Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Ms Sylvia Lim.

In the concluding paragraphs of the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister highlighted how various sectors of Singapore society rose to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. He applauded the Singapore spirit, as seen from frontline workers to those who set up community care facilities to the footballers and fans at the AFF Suzuki Cup semi-final. He was emphatic that Singapore would always prevail so long as we stood side by side in solidarity with one another.

There is nothing to disagree with this. That said, two years on into the pandemic, it is appropriate to start evaluating how governments and people across the world responded to the pandemic, not just in terms of the health and economic impacts, but also what lessons or hints can be drawn about a nation’s culture and innovative potential.

One analysis early on into the pandemic studied how 57 countries around the world responded to the pandemic. This study was published early last year in The Lancet by Prof Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, USA and several colleagues. Prof Gelfand divided the countries based on whether they had “tight” or “loose” cultures.

Thus, for instance, countries like China and Singapore were classified as having tight cultures, in that our societies tended to be highly respectful of rules and norms; contrast this with a country like the United States, where people tended to defy them. She observed, unsurprisingly, that loose countries had more difficulties enforcing social distancing measures due to the attitude of the people to rules; this in turn was associated with more COVID-19 deaths and serious illness in loose countries compared to tight countries.

To be clear, these findings were more about the culture of the people rather than what the state did. For us here, classified as a tight culture, Singaporeans have fared well to comply with rules and guidance; this has contributed to keeping the overall health impacts of COVID in Singapore at a relatively manageable level.

In talking about Prof Gelfand’s study some months later, CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria went further. He noted that as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on, the development of vaccines shed another dimension on tight and loose cultures. He observed that some of the loosest countries, which fared poorly in managing the pandemic through social distancing measures, were the most innovative and dynamic at developing, procuring and distributing the vaccine. These loose countries included the United States, Britain, Israel and Chile. Mr Zakaria posited that the very traits that made it hard to follow social distancing rules, were the ones that helped generate the solution to the problem. He concluded that these loose countries benefitted from the creativity, risk-taking and rule-breaking that was endemic in their people. Today, it is clear how these solutions have benefited humankind across the globe.

While Singapore has done relatively well in the pandemic for health outcomes, it would be opportune to do a stock-take of how we did to invent or create solutions for COVID-19. On the one hand, there are some indications of significant breakthroughs. For instance, it was reported that a Singapore team from Duke-NUS had developed a COVID-19 neutralising antibody test kit, which was the first of its kind to get approval from the American Food and Drug Administration. Another example is the COVID-19 PCR test kit developed by DSO National Laboratories, that did not require reagents to process samples. On the other hand, despite some initial hype, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has yet to approve for public use any Singapore manufactured vaccine or Antigen Rapid Test kit for home use, arguably two of the most critical resources needed in the pandemic.

Speaker, a lack of locally manufactured solutions is not just a matter of national pride. We have experienced first-hand how, in a global pandemic, needing to procure supplies from abroad subjects us to market forces and has resulted in supply shortages.

On a related note, the Budget Statement highlighted that the mRNA vaccine manufacturer, BioNTech, will establish a manufacturing facility here. I also note the recent announcement that work has started on a new vaccine manufacturing facility at Depot Road by Hilleman Laboratories. This facility is part of efforts by the Economic Development Board to strengthen capabilities across the biopharmaceutical manufacturing value chain. These are reassuring developments.

Nevertheless, we should strive to move up the value chain, to be the owners of such intellectual property. This raises the more general question: what is the state of Singapore’s capacity to innovate?

According to the Global Innovation Index 2021 published by the World Intellectual Property Office, Singapore ranked overall eighth globally, and has been in the top 10 list for more than a decade. When one drills down further to why Singapore is ranked highly, we see that this is mainly due to its institutions and market and business sophistication. We did not fare so well in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs. For a high income country, we were ranked especially weak in the areas of Knowledge Creation and the Registration of Trademarks and Industrial Designs. For the 2021 ranking, it is notable that South Korea shot to fifth position and overtook Singapore. The report highlighted that countries like South Korea were particularly active in commercialising and patenting inventions in health-related technologies during the pandemic. South Korea was especially strong in registering patents, trademarks and industrial designs.

Sir, we should do some introspection on why we seem to be somewhat lagging in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs. As a high-income country, we can contribute more to improve the quality of life for humankind. Do we need to do more to nurture creativity and risk-taking? Are there other inhibitors in Singapore’s ecosystem that need to be addressed?  These need constant review.

Sir, the other point I wish to make today concerns inclusivity of the Budget Statement. Budget 2022 is entitled “Charting Our New Way Forward Together”. If one looks at its coverage, it does indeed provide measures that support a broad church – from business to households and workers. It also imposes increased obligations on the more able to contribute more to the public purse, while accelerating salary increases for many low-wage workers.

On GST, my Workers’ Party colleagues have explained why we do not think the GST hike is necessary. For my part, I will just make an observation on the household illustrations used in the Budget Statement on the expected impact of the GST increase.

From paragraphs 286 to 287 of the Budget Statement, and also Annex F-3, there are four household scenarios highlighted. It will be noted that all the households comprise of a wedded couple living in an HDB flat, mostly with children; if the couple is of working age, the husband is always older and always earns more than the wife. There is a further assumption that all household members are Singapore Citizens.

To be fair, the Ministry may have used them because the scenarios are typical. However, these illustrations may inadvertently alienate Singaporeans whose households do not fit into the traditional structure. They also reinforce the stereotype of the man being the major breadwinner. In addition, these households may experience less severe impacts from the GST increase than other types of households, due to more offsets.

I wonder if the Ministry could, in future, be broader in its illustrations to capture some other types of households. Such other types of households, which are not uncommon, include divorced families, families with a foreign spouse and adult singles living with elderly parents. In addition, from a gender perspective, I feel that there is no need for the illustrations to stipulate the amounts earned by husbands and wives separately. Instead, the indication of the combined household income would suffice.

By including some other types of households, we can have a fuller picture of the impact of tax changes on different segments of society. More importantly, I believe including them would have an important signalling effect that every household, whatever its composition, is part and parcel of the Singapore compact.

Sir, to conclude, I have spoken today on how the COVID-19 pandemic has tested countries not just in terms of how to contain the virus, but also pointed to the environments which appear to promote the finding of inventive solutions. Singapore would do well if it finds a balance between tightness and looseness. I have also made an observation about the household illustrations used in the Budget, which in my view could be more inclusive.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Mr Speaker. First, let me just say thank our Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, as well as the team from MOF for putting up this particular Budget that is forward-looking as we move towards the post-pandemic phase to build a greener, as well as more inclusive Singapore.

During the last financial crisis in 2008, the Government dipped into our national reserves to support the economy and the amount utilised was probably returned when the economy rebounded strongly, post-crisis. This time, the Government has again deep into our national reserves for the pandemic, and the amount utilised is actually much larger compared to the last crisis. Using the same lyrics that was from last year's National Day song – that "we did it before and we'll do it again" – or just wondering whether will the Government be doing it again, and how and when the Government will be able to recoup and return the drawdowns that have been made during the pandemic so that we can return the reserves to our future generations.

I will focus my speech now on three areas that affects the poor, the rich and all. First, inflation. Second, the tax system. Last, clean energy.

On inflation, we are already feeling the pinch of inflation even before the Budget statement was made. The rise in petrol prices, the higher electrical tariffs, supply chain disruption, higher labour costs arising from the pandemic have triggered across-the-board rise in the cost of living. HDB resale price went up, private property prices went up. Public transport fares were increased last year. School bus transport fees were increased. Childcare services fees were also increased and taxi fares are all going up.

Cooking oil and eggs prices are also moving up. Even throwing rubbish cost for now, as refuse removal fees was increased; and soon, even the plastic bags will cost some money, if you collect plastic bags from the supermarket. And having a sugary drink itself may cost more if the Government decides to implement a sugar tax.

Inflation is making in-roads into the pockets of the man-on-the-street, especially the lower socio-economic groups. We have heard rumblings of higher cost of living as the people struggle to adjust with the cost to the loss of purchasing power. Salaries, if there had been any increases at all, are unable to fend off the rise in the cost of transport, cost of food, as well as other essential household items and healthcare services. And this Budget, we will see a higher GST next year, a higher carbon tax next year, which fuel inflation to an even higher level.

The combined effects of the trio – GST increase, carbon tax increase and wages increase – cannot be underestimated. The cost of running businesses is rising rapidly, although there are various packages from the Government to cushion the impact on the operational overheads.

Yes, under the 2012 Progressive Wage Model (PWM), the salaries of local lower-wage workers were increased. Employees' salaries went up by 3.3% in 2021 compared to 3.6% in 2019 and it is expected to rise by 3.5% in 2022, according to Mercer's 2021 Total Remuneration Survey (TRS). However, Singapore's headline inflation in 2021 was 3.9% to 4%. So, these numbers show how inflation is eating into the worker's income.

GST was first introduced in 1994, with a 3% rate. Headline inflation then was 3.1% in 1994, and it dipped to 1.7% in 1995. MAS allowed the currency to appreciate steadily during this phase. This helped to contain overall domestic inflationary pressures. I take reference from the MAS "50 Years of Inflation Experience in Singapore" that was published by Macroeconomic Review October last year.

In 2003, GST was raised to 4% and again to 5% in 2004, and it was up again from 5% to 7% in 2007. In the latter half of the 2000s, exchange rate policy was generally tightened as Singapore's headline inflation rose rapidly, from 0.5% to 6.6% in 2008. This increase was attributed to the backdrop of strong global commodity prices and also partly due to the China's rapid economic growth and other emerging economies. According to MAS, this was estimated to add around 0.4% to 0.5% to headline inflation each year in 2007 and 2008. During this period, the price of crude oil increased significantly due to heightened uncertainty, leading to a short bout of high inflation. In 2008, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose above 5% for two months due to skyrocketing gas prices – sounds déjà vu again. By the third quarter of 2008, the effect of the US banking crisis impacted our economy. This resulted in Singapore being hit by recession.

By allowing our Singapore currency to appreciate, it will help to cushion the inflation of imported goods and services but it will also harm our businesses by making our exports more expensive and reduce our competitiveness.

While Singaporeans note that the Government has an offset package in place to cushion the effect of the GST rise, they argued that this offset package is only temporary. The inflationary effect on the cost of living is permanent. And they worry for their children and grandchildren having to live with this high costs. And, for businesses, their biggest overheads – wages, rental and property prices, only go one way – they will go up. Once business costs go up, this will also affect all consumers. Are we chasing our own tail? As we push for more wage increase for Singaporeans especially the lower-income group, business cost will also have to go up and inflation will increase and erode the purchasing power of these workers.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Government has pledged to do more, if inflation becomes more persistent and more serious than expected. I would like to raise the question: what is the projected acceptable medium and long-term inflation numbers? If inflation goes up, it hits people's savings especially the poor, the elderly and retirees. They would feel the drop in their buying power, and everything is more expensive for them. Those with savings would find themselves digging deeper, further into their savings than before. What may previously be an adequate amount of retirement funds could now become insufficient.

How are we to manage wage increases to go up in tandem with this inflation? Otherwise, the Government's efforts in helping the workers and employers with the Wage Credit Scheme would be a futile effort. We need to examine this carefully and how are we to manage inflation when the GST rise kicks in.

Next, on the tax system. The big question is that is it progressive enough or is this just the beginning?

Mr Speaker, I agree that progressive tax changes include the latest income tax levied. But there is one area where I feel we should take a closer look; that is the property tax. I feel that there is more room for adjustment. From the current Budget, I do not see how the Government can recover the expenses that the Government requires in the coming years in order to reduce the deficit. Recently, we kept hearing news of record transacted prices of Good Class Bungalows. Should we have done more to make property tax more progressive, especially for the top-end properties like in this category?

Our tax system is based on the annual value of the property which is as I understand is computed based on the imputed rental value of the property. Because of the land area of GCB compared with a high-rise and more densely populated condominium, the property tax levied on GCB is comparatively lower. The expanse of land for a condominium would include the many facilities and car parks, but the density is much higher, even for HDB blocks. They could be paying much more property tax per square foot than a GCB.

So, my question is – Singapore has only 728 square kilometres of land, of which 14% is allocated for residential housing. What is the total amount of property tax on residential property that the Government collects every year from this? And what is the distribution of this property tax going by housing type, such as GCB, various landed properties, low and high-rise condominiums as well as HDB properties? Besides this, I would like to ask whether there is a differentiation between a freehold and lease hold property in the computation of property tax? If not, why?

I would like to ask about property developers who sell their housing projects on a 99-year lease basis but using their freehold or 999-year lease land. Do these companies pay any tax on the value that they are holding since the ownership of the land will go back to them after the expiry of the 99-year lease? Otherwise, it would seem that these companies or developers are allowed to hold value without paying any taxes for 99 years.

Since the Government need to increase revenue to support the long-term needs of an ageing population, why were sin taxes, such as gambling, alcohol and cigarette taxes, not increased in this Budget? Increasing sin taxes will encourage Singaporeans to adopt a healthier lifestyle and help our Government to support the revenue.

My last topic will be on sustainability and clean energy. I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng on what he said yesterday. Singapore is a small city state of just over 700 square kilometres. The limited size that we have also limits the amount of renewable energy that we can harvest. Even if we put a solar panel on the whole island, we will still not generate enough energy to meet our daily needs. So, my next question is: is it realistic for Singapore to aim for carbon zero?

Between land for housing, transport, security, healthcare, education and a whole suite of economic infrastructure, we also push out land for infrastructure for Electric Vehicles (EVs) in public and private housing estates, office buildings, public roads and carparks. I know we have embarked on tapping solar energy and explored many other avenues to reduce our carbon footprint, but is it enough?

I know that the Government has been working to import clean energy from ASEAN and various countries. All these are fine, as long as the relationship between countries are good and stable and the supply countries do not face any disruption or any sudden domestic needs increase. With climate change causing a heightened frequency and intensity of climate disasters in our supply countries, this is a real threat. The concerns over our energy security, as well as resilience, arises if we are significantly rely and depend on external supplies.

The events in Europe are a good eye-opener of how energy prices shot up amidst the disruption and the supply of gas and because of conflicts between countries. However, only France seems to be in a better place than the rest of Europe because its electricity supply is supplied by its own nuclear power plants and this accounts for more than two-thirds of its total electricity generation in 2021.

In the Far East, Hong Kong, which is slightly bigger than us, about 1,106 square kilometres, gets its electricity generated from coal, natural gas and also nuclear energy. Hong Kong gets its electricity from a nuclear power plant that is in Guangdong, the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station.

I have raised this question previously before, that was before the nuclear incident in Japan occurred, whether will Singapore consider nuclear energy. I also raised this question in a written Parliamentary Question (PQ) as well to MTI earlier this year and Minister Gan Kim Yong has replied as a written reply to say that Singapore supports the international effort to strengthen the global nuclear safety as well as the security architecture. But the question is: how far are we from there?

I appreciate the response, that Singapore can give some priority to review the tapping of nuclear energy as part of our option to use clean energy, to meet our commitment to the global community on environmental sustainability, technological advances in micro nuclear reactors will enhance safety, reliability as well as cost effectiveness. We need to keep an open mind and tap this option in the future to enhance our energy security and resilience and reduce our dependence on other countries. With that, Mr Speaker, I do support the Budget.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2022 is a step in the right direction, in many ways. Even as the Workers' Party disagrees with the key proposal of the GST hike. In my speech, I would like to talk about a carbon tax, our transitions in the petrochemicals and industry and transport, before touching on the GST impact on healthcare costs.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party has been supportive of a carbon tax when it was first mooted. We recognise that the Government has finally thought it appropriate to raise the common tax to a level in line with international standards to help Singapore achieve a net-zero and emissions ambition. We support the move to see the common tax raise progressively to a target between $50 and $80 dollars by 2030. This is still broadly similar to the range as proposed by my colleague, the hon member for Sengkang, Assoc Prof James Lim, in his previous speeches.

It will impose a temporary cause to Singaporeans, but we are of the view that when we do become a green economy, the impact of the carbon taxes will be reduced. However, I like to seek a clarification from the Minister on whether there are any efforts to extend the carbon tax to companies that emit less than 25,000 tonnes of GHGs per annum to enhance our efforts toward a net-zero ambition. I also hope that the Government will present more details on how they intend to mitigate the impact of the increase of the carbon tax on our households beyond the U-Save vouchers.

Mr Speaker, I wish to further address the important issue of Singapore's green transition. This is an important subject, given the carbon taxes increase over the next eight years and to aim to achieve net-zero emissions, by or around mid-century. Although some details, such as the exact day of the net-zero achievement and of the transition framework for emissions, intensive and trade expo sectors, as well as the exact quantum of the additional U-Save rebates to help mitigate the cost increases to businesses and households, have not been released, this is a step in the right direction for Singapore. The Workers' Party agrees with the need to transit our economy to a green one as soon as it is practical.

However, the Workers' Party also recognises that while decarbonisation is necessary, it will also impose a cost. This is especially so if we are to provide climate leadership for our citizens and in this region.

Singapore has taken some early measures on sustainable development, such as switching to natural gas for electricity generation instead of more pollutive fuel oil, imposed a vehicle quota system to cap vehicle growth and has introduced a suite of mitigation measures to decarbonize our industry, buildings and households sector.

We now have a bolder carbon tax trajectory and improve our net-zero climate ambition. Therefore, we need to think carefully about how to bring about this change and not leave anyone behind.

In my speech during the "Towards a Low-carbon Society" Motion last month, I have argued that we are in need of a just transition, one that is inclusive and equips those who work here and plan to work here with the necessary know-how, to access good job opportunities in the sustainability sector. Today, I wish to talk about the need for a just transition within the petrochemicals industry.

There have been movements towards a greener transition within our petrochemical industry. In November last year, Shell has announced that it is halving its crude processing capacity at its Singapore hub and reduce fuel exports. The oil major, a major part of our oil and gas industry, is intending to transit from fossil fuels to cut emissions and meet lobal low-carbon energy needs. This is part of a wider global trend in a transition towards lower carbon fuels and it undoubtedly will affect Singapore.

Earlier this year, students from the group Students for A Fossil-free Future (S4F), produced a 68-page report calling for universities to divest from fossil fuels. I empathised with the concerns of these students. They have proposed that Singapore Universities seek sustainable alternatives to linkages with the fossil fuel industry and implement climate crisis education over the short, medium and long-term.

However, while it is true that we do need to transition, what does that mean for the petrochemical industry in Singapore in its current form? We know that our petrochemical industry has been a strategic pillar of our industrial sector. According to a 2019 answer by MTI to a Parliamentary Question (PQ), the energy and chemicals industry contributes nearly 3% of our GDP and employs about 28,000 people in 2017, with the majority in their 30s and 40s. The number went down to 27,000 in 2020, according to MTI's answer to my PQ in April 2021.

Mr Speaker, any growing resistance in Singapore against the oil and gas industry may mean a talent pipeline disruption in this strategic pillar. In 2019, Singapore was the world's fourth biggest exporter of refined petroleum, and fuels and chemicals accounted for around 23% of our total merchandise trade, according to data from the World Bank and the Observatory of Economic Complexity. We are also a regional trading centre for coal, natural gas and oil products and support dozens of finance houses that specialise in the said commodities. More than a hundred global chemical companies have operations in the city.

As noted above, Singapore's linkages into the current brown economy are deep. And while we build for the economy of the future, the reality is that if we take away the manpower and capital in the petrochemical industry abruptly, we will cut the oxygen prematurely at a time when our green ambitions have only just begun. And there is still a need for some petrochemicals in the modern green economy as some petrochemicals can be found in modern solar panels, modern wind turbines and batteries, to name but a few.

Therefore, I ask that the Government provide more details on how it intends to manage the green transition in our petrochemicals industry and if Singapore will continue to attract and keep parts of the petrochemicals industry in Singapore that are relevant for the green economy. In the Committee of Supply debates, I will focus on the manpower transition in the industry with the hope that Singapore will be adequately prepared for the transition so that our Singaporean workers, young and old, will be able to be optimally employed in the sector as it undergoes the green transition and that we will not need to rely on or import significant foreign manpower.

Mr Speaker, I next move to some updates from the Minister on our drive towards electrification of the vehicles on our roads.

Last month. I filed a question to the Minister for Transport asking for the total number of electric vehicle chargers installed in 2021 and the expected number of EV chargers that will be installed progressively over 2022 and 2025. Minister S Iswaran said that there were around 2,200 electric vehicle charging points in Singapore, of which, 300 were installed by commercial operators in the past year. In 2022, there will be more than 600 charging points deployed at public car parks under the joint LTA-URA pilot tender, in addition to charging points in other locations like private residences, malls and petrol stations. The Minister also said that LTA will continue to monitor EV adoption trends and accelerate the deployment of our EV charging network where necessary to meet our 2030 target of 60,000 charging points island-wide. The year 2200 appears a long way off the target of 60,000 in eight years' time and I would like to ask the Minister again what are the Government's progressive targets over the next few years and how does the Government plan to step up on the installation of public EV chargers.

Last year, in my Budget debate speech, I also mentioned that having a critical number of charging points required in all residential commercial car parks and public car parks as well as the design of the car parks and the siting of the EV charging points are important. Singapore is unlike other countries like the US or Australia, where most people have the luxury of charging their cars in their own garage overnight. The minimum charging time, even with an incomplete charge with a fast charger, may still lead to queues in HDB or condo car parks, if there are insufficient chargers or if the chargers are inappropriately sited.

A year on, I would like to ask the Minister what the Government's experience with the installation of our initial chargers over the past year has been. Has the Government done any study to establish a suitable ratio of EV chargers versus the number of cars per car park? Will the public car parks be adopting all fast chargers or will there be a combination of fast and slow chargers? Does the Government have any specific planning requirements for the design of car parks in public, private residential or commercial buildings in respect of the installation and siting of EV chargers in car parks to minimise waiting time and avoid any traffic blockage caused by vehicles waiting for charging? For existing car parks, does the Government foresee that some or all car parks may require modifications? If modifications are required, would the assistance offered by way of the current EV common charger grant to MCSTs be sufficient?

Not unlike ICE cars, most vehicles, except for commercial vehicles, will not require daily charging. However, drivers will still have to develop new habits of charging their cars with some forward planning. ICE cars may need just 10 minutes in petrol kiosks. But, for EVs, queuing time aside, typically, a fast charger may take between 30 and 40 minutes for up to an 80% charge, and a slow charger may take up to eight hours for a full charge. Technology is, of course, improving constantly, but depending on the number of cars waiting for charging at any one time, an HDB car park with, say, just three to four chargers, may still possibly create queuing time not currently seen with ICE cars in petrol stations, even with charging operators charging a penalty charge for drivers who leave their cars beyond the charging time required. Will MOT consider using public education messaging on wise and considerate use of public chargers so that we can start engendering good and considerate habits with our drivers while the EV numbers are still small and growing, just as we also want to encourage our ICE drivers not to use slots reserved for EV charging?

