have come with a wide range of suggestions for the start date.

To give you a sense of this, just let me run through some of them. Some have suggested that the Baby Support Grant should cover babies born in September on the basis that it is so close to October. But this would mean that all of those in August upwards would not get it. Others suggested April 2020 as that was the start of the circuit breaker – and obviously, that was when all the hardships really kicked it, but that would mean all those before April do not get it.

Miss Cheng Li Hui, in her Parliamentary Question has suggested 7 February because that was when DORSCON Orange was declared. So, if we go with those, then all those in January will be left out.

Many have suggested that it should be with effect from 1 January 2020 as that was when the pandemic started and indeed there is a petition supporting this date. But, on the other hand, there is another petition asking for the grant to cover all children who are one year and below on 1 October of this year. In other words, that the effective date should be 1 October 2019. We have also received an appeal that the grant should be given to children under the age of seven years.

So, you can see, it is not straightforward. Each group has reasons for the dates proposed and looking at it from their perspective, these reasons are all valid, but we can only choose one date and whichever date we choose, there will be groups who are not covered.

We chose October as the commencement date for the reasons mentioned earlier and we seek your understanding, that is why we are maintaining this date. But we will, however, accede to appeals for the Baby Support Grant from a specific group of parents – those whose babies were born before 1 October 2020, but whose certified Estimated Delivery Date, or EDD, was on or after 1 October 2020. In other words, born prematurely although the EDD was 1 October 2020 onwards. The National Population and Talent Division will provide more information to parents on how they can do so.

That said, it is important to understand where the parents who have asked for an earlier date are coming from. They, too, would appreciate support. So, I would like to reassure them and Members, that even without the Baby Support Grant, there is still substantial Government support for these parents. Some of these new measures commenced in 2019/2020, which young children born since 2014, including the babies born from January 2020, would benefit from.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute handouts with information on the Marriage and Parenthood Package available to parents?

Mr Speaker: Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Ms Indranee Rajah: While the extra Baby Support Grant is for babies born from 1 October 2020, parents whose babies were born before 1 October 2020 will receive, and in some cases, have already received cash and cash-like benefits, which were last enhanced in 2015 and 2016. They would have received, for example: (a) between $8,000 and $10,000 in the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; (b) $3,000 First Step Grant, deposited into the Child Development Account or the CDA, without parents having to first save into the CDA; (c) between $3,000 and $15,000 in Government co-savings for the CDA; and (d) a $4,000 grant which is deposited into the Medisave account that is open for every newborn, that is the Medisave Grant for Newborns.

So, the total cash and cash-like support that parents can receive ranges from $18,000 for their first child to $32,000 for their fifth and subsequent children, even without the Baby Support Grant. This is over and above the other support in the Marriage & Parenthood Package, some of which we also enhanced this year. Let me highlight some of these.

First, more subsidies for infant and childcare. There have been suggestions from the public that more help with affordable childcare will go further than a one-off cash grant. Since 1 January 2020, the household income ceiling for the Additional Subsidy has been raised from $7,500 per month to $12,000 per month. This means that many more households can receive this support. The amount of subsidies provided have also been increased. Today, after the enhanced subsidies, families can receive up to $1,310 each month in infant care subsidies or up to $767 each month in childcare subsidies. A working couple who earns a combined income of $8,000 a month, pays $524 per month per child for full-day infant care at an Anchor Operator pre-school. This is about one third less than what they would have paid previously. When their child turns 18 months, the amount that the couple needs to pay for childcare at an Anchor Operator will further reduce to $280 per month.

Next, free National Childhood Immunisation Schedule or NCIS vaccinations and developmental screenings. From 1 November 2020, that means next month, all Singaporean children – and this applies to all Singaporean children today regardless of when they were born – can also receive free childhood vaccinations on the national schedule and developmental screenings, at all Polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme General Practitioners or CHAS GPs. This extension of fully subsidised services at our CHAS GPs will improve affordability and accessibility for parents, who can now enjoy these services islandwide.

Next, support for households, jobs and salary amidst COVID-19. The other source of concern on the part of many parents, like other Singaporeans, are the employment-related challenges and anxieties at this time. Raising children during the COVID-19 pandemic can be more challenging, especially if a member of the family has lost his or her job. We recognised this earlier in the year and provided more support for households, as well as jobs and salary support.

To provide more assurance and support to Singaporeans with their household expenses during this period of economic uncertainty, the Government provided the Solidarity Payment and Care and Support – Cash payout in April and June, to every Singaporean aged 21 years and above. This amounted to $600 to $1,200 per Singaporean, depending on income.

On top of this, we gave each parent with at least one citizen child aged 20 years and below as of 31 December 2020, an additional Care and Support – Cash payout of $300, that is an additional $600 per couple.

Hence, a Singaporean couple with a child, including those with babies born before 1 October, could already receive up to $3,000 in additional cash support this year.

In addition to these, all households with at least one Singaporean citizen member would have received the Solidarity Utilities Credit of $100. Eligible HDB households can also receive up to 2.5 times their regular GST Voucher – U-Save and up to 3.5 months of Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Rebate. Such a household living in a 4-room flat with five or more can receive $800 in U-Save and 2.5 months of S&CC Rebate this financial year.

On the support for jobs and salary, the Government has also provided significant support to ease concerns about employment. This includes employment and salary support through the SG United Jobs and Skills Package and the Jobs Support Scheme.

I have listed the financial support, but we all do know, of course, that it is not just about the money or the finances because there are other things that are factored in when couples are deciding to have a child. In this regard, we have taken many steps to make sure that we provide additional support, from increasing the number of pre-school spaces to also working on flexible work arrangements.

Ms He Ting Ru earlier spoke about a holistic approach and I am so glad that she agrees with us because these were exactly the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony. Those included recommendations to further encourage and enable companies to provide flexible work arrangements, such as through recognition schemes as well as the nomination of Work-Life Ambassadors. The Panel also called for the shift of societal norms over time, to one where family time and other life priorities are placed above work and workplace practices become more progressive and family-friendly. So, we can see that the idea here is that it is not just about money but how to make Singapore a place that is conducive for families as a whole.

Ms He had a specific question on singles and whether the Baby Support Grant, or BSG, would be applicable or whether they are eligible for it. The answer is that they would not be eligible for it. The BSG is a one-off grant to help reassure couples and minimise delays in their marriage and parenthood plans. The BSG is an add-on to the Baby Bonus Cash Gift which, in itself, was designed to encourage marriage and parenthood. So, it is not quite consistent to extend it to singles in this context. However, I would like to assure all that Government benefits that support the growth and development of children are given to all Singaporean children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. So, benefits that are available to all parents to support them in their care-giving responsibilities would include childcare and infant care subsidies, the MediSave Grant for newborns, MediShield Life coverage from birth, infant care and childcare leave, the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy concession and, in addition to the above, every Singaporean child will benefit from education and healthcare subsidies and has access to social assistance, regardless of their parents' marital status.

In 2016 and 2017, we further extended support to unwed parents, including the Government-Paid Maternity Leave and the Child Development Account which includes the CDA First Step, that is, the $3,000 I mentioned earlier, and the matched co-savings from the Government. These benefits aim to support the child's developmental and care-giving needs, as well as the parents' efforts to provide for the child. As society continues to evolve, our policies will be updated to keep pace with societal realities.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has made this a difficult year for everyone. Many groups of fellow Singaporeans need our support. Parents who have children, or are planning to have children, are one such group. Hence, I am heartened by the efforts of many corporates and community partners which have joined the Government’s efforts in further supporting Singaporeans on their parenthood journey. I hope that many more will come on board.

We do understand the difficulties that families, especially those with babies and young children, face during this period, and have implemented measures like the one I described earlier. We will continue to support families during these extraordinary times and I seek Members’ and fellow Singaporeans’ understanding about the start date for the Baby Support Grant, which is one additional measure among many. This Government remains committed to supporting the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans and we will continue to review and enhance the strong suite of measures already in place to help Singaporeans form and grow families.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. To Minister Indranee Rajah, thank you so much for that response to some of the questions the Workers' Party Members of Parliament had on the Baby Support Grant. I fully recognise the trouble and the issue about settling on a start date for a grant like this which was unexpected by many members of the public. Having said that, would the Government consider extending the Baby Support Grant to Singaporeans who have received some of these COVID-19-related subsidies, such as SIRS and the COVID-19 Support Grant, because they have already exhibited particular difficulty arising out of their circumstances once COVID-19 started? So, they are already pre-qualified in that sense to be in need and, hence, they have received Government subsidies. These are mainly Singaporeans at the lower to lower middle income group. So, the extension is not really about a date that will reach back for all Singaporean parents, but specifically for lower to middle income Singaporeans. Would that be something the Government could consider? Thank you.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. I think the approach that we would take is this. This particular scheme has a very specific policy intent, which is to encourage those who are delaying to proceed with their parenthood plans. So, for those who are already low income, proceeding with parenthood plans would add to some of the responsibilities that they have. If they are low income and they have children from 1 October onwards, they will get the Baby Support Grant. No issue.

I think Mr Singh's question is: can we extend the Baby Support Grant to those born before 1 October who are low income. For those, what we will do is we will utilise the existing schemes that we have for the low-income to make sure that they are taken care of and their needs are taken care of, because we do actually have a very strong social support system. The SSOs were set up for this purpose, ComCare was put in place for this purpose and there are many different schemes which are aimed at that. So, the assurance that we can give is that if you are low income and you have had your child before 1 October and you have financial difficulties, we will help you. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of the Baby Support Grant, but we will still help you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for the reply. I would just want to make further points for the single unwed parents. I think this Government has said that single unwed parents are no less a mother or a father just because the child is born outside of marriage. So, I really hope the Government could reconsider not providing the Baby Support Grant to the single unwed parents. We also have to bear in mind that the median salary of a single unwed parent under 35 years old is about $600 a month. So, the $3,000 is actually about five months of their salary and it could really provide a lifeline for them during this pandemic.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I had addressed the considerations that we had in mind with respect to single unwed parents.What I would reiterate – because I think the learned Member's concern is whether or not they would have adequate support. So, irrespective of whether they have the Baby Support Grant, if they are, indeed, struggling and if they are in need, please do approach the SSO. There are other schemes available and in place and we will look to see how we can support them.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the very assuring and heartwarming confirmation of all those measures that have so far been implemented by the Government. I believe Singaporeans actually appreciate it.

Speaker, Sir, I support the plans of action, as detailed in the Ministerial Statement. I am confident that this suite of measures will facilitate our progress and ensure that we emerge from this crisis stronger. We will be a competitive yet inclusive economy, a dynamic yet sustainable one.

In order to stay relevant and be an active participant on the world stage, we have to remain open to the world. We need to attract more quality investments and accept investors, entrepreneurs, specialists and professionals who can work with us in order to prosper as an economy and society.

Bringing in investments and attracting organisational set-ups here will create jobs and other opportunities for Singaporeans. We need these regional and international collaborations to stay ahead of the competition, increase our value and usefulness to the world, thereby ensuring our survival and prosperity.

The better approach is not to stay away and shield us from competition in this rapid technologically advancing world. We should rather face the competition and equip Singaporeans with leading skills and tools to make us stay ahead of competition.

Even as we welcome foreigners to share their knowledge and skills with Singaporeans, we need to be mindful of the risk of being over-reliant on a particular country, source or nationality. We should also take note of social costs and other implications that might outweigh the benefits in the longer run. Hence, we should be open but selective, monitor the employment market closely and take proactive steps to maintain the right balance.

I would like to suggest that the Government reconsider imposing a foreign worker levy instead of minimum qualifying salary to regulate the hiring of foreigner workers, such as Employment Pass or EP holders. A levy proportional to the salary of the EP holder is fair and can be justified. It provides another revenue source for the country as the Government continues to invest in Singapore holistically.

While cost is one of the major concerns for investors, Singapore has many other attractive advantages which more than make up for the higher costs. These include a conducive business environment, security, stability, excellent infrastructure and telecommunications, updated facilities and amenities, transparency and efficiency. These are all prime determining factors for businesses and workers too.

While other countries are grappling with COVID-19, we must continue to invest in both our infrastructure and human capital and provide incentives to pull in companies and individuals to place their investments in Singapore. The good cycle of investments, jobs and opportunities will bring many benefits to our island and our people. Hence, we need to continue with our major infrastructure investments that will support our economic growth for the benefit of Singaporeans in the face of the slowdown.

I would like to appeal for further incentives for companies to employ locals, in additional to the Job Growth Incentive or JGI, especially to support those who are middle-aged and above who have been retrenched and finding it difficult to get jobs. This is a group of Singaporeans whom I am especially concerned about. May I suggest that up to half of the 50% or 25% support to be paid to employees as Workfare Income Supplement or WIS to narrow the job and income expectations mismatch?

It would be good to balance these measures with quotas for foreign PMETs to encourage and incentivise companies to employ Singaporeans.

Could the JGI be a long-term policy coupled with support for employers to provide permanent upgrading and upskilling of Singaporean workers?

May we extend the COVID-19 Support Grant or CSG to those who were not eligible for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS?

Can we also enhance the WIS payout for lowest 25% income group with more payment for the lowest tier, with up to 50% more grants to supplement their income?

In addition, would MOM look into a hybrid of WIS, CSG and SIRS to form a new scheme to incentivise employment, reduce the pain from income reduction and narrow the job/income mismatch?

Notwithstanding, I do agree that all these have to be done with proportionally increase in productivity through job redesign, use of technology, automation so on and so forth, so that our workers are better skilled, productive and equipped, as compared with peers in other countries for the same job with better output. This would help mitigate avoidance of cost inflationary. We need to expedite the industry transformation, for example, more use of machinery in town cleaning jobs and higher productive method in construction industry to reduce reliance of foreign workers and higher income for our Singapore workers.

We all need to be very clear that we cannot afford to be complacent in an environment which is advancing rapidly technologically. What is the norm today can easily be disrupted.

To ensure that Singaporeans can remain in a leading position in the fast-changing and competitive world, we must continue to invest and equip all Singaporeans with the best skills, knowledge and tools. Singaporeans must be the assets which attract investors. We can further incentivise the investors and businesses to equip and train Singaporeans with leading and competitive skills.

The Government should continue with the overseas training and study internship initiative for our citizens so that they will gain wider exposure and market knowledge and deepen their problem solving skills. With that, I would like to conclude with my support again.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.05 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this COVID pandemic has badly affected our economy, many lives and livelihoods. But if there is something positive, it has reminded us about the important things in our life, the things that we may have taken for granted.

Sir, I learnt a very painful but important lesson over the circuit breaker. I realised that I missed out on so much of my children's childhood over the last couple of years. While working from home, I was able to spend so much time with my little ones. Together – Ella, Katie, Poppy and I cooked, ate, played, enjoyed bedtime stories and even managed to set up a tent in our living room.

Before this pandemic, I was never able to spend so much time with them. I was often out on the ground at work, like most of us, and by the time I got home at night, the kids would be fast asleep. The reality is that work from home is something that us, as Members of Parliament will not be able to completely do as our work is often on the ground. But many fellow Singaporeans can benefit from it. In a survey of 9,000 respondents across night 90 companies conducted this May, 90% of respondents said they wanted to continue working from home. Singaporeans do want such an arrangement.

Sir, we should respond positively and legislate the right to work from home for all employees and require employers who reject the request to provide specific business-related reasons.

Working from home will benefit all employees, whether you're married or single. Employees will have better work-life balance, more freedom, spend less time commuting and it promotes employee well-being. Beyond this, there are four other main reasons why we should give people the right to work from home.

The first reason that it will be better for fathers. A survey conducted by Focus on the Family Singapore this year found that out of nearly 2,500 fathers, 70% became more involved with their families during the circuit breaker. Of this group, more than 80% said they connected better with their kids.

This pandemic has hurt many Singaporean families but it has also provided opportunities for parents, especially fathers to bond with their children like never before. A recent media article spotlighted the stories of several fathers during the circuit breaker and how COVID-19 has given fathers a chance to bond with their kids.

Marketing manager Imran talk about how his wife and him are so glad that he has now more time to play and eat together with his two toddler children. Imran talked lovingly about how his kids now miss him even when he stepped out of the house briefly.

Shahid Nizami, a managing director, spoke about how he had to strike a balance between working from home and supervising his son, Kain's home-based learning and how he jammed with his son for a virtual talent competition, with his son on drums and the dad on a guitar. He said, "This has been really special for both of us."

It is clear that many fathers now want to reconsider their work-life arrangement and we should not waste this opportunity. The right to work from home will give fathers more flexibility and more time to spend with their loved ones.

Second, the reason this working from home would help benefit mothers. One mother, Sheena, wrote to me, expressing her joy at seeing more fathers picking up their kids from schools these days as a result from our work from home policy which she says used to be a rare sight previously. Fathers picking up their children from school is part of a bigger solution.

A study conducted this year by the US National Bureau of Economics found that a pandemic would likely cause fathers to become more interested and experienced in childcare, reducing the childcare responsibilities on mothers and increasing gender equality at the workplace.

This rings true for Singapore too. An IPS study found that fathers who had more time to be with their children at home were able to better develop effective childcare skills. When fathers become more adept with handling childcare responsibilities, their families rely less on the mothers for childcare. This not only improves delegation of home responsibilities more equally between fathers and mothers but allow working mothers to focus better at work. In short, when fathers buck up at home, mothers get to lean in at work. Gender equality happens when everyone chips in.

The third reason is that it would be good for businesses. It does so by increasing productivity.

A 2011 guide by the tripartite committee on work-life strategy says that working from home enhances business performance and competitiveness for employers as employers can optimise manpower and resources deployment. International examples back up this point. A study again by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found that employees of China's largest travel agency, Ctrip, were 13% more productive while working from home.

Having employees work from home also help companies reduce fixed costs, such as office rental and workstation set-up costs and staff turnover related costs. As early as 2001, MOM stated that work from home allows workers to better combine their work and personal responsibilities which helps to reduce absenteeism and attrition. Ctrip, the Chinese travel agency I mentioned previously, halved their attrition rate of their employees, with a work from home policy.

Businesses that allow their employees to work from home do grow stronger. Let us help our businesses recover from this COVID economy in a way that emphasises efficiency and reduce costs. And through the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Government is also helping to make a work from home policy possible for businesses.

The fourth and final reason for legislating the right to work from home is that it will be good for our economy.

I cited research showing that a work from home policy reduces employee attrition. What I have not mentioned is that so often, this attrition employees are women. When you add up the effects on the national level, we see shocking trends. Let us talk about female labour force participation rate. On that, Singapore scored 61.1% in 2019, far below other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam at 72.5%; Cambodia at 75.2% and Lao PDR at 76.8%.

It is often said that Singapore's only natural resource is our people. Yet, we are not even employing half of our people, our women efficiently. Why is our female labour force participation rate so low? According to the McKinsey Global Institute, the culprit is care-giving and childcare responsibilities. The study estimates that if we close this gap, more than $26 billion could be added to the Singapore's GDP by 2025. We need every dollar of that and we need to close that gap.

The solution is to empower our mothers to work from home. Teresa, a working mother wrote to me, saying that working from home has meant that she did not have to worry about childcare arrangements and could pick up her children from childcare, bring them to appointments and take care of them when they did not have school. The right to work from home will provide parents like Teresa and many other employees with legal grounds to request to work from home when they need to without being penalised. It will enable those who have been discouraged and forced out of the workforce to rejoin their fellow Singaporeans. In these hard times, Singapore's economy needs every leg up we can get. The right to work from home will help.

Finally, let me address potential downsides and how we can solve them.

MOM has previously stated that this legislation can have unintended consequences for the very group it is meant to benefit and protect. For example, it may discourage employers from hiring groups seen as likely to take up the benefits. I am equally concerned about such outcomes. So, I studied the issue.

The UK has done what I am calling for. It provides the right for all workers to request for work from home, which employers can reject only based on certain business reasons. A study conducted in 2018 found that less than 5% of UK workers who worked from home or used staggered hours experience negative consequences due to their working arrangement. It is extremely unlikely that getting to work from home hurt someone's career. By contrast, the study found that work from home has been shown to reduce women's likelihood of working part-time after childbirth, reduces the motherhood penalty and potentially increase wage premium for women, especially in the longer run. In other words, the evidence suggests that legislating the right to work from home would help, not hinder women from succeeding at the workplace.

Sir, in conclusion, I hope we will legislate this right to work from home. Employers can reject the request with specific business-related reasons and employees who want to choose to work from the office can still feel free to do so. I believe this is a good middle ground win-win proposal.

For years, we told everyone that work from home helps with work-life balance, reduces employees absenteeism, leads to higher productivity, saves costs of office space and attracts and retains value employees. It even helped save lives during this pandemic.

For months, we make it law. All I am asking is that we now make this law permanent.

Minister Lawrence has said that working from home must be embraced as a new normal even after circuit breaker ends. We are now at a 50% work from home policy and I urge the Government not to reduce this any further, but instead take a step forward and ensure that work from home truly becomes a new normal.

Let me end by stressing that work from home is not just for fathers and mothers. It is for those are not married as well. At some point in our lives, we will have to care for someone else – be it children parents, grandparents, spouses, partners, friends and other loved ones. We will all need to be care-givers some day and we should have the flexibility to do so.

Working from home also helps with work-life balance and our well-being so it is also about caring for ourselves. Let us emerge stronger, as I have said many times in this House, spend time with those you love. One of these days, you will either say "I wish I had" or "I'm glad I did". Let us give our people a better chance of saying "I'm glad I did".

Mr Speaker: Dr Koh Poh Koon.

3.16 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Debate on the President’s Address recently, I spoke as Deputy Secretary-General of the NTUC and urged the tripartite partners to come together to conduct an in-depth study on the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model, or PWM, across more sectors, so that we can move faster in this aspect when the economy recovers post-COVID-19.

Various Labour Members of Parliament – from former Secretary-General Lim Swee Say to former Parliamentary colleague Mr Zainal Sapari – have in their Parliamentary speeches over the many years also push for a faster and wider implementation of the PWM. Hence, NTUC welcomes the announcement to form a Tripartite Workgroup for Low-wage Workers to take concrete actions on this very important agenda.

Uplifting lower income Singaporeans have been a core mission of the PAP Government right from the outset. The PAP was born from the unions in the 1950s. Taking care of our workers has been a critical part of our DNA as a party. We have achieved what few have done over the last six decades, but the task is never finished. It is something that we must and will keep working on.

Under the PAP Government and with the support from the Labour Movement, the lives of millions of Singaporeans have been greatly improved: more than 90% of Singaporeans own their homes; our children get much better education; we invested in upgrading skills of our people so that they can stay employed and improve in their careers even as our economy transforms through the decades.

We have made significant progress in the past 10 years. The wages of workers at the lowest 20th percentile have increased by 24% in real terms in the last five years and by 39% over the last 10 years.

This was a big lift and faster than for those higher up on the wage ladder. It has also helped moderate income inequality in Singapore which is now at its narrowest in almost 20 years. The Gini coefficient calculated using the widely used OECD methodology, fell to 0.35 in 2019 after accounting for Government transfers such as Workfare Income Supplement.

All these did not happen just by itself. It is not by chance. It was brought about by sound economic policies, and the tripartite partners working actively to intervene to support workers. We implemented the “Triple Uplift” formula comprising the PWM, Workfare Income Supplement or WIS, and the National Wage Council or NWC recommendations.

The PWM lifted the wages of close to 80,000 cleaners, security officers and landscape workers. Their wages have increased by 30% in real terms in recent years without the loss of jobs. The PWM also enables them to climb the skills-ladder, improving their future employability and their wage progression at the same time.

This has been a significant achievement because the workers in these sectors tend to be older or with limited education and, therefore, are at a higher risk of this employment. It required very involved negotiations and firms, companies have to undertake changes of many of their practices to do so.

Workfare is another significant intervention. It acts like a form of negative income tax. The Government tops up the income of our workers earning less than $2,300 per month. There are many other efforts, all part of the on-going task of uplifting our workers.

Skills upgrading and job placement efforts by the NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute or e2i, working with Government agencies help many workers access better jobs, better pay and better job prospects. Bus drivers’ salaries jumped by more than 20% since 2015 with the new bus financing framework supported by the labour movement and National Transport Workers’ Union or NTWU.

In the last five years or so, we have pushed hard on our ITM efforts as well. This brought together tripartite partners integrating skills upgrading together with business transformation, productivity enhancement and innovation to catalyse change as a whole of eco-system to also create better jobs and better job prospects for our workers.

Raising the income of our less skilled and low-wage workers is, therefore, a holistic and a continuous effort. Through Workfare, the PWM and our efforts involving various stakeholders to boost skills and productivity in every sector, we are demonstrating exactly what Mdm Halimah spoke about in social solidarity. Our low-wage workers get an uplift in incomes through Workfare, supported by our taxes through the PWM and by productivity improvements. The upshot is that we can achieve higher incomes for low-wage workers without putting their employment at risk and minimising cost increases for our consumers.

How about the coverage of PWM?

The Government has committed to working with its tripartite partners to extend the PWM to all sectors in a manner that is appropriate to each and every sector's unique conditions.

I should point out also that the PWM in the existing sectors have also helped lift wages in the other non-PWM sectors as well. If we look at the occupations that are traditionally deemed as comprising workers with lower income – clerical support, service staff, tradesmen, operators, cleaners, labourers – there are, perhaps, about slightly over 850,000 workers doing these jobs in Singapore. The vast majority of them actually earn above $1,300 a month.

According to MOM, the residual number of low-wage workers who earn below $1,300 is about 100,000 workers. About a quarter of them actually are self-employed so they would not have benefited from any minimum wage, to begin with. With Workfare and employer's CPF contribution included, only about 56,000 across a variety of job roles earn less than $1,300. Of these, only about 32,000 are full-time employees.

So, what the Workers' Party wants to achieve with the proposed minimum wage of $1,300 a month, we have already achieved through PWM and many other policy measures, such as Workfare Income Supplement.

With this latest tripartite move, we will further reduce this number. We have, in fact, actually made tremendous strides over the decades. But as I said, it is still unfinished business.

The Workers' Party have called for a Minimum Wage of $1,300 a month to be applied across all sectors, as a quick way to cover everyone else. As I have just highlighted, this is a very small number of 32,000 to over 50,000-over, about 1.7% of our local workforce. Let me state that we are not ideologically against a minimum wage. In fact, the first rung of the wage ladder in the PWM is a form of sectoral minimum wage. Senior Minister Tharman has also called the PWM a “Minimum Wage Plus” – Minimum Wage plus a ladder for wage increase through upskilling. So, the idea of having some form of a minimum wage is not new and we share the same objective to uplift the incomes of low-wage workers. Where we differ though is the approach to getting there.

All programmes and policies have pros and cons and so too a single blanket minimum wage. Its appeal is that it is seemingly a quick way to raise the wages of workers who have to benefit from PWM – and maybe many other initiatives. But there are actually risks to jumping onto this single blanket minimum wage.

First, there is the question of its effectiveness in helping our lowest skilled and most vulnerable workers and not inadvertently putting them at a disadvantage. It is difficult to find the right a single minimum wage for all sectors.

If it is not set too low, then the benefit to workers in many sectors will be limited and defeats the purpose of having a minimum wage in the first place.

For example, the starting salary for a cleaner in Town Councils today under the mandatory PWM is already $1,442. With overtime pay, Workfare Income Supplement and Annual Wage Supplement or bonuses, this would be much higher than the $1,300 a month that the Workers' Party proposes as a minimum wage. Indeed, because of the mandatory PWM, the Workers' Party Town Councils' cleaners are being paid based on the PWM and not based on their Minimum Wage!

But if the Minimum Wage is set too high, then businesses especially the SMEs, cannot afford to pay. They will have to pass the costs on to consumers if they are able to or cut back on employment of workers of lower educational standards or skills, or, in the worse case scenario, go out of business.

In an ideal world, of course, a high Minimum Wage will force industries to invest more in technology, invest in items that can raise the productivity and favour the most efficient firms without lowering overall employment. But in practice there will be winners and losers and it is our SMEs who are the most vulnerable and our most vulnerable workers will also be at risk of losing out.

Sir, we all want to help low-wage workers to earn more. But in practice it is difficult to arbitrarily prescribe a single higher salary for all sectors and all industries. There must be a basis for setting the Minimum Wage that reflects the realities of each sector, including the profile of the low-wage worker sin that that particular sector so that it is sustainable, it benefits them and it avoids any unintended costs.

Veteran union leaders with long experience on the ground understand the importance of working this out and arriving at the tripartite consensus, so that “low wage” does not inadvertently become “no wage”.

If I may share what my good brother in the unions, Brother Toh Hock Poh, will always say when it comes to complex issues, "Ah nay kan duah, wa nang za teo zoh liow, ko tan li la kong" in Hokkien. Sir, if you do not mind I have to do this to justify the charisma of Brother Toh Hock Poh and show his charisma – what it means is; "If it was so simple, we would done it long go." So, a single Minimum Wage is no panacea.

The second risk – with a single blanket Minimum Wage is the inevitable politicisation of wage setting. What do I mean? Today, let us say we can all agree to $1,300 Minimum Wage proposed by the Workers' Party, a “moral imperative” as Mr Singh puts it in his recent Facebook post.

But what next? What happens next? How will this number change from this year to the next and on what basis?

In a political contest, a political party will surely come along and say, "Well, $1,500 will reflect higher 'moral imperatives'". Yet another will come along and say, "$1,300 is good; $1,500 is better, but $1,700 must surely be more 'divine' moral imperatives". It can become a political auction.

When this process, this political auction gathers momentum and becomes detached from market realities, the Minimum Wage escalates beyond what employers are able to pay. And the jobs of our more vulnerable sisters and brothers in these sectors will be threatened with the risk of unemployment.

So, I am not so much concerned by what Mr Singh and the Workers' Party is proposing for now, but what it portends for the future – the possibility of a political auction that will price out our lower skilled workers, our brothers and sisters, and disadvantage our smaller enterprises, our SMEs. This is not an academic issue.

We are seeing this kind of political processes, this political auction, happening in other countries. What is a better way? At NTUC, we believe the PWM is one way of doing so.

Under PWM, we can engage the different stakeholders of each industry, work out how to address their concerns and challenges, and arrive at a consensus with a basis that they can all actively support. With this sectoral tripartite consensus building approach, it is much less likely for a political auction to happen.

We can and should do more to help the lowest paid in our society but we must go about doing it in a way that ensures the upside while minimising the downsides. The cure surely should not be worse than the problem it tries to solve.

A third complication, and this is a major one, is the question of migrant workers. In most developed countries, the legal Minimum Wage applies to all workers including migrant workers. If the Minimum Wage is driven simply by a "moral imperative", then the natural question to ask is whether it should include non-Singaporeans such as migrant workers, including our foreign domestic workers.

I do see an online petition going on now in the honour of Mr Singh's name, with all the text he put into his Facebook on the page calling for people to petition to support Minimum Wage for foreign domestic workers as well. So, perhaps, Mr Singh should also take this chance to explain to Singaporeans what the position of the Workers' Party is when you advocate for Minimum Wage.

Now, if businesses cannot bear the resulting cost, is there also a "moral imperative" to help our SMEs? This is a particular pertinent consideration at this time, when we are in a deep COVID-19 crisis. Many companies, especially our SMEs, such as those in the construction sector, are suffering and not quite out of the woods. What is Mr Singh's views on this?

I do note that in his Facebook post, the very first line and I quote, "A universal Minimum Wage for the Singaporean worker is not just a moral imperative, it is an act of national solidarity, one that is even more relevant in today's economic environment".

I have been listening to some of the speeches of many of the Workers' Party's Members in the House yesterday and today, and I must thank them for sharing the Government's view on improving career coaching, reforming our education, supporting our workers, helping our SMEs. And the Member Jamus Lim's earlier speech talked about supporting SMEs, which I am sure will be welcomed. But if we juxtapose this together with his speech at the last Sitting about raising Minimum Wages, how does it square away? Are we supporting SMEs or are we adding more oil to the fire, so to speak? Perhaps it will be better explained in Chinese, we call it 雪上加霜.

With the companies in a deep economic freeze now or economic recession, is what is being proposed by the Workers' Party – raising wages through a Minimum Wage legislation – going to add more frost to the snow in companies in deep winter right now?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek the support of this House for us to continue to push for PWM. NTUC will continue our conversations with our tripartite partners via the newly convened tripartite Workgroup on expanding PWM, to ensure that we take into account the concerns of all our stakeholders for a sustainable implementation of the PWMs, even as we work collectively to help ourselves to get out of this economic recession.

In the interim, the PWM Mark that was recently introduced by Minister Josephine Teo in Parliament as a potential means of recognising firms that voluntarily pay progressive wages, is something that we welcome. We welcome such ideas as it would enable consumers to choose whether to support progressive-minded firms.