It is good to get these issues right as early as possible so that we can minimise the waiting time and enhance charging access for EV owners. Importantly, this will, in turn, have an impact on our efforts to persuade more vehicle owners to convert earlier to the use of EVs.

Mr Speaker, I next move on briefly to the proposed GST hike. As I have mentioned earlier, the Workers' Party recognises the costs that the decarbonisation move will impose on Singaporeans. Therefore, the GST hike comes at an inopportune time for Singaporeans, many of whom are dealing with record consumer price inflation. I echo my other Workers' Party colleagues who are asking for the GST hike to be implemented only as a last resort.

Mr Speaker, I am aware that the Finance Minister has provided assistance packages to cushion the impact of the proposed GST increases. Apart from the adequacy of such packages, I note that the assistance package is only available for a few years. As for the enhancement to the permanent GST Voucher Scheme, those with an assessable income beyond $34,000 will not be receiving any assistance, a sharp cliff where, for some, these packages may no longer apply should they earn more. I note that GST has only gone up and has never gone down, even if assistance packages will adequately cushion the impact for low-income earners and even the lower-middle middle class in the short term.

The eventuality is that the GST increase will be a burden on the middle class, increasing their costs of living. And as the sandwich class, this may be something they can less afford, as compared to higher income groups above them. In particular, we need to pay attention to Singaporeans in their 30s to 50s, but the vast majority are not just paying for necessities for themselves but also for their parents and their children. The compounded pain that households will have to deal with is not something we should ignore out of hand. This is particularly so as we expect an ageing population to come in the near future. According to a Straits Times report on 27 July 2021, citing figures from Census 2020, residents aged 65 years and above form 15.2% of the resident population in 2020, up from 9% in 2010.

About one in four will be above 65 in 2030 and a corresponding increase in old-age dependency is to be expected. Singaporeans will be facing more questions on out-of-pocket healthcare prices. The Government has argued that the Government's healthcare expenditure will increase significantly, but the out-of-pocket costs of healthcare paid for by the people will also increase as a result of the GST hike. While subsidised patients in public hospitals and polyclinics do not pay any GST, the GST on the goods and services provided by GST-registered private clinics and non-structured hospitals that Singaporeans do go to are not absorbed by the Government. GST also applies to premiums of Shield and group medical insurance plans. Can the Government assure Singaporeans that the hike in GST will not mean that Singaporeans are going to pay more in their out-of-pocket healthcare costs?

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. While Budget 2022 can be said to be matching our climate ambitions to the international standards, the devil is, of course, in the details as we will need to transition away from our current economic structure at some cost. I look forward to more details from the Government on how it intends to manage the transition, particularly within the petrochemical industry, and the move towards electric vehicles.

Mr Don Wee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am the Adviser to the Union of ITE Training Staff on a pro bono basis. I am heartened that the Finance Minister is committed to making more investments in our people and social infrastructure to strengthen our social compact. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In our rapidly ageing country, each of our youths becomes even more precious. The Government and the community should invest in and develop our youths, especially those coming from disadvantaged families, and help them grow and learn in a healthy way. Youths nurtured with care will grow up to be successful and contribute to our country.

The Government should allocate more resources to help disadvantaged families to help minimise the adverse impact of family problems on teenagers.

When families are struggling, the Government needs to step in quickly to prevent their situation from deteriorating further. A stitch in time saves nine! Many youth problems, such as school absenteeism, delinquency and addictions, can be prevented if we intervene early to nip the problems in the bud.

(In English): Will the Government elaborate on how we will strengthen our framework to identify families in crisis more quickly? I applaud the scaling up of the ComLink initiative nationwide to 21 towns. I hope there will be a teenage version of Comlink. How can we hire, retain and train more family support counsellors to help vulnerable families navigate the assistance schemes available to them?

All youths benefit from caring role models, guidance and advice for their studies and future careers. For disadvantaged youths, these are even more vital in order for them to get out of the poverty cycle. How can we increase accessibility to mentorship opportunities and provide better internship and career placement support to them?

In the latest survey conducted by Young NTUC, youths and young adults ranked mentorship opportunities the second most useful in terms of career-related resources but they also noted that they have little access to them.

In 2020 and 2021, when physical events were curtailed, Young NTUC organised virtual career mentoring sessions. I understand that about 1,200 youths took part. There was a high demand. Hence, I urge the Government to provide more funding to organisations, such as Young NTUC, that run mentorship programmes to support the recruitment and training of mentors and ensure their quality.

Better internship and career placement support is also important. I would like to request for more Government incentives to encourage companies to provide internship opportunities for our youths. Funding is needed for allowance subsidies and to support various components of an internship programme, such as the training of company supervisors.

I also hope that the Government will consider giving incentives to spur sectoral tripartite cooperation to build a more systemic approach in curating internship and placement opportunities.

Creating an internship of quality requires input and cooperation among the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), employers and Government agencies. Companies need more help to design good internship programmes that enable the students to gain work experience, make meaningful contributions and gain insights of the industry. These should help the students gain clarity on their career options and make informed postgraduate choices.

We should encourage youths to go beyond their compulsory school internships today and embark on additional ones if possible.

Internships should also benefit companies as opportunities to spot potential talents and employees. We need to change our employers’ attitude towards interns and internships as temporary exercises. Internships should be taken seriously as part of a firm’s long-term human resource management. If our youths have positive experiences, we may be able to address the problem of local manpower shortage for certain vocations and industries.

A promising approach is to get the employers, unemployed youths and the IHLs to come together to develop a work-study experience. It can be an apprenticeship plus internship programme or a conversion programme where they learn before commencing work. This method had proven quite effective for Work-Study Diplomas, a mid-career switch conversion programme. However, the process to develop and approve new courses can take some time. To expedite, the Government, through MOM or NTUC, can take the lead and drive each sector's development in this area.

Would the Government also consider providing funds to help unemployed graduates as union members? As members, they are entitled to the equivalent of student passes so that they can get further job placements or skills training.

It is also important to support ITE students and youths-in-transition from school to the workplace and provide programmes to build up their experiences through internship opportunities. For certain sectors, due to limited internship opportunities, they get some exposure through school projects but this is not the same as work experience.

Special needs youths need help to secure internship opportunities too. Both the youths and employers would need customised training and support to make sure that the work arrangements can be sustained. Would the Government please provide more funds and support to incentivise companies to be more inclusive?

I would also like to ask for more funding to support IHLs to develop Continuing Education and Training modules with input from sector leaders and companies. Such an ecosystem will facilitate the development of updated training programmes, which are relevant and in demand by industries.

An excellent example of a multi-parties' involvement for training is Google's Skills Ignition SG programme, a partnership between Google, EDB, IMDA and SkillsFuture. The programme involves online vocational and on-the-job learning with local and global host companies.

Indeed, a tripartite approach is the most promising one to ensure timely and relevant curriculum development and good matches to place the trained participants.

In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the number of platform workers. We need to rethink our approach to supporting their welfare.

A key factor contributing to the gig economy's expansion was the improvement of digital technology. This facilitated the matching of workers to tasks. However, the relationship between these technology companies and assigned workers is unequal and heavily weighed in favour of the firms, which have access to the data, customers and a wide pool of non-union, unorganised workers. The tech companies have no obligation to the independent workers, which mostly include private hire drivers and food delivery couriers.

As independent service providers, they are not employees and thus are not entitled to employee rights such as sick leave, mandatory leave, CPF contributions, medical expenses, so on and so forth. Therefore, although they have flexibility and autonomy, the fact is that they have limited bargaining power and will find it hard to earn a sustaining wage if they do not work full-time.

While many platform workers are young and work part-time, now, the number of full-timers are also significant. As a gauge, consider in 2018, 8% to 10% of Singapore's resident workforce was self-employed or they did full-time independent work. It is time for us to review their work conditions and consider if we should amend legislation to require platform companies to treat the full-time platform worker as employees as well as to allow them to form unions to protect their rights, including fair and timely payment.

Presently, they are prone to exploitation and have very little say on how much they get paid – they are price takers – and in order to make a decent living, which include the incentive pay, which comes with completing certain assigned jobs, they have to work long hours to reach their target wages.

Due to low barriers of entry, the jobs are attractive to those who have difficulty finding other jobs due to low levels of education, lack of skillsets or credentials, or other reasons, such as a prior criminal record.  While they provide a much needed and in-demand service, they are in dead-end jobs with no prospect of progression. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To residents of Chua Chu Kang, and platform workers, my fellow Members of Parliament and I will help you get fair wages and rights.

(In English): The least we can do for them is to ensure that they have representation via unions and are treated fairly, in another words, with the full rights and entitlements of employees.

Finally, I would like to speak on the topic of carbon taxes.

With the changes in carbon taxes, companies will face increasing pressure to transform. However, the cost of transformation will ultimately be passed on to the consumers and lead to higher costs of living. With inflation and logistics challenges due to the pandemic, ordinary families will face financial pressures. SMEs will also face challenges dealing with the higher carbon taxes.

Singapore is the first or the only Southeast Asian country to introduce a carbon tax. While I support our efforts to go green, both figuratively and literally, I am very worried about the impact on our middle- and lower-income families and the competitiveness of our local SMEs. I hope the Government will assist them more over the transition period.

With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap.

Sir, there are two parts to my speech. First, I will cover the topic of a caring and inclusive society, which I will deliver in English. For the second part, I will speak on a couple of issues related to the Malay/Muslim community in Malay.

Sir, the constant feature of almost every Budget tabled in this Chamber has been efforts to build a caring and inclusive society. This year was no different. With this in mind, I would like to use my speech to invite the Government and every Member of this House to reflect on the issues that are faced by certain segments of our fellow Singaporeans who may still feel marginalised.

For those who belong to these segments, the phrase "caring and inclusive society" may provoke anger and disappointment rather than any joy or pride.

Sir, let us start by identifying who these people are and what the reasons are for their discontent. They are the ones who face challenges in their respective lives due to certain existing Government policies. I want to highlight the difficulties they face and make some suggestions that could alleviate the hardship these citizens face. The issues I am about to cover are not new. Rather, they have been discussed before and been raised repeatedly by many Members from both sides of this House, including myself.

Sir, the first marginalised group I wish to highlight are our fellow countrymen who are low-income earners and are low-income motorcyclists who depend on motorcycles to support themselves and their families.

In November 2021, I put forth an Adjournment Motion on the ever-increasing issues of motorcycle COEs. I proposed some suggestions which I felt could reduce the burden on motorcyclists and motorcycle owners. In responding to the Motion, MOT agreed on how the high COE prices burden motorcycle owners, especially those belonging to the low-income segments. The Ministry said it would monitor the situation and will assess what were the best measures that could be taken to address the matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask MOT whether it has any updates to share with the House relating to this matter, about four months after the Adjournment Motion.

Sir, the COE prices for motorcycles had already crossed the $10,000 mark. I would like to know whether the Government considers this situation to be an appropriate one and what are the steps that have been or are being considered so that those who depend on the use of motorcycles to make a living do not face even deeper troubles as a result of this situation.

The second group of citizens are those whose spouse is not a Singaporean Citizen. The difficulty they face is in obtaining a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or Singaporean permanent residence or Singapore Permanent Resident status. I believe I do not need to elaborate at length as this matter has been raised repeatedly in this Chamber. However, I want to emphasise the negative implications stemming from the situation whereby applications for the Long-Term Visit Pass and permanent residence are rejected many times. I personally know some of my residents who face such situations, the implication of which is separation.

This is very sad, because it is far from demonstrating our caring and inclusive society that every Budget claims to want to achieve.

On this issue, the Workers' Party has specifically called for foreign spouses to be given priority for citizenship naturalisation if they apply after five years on their LTVP+, on the condition that they have been married to their current Singaporean spouse for three years or more and they have at least one child together.

Another stressful situation faced by individuals married to foreign spouses is the cost of schooling for the children of their spouses. That is, their stepchildren. They have to pay high school fees because their stepchildren are student pass holders.

For low-income earners, this is a very heavy burden. Many such individuals are destitute and find themselves out of options and solutions for their financial problems arising from the high school fees. Many of these individuals have already sought to obtain Permanent Resident status in the hope that their children would not be subject to high fees. However, many of those who have applied have been unsuccessful.

As a concern for Singaporeans experiencing such a situation, I would like to ask the Government to re-evaluate our immigration policy in order to provide relief in this situation. Alternatively, I recommend that MOE considers establishing a subsidy scheme for such students, especially for those from low-income families and where their stepfathers have legal guardianship status over them.

The next group who feels marginalised are divorcees: single mothers or fathers and also unwed single parents.

Many still suffer from failing to find a place to live. Although there are reform measures taken by the Government such as allowing single parents to buy subsidised flats without having to go through a development period and also allowing unwed single parents to purchase up to a 3-room flat in a non-mature estate from HDB or a resale flat, but I think more flexibility can be exercised to reduce the difficulties of this group.

This is worrying as there are still many restrictions in our public housing policies for unwed single parents as they and their children do not meet the criteria of a family nucleus under the existing rules. I and many other Members of Parliament have expressed our concerns on the matter and have been calling to abolish this unfavourable ruling and at the same time, to extend public housing benefits to all single parents regardless of their marital status.

I hope this issue can be given due attention and will result in more positive changes to HDB's existing housing policies.

There are two other concerns I have voiced in recent years, which I feel can have a positive impact in our effort in continuing to reinforce caring and inclusive values if they are addressed.

One is with respect to the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, KiFAS.

I have asked on several occasions in this Chamber to have this scheme extended to students from low-income families who attend kindergartens run by non-profit organisations such as charities, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and religious entities such as mosques and churches. This is because parents who wish to send their children to a kindergarten of their choice for certain reasons should not be sidelined or deprived of the opportunity to obtain financial assistance schemes. I do not think this is in line with inclusive values.

Full-time madrasah students may also feel excluded from society in some ways. While the move to provide all full-time students at madrasah with Edusave accounts is a welcome one, I note that the Edusave awards, which are presented to students who have performed well or shown good improvement in a mainstream school, remains unavailable to madrasah students.

Sir, at this point, I would like to declare that my daughter is a student at one of the full-time madrasah.

I would like to once again request MOE take additional inclusive measures by extending the Edusave award to full-time madrasah students.

Sir, the recognition of MOE through the Edusave award should not be limited to school students under the administration of the Ministry. Such awards should be extended to every Singaporean student to further strengthen efforts to inculcate inclusive values in our society, especially students.

Sir, the last category of individuals which I wish to highlight are those whose nationality is classified as unknown or stateless.

I have raised this matter in this House, previously citing two individuals who have sought my assistance on their dilemma of being stateless. Both of them were born and bred in Singapore and have never left this country as a result of their nationality status. One of them has to bear a heavier financial burden due to ineligibility for medical fee subsidies and the other is unable to access ComCare assistance. Having stayed in this country for the whole of their life and after giving their youth and energy to the building of this nation, they were repeatedly told of their unsuccessful applications and appeals for citizenship. Other Members of this House have also separately filed questions relating to the plight of the stateless.

According to the Minister for Home Affairs, as of end November 2020, there were 1,109 stateless individuals in Singapore, of which 76% have obtained Permanent Residence status. That still leaves another 266 individuals. I also note that the Minister for Manpower had said in January 2021 that there were no regulations preventing the employment of stateless persons. However, I note that there are several steps that prospective employers of stateless persons need to take before employing them.

Sir, I understand that the immigration authorities take this issue seriously and have to assess each application for Permanent Residency and Citizenship in detail before issuing their decision on whether to approve an application. I hope that the authorities will consider formulating streamlined policies to resolve the status of the stateless in Singapore. Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to bring up a number of issues relating to the Malay-Muslim community, during this Budget debate as well as the Committee of Supply debate.

In today's debate, I would like to touch on two matters, that should be given due emphasis and attention to ensure the well-being of the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore. First, on home ownership and second, on education.

After almost 57 years of independence, Singapore has attained many commendable achievements. The excellence that we achieved is the result of having awareness, hard work accompanied by sweat and tears, in addition to the spirit, perseverance, commitment, determination and solidarity of our people with a touch of vision and aspiration. As the people of a multi-racial Singapore, we are cognizant that united we stand, divide we fall. As a result, we can see now that on the world stage, Singapore is increasingly known as an exceptional and reputable brand name.

We are a nation that is far ahead in many areas like economic growth, public administration, quality education, health services, anti-corruption and so on.

Sir, as Members are aware, Singapore’s excellent achievements today have made our citizens more educated, skilled and capable.

However, there are still many who are unable to say that they are self-sufficient. This is because we are facing critical challenges and problems, brought about by the wave of progress in the name of development, success and prosperity

In short, we all face the pressure of a very high cost of living. Just look at last January’s core inflation which has gone up by 2.4% on a year-on-year basis, reaching the highest level in nine years, driven by higher inflation in food, electricity and gas, as well as a smaller decline in the cost of retail and other goods. This was declared by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) in a joint statement on 23 February.

In this august Chamber, I would like to say clearly and plainly that the increase in prices of goods has adversely affected our people's cost of living.

In this challenging and increasingly stressful situation, the Malay community is the most affected. The Population Census showed that the number of Malay households living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats has more than doubled in 10 years, from around 9,100 in 2010 to 18,600 in 2020.

This, Mr Speaker, this is not progress but regression. If every rental flat is occupied by a family of four, it means 74,400 Malays are now living in a cramped, stressful and hampered manner. This comprises almost 15% of the entire Malay community in Singapore.

So, I would like to ask the Government; first, what is being done by the Government to improve the ability of Malays to purchase flats and therefore leave the rental flats? Second, how many Malays are living in HDB rental flats in 2021? Third, what are the Government’s short-term and medium-term plans to reduce the number of Malays living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats? Four, what is the Government's target to reduce the number of Malays living in rental flats by 2030?

Sir, moving on, I would like to know clearly the Government's plans on the education of Malay children, especially with regard to the Malay language. I am very concerned, looking at the growing number of our children who are more comfortable speaking in English. This will cause their command of the Malay language as their Mother Tongue to be eroded. In future, perhaps within another decade, Singaporean Malays will generally feel awkward speaking in their own language.

According to statistics from the 2020 Population Census, there were 38,668 Malay boys and girls aged 0 to 4 years old. Children at this age are at a critical stage in their growth development. With married couples focused on supporting families, most of these children are placed in childcare centres before being sent to kindergarten.

The upbringing and teaching of Malay Language, whether at home or at childcare centres, are equally important. However, I discovered from a reply by the Minister for Social and Family Development in April 2021 that 350 childcare centres provided Malay Language lessons beginning this year, despite having more than 1,800 preschools here. This means that only 19% of preschools here teach Malay Language. This is far from sufficient.

I acknowledge that it is important for our people to have a good command of English, and the bilingual policy adopted by the Government should ensure a balance for all mother tongues, including the Malay Language, and on this point, my concern is that if there is no concerted effort, the majority of our 38,668 Malay children will have difficulty mastering the Malay Language, much less being fluent in their Mother Tongue.

Moreover, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results showed a very clear indication that the percentage of Malay children who scored grade A* to C for the Malay Language had declined. The lowest percentage was 97.5% in 2020, and this downward trend began since the beginning of the new millennium in 2001. The Malay community cannot allow this decline to continue on. This is an early indication that a critical step must be taken to prevent this problem from worsening. Some may think that this decline is very small or negligible.

Therefore, on this issue, I would like to pose some questions to the Government on the education of Malay children. This will allow the community to know more clearly the Government's position and stand in ensuring that Malay children are not hindered from the opportunity to learn Malay Language from a young age. As the saying goes, bend the bamboo while it is still a bamboo shoot.

Sir, I have these questions for the Government.

First, what will the Government do to address the shortage of preschools offering the teaching of Mother Tongue? Will the Government provide a bigger allocation to attract more professionals to join the preschool teaching sector to teach the Malay language?

Second, what are the Government's plans to increase the number of preschools that can offer the teaching of Malay Language to meet the needs of the majority of the 38,668 children aged 0 to 4 years old, where currently only 350 preschools out of around 1,800 preschools that are doing so.

Third, what are the immediate steps that will be taken by the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs as well as the Mendaki Foundation to improve Malay language proficiency among primary school students who will sit for the PSLE. Generally we know that Mendaki Tuition Classes do not offer tuition in the Malay language.

Four, what is the near-term objective of the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to address the lack of Malay Language teaching in preschools by 2030?

Sir, what I presented are part of several key issues that the Government needs to address with detailed answers. The Malay community is always told about our achievement and progress, and when we look that the available statistics, we can see a significant weakness over the last 10 years.

The issues highlighted must be addressed decisively and judiciously.

At the same time, we also seek the Government’s understanding to look into the living situation of Malays, with many increasingly living in rental flats. This has to be addressed quickly to extract them of the cycle and grip of poverty, and all the social problems that come with it.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the world has changed since the hon Minister for Finance delivered his Budget Statement on 18 February 2022. We heard an account of this from the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House yesterday.

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in what has been described as the biggest invasion of a European country since World War II. In a flash, blood has been spilled. Families have been displaced. Worryingly, I see no end in sight in the immediate future.

Financial and economic sanctions on an unprecedented scale have been imposed on Russia by the US and EU countries. Singapore decided to follow suit and impose its own sanctions on Russia based on our principled approach to diplomacy. The hon Minister was quick to point out that our decision will come at a cost. We need to be prepared for this.

The consequence for the rest of the world is substantial and serious. Both Russia and Ukraine are substantial commodity producers. We have seen spikes in the prices of oil, gas and agricultural commodities. Singapore is not immune. We are already hit with the inflationary pressures arising from the pandemic and supply chain issues. These pressures are likely to worsen.

I trust that both sides of the House are solidly behind the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs’ condemnation of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and call for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine to be respected. As he eloquently highlighted, our own short history as a tiny island city-state informs us that we too will always be vulnerable to machinations of big powers and must continually be prepared to guard against any existential threat to Singapore and fellow Singaporeans.

We have little influence in what happens globally. We are price takers. We have no choice but to take the world as it is. That is why our defence policy is based on the twin pillars of diplomacy which advocates a rule-based approach to settling international disputes in accordance with the UN Charter and international law; and deterrence, which involves a strong defence capability and ensuring that any enemy will know that there will be a big price to pay if they take us on.

It is these developments that have guided me to draw hon Members’ attention to one aspect of the Budget Statement which is not specifically spelt out but is the raison d’etre for a number of initiatives stated in the Budget, that is strengthening our nation’s resilience and robustness.