While introducing a PWM Mark is a good first step, voluntary schemes on their own may not be attractive enough for companies to come onboard. Government must be prepared to use regulatory levers to help incentivise firms to adopt the PWM Mark, such as requiring companies that access Government schemes or bid for Government contracts to come onboard this voluntary Mark. That way, we can also raise the awareness of consumers and service buyers to price the contracts fairly, and build trust towards eventual mandatory PWM for other sectors.

Beyond the lift and escalator PWM becoming mandatory in 2022, NTUC had also submitted a proposal to the Government to form a Tripartite Cluster for the Waste Management Industry to introduce a PWM focusing on the waste collection sub- sectors. We look forward to the Government’s strong support and will work closely with our tripartite partners to bring about better wages, welfare and work prospects for the low-wage workers in this sector.

In expanding the PWM, we should also consider studying other approaches to complement the existing PWM efforts, such as setting a sectoral wage benchmark as a first step for companies in sectors where there are currently no regulatory levers to mandate a PWM. The benchmarks would be a good way, a good starting point, a first step towards empowering workers with greater awareness of wages in their own occupations and their sectors. This can be done through leveraging various sources of data that we currently have, such as the Occupational Wage Survey Data.

In sectors with a more variegated employment landscape such as Food Services and Retail, sectoral wage benchmarks may help catalyse more companies to embark on uplifting the livelihoods of our lower wage workers. This, of course, in time to come, can evolve into a PWM. The Tripartite Workgroup could also study lower wage occupations that cut across multiple sectors to see how best to help improve their wage prospects. Some job roles, clerical job roles, for example, do not neatly fall into one particular sector and it is horizontal across many sectors. Having employers, Government and union at the same table would enable us to have frank and deep discussions on policy innovations to move the way forward.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is much work to be done to uplift more lower wage workers, many of whom provide essential services for all of us. We should recognise what the Government and the tripartite partners have achieved in providing a genuine uplift for the workforce, especially our lower wage workers, and be willing to adopt new approaches. Indeed, the PWM and Workfare Income Supplement have major new approaches in recent years and we, of course, remain open to new ideas.

Achieving social equality and enabling lower income families to improve their lives is never a simple task. There is no silver bullet. It is also continuous hard work. NTUC and the tripartite partners will focus on this real hard work of uplifting wages of low-wage workers and seek public support for our workers, while hoping to avoid all the possible downsides. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

3.38 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his extensive comments on this matter. I was not intending to speak in this debate but in view of the questions that he has put to me arising from a Facebook post, which was a response to another Facebook post or two Facebook posts by the Minister for Manpower and the NTUC Secretary-General, I will put the position out. Because when we campaigned in the last election, a Minimum Wage was one of the central pillars of our ambit of the proposals that we had put to Singaporeans.

So, I would like to start with, actually, what I felt was a very powerful line from the Senior Minister of State, which was he is not so much concerned at our proposal of a Minimum Wage. And indeed, there is no reason to be very concerned about it because what we are talking about is those Singaporeans who earn below the $1,300 mark. It is not a number that has come out of the sky. I will explain shortly.

The Senior Minister of State has been helpful in providing some data. I believe a newspaper article, just a few days ago, from a former parliamentarian, someone who I think many of us parliamentarians enjoyed listening to, the economist Walter Theseira, asked some important questions. He asked what are the sectors where Singaporeans are earning less than $1,300? How many workers are impacted? And for those who are significantly below the $1,300 floor, what will happen to them?

And that is precisely my question for the numbers that the Senior Minister of State had shared – about the 100,000, a quarter of them self-employed; 56,000 not full-time workers, if I remember correctly, and 32,000 are full-time. Very important figures. I think this is the first time the Government has shared these figures.

And my question quite simply is, do we need to wait so long to cover these Singaporeans? Can we not consider how we can cover them immediately because it is not a small number. It is a large number. If you think of 60,000 rental units available from HDB and you compare that with this number, it is significant – it is quite a lot of Singaporeans who need some help. So, my Facebook posts really was not to diss or dismiss the PWM. It was to nudge the Government, to tell the Government, "Hey, wait a minute. Can we move faster on people who are really, really at one end of the spectrum?"

So, I think the Senior Minister of State understands that context, so that is not so much the issue. So, that was the first question, whether we can reach out more quickly to these individuals.

And I do not believe SMEs would be significantly impacted, with all respect to SMEs, employers and businesses who have also made their views known also in the mainstream media over the last one, one and a half months, perhaps. This number of Singaporeans, we can look after them, we can take care of them, and we can do it quite fast. If there is anybody who can do it for the people who I know as my friends in NTUC, I am pretty sure they are going to work hard with the Government to make that happen. So, I hope the Government takes them up.

My second point is about politicisation, which was what the Minister feared. Are we going to get into an auction when one party says $1,300 and another one says $1,500? This is where we probably have to defer to the experts. The National Wages Council is potentially one forum. And there are also some useful statistics we can use, like the average household expenditure on basic necessities; how much really does it cost for the Singaporean family who is at that end of the spectrum. And the Minimum Wage or the floor can be set at a number which is realistic and correspondent to that.

Actually, the bigger concern I have with the PWM and some of the sectors that the Senior Minister of State has been referring to, is potential profiteering on the back of raising wages for Singaporeans. My question to the Senior Minister of State is what mechanisms are available in NTUC, with MOM, to ensure that companies do not do that.

Now, I say this because earlier this week, I just sat in our usual weekly Town Council meeting and I am aware that certain lift maintenance contracts are coming up for renewal. I have some numbers from the lift companies. For one lift company, costs are going up by 47%. Another lift company, 5%, 10%, 5%, 10%, something of that nature, over a few years. So, because we have different contractors, they have different proposals. Now, if all this increase is going to the Singaporean worker, then I am prepared to take on that burden to persuade our Town Council residents that we need to raise S&CC. I am prepared to take it on because Singaporeans are going to benefit from it.

But my question is, is that a realistic hike in costs? So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to share how can we be sure that as the PWM moves forward and particularly for raising of salaries, those costs will go to our workers and will not be translated into profits.

I think the Senior Minister of State had a question on the ambit of our Minimum Wage proposal. The Minimum Wage we are proposing does not include foreign domestic workers at this point. It does not include foreign manpower at this point because there are other regulatory levers, especially for foreign workers – quotas, levies. I know they serve specific purposes, but I think you will have to implement this and see how best to work the overall manpower situation that SMEs demand and what the economy demands.

Coming back to the important number, it was, I think Senior Minister of State said 1.7% of the population. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that –

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Workforce.

Mr Pritam Singh: Workforce – I beg your pardon. 1.7% of the workforce. Thank you. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that we can do and we can move quite fast for this people. I will be prepared to work with Senior Minister of State to ensure that we can actually reach out to these Singaporeans as quickly as the Government can.

Because, I do not think it is acceptable that any one, any Singaporean is earning below this number. It is simply not acceptable. And if we can do something about it in double quick time, let us do it.

Mr Speaker: Dr Koh Poh Koon.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some of his clarifications. I must say it is quite easy to propose a Minimum Wage and then when we ask questions about what it is based on and how they will implement it – does it include foreign workers and all – they say, "Government go sort it out". I think if as Brother Hock Poh said, "If it is so easy to do, we would have done it with any long ago".

Proposing it for panel of experts to do, do research and studies, that could be one way, but that is actually also what the tripartite partners do. We look at data, but we incorporate the consensus of all the stakeholders including businesses so that they also must be prepared to price this into their business cost and have a way to also socialise it to the consumers. Indeed, as the hon Member said, when there is a wage ladder that goes up or any cost increase for Minimum Wage, this cost will have to be passed to the consumers at some point. So, there has to be a cost implication in the cost impact.

The good news of course is that the PWM, as it stands today, applies only to Singaporean local workforce, Singaporean workers. So, wage increases for PWM only benefits Singapore workers. That is why I asked the question about proposing a blanket single Minimum Wage across all sectors, which has to necessarily cover all workers. Because in many developed countries, the concept of a Minimum Wage, as it is applied, includes migrant workers as well.

So, I think we have to be careful about what we are saying here, because to buck the norm, to be different, there must be a real strong justification.

The data, 1.7% percent of the local workforce, it is not a very clean data because it includes a whole group of people across different job roles. But it also includes people who are technically "employed" but they could be employed in jobs like hawker assistant, helping a family member. They are drawing a salary, but they are happy to be just getting $700 a month helping the father or the mother or something like that, manning a store, for example. How do you legislate a Minimum Wage to say that the father who runs the store, employing the son as as a worker, as an employee, has to add a cost on and mandate it?

Those are the challenges when you go down to the bottom. They will be the challenges of implementation.

Research, data, all these are good. If I may use Brother Hock Poh's words again, he said "Wo jiak yam bi li jiak bee zuay" or I eat more salt than you eat more rice; "Tak chek jin ho", but "ai zor jin gan kor" or easier said than done. So, his point is this, reams and reams of data and research is good. But in practice, is always harder to do, because there are practical considerations, there are pushbacks. So, that is why a negotiator approach with stakeholders is the most important.

In the area of working with our stakeholders, I believe that that is why when we work on the negotiated outcome, there is always that balance that can be struck. Where the businesses are prepared to absorb the cost; if not, they have a way to rationalise how to pass the cost on to the consumers.

I am glad to hear that Mr Singh is prepared to also raise the S&CC charges to justify for higher wage cost when we eventually push up the mandatory PWM for the lift and escalator sectors, to make sure that our brothers and sisters in this sector get get paid a fair wage. And I think collectively we ought to socialise Singaporean consumers to the need to up the wages of those at the lower end and demonstrate social solidarity.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his impassioned defence of the PWM model. I would just take the opportunity to just clarify a few points and perhaps obtain some clarifications as well.

One of them is that Senior Minister of State mentioned a few times that a lot of these affect real lives and I have no doubt that they affect real lives because that is precisely what we are fighting for. But, with all due respect, as much as it will be lovely to always rely on folksy wisdom and beliefs by labour union leaders, at the same time, it is important to realise that when when we talk about studies that show that the Minimum Wage does not lead to any appreciable increase in unemployment, this is based on careful consideration and not just beliefs.

It is worth reminding ourselves that there was a time in the 16th century, when people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. But that belief is not in fact the same as evidence and all evidence from countries all over the world demonstrate that a Minimum Wage has minimal impact on unemployment as long as it is not set too high.

So, that leaves us with discussing why, what is too high? And again, I think we made a clear justification on why we believe that $1,300 is a justifiable number. But why we believe as well that it is important to be open to other possibilities is because we, likewise, do not want this number to be politicised. There are lots of numbers that can be politicised, the interest rate can be politicised. We ensure that the central banks do not politicise the interest rate by making sure that they have independence. Which is why, one way forward is to ensure that we have an independent wage board comprised of academics as well as representatives from both the Labour Movement as well as employers to come up with a number so that is not politicised.

I will just close by pointing out one thing. It is that I do not believe in schadenfreude. We have been throwing out Chinese idioms so I will define that 幸灾乐祸. I do not think that supporting SMEs, as I said in my speech just now, is exclusive from supporting a Minimum Wage, which I mentioned in my maiden speech. In fact, I would just remind everyone that Henry Ford who invented the automobile understood this. He said he has to pay his workers enough so that they can buy his cars. So, when we pay our workers enough, it need not be the case that our small businesses end up suffering as a result.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Speaker. I believe Senior Minister of State has not answered my question with regard to how the tripartite partners assess in a particular sector whether profiteering is taking place on the back of what ought to be wage increases for our Singaporean workers.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think the simple answer to that is that in a tripartite PWM model, the wages are pegged to a skills ladder, that can be verified by either a participation in a course or verified through an industry accredited programme. So, with the skills increase, the person would then be justified for wage increase, based on the larger job scope or a more productive outcome in the work delivered.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. But I am more referring to a case where like the Labour Annual this year in May, talked about extending the PWM to the lift and escalator sector and I believe there is one more sector, I am not sure whether it was waste management, but one of them.

My point is, this is in the future, but some of these companies are already pricing it in today and is that legitimately correct for them to do so? Apart from that, if there is a reason for a vendor to assert that actually the cost is being overstated here and PWM is being used as an excuse to increase costs, what recourse would the Government consider? Will there be a committee that we can potentially go to to address some of these matters?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, then the simple process is to make sure that the Town Council when you tender contracts, you have a process of evaluating a competitive tender to assess the points of merit surely, unless you are talking about collusion among various vendors for the same project. Otherwise, there has to be somebody who is prepared to price his service or his product competitively and reasonably.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just some points of clarification to the Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, who gave a spirited defence of the PWM model. We have said that we do not think that PWM and Minimum Wage are mutually exclusive.

My first question is really how long does the Senior Minister of State envisage the rolling out of the PWM to all the vulnerable workers who are now earning very low incomes; how long would that take? The number could be 100,000 or 36,000 depending on the definition used, but how long we are going to take to address the needs of that group?

Secondly, Senior Minister of State Koh also talked about how a Minimum Wage inevitably becomes politicised, but the Senior Minister of State presumably does not feel that PWM inevitably becomes politicised. Why does Minimum Wage inevitably become politicised but the PWM model does not also become a political football and become politicised.

Third point of clarification is really on how the Minimum Wage may hurt our SMEs. Senior Minister of State did say that the number of people who will be affected by a minimum wage of $1,300 per month could actually be very small. So, how does such a small number actually effect a very substantial hurt or a disadvantage to SMEs if the number is basically small? In making this point, I would note that some discussions publicly that have happened about Minimum Wage within the business community, that have been reported in The Business Times and so on, have shown that many business owners are in fact open to a Minimum Wage if it is not set too high because they also want to pay their employees with dignity.

The last point is really on the Senior Minister of State who talked about the contrast between Minimum Wage and Progressive Wage Model that with the Progressive Wage Model, you are less likely to lose jobs because that is a negotiated outcome with employers. But would the Senior Minister of State accept that you can have a process to set a Minimum Wage nationally, with reference to research and facts that involves consultation with employers before that Minimum Wage is set, so you do not surrender that advantage as well.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: I think in my speech, I did explain that different sectors have different eco-systems, different kind of skills requirement and therefore different starting pay even for certain lower job roles. And therefore, if at a national level, it is very hard to decide on one number that everyone can agree to as their starting pay. How would that process be to make sure tat there is convergence on one single number – to have the lowest end of a cleaner and a lowest end of a clerical staff – all having the same minimum wage that is acceptable across different industry sectors? So, that is a practical challenge that cannot be overcome so easily with a single Minimum Wage.

How do we help the lower wage workers, maybe the 1.7% that we spoke about? I think when we look at this, wage is only one aspect of helping a lower wage worker. Today, with Workfare, we already top up the wages and that is one way of helping them without having to make employers jump through the hoops, without having to make disadvantaged workers that have to do a lot of heavy lifting to get to the Minimum Wage, for example.

Bear in mind that this segment of workers, some of them could have disabilities that may not be able to embark on the kind of jobs without Government support to begin with. So, by giving some of these Workfare supplements, we actually top up the kind of wages because otherwise, an employer may not be prepared to employ someone with a certain disability that may not be able to fulfil the full function of the job scope. This is where you will end up leading to dis-employment for a particular segment of vulnerable workers. So, it cannot be a one-size-fits-all because there are different segments of people, different industry demands.

How long? I think the process will be something that we want to do now, talk about it, discuss it, work out some schematics. But when can we implement? Obviously, we have to look at the economic situation as well because this will be probably the wrong time to push for increased wage costs onto our SMEs who are already suffering.

Why would the PWM structure be less likely to be politicised? Because it has tripartite negotiations. It is not decided politically by one party. The employers naturally will push back as well if what we are proposing for the sector is not sustainable to them, business-wise. If what is being pushed from just a political base would put them out of business and make them non-competitive, there will be a natural push back. Otherwise, if it is just a single number that is decided based on politics, I think this is where the danger of the slippery slope occurs.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification.

Just two quick points. One on the issue of heterogeneity, needing each sector to have their own specific Minimum Wage. I would actually put it across even more simply. What I believe that the Workers’ Party would argue is that if you can establish that the Minimum Wage for the lowest paying sector within the PWM is at least $1,300, it is absolutely fine if the other sectors were willing to pay more than that $1,300, for that particular lowest pay sector.

The other point is I think it is actually a bit disconcerting to bring in special cases like disability and the individual that happens to work part-time for his father, or even to talk about earning more than one $1,300 if someone works overtime, because honestly these are, if I may use the term, straw man. We are not comparing these particular special cases. We are talking about individuals without disability that happen to be working just regular full-time work week and are nevertheless struggling to make ends meet.

Even if it is 32,000 people, I do not think that any of these 32,000 people feel that they are being taken care of. And I also do not feel that we should let them, in as rich a society as we are, flounder on their own.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Businesses need to stay competitive and avoid passing all costs to consumers to stay competitive. So, an increased wage has to be coupled with an increase in productivity. If not, it may actually lead to no wage.

So, could I seek clarifications from the Workers’ Party on whether they actually recognise the downside risks of low wage becoming no wage, especially when technology automation is increasingly being adopted?

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: I would like to clarify with the Member. I do not believe any of us made that specific remark. But I would like to ask the Member in return: is he agreeable to pay the 100,000 workers, specifically narrowed down now to 32,000 workers, $1,300 as a business employer? Is he prepared to do that? I hope he is.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. I think as a business owner, the responsibility is not to a specific sector of employees but to the entire company. Sustaining a business means providing jobs for the whole company.

So, a business owner needs to look at sustainability, and it is the responsibility of a business owner to look at productivity increase because that is what makes businesses profitable, viable and then scalable to be able to provide more jobs for Singaporeans.

So, an arbitrary Minimum Wage may actually be more negative for a business. We need to look at it as a holistic approach, helping businesses upskill their employees, helping businesses to grow their business. So, as the businesses grow, we can provide more to our workers and we can actually hire more workers. I think that is what businesses are looking towards in terms of good effective policy.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. Actually, to be honest, that is a really big debate going on and I think to avoid just discussing this purely on theoretical or rhetorical menace, I would like to ask both sides of the House, including the Senior Minister of State, from the position of someone who is also declaring my interest as strategic advisor to Daughters of Tomorrow where we work actively with employers and businesses to advocate directly to them for what we call livable wages for the employees.

Is there anything that Senior Minister of State Koh might want to share that Members of Parliament, backbenchers, or even community groups can do to help the Government in this effort to encourage more employers in different sectors to think about different ways and using different angles to encourage them to pay the employees more, and in return reap the benefits of a workforce that has higher morale and give higher loyalty to the companies and businesses.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, if we look at what will employer be thinking when he wants to interview and employ somebody. The first thing he is asked is: do you have the skills that I need to do the job, and for the skills that you have, what am I prepared to pay you?

If we stipulate a Minimum Wage or whatever wage there is, but the employer feels that this is not worth paying for, or if you set the wage too high, he will say, “Well, with this money, I might as well buy a machine to do this job. Because I will amortise this machine over one year, two years, and my return is immeasurable, beyond the ROI". This worker will never get the job if he is priced too high.

On the other hand, if you fix the rate too low, but yet the worker does not have the skills to do the job, no matter how low you price the Minimum Wage, I would not employ the person anyway because there is no skills to it.

So, that is why in the PWM construct, it is not just a wage ladder – rising wages across a spectrum, but actually, there is a skills ladder that is tied to it so that as the employee gets the skills that justify the productivity, the work output and the work delivery, the wages commensurate with their skills will be paid to the employee. Because the employer will then feel that these jobs that he can do with these skills are justifiable for the wage and costs that I am going to bear for which I can actually be competitive as a business and recover it through my my business.

So, it has to go hand-in-hand. It cannot be de-synced from one another. The problem with a Minimum Wage is that it is not connected to any skills ladder. It is a number, and the employer then has to decide if the employee makes the mark or is too costly for him, and that number can fluctuate.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting for a minimum of 20 minutes. Because it is not progressive, so it is a maximum of 20 minutes as well. We will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.08 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

OVERVIEW OF GOVERNMENT'S STRATEGY TO EMERGE STRONGER FROM THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Debate resumed.

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Members of the House, MOM understands that Singaporeans have been through much hardship over the past few months. Many Members have spoken on the challenges and concerns of our workers across all segments.

Our infection rates have gone down and we have been able to proceed with the slow and steady re-opening of our economy.

Yet, it would be a mistake to think that we are going back to pre-COVID-19 norms. As other speakers in this House have observed, it is unlikely that things will be the same again. Many industries will take time to recover and, when they do, they will look quite different from what it is now.

The way we work has already changed and will continue to change. For instance, companies and workers alike have had to adapt to telecommuting.

Not all these changes are bad. On the contrary, the pandemic has spurred the pace of digitalisation, upskilling and improving the resilience of our workforce and supply chains.

The Government has put in place substantial effort and resources to help our businesses and workers deal with the impact of the pandemic. For example, we have provided extensive support to businesses through the Jobs Support Scheme, with wage subsidies of 75% to help businesses retain workers. Deputy Prime Minister has announced that this support will be extended until next March.

Right now, our focus must be to help our businesses and our workers to emerge stronger from this crisis and to seize new opportunities ahead. We should work on the basis that short-term relief measures will continually and eventually taper off. This is why economic agencies under MTI as well as agencies that lead the ITM sectors, such as MAS and IMDA, are intensifying efforts on job creation. MOM and WSG will work with these agencies to support employment.

Well before the JSS phases out, we have introduced the Jobs Growth Incentive or JGI. The JGI will provide salary support for businesses which bring forward their hiring plans and hire more locals. Eligible employers will receive up to 25% of the first $5,000 of gross monthly wages, or $15,000 for up to 12 months, for new local hires aged below 40. For each new mature local hire aged 40 and above and for all persons with disabilities or PwDs, Government support is doubled to 50%. Thus far, we have committed $1 billion to this initiative, and we encourage more firms to make use of the JGI to expand hiring.

The SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package is our key push to help our workers to enter new jobs. Where this is not yet possible, we are helping jobseekers to acquire the skills that will put them in a stronger position when the economy begins to recover. It pools together jobs and training opportunities for Singaporeans across the public and private sectors.

Under this Package, we have curated 117,500 jobs as at end-August, including jobs, company-hosted traineeships, attachments and training opportunities and training places. With the exception of SGUnited Traineeships which are designed for fresh and recent graduates, these opportunities are all open to mid-career individuals. More than 33,000 jobseekers have been placed into SGUnited Jobs and Skills opportunities.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about how the Government determines the number of job opportunities available under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and the job roles created by the top hiring sectors.

We have been putting out the total number of committed opportunities available under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package in our weekly Job Situation Report.

The number of committed opportunities is based on approved places under the various SGUnited Jobs and Skills programmes, such as, one, career conversion programmes, traineeships, company attachments and training courses; two, public sector and other Government-funded jobs; and three, private sector jobs that are advertised on the national MyCareersFuture.sg jobs portal.

There are opportunities in almost every sector. Not surprisingly, the key contributors are growth sectors, such as information and communications, healthcare, professional services, finance and insurance and manufacturing.

Examples of jobs in the top five sectors include: software, web and multimedia developers, nursing professionals, management and business consultants, financial analysts and engineering professionals.

But I should also point out that even in sectors badly-hit by COVID-19, there is hiring. In tourism and retail, for example, business models are changing fast. Employers see a need to reskill existing staff as well as to bring in fresh talent. It is, therefore, important not to write them off.

To help our local jobseekers access and get more information on the available jobs and skills opportunities, Workforce Singapore (WSG) has organised various career workshops, seminars and walk-in interviews, reaching about 38,800 individuals between July and September 2020.

We have also brought career matching services closer to the heartlands. So, we have launched the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres in phases since early July and, by end-August, one had been set up across all 24 HDB towns. Although all satellite career centres were only in operation from end-August, Career Ambassadors have advised around 4,200 jobseekers by now. We are heartened to hear Mr Liang Eng Hwa sharing that his constituents have found this to be helpful and that many were able to secure jobs after going to these centres.

That being said, when so many businesses are restructuring, mismatches in jobs and skills must be expected. We recognise the tremendous adjustments needed by both jobseekers and employers to give each other a chance even if they do not look like perfect fits.

Many jobseekers have shown such courage and resilience. Around 39% of workers retrenched in the first quarter of 2020 had re-entered employment by June 2020. Of these, seven in 10 re-entered employment within a month of being retrenched and five in 10 possessed transferrable skills that enabled them to switch to a different industry. For jobseekers who are prepared to take the leap to change vocation or join a new sector, our career conversion programmes and company-hosted traineeships and attachments can help to make this switch easier.

At the same time, we are also seeing businesses changing their mindsets. Instead of looking only for jobseekers who already have the experience and skills, businesses often find that when they widen their search, they find good candidates. The Government has been working closely with such forward-thinking companies in the private sector. And in doing so, these companies have created new opportunities for Singaporeans while placing themselves in a good position for economic recovery.

Mr Yip Hon Weng has highlighted that mature workers aged 40 and above are likely to face greater difficulties in making a career switch. We are aware and recognise the challenges this group of jobseekers face.

I have already mentioned that the JGI will provide higher salary support for new mature local hires – double that, compared to non-mature hires.

Moreover, under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package introduced in the Unity Budget earlier this year, we have ramped up our career conversion programmes to more than 14,000 places this year. This aims to support mid-career jobseekers in reskilling for new occupations in sectors with good long-term prospects. We have also boosted the salary support for all workers aged 40 and above who are enrolled in career conversion programmes, in particular, for non-PMETs, from 70% to 90%.

This year alone, our career conversion programmes have helped 6,100 mid-career jobseekers to acquire new skills and switch into new occupations. These include close to 100 Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs, covering across 30 sectors, and specialised career conversion programmes under the Tech Skills Accelerator or TeSA for the ICT sector.

For mid-career jobseekers who may not be able to secure a job straightaway, the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme provides attachment opportunities hosted by companies. These opportunities provide jobseekers with valuable industry-relevant experience and help them to build up their skillsets and networks, while receiving an allowance. The Government will co-fund 80% of the training allowances for trainees under these programmes, while the organisations fund the remaining 20%.

The public sector has also introduced a Work and Skills Immersion Programme in capability areas, such as ICT, food science and technology, social services and healthcare sector. Open to fresh graduates and mid-career switchers, successful applicants are employed full-time, typically on a two-year basis, and will receive structured on-the-job training, preparing them to take up roles in the economy once we recover.

Miss Cheryl Chan has also pointed out that our upskilling and reskilling strategies need to take into account certain vulnerable groups, such as special needs individuals, and we agree fully.

The Open Door Programme helps PwDs enter suitable jobs and integrate them into the workplace by providing support for job placement, training and cost of job redesign.

The Open Door Programme training grant was recently enhanced in July, with more course fee subsidies of up to 95% and training allowance of $6/hr, as well as a new training commitment award of $100 per completed eligible training course. The training courses are curated to ensure that they equip our PwDs with industry-relevant skills. This includes courses in software and technical design skills, and courses that help PwDs work in emerging sectors like logistics, or in new jobs that may involve automation. There are also customised Train and Place Programmes for specialised jobs. And looking ahead, SG Enable is also working to expand courses in sectors with long-term growth opportunities, such as healthcare, education, banking and finance and computing.

On our foreign Work Pass policies, there was already an intense debate last month. So, I will just summarise some of the points that were brought up by Members.

The Government will continue to make adjustments to calibrate the flow, keeping in mind Mr Liang Eng Hwa's reminder not to over rely on foreign manpower. To that end, we update our foreign worker policies on a regular basis.

At the Work Permit and S Pass level, we cut the services quota from 40% to 38% and the S Pass quota from 15% to 13% in 2020, and this will be further reduced to 35% and 10% respectively in 2021, that is, next year.

We will also cut S Pass quotas for the construction, process and marine shipyard sectors from 20% to 15% from 2021 to 2023.

At the Employment Pass or EP level, MOM has also tightened the framework recently.

This is why we raised the salary hurdle – to nudge employers towards better quality. And this also means that applicants who do not meet the higher hurdles must come under the S Pass framework, where there are quota controls.

We have extended the job advertising duration from 14 to 28 days. When assessing EP and S Pass applications, we will place additional emphasis on efforts made by employers to build up and retain a strong Singaporean Core.

We also regularly take employers to task for pre-selecting foreign candidates and disregarding qualified local candidates. This year alone, 90 employers have had their work pass privileges suspended because of infringements under the FCF. We will also be engaging an expanded group of employers to review their hiring practices, including firms whose Singaporean Core has been weakening, or whose EP and S Pass workforce are also overly concentrated from a single foreign nationality source.

Members such as NTUC Deputy Secretary-General Koh Poh Koon earlier have spoken passionately on supporting our lower wage workers. We all share the same aspirations in this House. As various Members have also spoken earlier in clarification of Dr Koh's speech, we do not want any Singaporean to be left behind. We want to uplift and care for our fellow workers as best as we can.

This Government and our tripartite partners stand in solidarity with our low-wage workers. Our approach has worked. It has worked. We are progressively narrowing the gap between the incomes of our low-wage workers, and those in the middle. In the three sectors where the PWM has been implemented, real incomes have increased by around 30% in recent years, outstripping the 21% of real income growth at the median across all sectors.

As for the overall workforce – that means those with PWM and those without PWM collectively – real incomes of our full-time employed resident workers at the 20th percentile have also increased cumulatively more than the median. The incomes of our 10th percentile full-time resident workers today, currently stands at $1,517. One decade ago, the incomes of this percentile of workers was at $1,000. This amounts to a 50% increase over the last decade. There has certainly been progress, if you look at our measures and how the whole eco-system works.

But more importantly, we have done so, while keeping unemployment low for years, up till COVID-19 broke out early this year. The risk of disemployment is a key factor that the Government is very sensitive to. With regard to literature, the fact is that the jury is still out there. Economists have not conclusively found that Minimum Wage will not create disemployment. In fact, I am told it is a very hotly contested area and economists continue to debate this issue.

Recent studies have found that the range of estimates for the disemployment effect of Minimum Wage is wide. Moreover, studies have shown that the disemployment effects could be stronger for certain groups of workers. For example, Harasztosi and Lindner found that the disemployment effects due to increases in Minimum Wage in Hungary were considerably larger in the tradeable and exporting sectors than in the non-tradeable or service sector.

Others, such as economists Meer and West have shown in their research in the United States that Minimum Wage may not cause immediately disemployment effects, but still impact job growth. Some studies, when you look at it, they relate to disemployment from the averages perspective. But I think it is also important when you look at some of this evidence, the preponderance of evidence show that low-skilled workers are actually most at risk when you talk about job loss. So, we need to deal with the specifics. Look at the natures of our profile of low-wage workers in Singapore and the nature of how this would affect them in specifics.

We are not ideologically against Minimum Wage, PWM or what have you, but I think what we want is the best from each of these systems that will benefit Singapore, benefit our low-wage workers; but at the same time, we avoid the downsides and the trade-offs. This is very important for us and that is why we take a very serious view on disemployment.

Our sense of solidarity with our low-wage workers also goes beyond wages. We have taken a careful and practical approach to implement a holistic suite of measures: Workfare that tops up the income of low-wage workers by up to 30% and provides targeted training support that supports better employment outcomes. I think it is important that we support them beyond just the wages, and we also have Special Employment Credit to offset their wages and improve their employability.

Silver Support is also provided to support retirement adequacy. So, on top of the wages that they get, Government supports them with a slew of measures to uplift their income to support their homes. It is also important to inculcate care and respect for our low-wage workers. So, our measures go beyond just wages. With Workcare, we will improve low-wage workers' working environments in appreciation for their work, such as through the provision of proper rest areas for outsourced workers.

I think the question would be this – can we be a nation with a strong social compact but without Minimum Wage? When we think of countries with high standards of living, strong social policies, and with good and advanced economies like us, we often think of Scandinavian countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

Like Singapore, these countries do not have a single Minimum Wage, and yet they still have vibrant, cohesive societies. In place of a single Minimum Wage, these countries have robust dialogues between stakeholders, resulting in collective agreements on wages at the sectoral level.

This is akin to our sectoral tripartite approach in our existing PWMs and future tripartite efforts. The Tripartite Workgroup for our low-wage workers, will be studying this important issue with an open mind. They will work to refresh the consensus on what works best for our low-wage workers, and to ensure that more of our low-wage workers can benefit.

Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Dennis Tan have asked about the criteria for SIRS. In the first two tranches of SIRS, we have disbursed over $1.1 billion. With the third and final tranches, SIRS is expected to cost $2 billion in total, almost double the original $1.2 billion set aside. This is a significant expansion of an already sizeable programme. Altogether, about 195,000 individuals have received support under SIRS.

We have already been exercising flexibility in the qualifying criteria to support more self-employed persons, or SEPs. About two in three unique applications have been approved. And for the remaining one third, applicants may have been earning much higher incomes, they could have resided in higher value properties, or own two or more properties with their spouses. As SIRS was intended to support SEPs, employees who lost their jobs or experienced income loss were redirected to the COVID-19 Support Grant.