I am not using these terms interchangeably. I am guided by how Princeton professor Markus Brunnermeier has defined these terms in his book published last year titled “The Resilient Society”. He described “resilience” as the ability to rebound from a shock, whereas “robustness” is the ability to resist.

Closer to home, at NUS, environmental scholars at the Lee Kuan Yew School have defined “resilience” as R1 and R2. The first being an ability to mitigate and resist; the second, to adapt and flourish in new circumstances.

Whatever their names, the two are ways to respond to external shocks. More importantly, the Lee Kuan Yew School researchers point out that resilience is not a cost-free virtue. In fact, the price of resilience is inefficiency – a point I shall elaborate on below. Investing in both these capabilities are important to ensure Singapore’s survival in this unpredictable and volatile world. What is clear is that we cannot afford to adopt a “feast and famine” approach to building these capabilities.

Thinking long term to secure Singapore’s future has always been the hallmark of the PAP Government. Let me provide a few examples.

Hon Members will recall Prime Minister Lee’s bold plan to build polders and barrages for a period of between 50 and 100 years to save Singapore from rising sea levels costing at least $100 billion.

The hon Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke last year about efforts to strengthen Singapore’s capabilities in biomedical sciences and health infrastructures to be ready for Disease X. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim recounted some of these efforts in her speech just now and aptly described them as a "reassuring development".

Also last year, the hon Education Minister Chan Chun Sing announced plans for MOE to roll out mental health education lessons to our children at Primary, Secondary and pre-university levels by next year to help them build up their resilience.

These are not short-term plans, with an eye on the next electoral cycle. They are for the protection and flourishing of our children, grandchildren, and generations beyond – but already hardwired into our spending today. I applaud these moves and other Government initiatives aimed at making Singapore and Singaporeans more resilient and robust.

No doubt though, there is a cost – and one we bear today – in developing these capacities.

Let us take grocery supply as an example.

It costs less for a supermarket to stock groceries employing a just-in-time inventory, something that hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng knows very well. Purchase decisions can be made based on current conditions. It makes the business operations leaner but susceptible to disruptions when the suppliers cannot supply.

The other option is to employ a just-in-case model which will allow the businesses to be more agile and respond to sudden demand increases quickly. It does, however, mean that business costs will be higher. This may not be the most efficient way to use resources. But it may be the better way when dealing with strategic goods.

This is where we, on both sides of the House, must come together and affirm that these costs must be incurred progressively over the long term because what is ultimately at stake is Singapore’s survival and viability.

My question to the hon Minister for Finance is two-fold; first, could he please let us know what are the strategic areas that the Government intends to build resilience and robustness capabilities for the immediate as well as the long term; and two, have we committed sufficient funds and resources for the building of these capabilities?

My hope is that the Government will continue to eschew the natural tendency, when our country’s fiscal position is relatively weak and there is a pressure to increase social expenditure, to cut back on investments to progressively build such capabilities. We cannot be capricious. We must hold fast to our resolve to develop these strategic capabilities.

I now turn to the hon Minister’s decision to increase the tax responsibility on wealthier Singaporeans through personal income tax, property tax, luxury car tax and GST increases.

With respect to GST, I am glad to note the progressive way in which the GST will be implemented. The progressive nature of our policy ensures that low- and middle-income Singaporeans will, on a net basis receive significantly more benefits from tax transfers than what they would have paid. This is provided for under the Assurance Package and the permanent GST Voucher Scheme.

This also means that, on a net basis, it will be the wealthier Singaporeans, who will be bearing the brunt of the impact of the GST increase.

I have carefully considered the reasons provided by the Minister for the tax increases. I support the Minister’s decision requiring those with more to contribute more tax to fund our social programmes and, in particular, help those whom the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap referred to in his speech just now as "marginalised people" and keep our social compact strong.

In fact, such contributions by the wealthier amongst us will so serve as “investment” not just for the future of the less fortunate but also for their own continued economic well-being and growth. After all, the strength of our social compact provides the foundations of our economic growth. In this way, their businesses and wealth will continue to grow, in a society that is stable and fair, where each man feels he has a place.

Not only that, we should also acknowledge that our tax bases are still relatively low, even with the proposed increases.

One point which I wish to emphasise though is the continued need to keep our public expenditure lean.

As the hon Minister mentioned, Government spending today, excluding COVID-19 related expenditure, stands at 18% of our GDP which is the lowest among developed economies but yet it has produced social and economic outcomes that have been better than most. This fiscal discipline must continue. If we do not and we just continue to fund social expenditure for the less fortunate through knee-jerk increases in tax for the wealthy, then I am afraid the social compact will, ironically, weaken. There will be a danger that our society will fracture as a result of an “us against them” mentality taking root. It is a point that hon Members who spoke before me also raised.

Already I see warning signs that this may happen. I note calls amongst persons who own private landed properties but have no steady income streams asking for Government support. Indeed, in the Assurance Package, it is provided that a person who owns a single private landed property but does not have income can get up to $1,600 over five years. This, with other measures such as CDC Vouchers and MediSave top-ups for seniors, will allow them to get more than five times the GST that they would have paid in a year.

The reality, however, is that with the landed property prices as they are, these persons can well afford to fund their own expenses through readily available reverse mortgages from banks which will allow them to live comfortably in their homes until the end of their lives. Thereafter, their homes may be sold and the proceeds applied against loans extended by the bank. It is not easy to make these arguments to people who feel very strongly about their properties, but we must, on behalf of a society where more than 90% live in flats, push back against such claims.

A similar example involves elderly retired couples in an HDB flat which is eligible for the Lease Buyback Scheme. They would again be entitled to Government support because they are living in an HDB flat without income. In reality though, they would be able to fund their expenses through the Lease Buyback Scheme which would again enable them to sell the tail end of their lease to HDB and live comfortably in their homes until the end of their life with the proceeds obtained.

Some time back, I met an elderly couple who sought ComCare assistance because they are retired and their children are not willing to give them any allowance. I suggested the Lease Buyback Scheme to them as a way to resolve their financial woes. After some thought, they came back to me and the answer was that they are not keen. The reason is because they want to pass on their homes as inheritance to their children even though their children are not paying for their upkeep. As parents, they are amazing but as claimants on taxpayers’ monies used in substitution for their upkeep, they become what economists refer to as “free riders”.

Private inheritance comes at a cost of public funds. This also means that there is less money for helping a person who may have a more pressing need for assistance. Again, this may be a hard argument to make to the elderly couple, but if we do not, we will be a nation of ComCarers, with a large budget. And there is no large budget without large taxes.

At some point in time, as our social spending increases, we will have to make hard decisions on whom we should support through social assistance so that we can keep public spending lean and only to be given to the truly need it, while we focus on making our safety “trampoline” – a phrase made popular by Senior Minister Tharman – springier.

The final area I wish to touch on in my speech concerns the development of entrepreneurial talent undertaking sustainability initiatives that can generate carbon credits for use by businesses to offset carbon tax.

I support the move to increase the carbon tax as part of Singapore’s commitment to reduce emissions and tackle climate change.

I note with interest that the hon Minister intends to allow businesses to use high quality, international carbon credits to offset up to 5% of their taxable incomes in lieu of paying carbon tax.

What I wish to explore is whether assistance may be provided to entrepreneurial businesses in Singapore which have promising sustainability projects but lack the scale necessary to attract carbon credit financing.

One suggestion I have is for Government or Statutory Boards to partner these businesses in the provision of services such as waste to energy plants to power lamp posts in business parks.

With established track records, these Singapore businesses would be able to establish good branding and reputation as leaders in this field, venture into the region or beyond, and undertake larger scale projects to reduce carbon emissions that can be financed through carbon credits.

Through this we would have developed a value proposition for Singaporean businesses and allow them an opportunity to participate in the international carbon credit value-chain.

Sir, that I am able to speak of carbon credits, long-term spending on climate resilience and the structure of taxation, in the middle of a global pandemic and a military invasion that has impacted the entire world, speaks to how important peace and stability are to a small state.

We cannot take this for granted. It is not the natural position of price takers. But while we cannot determine our own price, we can continue to write our own destiny as long as we are a sovereign state, with the will and wherewithal to defend it. To continue to write each page, requires resources and careful husbandry of what we have. This is what our Budget does, and this is why I support it. [Applause.]

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a reminder to all of us of the importance of national resilience. We are now moving towards life with COVID-19 as an endemic disease, a path which is bound to be fraught with unexpected challenges. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a stark demonstration of the fragility of territorial sovereignty in the face of aggression by a larger neighbour.

Building national resilience is a key effort we need to undertake to prepare for current and future challenges. It has to be a joint effort, borne out of the partnership between the people, society, companies and the Government. It is vital that Government policies must be supportive of this endeavour to build and strengthen resilience.

As I respond to the Finance Minister's Budget Statement, I will talk about seven pillars of resilience I believe that we need to continuously build up our nation. These are resilient families, resilient environment, resilient infrastructure, resilient companies, resilient workforce, resilient society and resilient government.

Families are the building block of society. We must do all we can to increase the resilience of family units whatever form they might come in.

I am concerned about the plan to raise the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) by 3.5% per year for the next five cohorts turning 55 from 2023 to 2027. MOF said that eight in 10 CPF members turning 55 in 2027 will be able to set aside the heightened BRS. This means that 20% of them will not be able to withdraw more than a token sum from their CPF. Currently, some 435,000 Singaporeans aged between 55 and 70 are unable to meet the prevailing BRS. Many of them struggle with their living expenses and are not able to use their CPF of housing payments. I hope that MOF will give careful consideration to the needs of CPF members with lower balances before raising the BRS.

For our children, building resilience starts at home. All parents, myself included, view our kids as precious gems, but we must be careful not to mollycoddle them. Let us encourage our children to take part in competitions, whether in sports, games or the arts. Every competition will have only one winner and many losers. Let them learn to win with grace and remain resilient in defeat by picking themselves up to fight another day.

Let our children take public transport to school instead of ferrying them everywhere by car. This brings an additional benefit of reducing traffic jams around schools. I commend schools that disallow parents from turning up at schools with water bottles or homework that their children left at home. Occasions like these are opportunities for our children to take responsibility for their actions and their belongings.

Next, on building a resilient environment. I am glad to hear the Finance Minister announced that Singapore aims to achieve net zero emissions by or around mid-century. In order to realise this goal, Singapore must be prepared to make big investments in emerging green technologies and take decisive steps towards wielding the mantle of climate leadership, regionally and globally.

I would like to renew my call made in January for Singapore to launch a national hydrogen strategy, and roadmap to spur the creation of a hydrogen economy in Singapore. This will set Singapore on a path towards being a global player in the hydrogen industry and benefit Singaporean workers.

NEA is now mulling the introduction of a mandatory plastic bag charge at supermarkets. I support the reduction of one-time-use plastics. However, policies designed to achieve this must take into account the local context. Most shoppers do not throw away their plastic bags but use them to bag their thrash before throwing it down the rubbish chute. If they do not have enough plastic bags from supermarkets, they might end up buying plastic bags or, worse, throwing their rubbish directly down the chutes.

Therefore, any policy interventions should strive to encourage intrinsic attitudes towards conservation, not lead to people trying to work around punitive measures. Instead of a per-bag charge, has NEA considered requiring large supermarkets to offer a discount as an incentive for not using plastic bags?

Singapore's rapid urban development and ascent on the global economic stage was made possible in large part due to good infrastructure. Our public transport network has seen improvements in recent years although the convenience and frequency of bus services in some areas like Bedok Reservoir has been a bugbear for many commuters. This has shown up in commuters' surveys which rate bus services the lowest among transport modes. I will speak more about this during MOT Committee of Supply.

Moving on to digital infrastructure, the prevalence of online scams points to the need for more resilient cyber infrastructure, not only at the backend but also at the frontend, with efforts to detect attempts at social engineering and prevent people from falling prey to scammers.

While our public education is important, the financial institutions must redouble their efforts to use technological solutions to detect suspicious patterns of use and stop using SMS as a channel for sending passwords.

The world has entered a stage where cyber warfare is a real threat, as demonstrated by Russia's alleged cyberattacks Ukrainian's infrastructure, long before the air, land and sea invasion began. Adversaries can potentially maliciously shut down or control critical infrastructure with the click of a mouse. Are our Government agencies putting enough resources into countering this threat and are critical infrastructure providers, like water treatment plants, power grid operators, telcos and public transport operators, ready to counter these threats?

Our companies have seen challenging times in this pandemic. Many are still struggling to stay afloat. The pandemic has shown our over-reliance on our foreign workforce. We need to transform our economy to boost the attractiveness of local talent to companies.

MOM should watch out for companies that circumvent market testing requirements, for example, doing a token posting on MyCareersFuture when they already have a foreigner in mind to hire. Where there are instances of companies claiming that they are unable to find Singaporeans to take up positions, we need to make a deeper qualitative assessment on why this is so. For example, are there gaps in our education system that are preventing our schools from producing market-ready graduates?

On a separate note, I believe that one of the brightest sparks from the pandemic is the mainstreaming of work-from-home arrangements. A large proportion of both employees and employers want to continue remote work, at least part of the time, even after the pandemic ends. We should build on these gains and encourage more companies, especially the traditional SMEs, to provide work-from-home options for their employees.

Good economic prospects and technological advances disproportionately benefit the high-skilled. To make our growth more inclusive, we should engage more Singaporeans economically, including people with disabilities and the elderly. Companies should extend work-from-home opportunities to engage and empower Singaporeans with mobility issues. Not only do they form a large untapped labour market with valuable experience to contribute, enabling them to work from home will help them to connect better with society, improve their overall well-being and strengthen Singapore's social security. I hope MOM can consider ways to incentivise companies to extend work-from-home opportunities to this group of Singaporeans.

In his Budget Statement, the Finance Minister introduced a $500-a-month minimum income requirement to qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement from 2013. This could potentially impact up to 46,600 employed residents, inclusive of part-timers, who earn less than $500 a month. It will disadvantage workers who have extremely low incomes and are forced to work reduced hours through no fault of their own or have unpaid caregiving responsibilities. The Minister said that this is to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular full-time work. However, I fear that it will result in the exact opposite. Workers may decide to drop out of the workforce because their income cannot even cover their travel expenses. I appeal to the Minister to rescind the minimum income requirement, so that all lower-wage workers will benefit from Workfare. This was a call made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition as well.

We must ensure that every working Singaporean receives a decent minimum wage. I welcome the requirements for all local workers to be paid at least $1,400 a month, if their companies employ foreign workers. All the workers are in a Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sector or occupation.

I am cheered that the Government is going to co-fund the pay increases for low-wage workers over the next five years. Building on this approach, would the Minister consider also co-funding for five years the pay increases of all Singaporean workers who are taking home less than $1,300, including those who are not in sectors or occupations covered by the PWM? This will help companies adjust to paying their workers a minimum wage and bring Singapore closer towards implementing a national minimum wage, something that the Workers' Party has been consistently advocating for.

In addition to strengthening our workers' rights, we also need to build more resilience in our local workers. Some employers have lamented to me about local employees quitting when they are made to work long hours, in contrast to foreigners whom they claimed have no qualms about working overtime. We should not be dismissive about those who may have genuine domestic responsibilities like taking care of children or elderly parents. However, for those that do not, including many young professionals, I feel it does not hurt to "pia" a bit more during your first job, so you can establish your career and compete more effectively with the global workforce. Of course, do this without sacrificing your mental and physical health.

A vibrant local sports scene contributes towards building a resilient society. The Suzuki Cup football tournament was a great demonstration of how sports can promote national unity. I experienced it myself when I took my son to see one of the matches.

However, cheering the Lions once every two years is not enough. Our sporting talents are playing in the international tournaments throughout the year. They should be better featured. For example, Loh Kean Yew's historic victory at the 2021 Badminton World Championships could only be watched live on Cable Television. Non-subscribers had to wait almost a week to watch it on free-to-air TV. Featuring more of our local sporting talents on free-to-air TV or local online channels, like meWATCH, will not only imbue a greater national spirit, but will also inspire generation of young sports enthusiasts, who may go on to become future champions.

Finally, I believe we need a resilient government. A sizable presence of opposition Members in Parliament will keep the government on its toes and responsive to the needs of the people and increase the resilience of our government.

On the other side of the coin, as an efficient and effective civil service, I commend our public servants for demonstrating great resilience in helping our nation through the pandemic. I was once a civil servant and, to this day, I hold close to my heart a piece of advice that my Permanent Secretary gave to me when I first joined the service. He told me he expected me to be a subject matter expert on the issues covered by my desk. He said it was my responsibility to provide objective recommendations in my policy submissions I put up to the senior management and Ministers. This was sound advice.

Civil servants should not second-guess what their political masters want or implement instructions blindly, just because the Ministers said so. They must also not be afraid to respectfully point out policy errors made by political officeholders, as it is in Singapore's interests that the best possible policies are advanced. The civil service must also remain politically neutral.

The final point I wish to raise is to register my concerns over the planned hike in the GST rates in 2023 and 2024. I understand the budgetary pressures that come with an ageing society, and I support moves to socialise more provision of more public welfare services, especially for the elderly. However, it remains my belief that a consumption tax hike should be the last resort to increasing revenue. This is because the GST is an inherently regressive tax, to which the poor pay a higher percentage of their income compared to the rich.

In Singapore, only a portion of the GST paid is returned in the form of GST Vouchers. The GST Offset Package is meant to help lower-income households adjust but this will last only five to 10 years. However, the GST hike will be forever.

MOF should consider other more progressive sources of revenue besides the GST hike. Yesterday, Member of Parliament for Sengkang Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did a deep dive into the Workers' Party's alternative levers for raising revenue. This includes higher taxes in carbon emissions, multinational corporations and wealth, using a portion of land sales and increasing investment returns contribution, which can more than make up for shortfalls in revenue brought about by higher social spending without having to increase GST.

Mr Speaker, the pandemic has precipitated societal and political upheavals in many countries. Singapore has, thankfully, been largely spared the kind of widespread rifts in society caused by measures to deal with the pandemic. Nevertheless, we must anticipate that future challenges will only get harder. Let us take the necessary steps now to build a more resilient Singapore, so that our next generation will be better prepared to weather any storm that comes.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Mr Speaker, budgets are seen by most lay people mostly from the lens of “what’s in it for me” – what am I going to have to pay more for? What goodies am I going to get? How will my business benefit? Economists and market watchers look to be convinced of whether the Budget will make Singapore more competitive and foster GDP growth. But just as organisations are finding that employees are increasingly looking beyond dollars and cents for companies with a clear and inspiring purpose, I believe that Singaporeans are also looking for more in a Budget: do the values reflected by the policies and initiatives proposed align with our own core values?

Because when the values espoused are aligned with your own core values, it is a very special and awesome feeling – just ask any Liverpool fan who has bought into the ethos of "You Never Walk Alone". It is about not just getting results but doing it in a way that makes you deeply proud to be a Singaporean.

On this measure, the evolution of the social compact towards a fairer, greener and more inclusive Singapore, as described by the Finance Minister, delivers. These are values and a vision for the future that are shared by the broad middle ground of Singaporeans.

Personal responsibility and collective support. The yin and yang of the Singapore way, mutually reinforcing. While reinforcing personal responsibility through tying incentives and support to work, the Budget continues the tilt towards collective support. This has been happening for the past more than 10 years. The Government has recognised the need for greater social support, in response to growing inequality, technological change and changing societal expectations, and adjusted the system, very deliberately, over time, including the introduction of the new anchors of our social security system like Workfare, Silver Support and now PWM, and the tightening of foreign manpower policy.

Collective support means we all pay, which also ensures that we all understand that nothing we get comes for free. But the wealthy pay more. The more money you have, the better the life you lead, the more you can afford to pay for other people's children's education and other people’s healthcare. That is just and fair. I welcome the progressive moves in the Budget: the uplift in salaries for lower-income workers, the higher income taxes for the rich, the wealth taxes, and the combination of GST with GST Vouchers and other rebates. By raising revenue in a broad-based way, but spending it in a targeted and fair way, we set ourselves up for a more sustainable fiscal position, while giving time and support for the transition.

However, one area I urge the Minister to review, in light of recent developments, is the Household Support Package. Many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have spoken about their concerns over the cost of living. I must echo this concern, for low- and middle-income households.

I sat and talked to one of my residents. He and his wife have five children, they live in a five-room flat. Very typical upper middle-income family. Over the past few months, his electricity bill has gone up from $120 a month to $200 or by $80 a month. Multiply that by 12, $960 a year. His water bill has gone up from $30 to $60, multiply by 12, $360. His petrol bill, which he uses to work and ferry his kids to and from school has gone from $500 to $800 or $300 increase a month, $3,600 a year. His food expenditure – they do not cook a lot, so they mostly eat out – has gone up by about 15% to 20%, he says. Fortunately, his spend on healthcare and education have not gone up by much.

But as you can see, these add up pretty quickly. Some of these, we expect to come down in due time, as MTI has previously shared, but the developments in Ukraine and the continued disruption of supply chains, give rise to concerns that this situation might go on past the end of the year.

Mr Speaker, if anything is regressive, inflation is regressive. So, I would like to ask the Finance Minister, what assumptions of inflationary trends were made in developing the $560 million Household Support Package and whether more support can be given, including to the middle-income, for whom ComCare is not an option.

But long term, the way to make sure that the increased cost of living does not bite too hard, is to ensure that incomes grow faster than expenses at every level of the workforce. With the expanded PWM, I think we are quite covered with the lower-income workers. For the middle-income, it is vital that we continue to enhance the competitiveness of our economy so that we can continue to create and retain good jobs. It is vital that we continue to invest in capability building and take a balanced, tempered approach in implementing the tax and manpower policy changes.

In the Committee of Supply, I will speak more on measures to enhance the competitiveness of the economy, build capabilities in our people and businesses, accelerate the green transition and manage the healthcare costs and workforce for an ageing population.

I would like to focus the rest of my speech today on three strategies for our nation’s development, strategies that are driven by alignment of values.

The first is an economic strategy. Go after the Beyond Great companies.

There is a set of leading global companies that are moving past all definitions of “great”, companies that used to focus on scale and strong shareholder returns. One example is Microsoft. These Beyond Great companies have realised that sustainable competitive advantage in an era of technological, geopolitical and social change, can only be attained by being responsive to the needs of all stakeholders, shareholders, but also customers, employees, local communities, governments and the natural environment. The have agile business models that offer customised solutions to borderless communities of digitally connected customers and are experts at forming flexible ecosystems of partners. Conscious of their responsibility to the countries they operate in, they nurture local expertise, enable SMEs to participate in global and regional value chains and help the countries they are in to develop customised solutions to their toughest problems. They are willing to provide jobs and opportunities for a combination of skills, from the highly skilled global professionals who compete with the best in the world, to the middle and lower-skilled workers who may compete more often with lower-cost resources in the region, because they understand that for Singapore to be true to our values, we must have jobs for every Singaporean.