Where there were other areas of need, we have referred unsuccessful applicants to the appropriate agencies for follow-up assistance.

On the suggestion by Mr Saktiandi Supaat to allow citizens in need to tap on their CPF balances early, as announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in August, the Government is studying appropriate ways to provide support to working Singaporeans, including SEPs, in the event of prolonged loss of income, beyond existing schemes.

Mr Speaker, in this debate, Members have raised a broad range of suggestions to address the needs of almost every worker segment. We take these ideas seriously and will study them closely; rest assured.

MOM will continue to make every effort to ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans are not just able to tide over the immediate challenge ahead of us, but also are set in good stead for the future beyond that. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

4.54 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of my favourite sayings is, "When you are up to your neck in crocodiles, do not ask which way the river is flowing." Essentially, what it means is that when you are in a tough tight, difficult situation, solve the situation, focus on getting out of the difficult spot and give that priority over everything else. I believe we have seen our Government do this in the past six or seven months with five Budgets that have been rolled out to deal with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Singaporeans and Singaporean businesses.

JSS, SIRS, CSG, various industry support packages, different industry grants – they have all provided valuable lifelines for Singaporeans and Singaporean companies to pull them out of the river of crocodiles and get them out from a very difficult period, and would be important to continue to be that supportive foundation that Singaporeans can reply on moving forward.

While the Government has done a good job, so far, with regard to immediate crisis management and to meet immediate needs, of our Singaporeans. The fact remains that there are, to paraphrase Deputy Prime Minister Heng, "profound uncertainties ahead". So, I am heartened that the key phrase in the Statement is the strategy to emerge stronger. In other words, now that we are out of that immediate danger, what can we do to navigate the river to be mindful of the currents to ensure that our boat sails in that right direction; being mindful, of course, of all the crocodiles that are around us.

I would like to focus on opportunities that our Government can take during this period and in coining the term opportunities, I would like to echo a phrase that PA Deputy Chairman Minister Chan Chun Sing was quoted as saying "an opportunity of a generation" – that COVID-19 could be seen as an opportunity of a generation.

So, I would to like to see how opportunities could be explored during this period in the Sports & Fitness and Arts & Cultural industries to make them a more essential part of our community and society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of us would agree that sport has the ability to transcend boundaries and bring people together regardless of their race, language or religion. COVID-19 has indeed had a significant dampener on sports. You need to have spectators to have meaningful sporting activities, and just even play together, you need to have people come together, and understandably so we could not do that in the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Besides that, COVID-19 has also had an impact on those who are in the sports and fitness industries, regardless of whether they are hired employees, freelance coaches or instructors or owners of sports and fitness related businesses. It is thus heartening to note that some activities such as the Singapore Premier League or SPL will be resuming soon, this weekend, if I am not mistaken, and the Government has managed to relax the guidelines and constraints around sporting activities.

I would like to ask if the Government has a plan that is dedicated to helping and assisting those who are in the sports and fitness industries, that will not only help them through these immediate challenges, but also reflect a mid-to-long term strategy for how the sports and fitness industries could thrive and flourish in the new normal that we will all undoubtedly find ourselves in.

I would also like to focus now on opportunities for those in the arts and culture industries. I am aware that my Parliamentary colleagues, Members of Parliament, Ms Carrie Tan and Minister of State, Ms Low Yen Ling had a good debate about safeguarding the livelihood of our Arts & Culture professionals in Parliament last week. And it is heartening to know that MCCY is taking steps in this direction, especially in terms of helping to support our Arts & Culture freelance performers and also in terms of creating professional opportunities or projects that our performers can work on.

No doubt, many of the practitioners, professionals and organisations could rely on some of the schemes such as JSS & SIRS for support as well. What I would like the Government to consider is what more can be done, in the mid-to long-term to ensure that we are better to support the Arts & Culture and Sports & Fitness industries.

It would be good, in Arts & Culture for example, if the MCCY could see how they could partner with the MOE to bring arts and culture more into the curriculum and integrate arts and culture into our schools' curriculum – not just in terms of subjects being taught by MOE such as music, art or drama which are sometimes taught in formal context by trained MOE teachers, but by ensuring that all students are exposed to the various arts at all levels of the curriculum.

For example, MCCY and MOE could leverage on the performing expertise of our arts professionals to engage and employ them even as auxiliary educators of sorts for them to come into the schools and bring real-life artistic experience to our students. Using our arts performance like this would, I believe, be a win-win situation because it will allow our arts performers an alternate revenue stream, something else they can do besides their actual performing and it also allow our students to be exposed to and be taught by and be nurtured by as it were, actual, professional arts practitioners coming from the arts industry.

I believe that some schools do engage professionals now on an independent ad hoc basis, but what I proposing is, perhaps, having a dedicated core of arts and culture professionals who are actually considered auxiliary MOE educators and having these educators being deployed in a structured formal manner to every MOE school in the country, and through this way we also educate and bring our young people or young adults into the world of arts and culture through forms such dance, music, singing and so on.

I would like to briefly refer to the article in The Sunday Times, last Sunday, where it was reported that there are many musicians who have decades of experience, but who cannot get teaching jobs due to a lack of a formal music degree.

I believe it was Cultural Medallion recipient Jeremy Monteiro, himself is a world renowned pianist who said, and i quote, “It would be a waste if local musicians, who have years of experience in the industry, but no formal education, are not allowed to formally teach part-time or full time too.” The same, perhaps, could be said of theatre practitioners or dancers as well.

If our concern is that such professionals might not have sufficient teacher training, then I strongly recommend that MCCY, perhaps, work with MOE to see how these professionals could undergo basic teacher training certification in the fundamentals of education, for example, how to impart education, how to work with curriculum and so on while concurrently actually bringing their art and their craft, in working with the students.

I believe that incorporating more of the arts and culture into our school’s curriculum and involving more of our arts professionals in the delivery of this curriculum is a huge step in the right direction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to end my speech with a quote by Prime Minister Lee from six years ago, at an event marking the 30th Anniversary of the Lasalle College of the Arts. I do not know if Prime Minister remembers this or not. It was in 2015, I believe, Prime Minister or 2014 and I quote, "Creating jobs, upgrading workers, making Singapore a more attractive place to work – these are all important things in life." And I agree. "You have to put bread on the table. But 'Man does not live by bread alone'. We do wish for the finer things in life, to appreciate beauty and love, and something uplifting for the spirit."

Mr Speaker, Sir, sports, arts, culture, these are indeed uplifting for the spirit and I believe that it is about getting that balance right that even as we extend support to these industries, I would hope that the Government can go one step further to take this opportunity to further embed sports, arts and culture not just in the fabric of our community, but in the psyche and the soul of our people as well. With that, I end my speech in support of the Ministerial Statement.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

5.03 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, I just wish to take the opportunity to clarify a question that Senior Minister of State Zaqy mentioned about the Minimum Wage and the literature. I think it is important to be clear what the literature says and I wonder if he could clarify. He did cite single studies which show that the Minimum Wage, perhaps, may generate occasional instances where unemployment levels may go up but we should be clear.

It is always easy to cite individual studies and that is why in academia we do not rely purely on a single study to support our case. Rather we do something called meta analyses so these aggregate and evaluate the totality of the results. If you look at the totality of the results, I think it is fairly clear that – and I am happy to cite a specific study. So, for the case of the UK you can look at the study by Dube in 2019; for the case of the US, you can look at, in addition to the famous Card and Krueger study in 1995, more recent evidence as well, for Brookman in 2010 for international evidence.

The point is, look, I am not trying to make this a battle of studies. But I think we need to come to some kind of agreement that we do not make proposals about the Minimum Wage on the basis of a single study that favours the outcome that we have approached the issue.

Rather, we have to base it on the totality of the results and I think if you look at the totality of the results, you will see that a very low Minimum Wage – what the Workers' Party is proposing is a minimum wage of $1,300. This would fall far below the minimum wage of every, almost every other developed country and all these studies have been based on Minimum wages that are much higher than the number that we are proposing here. So, I think it is important to keep that in mind.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: First, I thank the Member Jamus Lim for his, I suppose, clarification. The point I made earlier was that this is not about studies and not about particular studies actually. It is about this, the studies being hotly contested and the academia, I think you can throw studies to each other and we can never come to conclusive position. So, I think this is about how we have applied, how we have also shown how wages have grown and I have shared the examples earlier, where our low-wage workers have seen wage growth – 30% in the last five years without Minimum Wage. Or actually, we did have Minimum Wage through our PWM or Minimum Wage Plus to some extent. So, conceptually, ideologically, we have clearly said that we are not against one idea or the other. We can throw studies at each other and, like I said, it is hotly contested, even among academia.

What is important is this: that we want to reap the maximum benefits of what these studies have shown and how others have applied it. I have also shared others, like in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, have also shown strong, social solidarity without implementation of a single Minimum Wage, using the same approach that we have had – using sectoral consensus to make sure that we have uplifted our low-wage workers.

Studies aside, \what we have to look at is our local context. Has the current system work? So, I have shown that at the 10th percentile, as I said in my speech earlier, we have seen wage growth. At the 10th percentile, it was $1,000 10 years ago; it is now $1,500-plus. We have seen a 50% wage growth in the last 10 years for the lowest income threshold.

I do have to also reiterate the fact once again because the Workers' Party tends to forget this in its deliberations always that our system works in tandem as a holistic system, it is a whole system. It is not just PWM but Workfare that we use to top up. I also said we use Silver Support. I think many of your residents too would have enjoyed Silver Support in their old age. This is exactly the profile that needs the most help and we top up the income so that they are not left behind.

And that is why I think it is important that beyond putting studies, showing analyses, meta analyses and what have you, but really getting down on the ground, working in consensus meet the employers too and making sure that the downsides are managed and do not impact our lowest skilled workers who are likely at risk when it comes to job loss. So, the risk of disemployment is something that we are very sensitive to and that is why we have the Tripartite Workgroup on the Low-wage Workers. We need to study this quite carefully as we chart the path ahead. So, it is not just something simple, you could do it within a short span of time without understanding the impacts, the consequences for our low-wage workers. So, we have to be very careful.

So, it is not about academic and studies but, really, lives of Singaporeans and how we want to uplift our low-wage workers.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, if you have a fresh perspective.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, thank you and I will just note them. I am really happy that Senior Minister of State Zaqy has raised the example of Scandinavia because, in fact, it is true that Scandinavia does not have a Minimum Wage but that is in part because they also have unionisation rates in the order of 70% to 80%. So, there is a very strong collective bargaining representation there. In fact, part of the reason why they do not want the Minimum Wage is because they do not want to get into a situation where a Minimum Wage might push wages down below a certain mark which, as I explained, is not in fact the lived reality of our low-income workers who are struggling with some of the lowest wage rates, even with the $1,300 that we proposed as a Minimum Wage among developed countries.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: So, let me put it to the Member again that, yes, we do have a similar system, the tripartite negotiation but we are a much smaller country and you cannot say that our wages do not increase. It is one thing to say that the system has not worked. On the other hand, I put forth the numbers to show that the system has.

So, if you tell me that the low-wage workers have stagnated in the last 10 years, I say the numbers show otherwise.

I think it is not just about academia or theory out here. It is real practitioners talking here. We have worked the system, we have worked and the unions have worked the ground too, employers have been working with us and our system works too. So, we all have our uniqueness but the issue here is: is our system working? Have the wages of our lowest 10%, for example, if I take it to that level, has it gone up? Yes, there will be some but this is an area we have to look at and that is why the Government is serious. We have put in the Tripartite Workgroup for Low-wage Workers specifically to see how we can do better in uplifting our low-wage workers.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to pose four questions to the Senior Minister of State.

Mr Speaker: We do not have time to pose four questions, I have said that. Perhaps, two clarifications.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, two clarifications. One is that do you not think that the Minimum Wage that Workers' Party is proposing and PSP is also in favour of something similar called Living Wage. Do you not think this is a very bold idea or that —

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, we have been discussing this for the past, quite a long bit of time. It has been discussed. Do you have a fresh perspective to add?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. So, I am asking do you not think that this can be a bold idea to implement during this period of very uncertainty and we have to emerge from the crisis. We can always put in new measures to support the implementation of a new Minimum Wage or living wage. This is one question.

Second question is that I think the point about there being a danger of losing competitiveness or losing jobs may be a bit overblown. Because in terms of the level of competitiveness, the level of Minimum Wage or living wage that we are proposing is actually very low level. So, it would not affect the overall wage level immediately.

Secondly, in terms of the loss of jobs —

Mr Speaker: That was the second point.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry?

Mr Speaker: Two points. You have made your two points. Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, thank you.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, these points were all answered earlier on by Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon so I shall not repeat them.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.

5.13 pm

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I can bring a fresh perspective on an entirely different topic.

Mr Speaker: I hope so, too.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I have previously spoken in this House about how the Singapore society is like a tapestry, woven out of diversity, bound by community, forged from a shared sense of destiny. Every part of Singapore, coming together, for a beautiful, tightly knitted, cohesive fabric. These diverse strands of our social fabric include our arts, culture and sports sectors. Mr Darryl David has spoken passionately about these three sectors and I will address his queries. These sectors make the Singapore tapestry even more beautiful, vibrant, and meaningful. These strands coe together, to represent the heart of Singapore.

In recent times, like the many threads which make up the fabric of our society, these strands have come under strain.

The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally affected the way in which we interact and socialise with one another and has threatened to unravel some of these threads.

But we know that even as we battle the pandemic, it is critical for us to ensure that each of these threads – our arts, culture and sports sectors – remain vibrant, cohesive and remain very much a part of the Singapore Tapestry. We must continue to sustain and develop them. And they, in turn, must continue to be an avenue through which Singaporeans fulfil their aspirations, dreams and desires.

These threads must also continue to connect Singaporeans from all walks of life and be able to inspire and imbue a sense of pride in being Singaporean.

Sir, Members will agree that, in one way or another, our lives have been touched by the many contributions and achievements of our artists and our athletes alike.

Our sportsmen and sportswomen, past and present, have been a source of inspiration to many Singaporeans. We share the joys of their success and we feel the pain of their defeat.

The events and programmes of our arts community reach ever wider and growing audiences. They fill us with pride. They also teach and they inspire us in a way which almost nothing else can.

All of this is possible because we have, over time, nurtured the best talents, helped them along in their journey, developed them, given them a boost in their chosen craft, built a platform from which they can showcase their talents.

So, we owe a lot also to our community of trainers, coaches, instructors and freelancers, all of whom contribute richly to this landscape. As Mr Darryl David says, we must do what we can to rally behind them during this difficult time.

Sir, Deputy Prime Minister has spoken about the unevenness of COVID-19's impact on the different sectors. Whilst some sectors have seen a measure of recovery, the past few months have really not been easy for those in the arts, culture and sports sectors.

Fundamentally, these sectors thrive on large group gatherings. Theatre, performances and competitive sport – they all play to an audience. Yet, this is precisely what we cannot now do, as we continue to fight against COVID-19, to keep Singaporeans safe and to keep the virus at bay.

We have had to suspend large-scale events and limit group sizes to five. These measures are necessary but we must not forget that they have severely impacted the viability of businesses and the livelihoods, particularly of freelancers in these sectors.

In the almost three months that I have been at MCCY, I have met a broad range of people across the various sectors. I have met with many leaders of our National Sports Associations, talked to athletes, coaches and freelance instructors. I have also heard from artists, musicians and arts educators. Many have been so very generous in sharing their views and vision with me, giving me a good grasp of the industry and good ideas for the longer term development of these sectors.

But they also spoke candidly about their here and now, their immediate challenges, and I think all of us in this House understand those difficulties.

Over the past few months, MCCY has rolled out dedicated support measures for our sectors to supplement the assistance they already receive from the broad-based Government measures. We understand what many are going through and we know that we must, where we can, help them further. Let me outline a few of these initiatives.

To help them manage overheads, we have provided rental waivers to tenants in SportSG facilities and arts venues, as well as venue hire subsidies for users of our cultural institutions.

We have also supported practitioners to hone their digital skills and expertise in areas, such as business literacy. And many of them, in turn, support the industry as a whole.

The Arts and Culture Resilience (ACR) package has generated over 10,000 work and training opportunities, of which almost 4,000 alone were for freelancers. It has also supported close to 1,200 digitalisation projects and programmes by local artists and organisations.