The Government, led by EDB, can proactively attract and nurture Beyond Great companies to anchor in Singapore. To attract these companies, we must continue to offer financial stability, predictability, transparency and low taxes. But these are table stakes. Beyond Great companies will also demand world class digital infrastructure and customs procedures that minimise transaction costs, cross border data sharing frameworks and safeguards, regional trade agreements that harmonise regulations. All of these are necessary for them to transact international business through digital platforms and fast-evolving ecosystems.

Beyond Great companies also require flexible labour policies and the ability to tap on global employees and freelancers sitting outside the host country and within a country, a workforce that is not only highly skilled with specialised technical capabilities but also people with digital mindsets, who are agile and always hungry to learn, who have motivation and grit.

In my maiden speech at the start of this Parliament, I spoke about the need for the Government and companies to invest in our people. We have made significant moves since then, but it is still not enough. We must continue to accelerate the reskilling and upskilling of our workforce for a more digital, more green future and, over the long term, we must reexamine the entire education system from early childhood all the way to work, to enable learning at the right time, at the right place, on a personalised learning journey.

We must also collaborate in public-private ecosystems with these Beyond Great companies to align plans, policies and incentives to achieve mutually shared goals beyond profit and growth.

The second strategy deals with social policy – implement a permanent growth dividend.

As I have alluded to earlier in my speech, we have built, over time, a comprehensive social security system fit for our demographic profile with Workfare, Silver Support and Progressive Wage Model – really quite game changing.

I must confess though that when schemes like the Solidarity Payment and Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers were announced, I was quite bemused. Did rich Singaporeans really need the $100 to feel solidarity with other Singaporeans? But after getting feedback on the vouchers from the ground, I must say my position has shifted. My residents in 5-room, executive apartment (EA), executive maisonette (EM) and Jumbo flats – we happen to have a lot in my division – told me that it felt good to finally get something when, usually, there is nothing for them, even though quite a few of them donated theirs.

In the discussion on GST in this and previous Budgets, we have talked about the advantages of GST as a broad-based tax on revenue. Perhaps, there is something to be said about boosting solidarity through a broad-based distribution, which also provides an additional way to enhance financial security and mitigate inequality for those whose fortunes do not reflect the nation's success.

The support package has elements of this but, if we want to be more inclusive, could we explore a more structural change to provide a permanent growth dividend tied to GDP or Budget surpluses, with different payouts, of course, based on wealth or income, partly in cash, partly in CPF, that give every Singaporean an additional stake in the nation's economic progress, reinforcing that we win and lose as a team.

We have done this before with one-off payments like the SG Bonus in 2018, the Growth Dividend in 2011, the New Singapore Shares in 2001 and, of course, the discounted Singtel shares in the 1990s. It may feel moot to even be discussing this in the context of consecutive years of Budget deficits, but I hope the Minister might consider this as we move forward.

The third strategy deals with shaping our values themselves – build a positive national culture.

Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, famously said in 1977, "You know the Singaporean. He is a hardworking, industrious, rugged individual. Or we would not have made the grade. But let us also recognise that he is a champion grumbler." Forty-five years later, we may laugh and wryly say some things never change.

But who do we really want to be? Have we thought about how much better and stronger we would be if we were a more positive people? Not just law-abiding but positive. There are three components of a positive national culture that I think are particularly important.

First is empathy. In dealing with people, we must make the effort to get to know them as whole human beings. It increases the likelihood that they will go the extra mile when we need them to. The relationship and the trust between the people and the Government and the Public Service are a massive ingredient to sustainable success for our nation.

Second is mutual respect. If we respect others, we must accept that people have different strengths and weaknesses and support them to use their strengths to flourish and not be stuck with narrow ideas of what good looks like and of what should be valued. We must accept different backgrounds, cultures and viewpoints while not letting society become more and more fragmented. We must speak to one another, on the streets and in this House, with respect and with integrity.

Third, aspiration or ambition – always believing that we can do better, be better. We fight complacency and cynicism by surrounding ourselves with people who push us to aim higher and do better. We believe that no matter how small we are, our actions matter.

For example, with respect to climate change, we could take the view that Singapore going to net-zero may not move the needle if bigger countries in the region and the world do not do their part or we could take the view that I mooted in last year's Budget debate that by investing in research and development (R&D) and developing solutions for the greatest existential crisis of our times, we can lead and change the world.

We must cultivate that eternal optimism, that sense of idealism and adventure.

Mr Speaker, at this point, I cannot help but remember another famous speech by our founding Prime Minister, "There is a glorious rainbow that beckons those with the spirit of adventure. And there are rich findings at the end of that rainbow. To the young and the not so old, I say, look at that horizon, follow that rainbow, go ride it. Not all will be rich. Quite a few will find a vein of gold. Dig it out. But all those who pursue that rainbow will have a joyous and exhilarating ride and some profit."

Mr Speaker, building this positive national culture requires a lot of work that has to start early in life – in our schools, communities, workplaces, in our interactions with Government agencies, in social media, in the metaverse. We have to enable and stimulate the building of networks, support groups, mentorship programmes, volunteer groups.

In my youth, we had a lot of public education campaigns on radio and television. Who can forget Singa the Courtesy Lion, Teamy the Bee and all those jingles? Now, the same types of campaigns may not be quite so effective with Singaporeans today but we have even more new mediums, tools and talents today to put out relatable and inspiring content to propagate positivity among Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, during the pandemic, there was a catchphrase that became quite popular. Test negative, be positive. Let us infect one another with positivity, regardless of backgrounds, cultures or political leanings.

Mr Speaker, before I end, let me say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Not long ago, I received a message over Facebook from a Chinese resident. Taking pains to say that it was nothing racist but an encouragement to me, our Malay MP in our Sembawang GRC, she shared what she overheard from a group of Chinese women:

"Aiyo, you see, generally Malays are less hardworking … But you see that our Sembawang GRC Malay MP looks so cheerful, so hardworking and active?"

Is this racist? Some will say yes, some will say no. But it is at least prejudice. The truth is prejudices are real. As minorities, the truth is we have always had to work harder than others just to be seen as working as hard as others. Is that fair? No. But is there a genuine desire to put in the hard work to change things? I believe this to be the case with this Government.

It is fashionable these days to cry out injustices, to see calls to cancel someone or something. Sadly, that can sometimes do a great injustice to the hard work being done to change things.

The Budget represents a vision of a fairer, greener and more inclusive Singapore. A fairer and more inclusive Singapore where the fruits of progress are shared more equally by all augurs well for our community. I hope our community will take full advantage of the commitment to invest in our people, invest in our children. I hope more will be done to build a positive national culture and that through the formation of networks, mentorship and communities, the Malay community can be lifted by a positive spirit.

I know many are unhappy about introducing GST in next year, but I also know that with the $6.6b Assurance package, the vast majority of our community will not be affected by the GST increase at all until 5 or even 10 years or more from now. Indeed, some will get a GST bonus in the interim. During this time, we must continue to work on increasing incomes across all levels of our community through our individual efforts to upskill, and through further Government effort. Separate from GST, there are valid concerns about cost of living. I hope the Government will move swiftly to support Singaporeans even more if the high costs persist.

I also hope that the 4G leaders will continue to build genuine relationships with our community, understand our values, our constraints, but also our talents, our efforts and our hustle. And then please be our ally and help us develop and use our strengths to benefit ourselves and society. Because we don’t just want to get better than we were, we want to be at par with everyone else.

(In English) Mr Speaker, Budget 2022 makes a significant move down the path of a fairer, greener, more inclusive Singapore, from which may emerge a vision of a Singapore that is beyond great. It moves further to build capabilities to keep our economy and our people competitive, scaling up early intensive interventions to boost social mobility.

It is a Budget we can be proud of. I support the Budget.

Mr Chee Hong Tat.

Mr Abdul Samad.

Mr Speaker, I will like to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Budget 2022 provides various forms of support to help Singaporeans cope with the increasing cost of living. As always, the low-income group should receive such support to help them with their living expenses. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the Government to review the eligibility requirements in terms of individual or family income, by taking into account the middle-income group so that they are also given a fair share of support.

It is also important that employers hire Singaporean workers and make them the first choice. As someone who represent workers, I am very heartened with the announcement on the lowering of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling. This approach reflects our openness to foreign workers because we are all aware that there is a shortage of manpower that is needed to continue developing Singapore's economy.

Furthermore, the announcement of the $100 million grant to NTUC shows the Government's trust and confidence in NTUC's efforts to enhance the capabilities of workers alongside their employers through the Company Training Committees or CTC. The main objective of forming these committees is to allow trade unions and the management to work together to improve the quality and capability of their workers through comprehensive and new skills. As a result of this effort, I hope that the workers can have better income, career and welfare.

We often hear news reports where Government says that a lot of job opportunities will be made available through new companies that will commence operations in Singapore for the near and long term. This announcement is very much welcomed and therefore, I encourage all workers to constantly improve your skills and capabilities so that we can take on the jobs that will be offered.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest appreciation to every nurse, doctor, paramedic and all those involved in managing this crisis. In addition, I would also like to convey my appreciation to the Fatwa Council and our religious leaders in providing guidance to fulfil our religious obligations at the mosques in terms of Friday prayers as well as daily prayers. This includes the mosque committee members and volunteers who have been working hard to facilitate and ensure safe distancing measures, among others, so that the congregants can come to the mosques in a safe and orderly manner.

(In English): Sir, I will now begin my speech in English. I am heartened that this Budget reflects the Government's continuous support for workers and businesses that are still impacted as we move to an endemic situation. The Budget also acknowledges and empathise my fellow workers' plight given the rising cost of living and their stagnating income.

I would like to begin by highlighting some of the efforts undertaken by fellow Union leaders and NTUC to protect workers and their livelihoods since COVID-19 struck us. We partnered with Government agencies to help redeploy workers from hard-hit sectors to sectors that had an urgent need for manpower.

For workers who unfortunately lost their jobs, we negotiated for reasonable retrenchment benefits and at the same time, provided immediate employment assistance through our Job Security Council. For the companies that were still doing well, we pursued the skills upgrading and career development of workers through the company training committees. These all are only possible due to our unique model of tripartism. Yes, tripartism.

As our economy shows signs of recovery, and our resident unemployment rate has rebounding to pre-COVID-19 levels. This is an opportune time to grow jobs and improve the wages, welfare and work prospects of our workers. This brings me to the first topic of my speech, very close to my heart and indeed all in this Chamber, I believe – Strengthening our Singaporean Core.

This pandemic has accelerated technology adoption across all industries. We have seen many positive examples of unionised companies automating lower-level manual jobs and upskilling workers to work with technological solutions to increase their job value and productivity. As the COVID-19 situation improves and borders are slowly opening, companies should avoid taking the easy way out by bringing back foreign labour as a quick fix solution. Companies should invest in technology and automation for work processes to be easier, safer and smarter. I understand that there are some jobs that need to be supplemented by foreign labour but we should build on the momentum to train and transform our workforce to strengthen our Singaporean Core.

The recent announcement on the reduction of Foreign Dependency Ratio from one is to seven to one is to five, is a positive move to reduce reliance on foreign workers, but raising the minimum qualifying salary by $500 for Employment Pass and S Pass applicants created some misconception and unhappiness because, some see this as a move to increase wages of foreign workers but our Singaporeans do not get similar adjustments over the same period of time.

While the rationale is to ensure employability of our local workforce, MOM needs to clearly show how the increase in the qualifying salary of S Pass and Employment Pass has benefited the local workforce and resulted in the overall increase in wages for Singaporeans. Even with the reduction of the Dependency Ratio, I would also like to see that MOM continues to be stringent in assessing the needs of companies for foreign labour and ensure that such talents that come, complement our Singaporean workforce and augment their skills and capabilities.

Strengthening our Singaporean Core applies to workers of all levels, including our Professionals, Managers, Executives (PMEs). The demands for good and high-skilled jobs that would attract PMEs are also growing, and this provides opportunities for localisation of jobs and career development. The NTUC-SNEF PME task force reported that younger PMEs, aged below 40, opined that their employers are not investing enough to equip them with relevant skills to prepare them for the future. Companies should not take advantage of the recovering economy to bring in foreign talents but instead put in place career development for their Singaporean workers to take on these jobs and grow their careers.

While we could continue to embark on the transformation journey, together with enhancing foreign manpower and companies' policies, we acknowledge that it is important for us to keep up with the demands of the evolving job market, hence it is imperative that companies continue to invest in training, to build deep capabilities in our local workforce for us to strengthen our Singaporean Core.

NTUC is very heartened by the Government's strong support in setting aside $100 million to scale up the company training committees (CTCs) to support companies' transformation plans. NTUC is very committed and ready to partner with companies to form CTCs to identify relevant training to upskill and transform workers in tandem with industry transformation. Such efforts must lead to better wages, better work prospects and better welfare for our workers. These three outcomes will be the catalyst to encourage workers to attend training.

I would like to ensure our companies that NTUC is more than able to support such efforts through our NTUC Training and Placement ecosystem, comprising Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), NTUC Learning Hub, NTUC Industry Training and Transformation (IT&T) and Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership Institute (OTCi). Sir, NTUC is well positioned to support companies in their business strategy planning, job matching, job redesign and more importantly, workforce training.

For instance, amid the COVID-19 outbreak, NTUC Learning Hub swiftly augmented its training capabilities to respond to training needs and the national agenda to upskill. This allowed companies from hard-hit sectors such as aviation, hospitality and among others, to reskill and upskill their employees. I am pleased to share that NTUC Learning Hub has achieved a record of over 500,000 training places and upskill more than 300,000 workers since the start of the pandemic.

NTUC Learning Hub also launched their Learning eXperience Platform (LXP) late last year to encourage online learning at one's own pace, anytime and anywhere. This is to also encourage our workforce to embrace lifelong learning and upskilling – complementing CTCs' efforts in partnering companies to transform their business and workforce towards Industry 4.0 and Worker 4.0.

As a strategic partner for industrial transformation, companies can tap on NTUC's Training and Placement network for a smoother business transformation journey, mobilise workers for upskilling and into new jobs to meet the aspirations of their workers, for better staff retention.

Mr Speaker, union leaders are glad that the Government continues to support the aviation industry as it slowly recovers from the severe impact caused by this pandemic. For Singapore to remain its Airhub status, there needs to be a continuous and healthy pipeline of talents to perform these good skilled jobs. With this support, companies need to ramp up their technological solutions and also train their workforce. Companies should also find ways to retain experienced workers through better salaries and benefits while at the same time, improve internship opportunities for Polytechnic and ITE students.

Besides aviation, tourism is another severely impacted sector and have been facing severe manpower shortage. Workloads have increased and sadly, salaries have not increased much since pre-COVID-19. Now and post pandemic, companies are and will continue to change to be leaner and more efficient in their operations, where skilled manpower is sought after. There are efforts to upskill the workforce so that it enables companies to cope with international demand when it returns.

These are good jobs where a worker who has picked up the relevant industry knowledge and has the passion to contribute can rise very quickly to take up management level positions. We hope companies could increase the local Polytechnic and ITE graduate entry level salaries to attract Singaporeans and retain them in the long run. Otherwise, the salaries offered by the gig economy will draw them away from these industries.

However, while Singapore gradually expands vaccinated travel lanes, there remains economic challenges and COVID-19 fear. These put additional pressure on effective recovery of international tourism. I hope and I call on the Government to review and extend similar support to the hotel sector too.

Next point that I would like to raise is on the rising cost of living, with my focus towards extending more support to the middle-income earners. We are all aware that inflation has been on the rise. Singapore's overall inflation in December 2021 has jumped to 4% on a year-on-year basis and has remained at 4% in January 2022. For the whole of 2021, overall inflation rose to 2.3%, and in fact, this is the highest since year 2013.

Based on the feedback and sentiments from my peers and fellow workers, inflation is quickly emerging as a key challenge this year, as households face rising prices on multiple fronts, ranging from food, education to housing. This is especially for our middle-income earners.

We are really heartened by Government's initiatives such as the GST support package to help lower- and middle-income households as well as retirees to cope with the GST hike. Aside from GST Voucher and doubling the U-Save rebates applicable to all HDB households for the remaining quarter in 2022, we also appreciate the increase of annual assessable income to $34,000 as a qualifying criterion for the GST Cash Payment. On this note, we hope that it could be further increased so that it can be extended to middle-income Singaporeans to help them cope with the rising cost of living.

Let us also not forget the group of lower middle-income workers, who are earning slightly more than lower-income individuals, but their families are also struggling with increasing daily expenses, yet they are losing access to Government support schemes as they have just fallen short slightly of the income criteria of these support schemes.

I hope the Government can review the income criteria of various support schemes such as Kindergarten, Student Care and Childcare Subsidies, CPF Housing Grants, to prevent the "cliff effect" and better support the lower middle-income family.

To my fellow workers, rest assured that the unions and NTUC hear your concerns and anxieties on the cost of living. We are also paying close attention and finding avenues to better support you. Our NTUC's social enterprises are committed to continue helping members and workers to moderate the cost of living and stretching their hard-earned dollars.

Today, there are 10 NTUC social enterprises under the NTUC Enterprise group, ranging from FairPrice, FoodFare, Kopitiam, First Campus, Learning Hub and more. Each of them is created to primarily address specific concerns that weigh on the minds of fellow Singaporeans, from rising food costs, catering to the broader needs of Singaporean working parents and their families to staying relevant throughout their working lives. They will continue to roll out initiatives to help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living.

I would close my speech by making two key points. One, as our economy recovers, we should build on the momentum to train and transform the Singaporean workforce. NTUC is here to support companies to form CTCs and through the Training and Placement ecosystem, we will provide support for business strategy planning, job redesign and workforce training. Together with the strong support of the Government, we will continue to walk this journey with you, raise local workforce capabilities through upskilling and reskilling. Most importantly, building the pipeline of local talents for the future.

Second is for our middle-income earners. I really hope Government hears our call for greater support for middle-income earners to cope with the increasing cost of living as well as constantly reviewing the criteria of various support schemes to ensure this group of workers does not fall through the cracks.

Unions and NTUC will continue to protect our workers, and the social enterprises will continue to cushion the impact of the cost of living through our various initiatives. Together, unions, NTUC and our social enterprises are committed to serve our members and workers better. We are and will always be by your side, because every worker matters! Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this has traditionally been a time when we as a nation delineate our goals and aspirations for the year ahead. It is thus imperative that we renew our commitment and resolve to uplift society as Singapore continues to recover from the corollaries of the pandemic.

I am encouraged by the central theme of this year's Budget. As we continue to find ways to deal with the ever-evolving nature of the pandemic, we must also set our eyes on how we can prepare Singaporeans for a post-pandemic future. Only by doing so can we “Chart Our New Way Forward Together.”

My esteemed colleagues and I in the Labour Movement strongly support and welcome the slew of measures introduced to alleviate the hardship that Singaporeans have experienced as a result of the pandemic as well as improve all facets of society as we transit to a post-pandemic future. I am heartened to note that the Government will be allocating more resources to help vulnerable groups in society.

As we chart our way forward, we should remain sensitive to the challenges and concerns of our vulnerable workers, especially our lower-wage workers and migrant workers. The best way to help workers cope with cost of living is through better wages and better jobs. Mr Speaker, allow me to elaborate.

Many of our lower-wage workers are frontliners in our nation’s fight against the pandemic. Spanning from security to cleaning sectors, our workers have toiled to keep Singapore safe. As the number of COVID-19 cases soared, our workers continued to work tirelessly to keep Singapore going. In doing so, they stepped up despite the risks to their health and took on additional precautions to limit the transmission of COVID-19 in our community.

In my Budget speech last year, I spoke about the ongoing efforts to support lower-wage workers. In particular, I reiterated that the formation of the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers is a testament to our commitment to ensure that the interests of our lower-wage workers are protected.

Over the past year, the collective support from various stakeholder groups to uplift the incomes of our lower-wage workers have been encouraging. NTUC, alongside our tripartite partners and various other stakeholder groups, will remain committed to help workers improve their income security and quality of life, and give them confidence in navigating their careers, equipping them to participate in new growth opportunities. But how can we work towards this goal? What are some areas we can continue to look into?

Firstly, the introduction of the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) is pivotal as it will provide transitional wage support for employers to adjust to upcoming mandatory wage increases for lower-wage workers covered by the Progressive Wage and Local Qualifying Salary requirements. It will also allow employers to voluntarily raise wages for lower-wage workers. Under this scheme, the Government will co-fund wage increases of eligible resident employees from 2022 to 2026.

The introduction of the PWCS is a step in the right direction and will go a long way in uplifting and supporting lower-wage workers. Having said that, at NTUC, we are cognisant that efforts to help lower-wage workers is a long-term strategy.

As more sectors and occupations are incorporated into the PWM, there will be a greater need to re-think the duration of transitory support new sectors will receive under the PWCS beyond 2026. Therefore, I would like to know how new sectors incorporated into the PWM between 2025 and 2026 will be supported. In particular, I would like to know if the Government will make special provisions for these industries.

On the subject of PWM expansion and as mentioned in my Budget speech last year, NTUC has identified two sectors for the implementation of PWM, namely, strata and facilities management and pest management.

NTUC has conducted several engagements with stakeholders in the respective sectors and the response has been very encouraging thus far. In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Government to seriously consider our proposal to implement PWM in the two sectors.

Secondly, on a related note, it is imperative that we look at parallel efforts to complement PWM.

In sectors where services are outsourced, we ought to incentivise service buyers from the private sector to adopt outcome-based contracting to ensure that PWM wage increases are sustainable in the long run. Consumers and service buyers should also become more socially responsible and reject service providers that provide services at a low cost but at the expense of the welfare of such essential service workers. Instead, service buyers should adopt an outcome-based contracting model where contracts are awarded to companies with progressive employment practices that give due recognition to workers, rather than basing these decisions on price alone.

In 2018, NTUC launched the Smart Sourcing Initiative that gives funding to service buyers in security, cleaning and landscape sectors that implement outcome-based contracts and train procurement staff to be familiar with the best sourcing principles. The introduction of this initiative is encouraging but it also reminds us that there are sufficient opportunities and latitude to incentivise service buyers from the private sector to adopt outcome-based contracting.

In order to do this, I call on the Government to provide funding for trade associations to engage consultants to develop an outcome-based contract guide. Depending on the industry, the consultants would develop bespoke guides for employers in varying industries.