For example, the Jazz Association of Singapore – Mr Jeremy Monteiro is their Music Director, someone that Mr David mentioned earlier – they were one of the first recipients of the Digital Presentation Grant. They went online overnight and launched multiple digital programmes, including JASS@Home, a digital concert in celebration of UNESCO's International Jazz Day 2020. This featured performances by many local musicians. I attended many of their presentations – high quality, innovative, entertaining but I think, most of all, comforting, to the many Singaporeans and, especially, in these times. On top of that, in the true spirit of giving back, JASS has also started their own Crisis Fund to assist local jazz musicians affected by the crisis with short-term financial aid. So, JASS receives a grant from the Government but they also pay it forward.

Bhaskar's Arts Academy was also awarded the DPG for DashaTanMatra (10 Subtle Elements), a series of 10 mini digital presentations of new dance, music works, webinars on Bharatanatyam, and re-adaptation of past repertoires. We will continue to support the industry as they seek to go digital.

Another practitioner I met recently was Ms Emmeline Yong. She was an investment banker in New York. She gave it all up, returned to Singapore to pursue her passion in visual arts and she set up Objectifs in 2003. Objectifs is an example of an arts organisation that MCCY is committed to supporting. It has a strong sense of mission to nurture and also provide a platform for other practitioners and freelancers to hone, practise and exhibit their craft. With the support of the ACRP, Objectifs put up free photography and videography courses for arts practitioners and other freelancers to help them create strong social media content to outreach, a campaign to pitch their offerings.

To better support freelancers or smaller set-ups, the Arts Resource Hub (ARH), set up under the National Arts Council (NAC), provides targeted support for all of them, including co-working spaces, talks, clinics on financial planning, probono legal support, digital tools and copyright – a broad spectrum of what is needed, giving them a platform and tools for these artists to pursue their craft and also build on their dream, much like what JASS and Objectifs have done.

In the immediate short-term, the ARH has also provided freelancers with aggregated information and assistance to help them tap on the broader Government programmes like the Self-Employed Persons Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), COVID-19 Support Grant and the SEP Training Support Scheme.

At the same time, MCCY has also worked with people within the community spaces to develop platforms to bring digital experiences and also blended programmes, which are often hybrid in nature, to blend or both in-person and virtual and finding platforms to bring more of these to Singaporeans.

For example, #SGCultureAnywhere by NAC is an integrated campaign that profiles the best of Singapore arts. Our cultural institutions and major arts companies have also made their content available on new digital platforms, such as SISTIC Live. Those of you who have not gone on SISTIC Live, I encourage you to give it a try.

In sports, we developed ActiveSG Circle as a virtual sports centre to encourage and inspire Singaporeans to get active, as well as to provide a marketplace for sports and fitness instructors and their potential students and trainees to get in touch with each other.

Jasmine Wong, a certified KpopX fitness instructor, has conducted 85 virtual classes on the Circle since April. Through the Circle, she has discovered new ways to reach out to both existing and also to new students, with reasonable fees, to make these classes and these interactive sessions a lot more accessible.

SportSG has also introduced Blended, an initiative to encourage sport event companies and organisers to transition to events that blend virtual and physical participation which Singaporeans can look forward to more of in the coming months. This format will certainly be with us for some time and we will continue to study how we can support them better so that instructors, coaches and other freelancers alike can continue to reach out to an audience and, as far as possible, even in these times, to continue with as much as they would have done in normal circumstances as possible.

Sir, let me now touch on what else we will be doing to support these sectors in the immediate term.

MCCY will provide immediate assistance to critical segments with special talents. We know that if we lose these talents, inadvertently or otherwise, in this pandemic, it could take years to recover. It would set us back in our efforts to promote arts, culture and sports in Singapore.

So, for the arts and culture sector, we will be providing an Operating Grant under the ACRP to support arts and culture organisations and also those in closely-related sectors. They hold key talent capabilities in our eco-system and we must not lose them.

Eligible arts and culture organisations will receive a one-off ACRP Operating Grant of either $75,000 or $50,000 which they can use to defray their operating costs, and the amount depends on the size of their organisation. We hope organisations that receive this grant will provide work opportunities for the many employees in this sector, including the freelancers. Pay it forward, like what Objectifs and JASS have done.

This grant is expected to benefit over 300 organisations and more information will be made available by NAC in end-October and we will also reach out directly to eligible organisations to tell them about this and to assist them in their application. With this grant, we expect to fully utilise the $55 million set aside for the ACRP by the end of FY2020.

Sir, for the sports sector, we will add a further $25 million for new and expanded measures. Added to the earlier announced $25 million package, this makes for a total of $50 million available to the sports sector.

Let me say a little more about how this will be administered.

First, some background to our sports eco-system. It is made up of a diverse range of different institutions, from the National Sport Associations (NSAs), to the private academies and clubs. They are private leagues that run the sports facility as well. They are run privately. And, of course, the whole mass of coaches and freelance instructors, they all make up a very rich and vibrant sports eco-system.

They all play an important role in our collective efforts to build a strong pipeline of athletes to mould and shape them and to support them on their quest for competitive success on both the domestic and international front.

Many private academies and clubs, in particular, complement the efforts of our NSAs. They enrich training and talent development, and they also offer a range of different competition opportunities.

Take the Aquatic Performance Swim Club or APSC, or the APS Swim School, for example. It is a private swimming academy which has, over the years, contributed significantly to the identification and talent of Singaporean swimmers.

Since 1996, the APSC has channeled swimming talents spotted from the APS Swim School into specialised competitive swimming training, diving and also synchronised swimming. They have also provided competition opportunities across a range of different levels and through its many myriad of events.

We understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on these private academies, such as APS and others, the leagues and facility operators and we understand the challenges they go through. Many of them need some measure of support, if nothing else, to tide over the period.

Recently, the Cage and other such similar sport facility operators also reached out to me to share their concerns. They spoke about the inevitable loss of revenue because of the safe management measures. They had to close. They were not allowed to open. And they had difficulties affording rent and continuing to sustain the salaries of their staff. And we can well understand how these restrictions have impacted their ability to operate. SportSG has worked with many such businesses to allow them to resume some programmes and activities safely, coming out of the Circuit Breaker.

But I am sure Members in this House will agree that we do not want these operators to be a casualty of the pandemic. Our sporting landscape, with its broad spectrum of different players and options, will be the poorer if that happens.

While the resumption of sports activities since June has alleviated some immediate operational concerns, we recognise that there is still the longer term sustainability and survivability. And I think that is a major area of stress for many of these operators.

With this in mind, the Sports Resilience Package (SRP) will provide eligible businesses with an operating grant to cover up to 25% of their total operating expenses, capped at $15,000 a month. And this will last for six months, beginning from October 2020 right through to March 2021. We hope to be able to support up to 150 sports businesses with this operating grant, helping operators who do not currently receive Government funding.

This grant will also ensure that our critical sports businesses which contribute richly, as I have said, to our athlete pipeline development and training, do not close down due to the pandemic, do not marginalise the programmes that are available for athletes, allowing our athletes to benefit from the best training programmes.

Sir, let me now touch on some of the mid-term measures to partner our arts and sports community to innovate and adapt to the new environment.

The last few months have shown that going digital is paramount, in fact, completely necessary. It allows our businesses and freelancers to reach out to existing audiences, to newer and also wider audiences, allowing higher quality content to be developed and also a degree of interactivity, despite the fact that you are communicating across two screens.

Under the SRP, we will provide $5 million to help expand the existing Blended initiative to include eligible private academies and clubs as well. We recognise the work that they do and we have extended this programme to them, aiming to support 100 projects, which will, in turn, see the participation of about 450,000 Singaporeans in sports programmes over the next six months.

We will also set aside an additional $4 million for sports businesses and freelancers to enhance the quality of their own digital productions to become even more interactive and more engaging and attract a greater following on their platforms.

In addition, we will work with MOE and other partners to ensure that our students continue to have access to high quality arts experiences as part of their holistic education. Let me speak a little bit about this.

The intent, Sir, is to continue to nurture and develop an appreciation, and hopefully, eventually ignite a passion for the arts in our young. The young will make up our audiences, our supporters and our patrons, and of course, the practitioners, in years to come.

I have noted Mr Darryl David’s suggestion to engage our arts practitioners as auxiliary educators in schools. In fact, to ensure that students can benefit from the knowledge and experience of our arts practitioners, which I agree with Mr David it is a critical resource, NAC has worked with NIE International since 2012 to develop a course on the Essentials of Teaching and Learning for arts practitioners, precisely to become arts educators.

NAC has also worked with other partners such as the Social Service Institute and SEED Institute to develop relevant pedagogical skills to complement what they are already do and are able to practice so that they can then seamlessly work with children with special needs and pre-schoolers. One needs to merge or blend what you have in your own experience as an arts practitioner with the relevant pedagogical skills so that pre-schoolers and those with special needs can also benefit from such education.

NAC is working with arts educators to convert their student-facing programmes, such as the NAC Arts Education Programme, into digital or blended forms in the same way as we do for so many other programmes so that they become more accessible and we can reach a wider audience.

NAC has also paired up with NIE to develop an e-learning primer and an e-pedagogy course for the arts, which will be launched in December 2020 and made available to arts educators at no cost.

Let me assure Mr David that we are committed to ensuring that arts and culture remain an integral part of the curriculum, as students continue to develop awareness of our cultural heritage. Today, I am sure Mr David knows, museum-based learning forms a key component of the Primary Arts syllabus, with a recommended learning journey for Primary 4 students to the National Gallery in Singapore or to the Singapore Art Museum.

On top of that, all Primary 6 and Secondary 2 cohorts will also visit the Asian Civilisations Museum and the National Museum of Singapore respectively, to enhance their learning and also to complement what they are taught in school, out of the classroom, as far as possible.

Sir, I would like to next speak on the role which freelancers play in our sectors and address the challenges they face, besides what I mentioned earlier, in the programmes.

There is a certain messiness in the way in which the sports and arts practitioners are organised. That is not only inevitable, but perhaps also useful to keep the sector fresh, and maintain some of that carefree entrepreneurial spirit.

Hence, MCCY and our agencies have taken a light touch towards freelancers in the past, recognising the value of spontaneity and flexibility in their work – one day you can work on your own, another day you can come together and collaborate with another institution, but there is that spontaneous freedom.

But COVID-19 has thrown into sharp focus the importance of having some dedicated organised framework to look after these freelancers to support their efforts, to help them apply for and get into the programmes that the Government has put up.

We, my colleagues and Minister of State Low Yen Ling in particular, have reached out to many freelancers, and we will continue to do so – to help them to level up and to allow them to bring in more diversity to their craft.

The sport freelancers I have met have also expressed their desire to do so. To support them, we have set aside $2.5 million under the SRP for two initiatives.

First, coaches who are registered under the National Registry of Coaches or NROC can receive a training allowance of $10 per hour when they take up courses run by CoachSG, and this is when you take it up beyond the Continuing Coach Education courses that they take.

Second, CoachSG will select 50 to 80 pairs of Level 2 and Level 3 NROC-registered coaches to participate in its structured mentorship programme. To encourage more to sign up for this programme to raise their coaching expertise so that once we are back – closer to what was normal before – these coaches will become more relevant and have more skillsets to impart to their trainees. To encourage this, participants will be provided between $400 and $600 per month to sign up for this mentorship programme.

Likewise, for arts freelancers, MCCY and NAC, through the ARH, will work with them to step up on efforts to help them tap on available resources, to support them, identify and facilitate also work opportunities, skills upgrading, and also help them leverage on digital technology. It might not always be as easy for freelancers to be doing this on their own. We recognise that and we have a team set up to look into their needs, and to see how best to organise this, to organise the efforts to pair them up with available programmes. We encourage our freelance artists in the community to contact the ARH directly should they need assistance.

Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably disrupted our sectors. We are facing both short- and longer term challenges.

The Government is committed to helping as many as possible in the sector to pull through, to remain viable, and to continue to play a rich part in the Singapore Tapestry.

In the immediate short term, the financial measures that I have outlined briefly will help.

But we know that the most sustainable way to help our sectors is to allow for the activities to resume not only at scale, but also safely.

We are as eager as our artists, and our athletes, and the wider community for this to happen, and we have been working towards this goal.

Recently, my colleagues and I attended several live performance pilots, including those by the Singapore Dance Theatre, Bhaskar’s Arts Academy, Singapore Symphony Orchestra, to name a few. These were carried out safely and successfully.

We are reviewing now how we can fully resume and scale up live performances for the sector, with the appropriate measures to always prioritise the safety of our audiences, the performers and the crew.

In the coming days, we hope also to progressively reintroduce programmes at museums in a safe manner as more social activities resume.

As Mr David pointed out. Singaporeans can also look forward to the return of the Singapore Premier League this Saturday, after a hiatus of more than six months. The teams have resumed training, initially in small groups of five, subsequently full-squad training. I met a few of them when I visited the Lion City Sailors Football Club at Bishan stadium a few weeks ago. I could see that they were all keenly motivated by the desire to get back onto the field and to compete.

We are also working with health authorities to pilot the resumption of spectator sports and mass participation sport events in the near future. In particular, we will have to find new modalities for mass participation events to avoid large concentrations of people at one place and also to consider the use of blended models in some of these events.

One such example of a blended event pilots is the “Run as One” event, where small groups of runners were given time slots to compete across a fixed route over the course of two weeks. So, you are given the best example of own-time-own target – go at your own time but complete the distance.

Nowadays everyone has a fitness tracker, and you can track your time and the distance covered.

These examples give us some options in how we will introduce or reintroduce mass participation events. These pilots also allow us to test and refine the sports formats, with the goal of making them as safe as possible and also to try to maximise the amount of interactivity and fun that participants and spectators want to enjoy.

Sir, besides arts and sports, we know that, perhaps especially in these times, many turned to religion as s source of solace, spiritual comfort and well-being. Therefore, we have been working closely with religious organisations to resume more activities safely.

My colleagues and I have visited many such religious organisations, or the ROs, over the last couple months. It is encouraging to see they have adapted so very quickly, put safety as the primary consideration, and have been committed to working closely with the Government, placing the well-being of their devotees first.

Following a successful pilot of the increase in worship limits to 100 persons, all ROs have been allowed to conduct congregational and worship activities/services for up to 100 persons – with the necessary safe management measures in place – that has been the case since 3 October 2020.

We continue to be in constant dialogue with our religious leaders. Many have shared that singing and live music are integral to the way they practice their faith.

So, we have commenced two separate pilots, in selected ROs – one to allow up to 250 persons at a time for worship services; and another a pilot to resume live music for worship services across different faith groups. We will see how that goes, study them, take on the lessons to be learnt, and consider whether we can extend the higher worship limits and live music subsequently to all other ROs and religious activities.

Finally, Mr Speaker, coming back to the packages that I have outlined today. Much as these will help many tide over this period, we also know that it will take more than just financial assistance to sustain and to develop these sectors.

People must be able to see and also appreciate, the intrinsic value that arts, culture, and sports can bring to our community. It brings us together. It allows us to rally behind our athletes, our Team, our sporting heroes. It builds and it shapes Singapore, and the kind of Singapore we want to live in, in a way which nothing else can.

Singaporeans have turned to the arts, culture and sports to find respite, inspiration, and even to uplift spirits over the last few months in these times.

Now, our practitioners need you as well. I urge all of us to support them as much as we can. Whether it is for the established artists, or the nascent sporting talent, they all thrive on having an audience. They will perform even more gracefully – I am sure, compete more vigorously when they are cheered on by an appreciative audience. I think we all can see why.

I hope we can also be receptive to the new ways of consuming the arts, culture and sports. Some of the programmes, like Bandon that I mentioned earlier, please get onto them, please experience them for yourselves. Support them as they bring better content, programmes and events to you.

To our practitioners in all these sectors, I encourage you to stay determined, continue to hone your craft, build your skills, train, compete, perform.

Each of you will continue to be a vital part of the Singapore Tapestry, bringing together rich patterns and colours drawn from each of your diverse contributions and special talents, and your own achievements in arts, culture and music, and sports. All of these threads make for a more vibrant, exciting and cohesive Singapore. Be assured that we value the work that you do, and the Government will support you.

Thank you, Sir. With that, I support the Ministerial Statement. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

5.43 pm

Ms Carrie Tan: Mr Speaker, I would like to make one point, but please pardon me, I have few lead-ups to that point.

I thank the Minister for all these packages and support the MCCY has shared about for the Arts community and I am truly grateful for all these that we have budgeted for in the immediate short term of the pandemic which I know is difficult and we need to be prudent with our resources. But as with all things, I think we need to begin with a goal in mind.