By incentivising private sector employers to implement outcome-based contracts, due recognition can be accorded to our workers, ensuring that they can progress and perform higher-value roles and our PWM wage increases will be more sustainable in the long run.

Another vulnerable group adversely impacted by the pandemic would be our migrant workers. I will not be the first to thank our migrant workers for their hard work and contribution to the development of our nation, all while working in challenging conditions, distant from their homes and loved ones.

NTUC has perennially been advocating for enhanced medical coverage for the welfare and safety of our migrant workers. We are pleased that the Government has heeded our calls for greater protection.

At NTUC, we strongly believe that our migrant workers deserve to be insured against risks within and beyond the workplace. In December last year, NTUC Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) introduced its Associate Membership to offer holistic protection and benefits that are specially tailored to serve migrant workers' lifestyle needs. In exchange for a membership fee of about $24 per annum, our migrant workers would be insured up to $10,000 in term life insurance against critical illnesses, non-work-related death as well as total and permanent disability.

Collectively, I am confident that the Government's provision of enhanced protection and NTUC MWC's Associate Membership programme would ensure that our migrant workers are well protected against uncertainties. To ensure that our migrant workers are insured within and beyond the workplace, I call on the Government to mandate or incentivise companies to sponsor the membership fee for their workers.

Early last year, it was reported that more than 97% of employers with foreign workers living in dormitories were paying salaries electronically, up from 76% before the requirement was introduced in April 2020. MOM also claimed that the electronic payment of salaries has proven to be beneficial, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, because it ensures that foreign workers continue to receive salaries even when there are movement restrictions in place.

Once again, I urge the Government to consider mandating electronic payment of salary for migrant workers to protect them from exploitation. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At this year’s Budget Speech, the Government announced the Household Support Package to provide support for daily essentials. The Assurance Package for GST to cushion the impact of the planned GST increase, and enhancements to the permanent GST Voucher scheme to provide continuing help to defray the GST expenses of lower-income to middle-income Singaporean households, beyond the transitional support covered by the Assurance Package. Support is also provided to lower-income households to cope with the rising cost of living. For example, the 2021 Public Transport Voucher (PTV) Exercise will be extended to support lower-income families to cope with any fare adjustments. These schemes announced by the Government would undoubtedly assist in defraying the costs of living for Singaporean households, including the Malay-Muslim community in Singapore.

By strengthening our social compact, the assistance rendered is beyond defraying cost but also provide opportunities for all to enhance our social support pillars. We will be able to focus on our children’s education through the expansion of Uplift and Kidstart to support more young children from lower income families.

The budget will immensely benefit our Malay-Muslim households in Singapore in coping with the cost of living as Singapore transitions to a post-pandemic future. The majority of Singaporean households will receive at least five years’ worth of additional GST expenses. It is important for the family to take this opportunity to, firstly, continue to find a stable job that provide protection for us now and in the future; second, encourage the spouse to get back to workforce and support the family income; and third, upgrade and upskill to prepare for job in the growth sectors.

We can all take a leaf from 47-year-old Brother Ahmad Sadiq's lifelong learning journey.

To ensure a brighter future, Brother Ahmad Sadiq pursued part-time courses to climb the academic ladder, beginning with a NITEC in Mechanical Technology, then a diploma in Mechanical Engineering, and finally, a Bachelor's in Mechanical Technology with Honours (Distinction). All this education was fully self-funded, alongside a study grant from the Union of Power and Gas Employees (UPAGE), as well as SkillsFuture Credits. As a Mechanical Engineer and now as a union leader, he continues to champion lifelong learning and leading by example. In fact, he is currently pursuing an energy manager course supported by his company, and plans to pursue shorter courses that are aligned to his personal interests.

Moving forward, NTUC will also join hands with the Malay/Muslim community to address the community’s various needs and concerns. At NTUC, we firmly believe that the best approach is to empower our workers to access better jobs and earn better wages with better skills. On 24 February, through a Memorandum of Understanding, NTUC formalised our collaboration with Yayasan MENDAKI with both organisations tapping on our respective networks and resources to advance Employment and Employability for Malay workers in Singapore. This MOU is part of M3 Focus Area 4’s key strategy to uplift the Malay community in Singapore.

This partnership is a prime example of how NTUC enlarges our efforts in empowering our workers, forging collaborations with community-based and self-help organisation partners to enhance our reach to workers and communities that would benefit from our national-level resources in training and job placement.

We will do this by leveraging our training ecosystem with NTUC LearningHub and NTUC’s e2i. And through this ecosystem, the Malay/Muslim community’s efforts to train and upskill, can be augmented and scaled up, so that they remain employable and competitive in the job market. Malay Muslim union leaders are also deployed in the M3@Towns to rally the Malay Muslim workforce and provide the last mile support for job placements.

In line with a Malay proverb that tells one to make an effort to achieve one’s desired outcome - NTUC will also partner companies to set up Company Training Committees, or CTCs. As highlighted by Brother Chee Hong Tat and other parliamentary colleagues earlier, this CTC model brings together the unions and employers to develop concrete firm-level transformation plans, including the relevant training needed by their workers. Through the CTC companies, we can multiply our impact to help more workers train and upskill. With continued support from the community, NTUC's efforts will go a long way in our cause to uplift the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

(In English): Sir, in conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has tested our resilience as a nation. Singaporeans have remained steadfast despite the challenges they faced during the pandemic. Whilst we have come a long way, there will inevitably be many more challenges along the way. However, as a country, we have weathered similar storms and emerged stronger together.

As we chart a new forward together, the Government and NTUC are committed to helping workers in every step of the way and will continue our fight for a fairer and more progressive society for all. Rest assured, NTUC will continue to champion all workers because every worker matters. Sir, I support the Budget.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, as we continue to navigate the realities of a world still rolling with the punches of COVID-19, it is key that we look out for new opportunities that help us forge a better Singapore that produces more equitable outcomes and is more inclusive of Singaporeans who come from all walks of life.

First, on the Progressive Wage Model. Every country is faced with an apparent trilemma when it comes to labour policies. What seems to be fair often does not cultivate a competitive workforce and what appears to do both ends up with high costs of living or taxes.

Singapore's answer to this comes from the PWM the Singapore Labour Movement pioneered. Done prudently with meticulous negotiations amongst the tripartite partners, it rewards improved productivity and quality with a wage increase ladder suitable for individual industry sectors.

Two upcoming PWMs will be in the retail and food services sector. The workers in these sectors touch our lives and hearts everyday and yet, we have taken our workers in these sectors for granted.

Many Singaporeans start our day with a kopi that is served by their usual good neighbourhood kopi soh. When we celebrate with our families birthdays, anniversaries, New Year and Christmas, our workers in the restaurants are right there with us, even if their own families are spending time away from them.

Our retail frontliners have also been there for us when we buy our first set of furniture, when we pick the freshest produce from our grocers, when we scoot down to our convenience stores at 2.00 am to pick up emergency supplies. Our workers in these sectors have been keeping Singapore and our lives running with their hard work, sacrifices and good cheer.

Despite this, even till today, some 60% of food services and 45% of retail full-time resident workers are earning at or less than the 20th wage percentile of the local workforce.

In many international standards among OECD countries, percentile 20 defines the threshold for low pay. We need to do something about this.

F&B and retail are price sensitive, where a rise of prices in a kopi or a plate of economy rice at the food court will draw much attention. Indeed, our retailers have told me how price spotting even amongst essential items have become ever more keen with the advent of online shopping, cutting their margins razor thin. Therein, the concept of PWM is critical as it marries wage increases with productivity increases through upskilling, investments in technology and career pathways.

The pandemic has shown that this sector’s veterans and newcomers alike do thrive with the help of technology. Radha Exports Private Limited is the company behind the ValuDollar chain of stores. During COVID-19, the team was caught in an onslaught of challenges to their supply chain and manpower.

It was the necessity for change that pushed the company to digitalise and upskill their workers in this process. This increased productivity generated new and better paying jobs by helping the company justify a better pay for their employees.

I visited with the company and was delighted to have met with Uncle Rafi, as he is affectionately known. He has been working with the company since 2004, and has moved from being a deliveryman to now their warehouse supervisor. Today, Uncle Rafi is 65 years young, and he proudly tells me of his lifelong learning journey in Radha, from taking inventory using paper and pen, to creating rooms filled with filing shelves, to now being able to use their warehouse software to call up the smallest bar of chocolate from the aircon comfort of his newly computerised monitoring room.

The moral of the story is clear: upskilling works and tech is here to help. The PWM ensures competitive pay comes from justifiable reasons. The results speak for themselves.

As the PWM continues to reach out to more lower-wage workers, as a Labour Movement, as a Tripartite Partnership, as a country, we need to stand together. This is the heart of the matter: the PWM stands for Singapore’s commitment to uplift workers. This is about companies investing in our hardest working workers, unions protecting them with promise and hope, consumers making sure that those who labour can find ways to make ends meet with dignity, and Government ensuring that companies, workers and consumers are supported while we all are playing our own part in uplifting the lives of our fellow Singaporeans.

I would like to turn my attention to another slice of workers in Singapore, our freelancers and the self-employed. As many countries battled the economic downturn in the face of the COVID-19, the gig economy has provided crucial lifelines for many, allowing workers from affected industries to seek freelance jobs in food delivery and ride-hailing services.

The growing importance of this economy has seen a greater emphasis to protect the interests and welfare of these workers, workers who are not considered employees and thus are not afforded the protections and benefits salaried employees enjoy. Indeed, in the recent study by the Institute of Public Policy just released yesterday, researchers warn of food delivery and private hire vehicle workers facing risks of becoming trapped in poverty and precarity. The study cited that the "lack of savings and voluntary CPF contributions, being stuck in platform work poses additional challenges to future aspirations, such as home ownership".

As a progressive Labour Movement, we are sensitive to changes in the evolving Singaporean workforce and have witnessed, like many in the House, including Mr Saktiandi Supaat, the growing popularity of gig work. As such, the Labour Movement has been at the forefront of Singapore’s push to accord greater protection and welfare benefits for workers in the gig economy. We thank Mr Supaat for his feedback and suggestions for protecting freelancers in the education sector and hope that Mr Supaat can continue his good work with us in our associations and our unions.

Over the years, we have set up and advocated for safety nets for our gig workers such as offering protection and representation in the event of illness or injuries and care support for income loss or training assistance. However, there are miles to go before we sleep.

As we seek to maintain the flexibility and ease of entry into the gig economy that current circumstances allow for, it is imperative that the companies and platforms share our workers' sentiments and work towards providing better protection for our freelancers.

I am heartened to see some platforms putting in place their own measures to protect their riders, with delivery platforms such as Grab and Deliveroo offering their riders basic accident insurance coverage. The Labour Movement, through NTUC Learning Hub, has also started to introduce career conversion classes to protect the long-term livelihoods of our drivers who intend to move out of the industry.

Even as these efforts are encouraging, such measures do not sufficiently protect workers, particularly those who rely on the gig economy as their primary source of income. Without basic labour protections, one can ill-afford to fall sick or face sudden emergencies without facing a loss of income. If this is their hard-earned rice bowl, should we not then provide them with the required protection they deserve? Instead of basic insurance, should we not look towards a standardised level of insurance applied to all workers in the same plight? If our workers are contributing to the enterprise value of their partner platforms, should we not then also insist on platforms also contributing to the retirement safety nets of their partners?

As the Adviser to the NTUC’s National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association, I have heard loud and clear from the ground the need for better protection and representation of our gig platform workers. One of our brothers, Raymond, met with an accident last year. While covered by his platform partner’s insurance package, he felt that the claim process was onerous to a point where he decided not to pursue the insurance, as he would be able to earn back in one day what he would have received in the claims.

Brother Joseph also spoke to us about gaps in their platform partner’s support when their app went down and drivers were not able to earn their full day’s livelihoods. Our associations assisted to compile the list of bugs as the app went back up so that our drivers would have a coordinated voice on what impacts their livelihoods most. These are just some of the many small inconveniences and I would say large tribulations our gig economy workers face as the gig economy and its ecosystem of platforms evolve and grow.

As we look to provide greater protection and welfare benefits for workers in the gig economy, the Tripartite Partnership must strive to support a healthy diversity of career options and sustainable, dignified livelihoods brought about by the gig economy. In this respect, I look forward to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers. It is a good significant beginning for a more coordinated approach to supporting our growing gig worker population.

On the topic of evolving workforce, one of the greatest lessons learnt has been on the importance of accommodating diverse profiles as a design feature of our labour force, rather than a design fault. In particular, the interests of two groups of employees – women returning to work, as well as single mothers – must be paid attention to.

The Labour Movement has long recognised the distinct challenges women face at work that primarily stems from women having to saddle a greater proportion of domestic responsibilities and have accordingly championed and provisioned to advance this cause.

For example, our NTUC Learning Hub has started to co-create with our Women and Family Unit, confidence training courses as well as skills-based programmes to give women returnees the much needed boost when it comes to re-entering the workplace. We has also introduced a Women Mentoring Women programme that consists of Women Union Leaders joining forces with female grassroots leaders in mentoring women who need support with careers and livelihoods.

The primary thrust of these supports have been to alleviate the pressures that our women face both at home and the workplace, so that they can engage more productively and meaningfully in both spheres of their lives. To this end, the Labour Movement has sought to continuously enhance Flexible Work Arrangement standards to stay responsive to changing family and workplace needs.

As we celebrate these strides forward, we should also be mindful of ongoing gaps. It is my firm belief that changes in organisational culture is just as important as formal frameworks and enhancements to FWA policies must be accompanied by parallel changes in attitudes and values. As companies consider FWA a long-term feature, ground issues such as fair performance evaluation of employees on FWAs, and the availability of FWA options to employees in all job roles become all the more real on the ground. On this, I call for more support from our Government to help employers upskill their HR and line managers to manage a workforce with employees on FWAs.

Mothercare, is a name many mothers are familiar with, and it is not surprising that they have championed my heart for women. When I visited Mothercare recently, I was delighted to note that mothers with young children were 40% of their new hires in 2021. While I was at their store, I delighted in meeting with Mdm Fadilah who has four children and has worked her way in from Sales Assistant to Store Manager in just eight short years. She was not alone and I met another three teammates of hers, who were moms with three to four children each. The secret to Mothercare’s success? They are committed to job redesign and providing flexible working arrangements especially for their moms at work.

I believe that we ladies can have our cake and eat it too with the support of our workplaces. And I look forward to the measures our Government will introduce to encourage and support our employers to take on the challenge of job redesign. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progressive Wage Model will commence in the 3rd quarter of 2022 for the retail industry and 1st quarter of 2023 for the F&B industry. This will affect 28,000 full-time low-wage Singaporeans. These people are those who interact with us in our everyday life – our colleagues, neighbours, relatives and friends. They are the coffee aunty whom we meet every morning, and the smiling lad at the convenience store, the restaurant waiter whom we celebrate birthdays together, and the aunty cashier who gives us discount at the supermarket counter.

Some 60% of food services and 45% of retail sector workers are classified as low-income workers. We must improve this situation.

In this Budget, the Government announced a five-year Progressive Wage Credit Scheme to help stablise the wage of the F&B and retail sectors. However, improving the situation of low-wage Singaporeans requires the cooperation of other stakeholders. Workers must constantly upgrade their skills and companies must invest in technology. Helping low-wage Singaporeans is the mission of NTUC, the investment of the companies and the duty of all Singaporeans.

(In English): Helping businesses pivot to capture new capabilities in digitalisation and upskilling and allowing for employees to share in the fruits of advancement; creating deeper safety nets for the freelance ecosystem, ensuring parity for single mothers and sparking deep attitudinal changes at workplaces for women. These are the opportunities we must latch onto as they present themselves in a Singapore economy that awaits thoughtful reconstruction as #EveryWorkerMatters. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget 2022.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.

The Budget theme “Charting Our New Way Forward Together” is especially apt for a group of Singaporeans with the most vested interests – our younger Singaporeans. They are also part of “Generation COVID”. It is a loose moniker covering people from late childhood to early adulthood who are coming of age during this pandemic. This generation faces unique challenges. COVID-19 has changed the workforce, workplace and aspirations. New opportunities abound but also new threats lurk. Technology has accelerated the creation of higher-end jobs but also commoditised lower-end ones. Skills erosion is happening faster than ever. Young workers preparing for a changing economic order before COVID-19, now find themselves facing a vastly altered one.

Recently, Young NTUC commissioned a study involving 1,500 young Singaporeans from age 16 to 35. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, two out of three youths are anxious about the employment landscape, finding it challenging to navigate. Only one in two youths is certain of their career path and believe that they are provided with adequate career opportunities. Yet, they also have opportunities beyond the reach of earlier generations. Some worries I have heard from younger Singaporeans include how fundamental economic shifts will impact their job prospects and, of course, inflationary pressures. They want to pursue the future with energy and passion but are faced with a nebulous environment.

Generation COVID are the future leaders of Singapore. We need to address their anxieties and worries and, importantly, work with them to fulfil their potential to the fullest. I do appreciate that I am perhaps unable to adequately understand the predicament faced by Generation COVID. So, for a start, I would like to explore some of their concerns from three aspects: jobs, education and changing aspirations.

First, jobs and education opportunities. Some members of this Generation find their skills eroded substantially even before they graduate. Others are graduating into depressed sectors, such as tourism-related industries. Yet others, majoring in oil and gas, are entering the decarbonisation era. Reskilling and rapid adaptation are the new game.

First, we can consider expanding the reach of SkillsFuture. The use of SkillsFuture credits has shown a strong uptake in the past year. Courses related to skills in the IT, healthcare and professional services sectors are seeing the highest demand, alongside good employment outcomes.

Generation COVID would similarly benefit from SkillsFuture. This is especially for those who have graduated but find themselves unable to tap on growth opportunities due to a mismatch in skills. Young NTUC’s survey also showed that a majority of young people find such skills workshops useful. The much shorter economic cycles require us to consider lowering the minimum age for SkillsFuture. In addition, we can also increase subsidies for targeted SkillsFuture courses, especially those that support young Singaporeans to explore industries in growth economies.

Because of the shifting skills landscape, many younger Singaporeans will possibly need a more significant skills upgrade via a second subsidised diploma or degree. There is merit to such bigger moves because some skills acquisition just cannot be done through micro-courses. Currently, every Singaporean enjoys one bite of the cherry – one subsidised diploma and/or degree per person. With a shrinking cohort of Singaporeans every year, there is already capacity within the IHLs for people seeking a career boost.

Currently, hard technical skills are already baseline expectations. These can be taught within educational institutions or academies. However, there is a greater industry emphasis on soft skills, such as career management and interpersonal skills. Some of these soft skills are not transferable through courses and are perhaps better picked up through the sharing of experiences.

Thus, there is great demand for structured mentorship in today’s workplace to assist our younger people in navigating the professional workspace. Mentorship will be especially valuable for Generation COVID younger people from the lower- and middle-income families. Some of them might not have easy access to mentors, unlike their better-off counterparts. We have some nascent endeavours, such as Young NTUC’s LIT Mentorship. There is also WeConnect 2.0, an initiative by the Mentoring Alliance For Action (Singapore). But for the Singaporean workforce to differentiate itself from competitors, we must see mentorship as a national capability. It is also part of the ethos espoused by this Budget – Singaporeans looking out for one another. We must still preserve the ground-up mutual help movement. At the same time, creating national centres of excellence for mentorship can accelerate and boost the impact of mentorship. Tripartite partners, such as NTUC and SNEF, can develop such centres because of their deep industry connections.

Ironically, the new opportunities from the post-pandemic world, or the endemic-pandemic world, would also have made career navigation a lot more difficult. The current model of navigation starts from the school in the form of career guidance offices to national placement centres, such as e2i or Career Connect. The transition is not seamless and might not also meet the needs of younger workers. Young workers have often asked about the possibility of a one-stop centre that houses career counselling, mentorship, internships and employment opportunities. I can imagine that even the approach to career navigation might be quite different if it primarily serves younger workers. Can the Government consider working with tripartite partners to develop such a capability?

Next, on how we can better tailor our policies to Generation COVID, shaping Singapore into a country that they are proud to call home.

Mr Speaker, Generation COVID are perhaps the most outspoken, educated and progressive citizenry in the world. In Singapore, the SG Youth Action Plan has shown us our youth’s vision for Singapore in 2025 – social inclusivity, sustainability, mental well-being, and the need to strengthen our social compact.

Indeed, Generation COVID youths are different from the youths we were. They hold different aspirations for Singapore and have a stronger sense of social justice and activism. Many of them are interested in political and social causes, actively seeking avenues to be heard, to contribute meaningfully to such discourse. During the pandemic and even now, many youths have founded and expanded mutual aid networks to help the less fortunate around us.

They also hope that their professional work aids in the advancement of social causes. Increasingly, we see our younger people seeking the expression and advancement of such issues not only through their personal lives, but also their professional work. This intersection of work and social activism is both exciting and less understood.

We have an urgent need for deeper conversations to chart the way forward. This brings us to the theme of Budget 2022 – Charting the Way Forward Together. We must first seek to understand Generation COVID’s views on a deeper level, by creating safer spaces for them to candidly share their thoughts, views and aspirations for Singapore. What is their desired workplace and work culture? What is the new compact with our younger workers? NTUC is working towards a deeper understanding of the aspirations and needs of our younger workers. We welcome partners to join us on this journey. This is that critical first step in building a new and sustainable compact with our young workers.

To many of our Generation COVID, greater strides must be taken to tackle mental health issues. As part of a generation who ascribe greater significance to having a purposeful balance between work and mental wellness over traditional aggregators of success, this issue is one Generation COVID feels strongly for.

The pandemic has normalised hybrid workplaces and work-from-home culture. While the changing face of the workplace has afforded more flexibility, it has also blurred the boundaries between work and personal lives. New entrants to the workforce have a much harder time adapting to the hybrid work model without the benefit of an established support network. Thus, they are more exposed to stresses that were never present before the proliferation of hybrid workplaces.

I believe we can spark more conversations on mental health on the national level, thereby normalising mental health issues across the nation and within workspaces. Key stakeholders, such as employers, must remain sensitive and understanding towards persons struggling with mental health issues.

The Labour Movement will work closely with our tripartite partners to champion mental health within the workplace. We can consider establishing a code of practices for working from home and increasing peer-to-peer support as an avenue to advance mental wellness. Peer support is a crucial part of primary care at the workplace. It is not meant to replace professionals but, instead, is a vital link to get people to seek help. NTUC has launched a WSQ on peer-to-peer support and endeavours to work with all stakeholders to advance mental well-being.

Mr Speaker, Sir, despite the uncertainties, the future is shining bright for our younger people with Budget 2022’s commitment to investing in new capabilities and opportunities for our economy and our people. We must ensure that Generation COVID is well-prepared to face the uncertainties of the global economy and even the next pandemic. In NTUC, we will champion the aspirations and needs of our younger Singaporeans. We will chart this journey together with Generation COVID, working with them to emerge even stronger from the pandemic.

Notwithstanding my suggestions, I support the Motion.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget, which seeks to address our immediate challenges and chart our way forward together.

Sir, let me first declare my interest as President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

This Budget comes on the back of significant global inflationary pressures, at a time when rising cost of living is a major concern for many Singaporeans. The proposed increase in GST will no doubt add to consumers' concerns. While we understand the need to raise revenue, I am heartened that the Government has decided to delay the GST increase to 2023 and to stagger the increase over two years. Doing so will provide time for the various measures introduced to tackle rising inflation to come into effect.

At CASE, we believe more can be done to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions. That is why we launched the Price Kaki mobile application in 2019 to allow consumers to compare prices of household essentials, groceries and hawker food, make informed purchase decisions and stretch their dollar.

Since its launch, the app has been downloaded more than 80,000 times. CASE will expand Price Kaki this year, with more retailers, more products and more services, so as to benefit more consumers. We will increase the coverage of cooked food stalls from the current 114 hawker centres to cover an additional 200 foodcourts and coffee shops. CASE will also increase the coverage of groceries and household essentials on the app from 4,000 to 10,000 items.

To tackle rising prices, consumers can also consider purchasing house brands for their daily essentials. According to Price Kaki's data, house brand products can cost 10% to 25% cheaper than brand goods. House brands can be just as good and have similar nutrition value as regular brands. I would encourage consumers to look beyond the advertising and give house brands a try. The same taste for a much lower cost may come as a pleasant surprise.

Sir, house brands help set an important price floor for many of our household essential items and I hope all major supermarket chains can absorb the GST increase for selected house brand essential items.

But comparing prices alone is insufficient if a retailer chooses to maintain the price but reduce the quantity of the product. To tackle this shrinkflation, I would like to call on the Government to introduce mandatory unit pricing for supermarkets and grocery retailers in Singapore.

Mandatory unit pricing is already practised in countries such as Australia, Argentina and Chile. This might have been a logistical and administrative challenge in the past when price tags were printed on paper placed manually on the shelves. With the wide use of digital price tags today, supermarkets should have no difficulty displaying unit pricing.

As part of our commitment to price transparency, CASE will display unit price alongside the retail price for items listed on Price Kaki.

Sir, COVID-19 has impacted many of our heartland shops and hawkers. While the CDC vouchers have been a major help, more can be done to help our neighbourhood merchants transform their businesses. Heartland shops are facing immense pressure as higher prices of goods and utilities are weighing down heavily on their profitability. They are also facing stiff competition from online retailers.

As consumers' purchasing behaviour shifts to e-commerce accelerated by the pandemic, I thought it would be helpful to onboard our heartland merchants and hawkers onto a major e-marketplace. This will help them tap on the huge e-commerce potential.

I am therefore glad that Lazada Singapore has partnered Radin Mas to launch the Radin Mas Marketplace @ Lazada. This will be Singapore's first e-marketplace for heartland shops.

Lazada will onboard all interested merchants and hawkers in Radin Mas, which number close to 600 and allow them to list their first 100 items on the e-marketplace at no cost. Lazada will also teach our merchants how to better engage with younger customers such as through livestreaming. Merchants and consumers can also benefit from the occasional promotional campaigns organised by Lazada.

Sir, our heartland shops are an important part of our social fabric. As we transform our economy and chart our way in the post-pandemic future, we must ensure that our heartland shops will continue to remain part of our Singapore Story.

Mr Speaker, to manage the cost of living, wages must increase in tandem with rising inflation. However, we need to watch out for these three "invisibles" that could stand in the way of raising salaries – the invisible competition for jobs, invisible skills mismatch and invisible threat of burnout.

The COVID-19 pandemic has completely transformed the way we work and has accelerated the "work from anywhere" trend. Competition for jobs can now come from digital nomads working from any corner of the globe as long as the candidate has the right skills, a computer and a good Internet connection. There is even a new word recently invented called "workcation" where people travel and work remotely at the same time.

Countries are now seeking to attract these digital nomads as they reopen their economies and try to revive their tourism and hospitality sectors at the same time. The Financial Times recently reported that Thailand is offering 10-year visas to attract skilled professionals working remotely. According to Investopedia, Thailand is not alone, with Germany, Mexico and Norway – just to name a few examples – trying very hard to attract these digital nomads.

Sir, the Minister for Manpower answered a Parliamentary Question yesterday on foreign remote workforce employed by Singapore-based companies. He highlighted how it is important for Singapore to continually transform ourselves and help our local workforce perform higher value jobs.

I cannot agree with him more. But the reality is that digital nomads are competing for higher value jobs – jobs such as creative professionals, coding specialists and data science analysts. Simply put, companies today need not hire people based physically in Singapore to fill jobs here and our PMETs are particularly at risk of being displaced by an invisible competition, sitting by the poolside of a resort in Phuket.

While the increase in minimum qualifying salaries for Employment Pass and S Pass holders may be a short-term measure, I urge the Government to study this trend and review if our existing labour policies would continue to remain relevant in the years ahead. Do we need to adjust our policies and economic strategies to account for this invisible global competition for local jobs?

According to data from MOM, Singapore had a record high of 98,700 job openings in September 2021, with the number of job vacancies more than double the number of unemployed people. On the ground, however, the Labour Movement has received feedback from PMETs, particularly those in their mid-career, that they find it difficult to land these jobs.

Jobs looking for people. People looking for jobs. What could be the reason for the disconnect? One answer is likely a mismatch in skills.

Our NTUC's career coaches have found that many mid-career PMETs often neglect to go for skills upgrading because they were too caught up with day-to-day work schedules and very wide-ranging family responsibilities.

That is why I am glad that the Government is committing $100 million to scale NTUC's company training committees (CTCs). The CTCs help address the two most common questions that workers have when it comes to training – train what and train for what – by aligning the training needs with the company's future business and operations roadmap. Therefore, I encourage all companies in Singapore to work with NTUC and partner with us to create and implement training programmes that are suitable to upskill and reskill your workers effectively.

Lastly, I would like to touch on workplace burnout, a real but often invisible threat to the well-being of our workers.

Over the years, I have been speaking both inside and outside of this House on the importance of maintaining good workplace mental health. I am glad that the Government has worked closely with the Labour Movement on various initiatives, notably the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces back in November 2020, which provides guidance on after-hours work communications. For the first time, the Workplace Safety and Health Council will introduce a new workplace mental health category at this year's Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Awards.

However, there remains much more to be done.

According to a recent NTUC survey of 1,000 young working adults, over 40% reported poor work-life balance and work stress due to longer working hours and heavier workload since the start of the pandemic. Forty-two percent of the respondents felt that there was insufficient mental well-being support at their workplaces.

Clearly, our tired working professionals deserve a right to disconnect so that they can have protected time to rest and recharge after work. I urge the Ministries and our Government agencies to lead by promulgating clear directives on after-hours work communications for their staff.

Good workplace mental health is good for productivity and business. I hope that the Government can provide grants to encourage more employers to implement Employee Assistance Programmes at various workplaces to support its workers with mental health needs.

Mr Speaker, the coming years are fraught with challenges. Rising energy prices, inflation and a rapidly ageing population are just some of the difficult hurdles that Singapore and Singaporeans will need to overcome.

At NTUC, we believe that every worker matters and the best way to protect them through these challenges is through better jobs and better wages. We will continue to walk alongside our brothers and sisters and help them take advantage of all the help that are available. We will chart our way forward together. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Heng Chee How.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this Debate. I support the Budget.

Earlier, the hon Member Mr Melvin Yong spoke of the threat of shrinkflation, which is that the price is the same, but the items get smaller. That is the pressure that inflation can put on consumers.

But, Sir, not everything, however, is going in that direction. There are certain things which are going in the opposite direction and one of them is the longevity of Singaporeans. Singaporeans are living longer and there are implications, and it is to this direction that I will now turn.

Sir, I wish to speak on measures to further strengthen the retirement adequacy of present and future generations of older workers.

First, I thank the Government for beginning to implement the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers. In January this year, the first step to improve the CPF contribution rates for older workers aged 55 to 70 was carried out. This is part of the journey to harmonise CPF contribution rates for workers up to age 60 by the year 2030, as part of overall measures to help strengthen the retirement adequacy of Singaporean workers.

I, therefore, welcome our Finance Minister’s announcement in this year’s Budget that the next tranche of CPF contribution rate improvements would be carried out in 2023. It is important for these steps to be undertaken while conditions permit, because 10 years might sound very long, but it passes much faster than one thinks.

Sir, while improving CPF contribution rates for workers aged 55 to 70 will, indeed, help increase their retirement savings to some degree, it is not a silver bullet to achieve retirement adequacy in and of itself. For workers to be able to maximise their CPF retirement savings gained from work, they need to be in work for as many years as they are willing and able to, and for them to be able to qualify for both employer and employee CPF contributions as pay levels change with time.

Hence, there should be periodic reviews of the qualifying criteria for employer CPF contributions to ensure that, as pay levels improve over time, the proportion of pay that qualifies for CPF keeps pace and does not become materially eroded, of course, taking into account prevailing economic conditions. This will enable us to strike and sustain a fair, judicious and necessary equilibrium between employers’ legitimate cost concerns and workers’ legitimate need for retirement adequacy.

Sir, each year of additional work would mean that an older worker earns at least 12 months of additional pay and, for many workers, they have that 13th month as well, so, at least, 12 months. Clearly, this would greatly help with an older worker’s financial position and retirement savings, much more than any other measure.

This was why the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers had recommended increases in the statutory retirement and reemployment ages to be accomplished within this decade, moving from 62 to 65 and from 67 to 70 by the end of the decade.

The Government had previously announced that the first step in this journey is to add one year to both the statutory retirement and reemployment ages in July this year, that is, in July 2022. I fully support this step as our economy is projected to grow this year at a still healthy clip. Just like the improvements in CPF contribution rates, we must take incremental steps while we can, so that we will reach the goal within the timeframe that the Tripartite partners had agreed upon.

The enactment of the Retirement Age Act and its subsequent expansion to encompass Reemployment represent overt Government and legislative intent and support for older Singaporean workers. I, therefore, look forward to the outcomes of the Tripartite Workgroup on Workplace Fairness and, in particular, its recommendations to safeguard and strengthen the interests of older workers for fair consideration and treatment at work, including for training.

The Government has also put money where its mouth is to spur the continued hiring of older workers through a range of policy incentives: training subsidies, hiring incentives, CPF offset measures and so on, all stacked in favour of the hiring of older workers.

The combined result of tripartite and Government resolve and action has been a steady rise in mature workers' employment rates. It improved from 27.6% in 2019 to 28.5% in 2020 to 31.7% in 2021. This is all the more remarkable, because these improvements happened even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that we are experiencing here in Singapore. When we compare this achievement with the large-scale shedding of older workforces in many other countries over the past two years, then we know that we must not take this support and investment in our older workers for granted. This did not come naturally and it is not by chance.

That said, I want to point to two areas that I urge close attention and coordinated action on in the coming years, to make sure that these hard-won gains are sustained and not eroded.

Sir, in 2019, the proportion of Singaporeans aged 60 outnumbered Singaporeans aged five for the first time. We have also heard that the proportion of Singaporeans aged 65 and above has grown from 9% of the population in 2009 to 16% in 2019 and will reach 25% in 2030. These figures all, basically, show that Singapore is ageing very rapidly.

The implication of that on healthcare costs is clear and has been extensively discussed, including in the Budget speech. So, I will not dwell on that one. But there is another significant implication, which is the implication on mature workers’ employment rate, that we must not miss.

As I had said in previous Budget debate speeches, there is a significant trend of departure from work among female workers from around middle age. By some estimates, there could be some 30,000 such work-able persons in our population. This is likely to be due to care responsibilities, that is, the fact that they had left work is likely to be due to care responsibilities at work, and such care responsibilities, given that if they are leaving at middle age, are likely to be related to caring for senior members in the family.

This trend, we must expect, will intensify as our population bulge of baby boomers age into their 70s and beyond, and that would trigger a corresponding increase in pressure on middle-aged family members, especially women, to have to leave work in order to care for their senior family members.

If this happens, the impact on household income and the retirement adequacy of caregivers on the one hand, and the implication on the availability and mix of our workforce to companies on the other, will be big.

Traditional measures to help retain more middle-aged workers with care responsibilities either at work or to allow a return to work include the promotion of flexible work arrangements. This is correct and must, of course, continue. But I believe that this is not sufficient and we have to do more.

I believe that it is timely for a very thorough study to be carried out on how to enable appropriate affordable senior day care services, whether they be homecare or day-focused institutions, to be made available, at scale, that would also be sustainable for the service providers to provide.

Conceptually, this would be similar to the thinking behind providing affordable childcare services so that the parents, especially the mothers, can have a practical option of choosing to work, rather than, out of no choice, to have to stay at home to look after the babies. So, if you flip it to the other end of the population, conceptually, it is the same. Of course, the details are different and the conditionality for providing such affordable and accessible senior day care at scale is not identical but will have to be studied.

But we must study this expansion of such day care services in earnest and, through policy direction, implement a scaling up of such services with appropriate conditions so that we can forestall a surge in local workforce departures in the medium term, or a huge further increase in demand for foreign domestic help to look after the seniors. But that, in itself, brings about its own complexities. Doing so will also allow us to create viable jobs in this sector, turning the unavoidable population ageing into an opportunity.

I turn now to my final point, which is that we need to focus attention on jobs and occupations that employ significant numbers of older workers that we know will be impacted significantly by fast changes in technology. In this regard, we must pay special attention to the subset of such jobs and occupations that our switch to a low-carbon economy will likely put additional pressure on.

The vulnerability of older workers in such settings is quite self-evident and I think, earlier on, my colleague Mr Melvin Yong and, before that, Mr Patrick Tay had also given examples of how the middle-aged PMEs are also facing these difficulties and pressure, including the three invisibles that Mr Melvin Yong spoke about.

For older workers, if they are displaced, then their risk of structural unemployment will be higher than the rest. Even if they are rehired, their earnings will likely be lower and, therefore, negatively impacting their retirement adequacy.

To forestall this, I call for a specific tripartite focus to identify such priority sectors and occupations for re-skilling so that older workers holding these current jobs roles can be reskilled and be part of their firm's future even as their companies transform. Such efforts can certainly tap into NTUC’s growing network of Company Training Committees (CTCs) in order to systematically, deliberately and proactively do so. In this regard, I join my colleagues in thanking the Government of the investment of $100 million to work together and support NTUC's efforts in this area. And where there is ultimately an excess of manpower, parallel efforts to help the older workers reskill and convert to other job possibilities elsewhere will be equally crucial.

Sir, the theme of this Budget is “Charting Our New Way Forward Together”. This means that we must look at what is coming ahead and rally the whole of Singapore society to face it together and thrive, leaving no one behind. As for NTUC, we will continue to champion better wages, jobs and work prospects for all workers. Every worker matters and we believe that this is the best way to care for their present and to uplift their future. Our older workers are a valuable and growing part of our local workforce. Let us work together with them to shape that better future.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget.

The past two years had been like a roller-coaster ride in the dark. We do not know where the twists and turns are but we have, together, shoulder-to-shoulder, ridden over one peak after another, and it seems like we are now in the midst of another one. This has never been a fun ride, especially for our frontliners.

To Team MOH and the healthcare workers who are once again called up to the fore, thank you, and I salute you for valiantly keeping our country going, not forgetting my fellow educators, who face students every day to provide normalcy amid a dynamic landscape. Alongside our Public Service officers, our healthcare workers and educators have taken up multiple, varied and new roles, which underlie their unwavering commitment. I am grateful as they give us the much-needed confidence to see the light at the end of this dark roller-coaster ride. I urge that we continue to provide our Public Service officers, especially our healthcare workers and educators, with the best support and work-life balance possible.

Firstly, I ask that their workload and work scope be reviewed. How many hats can one person wear to remain effective? Perhaps, it is also time that we set clear guidelines on work hours, introduce timeouts and enforce the time for disconnect. Replying to non-urgent emails can wait but our families cannot.

We must also continue to create and upgrade channels for communication between staff and this does not include the bi-annual staff appraisal.

I am also aware of the abuse they face and the pressures of work from the stakeholders, and we should do more to create practical ways to allow them to come forth and be provided with the necessary support and protection.

Mr Speaker, while the fight against COVID-19 is far from over, we are in a better position to chart a new way forward together. I support the Finance Minister's call to renew and strengthen our social compact. It resonates strongly with me and I will touch on two areas: education and mental health.

Mr Speaker, I am a firm believer in lifelong learning. To sustain something lifelong requires us to acknowledge that one may be susceptible to physical and mental burnouts. In my previous speeches, I mentioned that one way to mitigate this is to provide opportunities or rather, phases for individuals to: discover, re-discover and re-invent themselves.

I will cover two of them today, although all three are aptly represented in this year's Budget announcement.

The first phase, "discover", begins from early childhood. Within this phase, we must provide our children with the opportunities to discover their strengths and interests. Opportunities for deliberate play and exploration will allow children to pick up social interaction and problem-solving skills beyond what books can offer.

Therefore, I welcome the announcement that we will be investing more in our children to scale up the KidSTART programme nationwide and expand into a nationwide UPLIFT Community Network to support more children in disadvantaged families. However, I hope that we can also curate programmes for those in the middle class in the future, especially those who may be struggling or facing sudden change in their situation. As shown through the pandemic, being on a balance means that one can be tipped over fairly easily.

Nevertheless, the move for an enhanced KidSTART and upscaled UPLIFT programme underlines our strong commitment to tackle inequality at the earliest juncture possible and ensures that every child is given the opportunity to discover the joy of exploration and play and importantly, stand a fighting chance when they enter Primary school.

Mr Speaker, when I recall my Primary and Secondary school experience, it was all about the PSLE, the "N" and "O" levels. I understand the need to hold these major exams, but I think we can do with fewer exams in between. If we are serious about redefining success, then it can start by redefining what exams mean. I urge this call in unison for a "whole-of-society approach" to change the mindsets on education, from daily school issues to major examinations and how we perceive success and learning as a whole. It is about time to change this "Assessment of Learning" culture to a "Journey of Learning".

We must create a culture of appreciating the joy of learning and the challenges such a journey presents, be it easy or difficult, whether we get success or failure and accepting that there are multiple paths to achieve success. In removing the minor exams, we can nurture an optimal lifelong learning concept and this, in turn and hopefully, result in a better mental health environment.

Sir, the second phase, "re-discover", is at the Polytechnic or University stage. We have done well to create multiple pathways. There are now numerous courses that a student can enrol in that matches their interests. However, one lesson we learnt from the pandemic was the inability of some of our fresh graduates to be agile in a volatile job environment. This is not their fault. Who could have predicted that certain sectors can be so affected by the pandemic?

In my previous speeches, I emphasised the need to give our graduates broad skills that can be generalised across other disciplines. This will put them in a better footing and give them the confidence to apply their skills across other sectors. I would now go a step further and ask if we could allow greater flexibility to allow students to choose modules outside their main course and pursue side interests. I could be a sports scientist with a good foundation in entrepreneurship. Or an engineer with graphic design skills.

Inevitably, time is a factor. Polytechnic students, for example, have three years to complete the course. Perhaps, it is time to review if a slightly longer duration would allow students to develop better, to get that much needed time and space to equip themselves and pursue these interests.

Mr Speaker, many PAP Members, past and present, have touched on the importance of mental health and support. In my previous adjournment motions, I highlighted several suggestions to destigmatise mental health. These include a push for mental health and social media literacy in schools and workplaces, improving accessibility at community touchpoints, providing regular mental health screening and introducing time-outs for individuals to recharge, re-organise and come back stronger to school or work. I also called for the Government to expand our mental healthcare infrastructure, expand community support network and to make mental healthcare and support affordable.

Beyond Parliament, with support from other PAP Members, as well as the Young PAP, we drove the #452TooMany campaign and conducted dialogues to bring community partners like Total Wellness Initiative, ItAllStartsHere.sg, IMH, the Muslim Healthcare Professionals Association and many more, as well as volunteers and residents together.

Within my constituency, we have also organised workshops for grassroots leaders so that they can better support our residents. That is why I am very happy to hear our Finance Minister laying out broad plans to enhance and integrate mental health and social services in the community. The setting up of the Inter-agency Task Force shows that the Government is committed to taking action towards mental health stigmatisation and supporting the needs of Singaporeans.

In November last year, MOH published its National Population Health Survey and found that younger adults aged between 18 and 29 had the highest proportion of poor mental health, for about 21.5%. Therefore, I call on the task force to expand outreach and support for this particular group and hope that with the rising numbers as a whole, we can also increase the number of psychiatrics services that we made available.

Mr Speaker, while the Government can enact policies and guidelines, it does not have the monopoly of solutions to make Singapore a caring and inclusive nation. We need all hands on deck. Here, I would like to call upon three groups to play their part.

The first: employers. I spoke previously about the need to be more compassionate to our workers and provide them with periods to recharge, therefore I urge employers once again to review their mental wellness programmes, encourage regular health screening, both physical and mental and consider using time-outs. Like some say, a happy employee is a productive employee, but most importantly, an even happier employer.

Secondly, is family and friends. While I am grateful that our mental healthcare infrastructure is robust and sound, it is sad that many of us are still not stepping forward to receive help. Stigmatisation remains a pertinent issue. Mental health issues are varied in nature. Some are obvious, others are silent and almost unnoticeable. It would be unwise for one to generalise. Therefore, a strong support system of family and friends play a key role in helping a loved one. Thus, the need for mental health literacy for everyone remains important to eradicate stigmatisation and create a more caring support system.

Thirdly, is our community. With Singapore having one of the highest internet penetration rates globally, almost every adult and youth are connected to the internet and social media. Cyberbullying, the woke culture and online shaming are becoming more rampant and have a detrimental effect on the mental health of those affected. Therefore, it starts with us, not the Government alone or social media platforms, it begins with us – the community – to set a good online and offline code of conduct to create a more caring and inclusive home for all of us. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I was happy to see this caring and inclusive Budget delivered by the Minister of Finance. I support his call to renew and strengthen our social compact.

In my English speech earlier, I spoke about three issues. First, comprehensive support for workers; second, education; and third, mental health.