My question to the Minister is how far are we as a country setting our sights for the future of our Singaporean Arts for the sector? Do we have and what is our ambition for Singaporean Arts internationally if there is even one at this moment? We have given a lot of tribute to how the Arts and the Sports make up the Tapestry of Singapore, provide social cohesiveness, but I would like to encourage and seek the Minister's clarification on whether there is any thinking right now, or there will be any thinking in the near future, about planning for the Singaporean arts scene to become internationally successful and viable.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank Ms Tan not only for her question now, but really, also for the Adjournment Motion that she filed some weeks ago. It had given us a lot of food for thought and really, we took on board the points as we looked at what else we could do, how else you could support the immediate short term of the freelancers, the coaches and the performers.

But more importantly, I am very cognisant of the points she makes about the longer term vision. It is precisely because we have to have the ability to have the longer term to be able to prepare our artists today and to protect them.

Ms Tan might know that we have a Culture Academy. The culture Academy is really a set up to look at the short-term needs, the industry and also to chart the longer term goals. In fact, just this morning I had a meeting with many of our Arts Institution heads. We had an interesting dialogue and the same question has come up.

We have come a long way. The fact that we have so many different cultural institutions and we had a room full of people from the different types of arts from visual, to theatre, to performing, to music, says a lot about how we have grown that sector over the past years. But, we are never content with where we are and I share Ms Tan's passion to make Singapore art not just local but also global, to blend what we want to do here with our unique Singaporean heritage and identity, with what we can deliver on the world stage.

And if Ms Tan is looking for recognition, just look at the exhibition today at the National Museum, started on the 8 October 2020, the Venice Biennale exhibition, Music For Everyone, and you will see that actually that exhibition has been on the world stage. Events like that in the past, as well as events in the future, will continue to nurture to grow and will give each of these artists as best a pipeline as possible, as best a development pathway as possible for them to shine on the world stage because ultimately that is what we want.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

5.47 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak on three key areas today. First, to offer some perspective on the truly extraordinary measures that the Government has taken in its Budgets to deal with this crisis, such that we are even in a position today to debate about the way ahead.

Second, to highlight the struggles that Singaporeans continue to face in the immediate term and what more we can do to support Singaporeans.

And third, to look ahead and seek clarifications on the Government's strategy to invest in our long-term capabilities and priorities.

First, on what has been truly extraordinary in the Government's four Budgets this year and the latest set of support measures. Sir, the Government now estimates that in this fiscal year, it would spend $27 billion for the Jobs Support Scheme, $1 billion for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS, and more than $1.5 billion each on Workfare Special Bonuses for low-wage workers and rental rebates for businesses. More than $31 billion in total, or almost 7% of GDP, directly injected by the Government into our economy to save jobs, keep viable businesses afloat and put a floor beneath an unprecedented economic contraction.

By any count, this is extraordinary.

The Government also estimates that it would spend more than $4 billion in Care and Support cash payouts, GST vouchers, service and conservancy charges rebates, utilities credits and Passion Card top-ups. More than $4 billion, directly into the hands of households, to boost the Government's support for households in these difficult times.

More extraordinarily, the Government has maintained its initial commitment of $6 billion in the Unity Budget for the GST Voucher Fund. Six billion dollars that it is setting aside, amidst a crisis, for future GST Voucher payouts, because the Government knows that the GST Voucher scheme is a permanent commitment.

And so, I completely disagree with the hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai, who suggested yesterday that, because the Government is putting $6 billion into the GST Voucher fund, he has raised apprehension about an impending GST hike and in fact, the $6 billion should be spent elsewhere. On the contrary, the Government is doing the responsible thing, by recognising the GST Voucher scheme for what it is, a permanent commitment by the Government to help Singaporeans and keep GST progressive for all Singaporeans. Therefore, we must stay the course.

And staying the course we are, in other areas as well, the Government has maintained its initial commitment in the Unity Budget for all other sums, for various endowment and trust funds: $5 billion to the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, for our 100-year defence plan against rising sea levels; $2 billion to the National Research Fund, $2 billion to the Skills Development Fund and almost $1 billion to the ElderCare Fund, to save up for our future healthcare needs.

More than $10 billion in total that the Government has set aside again during the crisis for our strategic, long-term needs. More than $10 billion that the Government has remained committed to, despite all the fiscal exigencies of the crisis. By any count, these are extraordinary measures.

I thought these bear mentioning, because it is so easy to underestimate the scale of the Government's response to the crisis, so easy to overlook the Government's fundamental commitment to think long-term and so easy to take for granted the resources that we now have to sustain our response to the crisis while building a better future together. I hope that by highlighting these, we would have a better sense of perspective as we debate the Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the pandemic.

Sir, with this sense of perspective, I would like to highlight the immediate struggles that Singaporeans continue to face, and what more the Government can and should, do. I have two suggestions.

First, on the COVID-19 Support Grant. The COVID-19 Support Grant aims to help Singaporeans cushion the impact of the pandemic on their livelihoods. It is meant to work alongside ComCare assistance, which remains available, and indeed has been enhanced for the lowest income households in Singapore. So, ComCare is designed for one particular segment. The COVID-19 Support Grant, for another segment.

One of the criteria for the COVID-19 Support Grant is income loss of at least 30% for three months. Sir, I have residents who narrowly miss this criterion. One resident in particular lost 30% income for two of three months and 29% in the remaining month. He did not get the grant, despite my appeal for him. I was told there were no extenuating circumstances in his household to justify an exception, as his other family members are working and so the gross household income should continue to be sufficient for their needs.

Sir, I understand where the agency is coming from, but if my resident's income had fallen by just one more percentage point, he would have qualified for the grant and all of these considerations about household income and circumstances would have been moot. And while the responsible policymaker would make sure that the next $1 in income support is given to the household that needs it the most, I urge that we also consider what the next 1% point drop in income would mean for a household in the middle income segment.

The median income in Singapore is about $4,000 a month. Take a 25% drop, that represents $1,000 less each month. A resident in this situation would not qualify for the COVID-19 Support Grant at all. And we can point to the $3,000 that the resident still draws each month and say this is sufficient.

But I urge that we consider from the resident's perspective, his or her lived reality, his or her expectations, burdens and commitments, and what that $1,000 loss might feel for him or her. I therefore suggest that we pro-rate the COVID-19 Support Grant, based on the extent of income loss up to 30% and avoid the all or none cliff effect of the current criterion.

In making this suggestion, I am well aware that wherever we draw the line in a policy, there will always be those on one side of the line who feel like they have missed out. And yet, in many of our policies, we have drawn not one, but multiple lines, such that it is a gradient rather than a cliff.

This is the case with housing grants and this is the case with healthcare subsidies in the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages and CHAS. Pro-rating the COVID-19 Support Grant would provide calibrated relief for more middle income households and better cushion the lingering economic pains of the pandemic for Singaporeans.

Sir, my second suggestion to address the immediate struggles of Singaporeans is with regard to job matching. As of end August, almost 120,000 openings have been curated under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and more than 33,000 jobseekers have been placed into these openings. While this has been encouraging progress, it remains that around 84,000 openings are as yet unfilled.

More importantly, if we cut through the statistics and think about the thousands of Singaporean jobseekers as individuals, with lives to build and families to feed, grappling with the uncertainties of a search that has been going on for months, trying to stay strong amidst the deflating radio silence after that application that was sent out weeks ago, or after that interview last week that seemed to have gone went quite well – then it becomes abundantly clear to us that we not only need to walk alongside each Singaporean each step of the way, but also deliver outcomes for these jobseekers.

In other words, I urge the Government to double down on job matching and get many more openings filled much more quickly.

One of my residents was holding a full-time job. She successfully applied for another role, in a different sector and was told that her first day will be in April. So, she resigned and started serving her notice period. Then, the global economy worsened, the department she was slated to join got shut down and the offer that she had accepted got withdrawn. She ended up with nothing – she could not go back to the company she had resigned from and there was no other opening in the company she was slated to join. It has been seven months since. She has sent out more than 80 applications. In her words, "anything to get me started, I applied." And in her words, from "using various platforms, cold-emailing, career fairs, I have tried them all." She is 25 years old.

Another resident of mine was manufacturing vaccines with a major pharmaceutical company here, but was let go after her contract expired. Her applications for similar positions had been without success, despite relevant experience. In her words, "it doesn’t make sense." She had also applied for other positions in MedTech and healthcare. It has been again months. She tells me she simply hopes to support her ageing parents, who probably cannot for work much longer. She says her "mind is dropping to almost negative now". She asks me to put myself in her, quote, "dusty shoes". She is 34 years old.

Then there is this other resident, 44 years old, holds a Master's in Chemical Engineering, retrenched three months go – still searching and still interviewing.

Yet another resident, this one, in his 50s, with more than 25 years of managerial experience. He has been searching for 10 months. In his words, "when recruiters see my age, they just pass me over." He told me he does not mind at all a lower pay or position and he told me he wished his career coach would have more time for him, because in his view, time is of the essence in certain openings.

Of course, there are happier stories too. There is the resident who was an air stewardess and is now signing up for a training course with monthly allowance under the SGUnited Skills Programme to become a healthcare assistant.

And there is this resident, who switched from being a bar executive in one of the top bars in Singapore, to being a lift technician with one of the top OEMs in Singapore in the market. I told him I hope he would consider joining our Town Councils some day.

Sir, the anxiety and struggle of Singaporeans and Singaporean jobseekers is palpable. We have to match these jobseekers with available opportunities much more quickly. And we need to do this because we must maintain hope amongst our people and maintain hope in our society.

To this end, I propose that we resource e2i and WSG decisively beyond today's levels to enable decisive outcomes for Singaporeans.

Anecdotally, a big part of the challenge in job matching has been about expectations, concerns and mindsets, on the part of both jobseekers and employers. Therefore, we need an intensive relationship-management approach, focus on building the relationship with each employer and jobseeker, really understand and work the accounts, broker a match with persistence and finesse, and ultimately, convert and secure a placement. I think we are know where we want to go. We are aligned in terms of our objectives. We have the schemes in place. But I am asking that we resource much more decisively because we need the outcomes for Singaporeans a lot more quickly.

Sir, I have spoken about keeping our eyes firmly on helping Singaporeans through their immediate struggles. At the same time, I would like to look ahead and seek clarifications on the Government's strategy to invest in our long-term capabilities and priorities.

Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister has said that the latest set of support measures would not draw further on past reserves but be funded by the reallocation of reduced spending, as well as deferred development expenditure.

The total amount of deferred development expenditure is almost $7 billion. This includes more than $3.5 billion for transport infrastructure, more than $0.5 billion for healthcare infrastructure, more than $0.5 billion for waterworks and land preparation for the AgroTech zone at Neo Tiew and more than $150 million for MCCY.

Given the Government's weak revenue outlook for the next few years, I share hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa's concerns about how we might be able to fund these deferred projects in future.

I appreciate the Government's commitment to minimise its draw on past reserves, but I wonder if current revenues originally budgeted for strategic development should be set aside in a fund for deferred spending while additional, exceptional COVID support measures continue to be funded exceptionally with a further but prudent draw on past reserves, instead of reallocation of deferred development spending.

At the same time, I hope the Government could clarify our overall outlook for these key investments. Certainly, we should not expect a catch-up in deferred capital expenditure in the next few years. And so, I echo the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai's question and ask: are we looking to push out the investment timeline, or are we expecting to cut back on our overall level of investment?

These investments concern our long-term connectivity with the world and within Singapore. They concern our water and food self-sufficiency. They concern our healthcare capacity, and our capacity to stay healthy through community sports. So, we would have very hard and very important choices to make. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To combat COVID-19, the Government has announced four Budgets decisively and introduced additional assistance measures in August. The Government has allocated tens of billions of dollars to tackle the immediate challenges. The scale and decisiveness of these efforts are evident to all.

But the economic impact of the pandemic on Singaporeans will not abate soon.

I urge the Government to continue to address the immediate needs and concerns of Singaporeans while looking into the future planning and implementing the Emerging Stronger strategy.

First, one of the current conditions for the COVID-19 Support Grant is a reduction of at least 30% in income for three consecutive months. I suggest that the Government provide wage subsidies based on the degree of income loss of the applicants so that more Singaporeans can receive appropriate assistance to avoid the current cliff effect.

I would also like to urge the Government to put in more resources to improve the success rate of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Programme to give more hope to the many workers who are still looking for jobs.

(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I ask that the Government provide more calibrated support for the broad middle, more effective job matching for workers across all age groups and age groups, and more clarity on our long-term investment strategy in key capabilities that will shape our survival and success.

I am confident that we will remain a hopeful and united people, determined to build a better future for ourselves and future generations. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

6.08 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic outlined in the Ministerial Statement delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat on 5 October 2020.

As the hon Member Mr Xie mentioned just now, the resources committed under the four Budgets are significant. It amounted to about $100 billion and this is on top of the other measures, such as special relief measures for debtors and tenants.

I wish to offer a comparative perspective as to how we fare in relation to Asian countries. With your leave, Sir, may I be allowed to use the LED screen to flash the slide?

Mr Speaker: If it helps, that will be fine. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]

Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged. Sir, you have here an extract of a report from the Asian Intelligence which was issued on 23 September 2020. We see here, Sir, that Singapore is first among 12 Asian countries, in terms of the fiscal commitment to the COVID-19 fight.

The stimulus package that we have endorsed in Parliament here amounted to 21% of the GDP. This compares to Japan, which is second, and comparatively, it comes in at 15.9%; South Korea comes in at 14.4%, and so on.

So, from this perspective, Sir, we can see we compare relatively well.

But it is not just the amount. It is also the positive impact on the lives and livelihoods in Singapore. It is worth restating what Deputy Prime Minister had said in his Statement that "The four Budgets are estimated to prevent the economy from contracting by 5.6% of GDP this year and 4.8 % next year." Furthermore, he said that "an estimated 155,000 jobs are likely to be saved in these two years too."

At the same time, we owe a duty to spend the money well. What do I mean by this? Sometimes, we have to spend more; sometimes, we have to spend less. And the Budget itself is replete with some examples of this.

Just a few hours ago, the hon Minister Ms Indranee Rajah, gave an example of how sometimes we need to spend less when she announced the Baby Support Grant scheme. She took pains to explain that the grant is aimed at couples who were put off by the COVID-19 pandemic and to encourage them to start and raise families. She also explained that for lower income families, there are already a number of grants and programmes to help them. So, from that perspective, it may not make sense to extend the grant and spend more money.

On the other hand, there are programmes where we have to spend more to spend well. What are these programmes? Well, we have the COVID-19 Support Grant which was extended by the hon Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat. The extension now would cover Singaporeans who suffer a fall in income or lost their jobs after December 2020. This is welcome relief for the affected families. Not only that. He also extended the Workfare special payment to Singaporeans who did not receive Workfare last year, but did so this year. And, in this way, many low-income families, mind you, the WIS is triggered in relation to low-income workers earning $2,300 per month or less, so more low-income families would benefit from this extension. I think although we spend more, we spend it well to help these families.

In my speech, I would like to concentrate on three budgetary measures for individuals.

First, the Special Financial Relief Programme (SFRP) (Unsecured). I filed a Parliamentary Question or PQ on this earlier this month. I had suggested an extension of the programme in my PQ and I am glad to note that MAS has decided to extend this programme which is originally scheduled to finish in December 2020 to 30 June 2021.

Under the SFRP (Unsecured), the savings for an individual can be significant. The average card interest on outstanding sums attracts 26% per annum. Converted loans under SFRP (Unsecured) are imposed 8% per annum over a five-year tenure. So, Singaporeans facing debt pressure are well advised to consider the SFRP (Unsecured) during this extended period.

In my respectful view, the take up rate is low and can be improved.

In his reply to my PQ, the hon Senior Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, informed that under this programme, financial institutions granted more than 8,100 conversions amounting to $200 million of personal unsecured debt. I think the pool of Singaporeans who are heavily in debt is bigger.

I say this because in 2017, MAS introduced measures to tighten unsecured credit limits to those heavily in debt. In that announcement, MAS stated that there were an estimated 60,000 borrowers in this pool or 4% of total unsecured credit users.

I would assume that this pool should have grown during this crisis with the declining economy, falling income and loss of jobs affecting some families.

But if I am right, I would suggest more proactivity on the part of the Association of Banks in Singapore or ABS and the Credit Counselling Singapore to publicise this programme more so that they can reach out to individuals bogged down by this debt.

It can also be made compulsory for financial institutions to consider inviting the debtors to SFRP (Unsecured) before considering legal action as a last resort.