Allow me to summarise. First, I urge that we provide a more comprehensive support for workers, especially healthcare sector workers and teachers. I call on the Government and employers to review their workload and job scope to ensure a quality Work-Life balance. This includes setting clear guidelines on working hours and introduce time-outs for workers to come back stronger to their workplace. As for education, I welcome the announcement to scale up the KidSTART and UPLIFT programmes. It underlines a strong commitment to tackle inequality as early as possible and ensures that every child is given the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

In my previous speeches in Parliament, I highlighted several suggestions to eradicate stigmatisation and increase support for mental health. Beyond Parliament, other PAP MPs and I have organised campaigns on social media and discussions to raise awareness about mental health. Therefore, I am heartened to hear the Minister laying out broad plans to enhance support for mental health.

The establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force shows that the Government is concerned and took action against mental health stigmatisation and supporting the needs of Singaporeans. I urge employers and everyone from all walks of life to join us in this endeavour.

United we stand, divided we fall. Many hands make light work.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I can only say that change in the only constant and if we, as Singaporeans, are committed to creating a caring and inclusive Singapore for our generation and the generations ahead, we need to continue to take decisive actions and remain agile in a dynamic, volatile landscape.

With the Government reiterating its commitment and the community stepping forward to co-curate these solutions, I am confident that we can be the shining light for other countries to emulate as we "chart a new way forward for Singapore together". Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many measures announced in this year's Budget Statement that we welcome. We welcome the further tightening of foreign manpower, the increased focus on re-distribution through the introduction of higher income tax rates at the top tiers and higher taxes on properties and luxury cars.

We think that more can be done but are happy with the direction we are taking.

However, we object to the raising of GST. Firstly, this is a bad time to be raising GST, and we do not need the revenue now. Singaporeans are concerned about the rising cost of living. Additional worries are on the horizon over the inflation outlook. The Federal Reserve Chairman and the European Central Bank's President articulated their expectations of high inflation this year.

Oil prices rose by 50% in 2021 and the war in Ukraine is likely to worsen the picture. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food prices rose by 28% in 2021 and in December 2021, fertiliser prices rose to more than double the price from a year ago. This is expected to put further inflationary pressure on food prices.

Closer at home, MAS has revised their inflation expectations upwards. Bus, train and taxi fares have been raised. Electricity tariffs has been rising steadily every quarter since the first quarter of 2021. The GST hikes will further exacerbate inflationary pressure. While for the time being, the rebates given out is more than the expected additional GST to be collected, it is only a matter of time before most Singaporeans have to pay more in GST; for that is the whole purpose of raising GST – to raise additional revenue.

The fact that the Government is giving out rebates in excess of the expected additional GST to be collected over the next few years underlines the fact that we currently do not need the additional revenue now.

If raising GST is to fund the additional healthcare and other social spending in future, how much would we have to raise GST by? The Finance Minister has shared that healthcare spending could increase from $11 billion in 2019 to $27 billion in 2030 based on current trend. So, does this mean that we would have to raise GST by 11% just to fund the additional healthcare spending? Are we looking at 18% to 20% GST by 2030?

This is an alarming prospect which brings us to our second point: we need to look at other ways of raising revenue.

GST was introduced to enable Singapore to cut corporate income tax and personal income tax rates to make Singapore a more attractive investment destination. GST started at 3% in 1994 and gradually increased to the current 7%. Over the same period, corporate income tax rate was gradually cut from 27% to 17% and personal income tax rate was gradually cut from 30% to 20%, before being raised to 22% in 2016. This tax development benefited the rich more than the poor and middle class. With the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative, not only will we lose tax revenue, using low corporate tax as a tool to attract investment will also become less effective.

It is, therefore, time to review our previous approach of raising GST to cut corporate and personal income taxes. Income taxes are progressive while GST is regressive. The pandemic has also worsened inequality by hitting the poor more than the rich.

In light of new tax developments and the current environment, we should reverse our earlier moves. Instead of raising GST for additional revenue, we should look at raising corporate and personal income taxes.

We are happy to note that the personal income tax rate for the highest tax brackets will be raised, but we believe there is room for more. While our corporate tax rate is 17%, there are tax incentives that lower the effective tax rate of many companies. Even if we were to raise our corporate tax rate to 20%, it would still be low compared to the region.

The pandemic has affected different sectors differently. Some sectors suffered, others weathered it better, while some sectors actually benefited from the pandemic. Corporate tax is applied only on profitable companies and hence is a more discerning way of raising revenue. Loss making companies will not be affected by an increase in corporate tax rate but some will be hit with increased cost due to a GST hike.

Moreover, many companies have benefited from the generous COVID-19 packages offered by the Government, including companies that remained profitable throughout the pandemic. It is only fair that they now pay a higher corporate tax. This is simple give-and-take.

Next, I will talk about land sale proceeds. Currently, land sale proceeds are not treated as revenue, but are put into reserves. The Government considers this just a change in the form of the asset – from land to money – not an income. If the land is sold on a freehold basis – once sold forever gone – then I would agree that this approach makes sense. However, it would be a different matter if land is sold on a leasehold basis.

The issue of using land sale proceeds as revenue is not new. My colleague Mr Leong also mentioned this yesterday, but we are aware of the Government’s long-standing position on this matter. Today, PSP would like to suggest an alternative way of treating land sale proceeds.

Currently, the Government typically sells industrial land on 20- or 30-year leases, and residential land on 99-year leases. After the requisite number of years, the land returns to Government and it can be sold again. The land sale proceeds are, therefore, more akin to rental income over the length of the lease.

In Budget 2018, Workers' Party suggested that up to 20% of land sale proceeds be used as revenue. Then Finance Minister Heng said, with reference to land sold on 99-year lease, that, I quote, "If you are rigorous about it, you really ought to be spending no more than 1% of that land sale proceeds". This statement, while true, paints an incomplete picture and is, therefore, misleading. It does not address what happens over time.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout illustrating the revenue stream over time?

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Thank you. PSP proposes that land sale proceeds be taken as revenue over the period of the lease. In other words, if a piece of land is sold on a 99-year lease, then the sale proceeds should be taken as revenue spread over 99 years.

Take for example industrial land sold on a 20-year lease.

Suppose the sale proceeds were treated as revenue over 20 years, then each year, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds for the next 20 years. In year 1, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1. In year 2, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 2. In year 3, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 2 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 3.

For the sake of simplicity in illustration, if we were to assume that land sale proceeds remain constant over the next 20 years, by year 20, the revenue amount would be equivalent to 100% of the land sale proceeds for that year. This is illustrated in the form of a table in the handout.

The same principle applies to land sold on 30- or 99-year leases. The revenue stream is cumulative and builds up to a significant amount.

PSP, therefore, contends that treating land sale proceeds as revenue over the term of the lease does not compromise on financial prudence and is also a significant revenue stream.

Thirdly, we need to look into cutting expenditure. We should not have this thinking that when cost increase, we just increase revenue to pay for it. If expenditure increases in one area, let us first look for ways to cut costs in other areas. This is how most individuals and businesses deal with cost increases

Finance Minister Lawrence Wong shared that since FY2017 the budgets of all Ministries have been cut by 2% and, from FY2023, a further 1% cut will be implemented. However, a look at the actual Government expenditures from FY2017 to FY2019 showed them to be higher than the figures in FY2016. Can the Finance Minister explain how this is a budget cut?

From FY2022 to FY2028, the Government is subsidising the F1 race to the tune of over $80 million per year and that works out to be over $560 million. If the race brings economic benefits, should the private sector not be paying for it? Why do we need to raise revenue to subsidise F1?

Another dubious expenditure is the $900 million payment to SPH Media Trust over five years. If SPH had not been restructured, the losses from its news operations could have been covered by the profits from its property operations. With the restructuring, taxpayers end up with a $900 million bill!

These are instances where we feel that our tax revenue is not being used judiciously. We disagree with such voluntary wealth transfers from the Government to commercial entities. They result in the costs being paid by taxpayers and the commercial benefits kept by the commercial entities.

Each year, HDB pays about $3 billion to $4 billion to SLA for purchase of land. This internal transfer amongst different parts of the Government is treated as an expenditure on one end, but not as revenue on the other end. This means that we need to raise tax revenue to fund this transfer of land from SLA to HDB.

While the land was most probably acquired under the Land Acquisition Act back in the 1960s to 1980s at low prices in the name of national development, the transaction between HDB and SLA is made based on current land prices. In other words, even though Government had acquired the land at low prices using tax revenue in the past, taxpayers have to now pay for that land again at current prices. This state of affair does not seem reasonable to us and further strengthens the point that land sale proceeds ought to be treated as revenue over the lease period.

In conclusion, PSP objects to the GST hike. We do not currently need the revenue and when we do, we have other revenue sources and we should cut expenditure first.

Ms Denise Phua.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of Budget 2022. The delay and staggering of the GST hike and the slew of subsidies to soften the blow on most of the population are a relief.

I thank Finance Minister for the decision to continue with the CDC Vouchers scheme so that every Singaporean household, regardless of abode or income, can tap on them. I thank also the CDCs’ partners such as the Merchant Associations, the Heartland Enterprise Centres, the People’s Association, GovTech, Enterprise Singapore, IMDA and several other partners for developing and supporting a scheme that:

(a) allows not only residents but also heartland merchants to benefit from the money injected into the heartland economy to spur enterprise;

(b) allows participating merchants to be reimbursed in the next day instead of having to wait;

(c) allows for the printing of CDC Vouchers for the elderly who are non-tech-savvy so that they can personally use them.

So, thank you very much.

Now, I wish to touch on three topics today. I call it PCR, namely P for Principles of stewardship; C for Cost of doing business; and R for Resourcing of charities.

On "P", Principles. Budget 2022 is a clear articulation of the principles of how Singapore stewards its resources. Former US President Dwight Eisenhower once said, "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."

What are the principles that undergirds the Budget of 2022 and by this Government. There are many. I will name three. One, the principle of Prudence. Two, the principle of Preparedness. And three, the principle of Inclusiveness.

The principle of Prudence. It explains the conservative and cautious stand by which Government builds up and draws down its reserves. We spend within and sometimes below our means. We do not easily borrow nor freely tap on past reserves. We save for the future; for rainy days such as that during the Lehman Brothers collapse and the COVID-19 pandemic. And when we draw down on resources, we will return it back promptly when we are able to for the use of future generations and for future rainy days – the principle of Prudence.

Next, the principle of Preparedness. This Government invests highly in the education and training of our people through initiatives – proactive initiatives – such as SkillsFuture and capability building schemes for businesses across the private, people and public sectors. We are ready and able to defend ourselves so as to prevent ourselves from landing in a position such as the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. It is the principle of Preparedness.

The principle of Inclusiveness. This Government no intent to leave anyone behind and intentionally develop measures and programmes to uplift the low-wage workers, households and the vulnerable amongst us.

So, these three principles of Prudence, Preparedness and Inclusiveness. The extent that we as a people agree on these principles is the extent of how united we are to forge ahead.

So, PCR. The next is "C", the Cost of doing business. Like all things, Budget 2022 is never perfect, though the undergirding principles of this Government are clear. Let me share touch on one of several areas that is, to me, worth reviewing and that is on SMEs' concerns on cost of doing business.

Matters of cost of living and cost of doing business are not new topics, raised in and outside Parliament. But it is still noteworthy to hear out the local enterprises who are struggling, despite doing their best, especially in such a time as this.

One case in point is rise in energy cost. Mdm Tan, a resident of mine, and I am sure her plight is heard elsewhere too. She is a supplier of container packaging to industries ranging from food to paints to solvents. She told me her struggles arising from not only supply chain disruptions during the pandemic but also high global energy costs. A loyal Singapore PowerGrid customer for a long time, her business was subject to fluctuations in electricity rates since last September, from 14 cents to 75 cents per kilowatt. It has gone down recently.

Hope came in the form of MTI’s very popular Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme, or TRECS, which offered monthly fixed price plans. Alas, utility supplier after supplier turned down Mdm Tan's application citing full subscription and to try in July 2022. Mdm Tan fears that cost of doing business for SMEs like hers might further escalate with news like the carbon tax increases and the war in Ukraine and Russia. She certainly has no intent to close her business, this being a family business and doing quite okay for a long time.

I have discussed the matter with Minister Tan See Leng in his MTI role and I know that he too – and he is a very earnest Minister – is mulling over the issue. Would MOF be willing, would the Government be willing to consider providing an energy rebate equivalent to, for example, the U-Save Vouchers given to residents, if expanding the TRECS programme is not viable?

Still on "C", cost of doing business, the rise in qualifying salaries of the foreign workforce. Another major input heard from SMEs concerns the well-intended increased qualifying salaries of S Pass and E Pass holders. The policy intent is this: to bring in the right calibre of imported talents and to make it more attractive for companies to employ Singaporeans. The anecdotes I heard from the ground caused me to wonder if Government has been too blunt in this approach and if the policy intent, in this instance, has been achieved.

Some employers claim that the increase in qualifying S Pass and E Pass salaries have pushed up not only the salaries of the foreign talents, but also local staff as well and, hence, cost of business. It is not that bad but there is also this nagging issue that even if firms choose to hire local staff, some candidates are simply difficult to come by. I am referring to candidates for jobs such as preschool Chinese Language teachers, educators, speech and occupational therapists, even cybersecurity and IT professionals who are also in high demand by multinational firms setting up business in Singapore.

In this regard, would Government direct a think tank to study the impact of this particular policy and decide: one, if this S Pass and E Pass policy is still effective to deter foreign hires and promote local hires; and two, if ways can be found to increase the pool of local talents in higher demand?

So, PCR, and lastly, "R", on Resourcing of charities. I wish to end off with suggestions on how Government can play a more effective role in resourcing charities to build a more caring and inclusive society – one of the strategic thrusts of Budget 2022.

The Singapore Government has long adopted a "Many Helping Hands" approach to deliver a range of social services and assistance programmes, primarily, to work with partners who know the ground better. This has been the adoption of this strategy for a long time.

There are more than 2,300 registered charities in Singapore. About 200 of these are large charities with more than $10 million in receipts. Larger charities often fill important gaps where Government and the rest of society have not stepped in sufficiently. There are gaps which are also well-known and highlighted time and again in this House. In the world of disability, for example, these include issues such as the "cliff effect" for many special-needs graduates who literally stop learning after the age of 18; the need for a continuum of residential housing options for especially disabled adults; the pleas for support by elderly parents too afraid to die for fear of what might happened to the ones they leave behind.

Some of these programmes such as residential homes and day care centres for the disabled are known to be high-ticket items that cause high operating deficits on charities, in the millions, and often insufficiently covered by Government grants, and these are spaces that only the lion-hearted or the clueless will enter. Government should play an active role in resourcing charities that provide essential services that Government would otherwise have to undertake.

Resourcing, of course, can be facilitated in three ways. One, by providing grants, hopefully sufficient grants, to the partnering charity.

Two, by strengthening the nexus between top needs and potential top donors. Can local multinationals such as DBS, Singtel, and so on, be persuaded by Government to take ownership or adopt some identified, and maybe unfilled, top needs agreed upon by Government and its charity partners?

Three, Government can help by simplifying or facilitating fundraising requirements to help charities help themselves. One case in point is Government’s partnership in this Budget to extend the Tote Board’s Enhanced Fundraising programme, or EFR, to incentivise fundraising. Because of the way the programme is currently designed, charities large and small, their behaviour is shaped by how the programme is designed, they are largely driven now to organise, for example, to meet the rule, maximum five campaigns a year, up to $100 per campaign. They have to organise five campaigns in a year if they wish to obtain maximum matching.

I feel there ought to be flexibility in the current EFR scheme, so that charities can focus to organise just one large successful fundraising campaign, be done with fundraising for the year, and focus their resources and their energy on the core business of serving their beneficiaries.

Another way that Government can facilitate is also to help social enterprises, especially those which are owned by charities themselves. The proceeds do not go to any private pockets, it is back to the charities. If social enterprises owned by charities can be allowed to qualify for fundraising, and then being the arms of job creation and service creation, that will really help as well. So, I really hope Government will help to look at the ways by which charities can be resourced, so that these charities can partner Government even more effectively.

In conclusion, Sir, I have brought up the issues of PCR – Principles, Cost of doing business in Singapore and Resourcing of charities by Government. I seek the Minister’s favourable consideration for my suggestions. Thank you for a well-crafted Budget 2022, which I support.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget gives Singaporeans an insight into the ways which the Government stewards and allocates resources to help Singapore and Singaporeans grow. It acts as a steer and a benchmark for Singaporeans to understand where we are going and how we intend to get there.

History has shown us that societies tend to stratify as they develop. With development comes a difference in wants, needs and aspirations. If left unaddressed, some of these differences may ultimately cause irreconcilable tensions. We see this happening all over the world and how we negotiate these differences in Singapore is imperative to our collective progress.

While we cannot completely fight it, we can try to stave off the undesirable outcomes that it can bring, by ensuring that people, regardless of background, have a seat at the table to share in inclusive economic growth.

Access to opportunities is key. While there is much in Budget 2022 to talk about, I will focus on two areas for my English speech: support for mental health and social integration, and a stake for our youth.

From our frontliners to students, healthcare workers to teachers, seniors to caregivers, battling COVID-19 has taken its toll on Singaporeans. A survey reported by TODAY in October 2021 indicated that 68% of respondents in Singapore said they found 2021 to be the most stressful year they have experienced. More than half said they felt like they have lost control over their future. In 2020, Singapore reported 452 suicides, a 13% increase compared to 400 cases the year before. For seniors, we saw the highest number of suicides since 1991.

Unlike physical health, the effects of poor mental health often go undiagnosed until too late, it starts to interfere in significant ways with one’s life. Even if diagnosed, there is still a lack of social understanding on how a person who on the outside might seem okay, is not able to function because of what is going on in their minds. It is easier to see the difficulty someone faces in climbing a set of stairs, for example, if their leg is broken, but it is not as easy to understand that the same or even seemingly simpler tasks like getting out of bed, also can present a challenge for someone with mental health challenges, much less keeping up with the pace of life.

Is it no wonder, that many hide their conditions away? On their own, already they may feel like they are a burden, without society’s reminders that they are not where they want to be in life.

Mental health challenges do not fit in a neat little box. The implications of being diagnosed or having a loved one who is diagnosed with a serious mental health condition spans financial, familial and social considerations. As such, I am glad that the Government in 2021 announced the formation of the inter-agency task force and I certainly look forward to hearing more about the next actionable steps and plans.

Besides the Government, it is really civic society and ground-up groups who have made great strides in promoting mental health awareness to reach different pockets of society. Awareness and education is but the first step towards destigmatisation. From Campus Psy to Silver Ribbon Singapore, Over the Rainbow to Hayaa’ Network and Samaritans of Singapore, youth, volunteers, suicide survivors and even religious teachers are telling stories of the complex realities which those who face mental health challenges are going through. And I am deeply appreciative of their work.

But this is not enough. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must take the next steps in becoming a more mental health ready society. In particular, increasing access and affordability for people seeking mental health treatment and working towards better protections and integration of life for people with mental health conditions.

Currently, patients seeking mental health treatments can lean, to a certain extent, on MediSave and Government grants. We know that other than stigma and shame, cost can often be a prohibitive reason why people do not seek help. Furthermore, mental health challenges can be recurring and, unfortunately, the road to recovery is not always linear.

Options in the private sector for insurance coverage are few. A CNA article in September 2021 notes that there is rising interest in mental health insurance, but options remain inadequate. AIA, which launched the first insurance policy in Singapore to cover mental illness in January 2019, said the take-up rate for its Beyond Critical Care plan rose by more than 470% compared with the same period in 2020.

Other than reviewing the withdrawal limits, will the Government consider working with the private sector to incentivise more options for the provision of mental health insurance coverage?

We must go beyond mental health awareness and towards integration and acceptance of people with mental health conditions, including skilling, literacy and a more inclusive workforce.

As an example, how do we ensure that people suffering from mental health conditions are given a fair shot and not turned away simply because of their conditions at a job interview? How do we also ensure that the caregivers may apply for discretional time-off to take care of emergencies that may arise. Having to rely on informal processes and the grace of colleagues to secure the foregoing can be extremely stressful. Many people living with a mental health illness do want to work and can contribute to the workforce if they are adequately supported. For those who are not able to work, would we be willing to explore how social assistance can be more nuanced to tide over different demographics of people during difficult times? These are complex issues with many considerations but it is an important step for us to take sooner, rather than later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last two years, our youth have faced unprecedented challenges from their experience of going to school, graduating and entering the workforce during a pandemic. A TODAY Youth Survey found 55 % of 18- to 35-year-olds felt a dent in their financial prospects as a result of COVID-19. In my chats with youth on Zoom, via Instagram DM and in-person, many share their worries for the future.

A commentary piece written by final year University student, Natalie Tan, was published in January 2022. She notes how the pandemic has short-changed young people in financial, professional and social ways. In Natalie’s words, “For graduating cohorts last year, the absence of in-person graduation ceremonies was like a nail in the coffin. It felt like we ran the race, won the prize but we are not there to collect the medal and hug family and batchmates.

"It’s also tough to transit from attending classes on Zoom to searching for jobs in this floundering economy. With limited doors open, we went about in circles trying to figure out the next stage of our lives. Those of us who managed to find jobs had to contend with a lonely onboarding experience. Others weren’t so lucky.”

Incentivising employment is something the Government has done. From employers to employees, many appreciate these efforts. In 2020, for example, the Government set aside $100 million to fund a traineeship scheme as a stop-gap measure to help new graduates increase employability amid a weak job market due to the pandemic. In Budget 2022, a total of $500 million for a Jobs and Business Support Package will be set aside to support workers and businesses in segments of the economy that are facing slower recoveries.

How will our youth be supported through this package? The lack of internships and in-person opportunities have made it difficult for some to even figure out what they want to do. And there is little we can do to replace those years.

I also know of youths who have turned to the gig economy as a means of generating an income. Some now consider this to be their full-time job, while others use their freelancing skills as a side hustle for the time being. As more turn to these roles as viable options, how can we work with companies to ensure better protections for these workers in the long run?

Artists, musicians, dancers, actors, physical trainers and many others have been unable to generate an income at different points of the pandemic. Some of them have been able to return to work in a limited capacity, others not so much. While frequent testing is important, ART kits also come at a cost from already reduced incomes.

One hard hit group includes live musicians such as bands and DJs who previously held residencies at nightlife institutions. Since March 2020, many have not been able to continue their residencies and some hotspots have shuttered. Like many others who have seen the large bulk of their incomes slashed, many have tried to pivot, some have taken their skills online and others have transitioned into other careers, but they remain hopeful that they will able to earn a living once again by doing what they know and love best.