Before leaving this topic, it would be remiss of me if I did not commend the Financial Institutions & ABS for coming together with MAS and the Govt to implement SFRP (Unsecured) to help Singaporeans facing debt pressures. The Financial Institutions could have just insisted on the strict terms of their contract; they would not be wrong but they did not. It is a great example of SGUnited and how banks are helping Singaporeans facing the debt pressure as a result of the pandemic.

Next, I suggest a re-look at the funding model for skills upgrading for Singaporeans.

Skills upgrading for Singaporeans is an important pillar in our Roadmap for the Future as outlined by the hon Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister Heng said "We will…need extensive upskilling and continual reskilling of our workforce, to equip our workers to continue to get good jobs. We want to do so for every worker at every age."

On the point about "doing so for every worker at every age", I wish to share an e-mail that I received from Mr John Tan, my resident. He is turning 35 this year. He is married with one bubbly son who is two years old. He applied for a three full-day Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) course. The total course time is 25 hours. He pointed out that for Singaporeans aged 21 and above, they get 40% subsidy. The original course fee was $1,016.50, with GST, so he had to pay $641.50, with GST. For Singaporeans aged 40 and above, however, they get 90% subsidy. For them, they need only pay $161.50, with GST.

I do appreciate why we need to incentivise our older worker to upskill by providing them with a higher subsidy. Given the current challenging environment, there is an opportunity to up the tempo for upskilling and re-training even amongst our younger Singaporeans, so that they get into better-paying jobs with better prospects.

I therefore suggest that we use a tiered approach that incentivises Singaporeans to re-skill as they get older instead of backloading the extra subsidies only when they reach 40. In this way, we will be able to nurture a reskilling attitude in all Singaporeans.

Finally, I wish to speak on the Government’s additional plans to foster inclusive growth. I welcome these moves. The hon on Deputy Prime Minister said "In the design of our support schemes, we have been deliberate in channelling additional support to vulnerable groups, to help them access opportunities and stay in good jobs". This is a laudable objective. In particular, I support the plan to provide a higher tier of wage support of 50% under JGI to all Persons with Disabilities, a point that hon Member Ms Denise Phua made during her Adjournment Motion yesterday. She had delivered a very compelling speech. In that speech, she made a point that how we treat persons with disabilities is shaped by the attitude of society. I fully agree with her and I would say that a similar point can be made in relation to ex-offenders.

In my speech in February 2020 on occasion of the Unity Budget, I applauded the introduction of Enabling Employment Credit or EEC to incentivise employers to employ and retain persons with disabilities. I also said that a similar credit scheme should be provided to incentivise employers to employ ex-offenders. I shared the story of Mr R, an ex-offender who was earning a depressed wage on account of his background. I continue to meet several residents who are ex-offenders who find it difficult to get jobs or are being underpaid during this pandemic.

The hon Minister for Home Affairs shared useful statistics on the plight of ex-offenders just yesterday pursuant to my Parliamentary Question. He informed that the economic downturn brought about by COVID-19 has made the job market more challenging for ex-offenders. The Yellow Ribbon Singapore has stepped up its efforts to help these offenders and I must pay tribute to Yellow Ribbon Singapore and its partners for their stupendous work in getting work for ex-offenders so that they can complete their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

In terms of statistics, the hon Minister for Home Affairs mentioned that over the past years 2017, 2018 and 2019, the percentage of ex-offenders who found employment within three months are 55%, 56% and 53%. This year to date, I do not have a percentage but 1,534 ex-offenders have been employed, thanks to Yellow Ribbon Singapore. These figures are lower-bound estimates as they do not include self-employed persons, such as delivery riders or private hire car drivers.

A lot of hard work has been put into this, so as to achieve these figures, but I think we can do much more. Remember, these are able bodied Singaporeans. Even though we assume that we have another 20% in self-employed jobs, I would suggest that our Government and whole of society can do much more to bring down the roughly 30% unemployment amongst our ex-offenders. This will be in accord with hon. Deputy Prime Minister's objective outlined in his Ministerial Statement about channelling additional support to vulnerable groups. It will be a good signal by our society to ex-offenders that we remain invested in their rehabilitation and reintegration even in these challenging times. I seek the hon Deputy Prime Minister's views on this.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I applaud the Government for taking decisive steps to protect the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans and transform our economy to be even more ready for the uncertain future that we face. The suggestions I have made are intended to ensure that Singaporeans who join our workforce continually upgrade themselves to grab the opportunities our future brings and to strengthen the inclusivity element of our Government’s strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic as outlined by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in his Statement. I support the Ministerial Statement.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

6.22 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for the additional help to businesses and workers outlined in his Ministerial Statement. In response, I have some clarifications and recommendations.

We are all aware just how COVID-19 has severely disrupted businesses and livelihoods. Air travel has ceased, borders are closed and our daily average of about 100,000 Malaysian workers commuting from Johor is significantly lower.

Many local factories are extremely short-handed and facing harsh challenges. Some of these factories are located within the Woodlands Industrial Area, which happens to be in the division I look after. My volunteers and I tried to assist by attempting to match some of the residents who were seeking jobs, especially within 2 km of their homes.

We always knew that there is a stark mismatch between the jobs and the expectations of jobseekers. However, this pandemic has forced us all to rethink and recalibrate our approach to address the mismatch between the employers and the job seekers. Ultimately, we need happy workers.

Since the middle of this year, I have been actively planning and organising both online job webinars and physical job fairs with support from NTUC e2i for our Sembawang residents. We partnered several MNCs and home-grown companies in the electronics and manufacturing industries to be part of these job fairs.

Some of the jobs available involve operation of complex machines that are far more automated compared to the older labour-intensive assembly lines.

Singaporeans are not enthusiastic about the opportunities to work in these manufacturing companies. After speaking to the hiring teams, I had a better understanding. To be able to apply for some of these jobs, you need a NITEC certification or even a diploma for more technical job roles. Most operators' roles will require a 12-hour-shift and the average monthly pay is between $1,000 and $1,400 and may require workers to wear the cleanroom jump smocks. Now if you do not have any qualification, you can easily make $1,200 to $1,400 or even more as a cleaner or a food delivery rider. If you have a driving licence, you could also make more than $2,000 per month. It is obvious that many job seekers will shun job opportunities in the manufacturing industry because the entry pay is simply a non-starter.

There is a concern that should the borders remain closed, many of these factories will be unable to fulfil their orders, this is especially so for high growth industries like semi-conductor manufacturing. The labour shortage situation will inevitably threaten the future of these companies and also affect Singapore’s economy.

The manufacturing industry contributes approximately 20% to our GDP and it averages $100 billion in value. It is the biggest contributor to our economy. Foreign workers take up about 60% of the jobs in this sector.

Over the weekend, two pieces of good news were announced. First, MNCs are staying firm on their growth plans in Singapore despite the COVID-19 pandemic and they include companies in the semiconductor sector. Second, a new task force will be formed to study how to raise the wages of low-income workers and to push for productivity growth.

Now, due to the crisis situation, we do not have the foreign workers to help our factories. So, should these companies have to wait for circumstances to improve and while waiting, hope not to have a painful death or should they take this opportunity to rebuild our Singapore Core? The answer ought to be obvious.

We must relook at the unemployment problem. We need proper intervention and improvements. We need to address the criteria for job offers, instill better working conditions, implement job redesign and relook at how workers are remunerated.

I thank the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon for his comprehensive sharing on the Progressive Wage Model and how low-wage workers in certain sectors have benefited. I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister if it is possible to then allocate part of the Budget to raise the pay of manufacturing industry workers, to a more acceptable level benchmarked against industries which have implemented the Progressive Wage Model.

Another question is: how can Progressive Wage Model be applied directly to these manufacturing companies in order to assist them, to be able to attract local workers instead of always having to rely on daily cross-border commuting foreign workers?

Instead of providing a COVID-19 Support Grant of $800 for three months to Singaporeans and PRs who are still searching for jobs, this $800 could become a contribution of $400 per month for six months as a top-up to the current pay of $1,400. A manufacturing industry worker could easily get $1,800 per month instead of remaining jobless. As Singaporeans, they will still qualify for Workfare Improvement Supplement while the manufacturing companies could attempt to address the short-term labour shortage by hiring available Singaporeans and PRs. Can such a solution be considered?

Similar to the manufacturing industry, you hear the same problems with the nursing homes and community hospitals. Currently, 60% of the community healthcare sector staff are foreigners and 40% are locals. With rapid ageing in Singapore, the demand for healthcare assistants will only increase, and if it continues this way, the supply will be very limited.

I met several housewives who have prior care-giving experience and are keen to join the healthcare sector. However, the entry salary of $1,400 to $1,600 per month is a key deterrent because the net take-home income after deducting their CPF, meals and travel expenses will only be a few hundred dollars. I am certain that if the monthly salary is around $2,000, they will be more likely to consider such job offers.

Workers must feel appreciated and taken care of. Only then will they give their best to be positive and productive. Any employer will benefit from happy workers. We need happy workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that Deputy Prime Minister and the relevant Ministries will look into my suggestions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement.

Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.

6.30 pm

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support and thank Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat for outlining the Government’s strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has led to permanent changes across industries. Even as COVID-19 continues to rage on in many parts of the world with new waves of infection, Singapore is, indeed, in an enviable position to shifting focus to recovery and growth and seizing opportunities in a new world order. Significantly, we announced the Hong Kong and Singapore travel bubble today which, hopefully, represents a pathfinder to revive our air travel.

Much has been done to cushion the impact of COVID-19 on workers and businesses and it is now time to press the reset button and focus our efforts on building new capabilities for the post-COVID-19 world.

With the honour of speaking last, I would like to cover Singapore’s fiscal position, SkillsFuture 2.0 to make training efforts impactful and the need for an enhanced version of COVID-19 Support Grant.

Sir, the allocation of close to $100 billion to support families, workers and businesses effectively means that almost all the accumulated surpluses from the last 20 years have been consumed in dealing with this crisis.

I am comforted that the additional measures announced by the Deputy Prime Minister do not require any further draw on our reserves and will be funded by re-allocating monies. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to be protracted, so it is prudent that we adopt a financially sustainable approach as we settle in for the long haul.

To this end, we must ensure that the COVID-19 response measures are targeted, prudent and implemented cost-effectively. We must also critically review and prioritise future expenditures, in line with tighter fiscal space. We must ensure that the choices we make are prioritised to deliver the best outcomes for our people and businesses.

With sharp deterioration in growth outlooks expected of all major economies, Singapore’s revenue outlook will remain uncertain and challenging for several years to come. I guess we were all worried when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the need for higher taxes. Given the gloomy economic environment, residents are understandably concerned about the impending GST hike.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the original sums worked out by the Government still hold – that is, to provide a $6 billion Assurance Package to cushion the impact of the GST increase when it comes for the majority of Singaporean households, whilst counting on foreigners and tourists to contribute to a substantial share of the additional revenue. Travel disruptions will surely impact GST collections from foreigners and tourists.

The assumptions behind the GST hike must be reviewed to take into account the impact of COVID-19 on people and businesses.

COVID-19 has also led to an accelerated growth of e-commerce. It has, therefore, become ever more urgent for Singapore to arrest tax leakage in cross-border online transactions and level the playing field for our retailers. The exponential growth of e-commerce may yield substantial GST contributions if the tax regime is enhanced. We may not be able to avoid raising taxes to fund our rising expenses, but we must continue to find ways to keep taxes and transfers progressive and fair. I have spoken about wealth tax in my earlier speeches.

Sir, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of an education and research institute serving the finance sector.

COVID-19 has accelerated structural shifts and we must redouble our efforts to equip our people with the necessary skills to thrive in a post-COVID-19 world.

Singapore has the foresight to launch SkillsFuture more than five years ago. The movement was driven by the imperative to have Singaporeans develop new capabilities for the future and embrace a culture of lifelong learning in order to ride the waves of change brought upon by rapid technological disruptions and economic restructuring. This imperative is now more urgent than ever.

Whilst the SkillsFuture movement has galvanised much awareness on the need for lifelong learning and led to greater participation in training programmes, Sir, it is less clear how SkillsFuture training is linked to the attainment of distinct quantifiable skills, career advancement and wage growth.

I often hear the frustrations of residents, particularly those who have been retrenched, that their efforts to attend training courses are not matched by recognition accorded by prospective employers and made very little difference in their job search efforts.

Employers themselves have shared their own frustrations. Many employers, especially the SMEs, are at a loss as to how they may identify the right training programmes best suited for their employees to support the restructuring of their business.

Sir, notwithstanding the Government’s strenuous efforts to tackle unemployment and retrenchments, surveys have found that employers expect a talent crunch this year – this very year, a talent crunch – and 42,400 vacancies remain unfilled as of end-June 2020. With growing acceptance of remote working, businesses are widening their talent search for skillsets and deep knowledge beyond Singapore’s shores, under the Work From Anywhere in the world policy.

It is, therefore, of paramount importance that we support our adult workforce with an education regime capable of equipping them with skills and capabilities that match the labour needs demanded by employers and industry robustly. Starting from a position of strength, SkillsFuture 2.0 must evolve to foster stronger linkages between training programmes, skills acquisition and improved career prospects.

Training that people attend must count. To achieve this, I call for a Government-led effort to introduce a new category of training programme, maybe called Industry Skills Training (IST) Scheme. A key feature of this IST Scheme is the requirement to address labour force demands, with the strong involvement of prospective employers and industry group in training design and delivery, in collaboration with the training providers. The Swiss and Swedish Vocational Training Systems are useful references in designing the IST Scheme.

The Governance framework of IST programmes must facilitate clear identification of training needs and accountability of training effectiveness and quantifiable outcomes, with the industry and employers both playing pivotal roles.

The programmes should be anchored upon a clearly laid out, systematic skills ladder for the respective sectors organised along ITM clusters and include training for new business models and solutions within that sector. Skills certification should be portable and should, if it works, right skills are being charted, correlate with pay levels. IST programmes should provide a clear training pathway for new entrants to the industry as well as for existing employees. Where appropriate, credit-bearing structured internships should be an integral part of the training.

Training providers should be incentivised to achieve positive employment outcomes linked to their training and not just focused on the delivery of these programmes.

Sir, Singapore’s effort to emerge stronger must be accompanied by our ability to successfully help our people retool and reskill.

Mr Speaker, I support the Government’s approach on the Jobs Support Scheme transitioning to a much more differentiated level of support for companies. I would like, nevertheless, to repeat my call that well-intended assistance to companies that may not have a viable future in the post-COVID-19 world may hinder restructuring efforts and slow down re-allocation of labour and resources.

Sir, I have seen the pain and frustration of residents who are stuck with companies with poor prospects, anxiously waiting and hoping for their "old" business to recover whilst fearing their eventual closure.

So, I would like to call on the Deputy Prime Minister to review the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) to allow workers who voluntarily leave companies in sectors with poor prospects to also qualify for CSG. It is time we pivot our assistance to support our people rather than simply preserving any and all jobs. Remove the involuntary unemployment requirement from CSG for workers in selected sectors and set our people free to pursue more promising careers.

Sir, whilst I understand the need to exercise prudence and care when providing financial assistance, many residents have expressed their frustration with the CSG application process. The biggest hurdle for many is the documentary evidence of income reduction, requiring the co-operation of employers. For example, one of my residents told me that her employer threatened to terminate her services altogether, if she reported her pay reduction in order to qualify for CSG.

Less educated senior residents who work in low-wage jobs struggle the most with the application process. Even though residents find comfort in the extension of CSG support till the end of this year, many are unsure about how they may meet the requirement to prove to the authorities that they had made sufficient effort in job search and training in order to qualify for this support.

Sir, with 46,000 or 35% of applications rejected, I would like to ask the Government to seriously review the CSG scheme to address the challenges faced by residents. The scheme should allow room for unique circumstances and empower approving officers to apply good sense and compassion in hardship cases that may not neatly fit the criteria.

With the impact of COVID-19 likely to be protracted and uncertain, the support level provided under various support schemes will also need to be reviewed and extended beyond the period currently provided by the Deputy Prime Minister in his Ministerial Statement. We need to provide for families a sustained level of basic daily expenses, medical coverage and retirement adequacy should their livelihoods continue to be disrupted. We cannot stop at the time that we have indicated if the situation continues.

With many residents experiencing income reduction, I hope the Government will also review the very strong policy lever they have, the Workfare Income Supplement as a possible means to top-up the income for low-wage workers whose pay has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr Speaker, we are confronted by the greatest crisis of our generation but, just as Sir Winston Churchill said, we should, I quote, “never let a good crisis go to waste”. This may be just the catalyst that reskills, transforms and strengthens Singapore’s greatest resource – our people – and catapults us into the forefront of an international recovery when the tides are with us once more.