I have two questions. Workplaces such as gyms have been able to operate with restrictions for some time now, in an attempt to mitigate the risk of transmission. Are there ways in which we can limit the risks of transmission of performing on stage at an eatery that serves food and drinks, so that live music can return? Will the Government consider introducing balanced measures that enable this? With watchful eye on Omicron, as measures relax in stages, can the Government give some clarity, what are some sort of circumstances and conditions we will need to see before members of this community will be able to return to work? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MAS and MTI recently reported a 2.4% increase in Singapore's core inflation compared to a year ago. This increase was driven by increases in the prices of food, electricity and gas. As a small country, Singapore cannot escape geopolitical shocks and incidents that occur globally.

Although our economy is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, this year's Budget has demonstrated the Government's concern to continue supporting and enhancing the capabilities of Singaporeans. Nonetheless, COVID-19 and the rising cost of living have presented even more challenges for our community, particularly in terms of access & opportunities to prepare for an uncertain future.

Last year, the Population Census report stated that the number of Malay families living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats had more than doubled over the past decade. And this is due to several factors such as the increase in the number of rental homes that are provided especially for families that need it. Each family has different needs and problems. They usually need help from various quarters, and we have to look for a holistic strategy and way.

We should engage this group more closely. Therefore, I am glad that efforts such as the Commlink and the DIAN@M3 project are available, in which the Government, agencies and volunteers can coordinate efforts to reach out to residents living in rental houses and help them achieve their dreams and a brighter future for the next generation. Social service agencies such as the South Central FSC have provided innovative and holistic approaches such as the Keystart Home Ownership where they offer assistance which includes housing mortgages and the cost of shifting to a new home.

This pandemic has also reminded us that with time and changes in technology, it is possible that the jobs we have now will no longer be relevant in the future.

A study by NTU last year showed that only 58% of women with STEM qualifications had embarked in careers in STEM-related fields, compared to 70% of men with the same qualifications. We should definitely encourage more people within our community, especially women, to venture into STEM and the growth industries. I hope the Government can open up more channels and opportunities so that our community can participate in these fields.

If we want to chart a new direction for Singapore, let us uphold our pledge to progress together, and emerge even stronger so that each generation can benefit from our nation’s progress.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a precarious balancing act, managing the needs, wants, ideals and aspirations of citizens. Singapore is no stranger to cater to these differences, while at the same time rallying our people towards common goals and purpose.

Decades ago, the idea of a multiracial, multi-religious society, was thought to be impossible given the times and our geographical context. In many ways, even today it remains an anomaly.

From increased healthcare spending to care for our seniors, to heeding the call to tackle climate change despite the increased complexities that threaten to pull us in different directions, I support the steps taken in Budget 2022 and believe we can and will find common ground to work together, despite our differences, towards progress for all.

In the words of our talented artists, Linying and Evan Low in last year’s NDP song, and do not worry, I will not scare you by singing, "Come whatever on the road ahead; We did it before, and we'll do it again."

Dr Tan See Leng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Budget. The Minister for Finance has put out a comprehensive suite of measures in his Budget Statement. Today, I would like to speak mainly on three issues. The first is on Workfare Income Supplement, the second, to assure our business community, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), of the direction and the pace of our foreign workforce policy. Finally, I would also like to address the points brought up by the Workers' Party Members on the distribution of tax burden.

First, on Workfare. Earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms Jessica Tan, raised concerns about the $500 minimum income criterion for Workfare. I would like to correct the misconception that this is a cutback for lower-wage workers.

First, we estimate that around 20,000 Workfare recipients will be affected by the criterion, all of whom are casual or part-time workers.

The Leader of the Opposition has estimated that the number of affected recipients is 46,600 by referencing the number of employed residents aged 15 and above earning below $500 in 2021. This is inaccurate.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Not all of these 46,600 qualify for Workfare due to criteria such as age, spousal assessable income and the annual value of their place of residence. So, in other words, nothing to do with the salary that they earn. Some would be students earning extra pocket money while they study or some of them are actually from higher income households. They are not the intended targets of Workfare.

Furthermore, 46,600 is based on 2021 data and does not take into account the expected wage growth from the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) expansion. And also, the new Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) requirements that would uplift many employees beyond the $500 threshold.

Should any of these 20,000 workers subsequently work more and earn more than $500 per month, they will automatically re-qualify for Workfare. Second, the $500 per month is a reasonable and achievable wage for most regular workers under our Progressive Wage Model approach. With the new LQS requirement, firms that hire foreign workers must pay all of their locals working part-time at least $9 per hour. At this wage, a part-time worker only needs to work about two working days a week to meet the $500 minimum income criterion.

Third, we also recognise that there may be some workers who want to work more, but are unable to earn $500 per month, due to their personal circumstances. This includes persons with disabilities and ComCare recipients. We will provide them concessionary Workfare payouts so that they will not be excluded from Workfare. Hence, if Ms Jessica Tan's resident requires additional financial assistance, she can apply for ComCare and if she qualifies she will receive concessionary Workfare as well.

In short, for workers who are earning less than $500, the best way to help them is to help them find a job of the appropriate quality and quantity of working hours to earn at least $500. Then, Workfare can come in to provide an additional boost to help such workers. We have a whole suite of employment facilitation programmes and initiatives, ready to assist.

Moving onto my second point that I would like to raise and that is on the foreign workforce policies.

The Minister for Finance has laid out a multi-year road map to increase the qualifying salary for Employment Passes; increase the qualifying salary and levies for S Passes; reduce the Dependency Ratio Ceiling; dismantle the Man-Year Entitlement (MYE) system and adjust levies for the Construction and Process sectors.

I will speak more when MOM’s budget is debated in a few days' time. Today, let me touch on and elaborate on our thinking behind these moves, and how we will walk with businesses through these changes.

Businesses, especially our SMEs, have expressed concern about rising costs. I want to assure SMEs that we understand these concerns and we have taken great care when designing the timing of our moves. We are well aware that if businesses do not succeed, there will not be good jobs for Singaporeans.

Besides SMEs, foreign companies are also quietly observing our moves. Even foreign publications have been speculating that Singapore is now less welcoming to talent. Members of the House, we must not allow such perceptions or such misperceptions to take root, because this will be very damaging for us.

Hence, I want to be very clear that the changes we announce are to ensure that Singapore remains open to foreigners who can complement our workforce, so that our businesses can assemble the best team of locals and foreigners to compete on the global stage. Indeed, this strategy was affirmed by the House last year.

We recognise that having foreigners working alongside us and living amongst us can cause discomfort, even some tension, amongst Singaporeans.

My assurance is that we will be vigilant in managing the social frictions that may arise from time to time. We will also guard against anti-foreigner and xenophobic sentiments. Singapore has always been a multicultural society and we intend to keep it so.

Our foreign workforce policies will have to balance the needs of businesses and workers, and this has been MOM's core guiding principle.

The announced changes to the qualifying salaries for Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass are part of this series of adjustments to maintain a balance. The wages of our local workers have risen over the years. This reflects the growth of our economy and the deepening of skills in our local workforce. This also means that the quality of the EP and S Pass holders that we bring into Singapore must go up. That is why our EP and S Pass qualifying salaries are adjusted regularly to keep pace with local wages. If we do not do so, firms may choose to hire foreigners simply because they are cheaper than locals. There will not be a level playing field. Our efforts to upskill our workforce and sharpen our business competitiveness will, therefore, be diluted.

We know that businesses would want more lead time to adjust before these changes take effect and this is exactly we have done. We announced the moves early but incorporated a long runway between the announcement and implementation dates of all of these moves. We are being transparent so that businesses have ample time to adjust and certainty to plan ahead.

Let me use the S Pass changes to explain in greater detail.

We have given businesses six months' notice for the first move to take effect. This first move will increase the qualifying salary to $3,000 for new S Pass applications. In other words, come September this year, 2022, all existing S Pass holders are still not affected – the existing ones that are here, they are still not affected. Only the new applications are affected. We will only apply the new qualifying salary 18 months later, from September 2023.

The renewals will also not all happen at the same time in September 2023. It will take another two to three years, so, up to 2026, before the last S Pass employee on the old qualifying salaries comes up for renewal.

So, in reality, businesses will have a minimum of 18 months' notice. But it could take up to four and a half years before all existing S Pass holders have to be renewed under the new rules.

The same goes for the levies. The Tier 1 levy will be gradually raised to $650 by September 2025, in not just one step but three steps. And that is around three and a half years before the changes take effect fully.

I know these adjustments, they take effort, and change is never easy. But at the same time, it is only through continuous innovation and improvement that our businesses can and will grow from strength to strength.

Rest assured that we will walk this journey with our businesses.

I am particularly mindful of the many SMEs in our economy. SMEs account for more than 70% of employment. This is a very significant proportion of employment, and they are a very important contributor to our economy. I personally know and I have also met with many SME business owners and have heard their concerns. Some are worried that they may be hit more than the multinational companies (MNCs) because they have more financial constraints. They find it more difficult to compete for workers and they are concerned that higher costs for foreign and local manpower will just mean higher business costs.

How can our SMEs make the necessary adjustments and emerge stronger?

We have been regularly and progressively making updates to our framework. Each time when we made these adjustments, SMEs have taken advantage of the support schemes that we have available to transform, to pivot and to adapt. The result is that our firms have a more sustainable and robust business model – they continue to thrive and they continue to be able to tap the labour market for their manpower needs.

With this round of changes, we will continue to support businesses. I would like to offer and submit some suggestions and share some examples of Government support that businesses may wish to tap on.

Businesses can review, of course, their wages. They can look into redesigning jobs to make jobs more productive and attractive for employees. Businesses can tap on schemes, such as the Support for Job Redesign under the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG-JR) for job redesign consultancy support to complement and drive business and workforce transformation.

In addition, businesses can expand local hiring and upskill their local workforce. The extended SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and the Jobs Growth Incentive will continue to provide a significant boost to the hiring of locals.

Together with the tripartite partners, we will make sure that SMEs which are prepared to transform their businesses and increase local hiring will receive the support they need.

Some business owners told me that it is hard to find manpower even with the support, given that our unemployment is so low and that our labour market is tight. They say they need manpower across all levels, from the Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMET) level to the Rank-and-File (RnF) levels.

Yes, our unemployment rate is low. This is something that we are happy and very glad for. But there are still untapped sources. One such group is women outside the workforce. For a whole myriad of reasons, there are about 20% or 260,000 women aged 25 to 64 who are not in the labour force. There are vacancies across all occupational levels with varied qualifications and needs which could potentially be filled by this group.

In order to tap on this segment of our population, businesses will need to consider how the jobs they offer can be more flexible and attractive to locals. As flexible work arrangements can come in various forms and some may be more relevant for certain jobs than others, businesses can adopt the most suitable flexible work arrangements that suit their organisations' as well as their employees' needs, including for those in frontline or shift work. Some businesses are already doing so and we should press ahead as best and as fast as we can.

Some SMEs also tell me that they wish to hire at the Work Permit level to manage their manpower needs but are unable to do so because of the rules, such as source country restrictions. These rules are there for a reason. But we can find a way to offer some flexibility. It is something that MOM has been working on. I will address this at the upcoming MOM's Committee of Supply (COS) in a few days' time. And I think it will be good news.

Lastly, as we continue to refine our policy levers, we will ensure that there will not be a disproportionate impact on SMEs. For instance, there have been suggestions for the Government to look beyond qualifying salary in our Employment Pass (EP) framework, which may be a blunt tool. We have considered and taken the feedback very seriously. I will elaborate further in MOM's COS debate about how our refinements of the EP framework have taken into account the size of the firm.

We know that businesses are trying hard. They are exploring various options to transform to adjust to the changes. We know that border controls have made things more challenging. As of end January 2022, there are around 46,000 approved Work Permit holders who have yet to enter Singapore due to border controls. But with our border reopening in a calibrated manner, some of this pressure will be relieved.

This should help in the interim. But SMEs and businesses alike need to start to plan ahead on what works best for their business model and their workforce. Training and restructuring take time. So, I hope that our businesses will take a longer view on this. To support businesses in their planning, we have laid out our foreign workforce policy moves for the next few years so that businesses have greater certainty, predictability and time to adjust.

Finally, Mdm Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to also address some of the points made by the hon Members from the Workers' Party.

They oppose the Budget because of the GST increase. But they agree with the moves we are making to shore up the social compact. They accept greater Government spending. In fact, they would like us to spend even more.

I believe their position is – agree with all the good and nice things that we propose and then say, "not enough, ask for more". But what they oppose is how we intend to do the difficult thing and, that is, to raise the revenues to pay for all the good things that they like so much that they want even more.

The Workers' Party suggests that we can do away with the GST increase if we raise more taxes through other means. That is a revenue shortfall of $3.5 billion. They say, "put a heavier load on some Singaporeans" so that we do not have to have a GST increase. It sounds very simple and attractive but ask yourselves – is it really doable?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there is a fundamental philosophical difference in our approach. Make no mistake. This Government's approach is that the rich should carry a heavier load. We are raising income taxes on the top earners, property taxes on higher value properties and the additional registration fee (ARF) for luxury cars.

That was the mantra in my colleague, the Minister for Finance's Budget speech this year. The well-off will pay more and receive less, and the less well-off will receive more and pay less. Let me repeat that. The well-off will pay more and receive less and the less well-off will receive more and pay less.

But there is a significant difference between what constitutes a fair load and what constitutes a punitive load. It is not possible to get the entire GST amount – the $3.5 billion – by loading it entirely on all those just at the very top.

Amongst the revenue options proposed by the Workers' Party, they have suggested increasing personal income tax and property tax even more. If we were to do that, we will have to raise the tax rates on income and property even more substantially and we have to make more people, including middle-income earners pay more. Why? Because it is not possible to have extremely punitive taxes on just the top 1% or the 5%.

So, the consequence is that we will have to raise income taxes for not just those at the very top but it will percolate down to our middle, our upper-middle income, including those who have benefited from our educational system, our years of social mobility, those who have toiled, who have laboured, who have worked very hard all through the years to move up from more modest circumstances.

We will have to apply higher property taxes to a larger base of properties, not just your landed properties, your Good Class Bungalows, your semi-Ds, your terrace houses, your luxury condos – which will already, by the way, see a significant increase – but it will also go to all condos, perhaps Executive Condominiums (ECs) and, perhaps, even eventually even larger HDB flats. Residents from across the country, the whole island, my residents in Marine Parade, residents in the nearby East Coast, Joo Chiat, Bukit Timah, Thomson, Upper Thomson, Bishan – you name it – Upper Bukit Timah, including even in Sengkang, in Aljunied, too. They will all be hit.

These are the people who may have to make up the difference. So, this year, this debate, the impression I took away of what the Workers' Party want is two things. One, they said loud and clear; the other may not be so loud or, perhaps, it is hidden somewhat and, perhaps, they could clarify.

Loud and clear: "I like all the nice and good things you are proposing but more will be better."

But what they are not saying, and I am baffled and, as a consequence is, "I like it that you are raising taxes on the wealthy and more of such taxes would be better". However, have they considered the burden would inevitably have to be borne and applied to a wider group and variety of Singaporeans and taxpayers?

So, the first "more", they shout from the rooftops; the second "more", relatively muted, hoping that, perhaps, people would not notice that inevitably, that could be a consequence of what they are proposing.

Deputy Speaker, we fundamentally disagree with what the Workers' Party's proposal will imply for our society. It will ultimately result in a system where our approach to revenue is just to squeeze anyone who does well from the middle-income upwards, potentially; where we tell Singaporeans, "Look, there is someone better off who can afford to take on all of the burden, you don't have to put in your share, or you don't have to put in your fair share."

That is not good nor is it sustainable for our social compact. All of us have a stake in our society and we benefit from public services and from progressive policies. In fact, those with less would get back much more than what they pay in additional GST and we give generous help to those who need the help while everyone pays something. It is both an individual and our collective responsibility.

And if we do what has been proposed and suggested, the middle-income, the upper-middle-income, those who have worked hard, who have done, perhaps, better than their parents' expectations and aspirations, they will feel betrayed.

If we take the Workers' Party's approach, we will, as a consequence, have to increasingly shift and raise the tax burden onto the middle-class. That, I believe, is the surest way to unravel and destroy our social compact and trust in our society and Singapore will not hold together.

To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is not an easy task ahead for all of us. There are difficult things that we must do together. But as long as all of us – workers, unions, businesses, fellow citizens and Government – are prepared to play a part and work closely together with the long-term interest of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart, I believe we will continue to live long and prosper. With that, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Let me just deal with some of the points raised by the Minister for Manpower. I take his point with regard to the number of workers who could be affected by the changes to the Workfare Income Supplement that a more accurate number would be 20,000, as he suggested.

Let me just come back to what the Minister for Finance said in his speech. He said, "I will introduce a minimum income criteria for Workfare at $500 a month to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular full-time work". So, that seems to be the policy intent to move them into regular full-time work. Can I clarify from the Minister, even for these individuals who may continue to earn less than $500, going forward, can the Minister confirm that they still will not qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement?

And Minister spoke about concessionary Workfare. What does that entail? Is that a lesser amount of Workfare for these individuals who cannot do full-time work, which is the policy intent as it would appear from the Minister for Finance's speech, that he wants to transit these people into full-time work. Does the Minister not agree that there are individuals who just cannot do full-time work for a variety of reasons?

Minister then moved on to some other subjects and in the course of moving on to those subjects, he was drinking some water and he wet his shirt. I do not know whether that was in anticipation of some of the points he was going to make. There were some words that were used: like the Workers' Party wants to put a heavier load on Singaporeans, a fairer, a more punitive load. I think the point of our suggestions really is a more equitable load. How do you balance things in a manner which is more equitable for society, going forward, for a more fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society? That is the thrust of what the Workers' Party had put forward.

And to just make the point Minister spoke about a number of taxes, for example, property taxes, alluding to residents in various parts of Singapore who would suffer with raised property taxes. But does the Minister not agree that there were a number of proposals put forward by the Workers' Party? And on a Monday, yesterday, a Business Times article made the point in a different way – that the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) is unlikely to hurt competitiveness and may net Singapore gains in tax revenue.

So, I think in the spirit of seeking a more equitable tax distribution, amongst various segments of society, I think the Workers' Party is fully entitled to raise alternate forms of revenue, which we have. So, I disagree with the Minister's characterisation. I also cannot understand why he is baffled because it would be in the course of this debate that the Workers' Party would propose alternate revenue sources. And you have cherry-picked some and criticised them. I think you are entitled to. But if you look at the proposals holistically, you would understand that the Workers' Party has put up alternatives for a rise in GST.

Minister.

I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the concern on spilling water on my shirt. It was actually because of the fact that it is a new flask, I did not figure out exactly how to press the right buttons yet.

He has put up a series of questions, some of them, we will cover, for example, Workfare, in the upcoming debate under the MOM COS so I do not want to give too much of a preamble.

In terms of the individual who works and gets less than $500, the current construct is that yes, in the absence of any other things, he or she would not qualify. But there is an entire plethora of help schemes available. There are also help groups available to try to understand where the bottlenecks are in terms of them being able to get a higher income or even get to that $500 mark.

Suffice to say, the whole policy construct is to encourage, to nudge our local able-bodied Singaporeans towards gainful employment and also a higher sense of achievement.

As far as the point about the taxes, the whole crux of this was for your team to consider that what you are proposing, consequentially, could result in very, very high disproportionate burden on the top 1% to 5%, that it is not sustainable and it is punitive. And, eventually, for us to sustain it, consequentially, this would end up percolating or pervading down to the upper middle-income and eventually affecting the middle-income as well.

I am pretty sure the Minister for Finance in his round-up speech will cover more aspects of it. For the moment, I want to assure that our policies take a very measured and a very calibrated approach, designed for most people to be able to adjust and also be able to absorb some of these measures.

Leader of the Opposition.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, just to follow up on the point on the WIS. Indeed, Minister has accurately stated the policy purpose. I am sorry he did not accurately say it; you added something more to it. You said the policy construct is to nudge able-bodied Singaporeans towards gainful employment. I understand that.

What I am suggesting is that part-timers may well be able-bodied, casual workers may also be able-bodied, but for various reasons, they cannot take up full-time work. And it is in that spirit that I would forward and advance that they should not be denied the WIS. I hope the Minister can reconsider this because if the number is already smaller, less than half the number that I quoted, I think it is figure 28 of the Labour Force statistics, then all the more, the impact, the fiscal impact is even less. And if we can help this small number of workers and why should we not?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will give a bit of the preamble and then, perhaps, can I request, I think Senior Minister of State Mr Zaqy Mohamad has a response as well.

Yes.

I think that Mr Singh missed my point. That may be a whole myriad of reasons why able-bodied Singaporeans cannot or are not prepared to commit to just two days of work a week. But we have already started the Progressive Wage Model. We have also gotten some of the other measures to help to uplift the lower-wage workers. And many of these schemes will take effect over the coming months.

The $500 is fixed at this particular point in time. When that rising tide comes up, we will certainly see where this group of Singaporeans, who are still not affected, would fall into. I think that we can then review the policy. Just like what we have done constantly. If you look at the last few years, we have been constantly reviewing, improving and uplifting the framework. I will invite Senior Minister of State Mr Zaqy to further add to it.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. On the minimum income criterion, I just want to say quickly that: one, it is not meant to discount any of our lower-wage workers from receiving Workfare. When Minister Tan spoke about concessionary Workfare, what it means is that: if you are receiving ComCare, or if you qualify for ComCare, then automatically you will get Workfare as well. Even if you are a part-time worker, earning less than $500. So, that is one assurance that today.

As Minister Tan shared, the number is about 20,000. This is because with the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) coming into play, the number that Mr Pritam Singh cited will certainly reduce, because the hourly rates will go up.

And therefore, we will see less. Like the example that Deputy Speaker raised, for someone like that, if they are truly low income, if they are on ComCare, they will automatically get Workfare. I hope this clarifies.

Leader of the Opposition.

That clarifies. Can I just confirm if they are not on ComCare, they would not get the WIS?

Indeed, yes. So, as I shared, if you are on ComCare, means you are low income and most likely, if you are earning less than $500, part-timer, you will get it. And that extends to all our persons with disabilities too, to ensure that no one gets left behind. This separates our truly low-income part-time workers who may be constrained for whatever reason, whether caregiving or other constraints, that they are still provided assistance, not just from ComCare. Holistically, they also get Workfare.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to clarify a few points. And I understand that by peppering Minister Tan with more questions, we might end up making him yet more thirsty, but it is important, I think, to get some of the points that we made right.

I will start off by pointing out that I wonder whether he could clarify where he thinks there is such a large philosophical difference between our particular approach of raising revenue relative to that of the Government. I say this because, if you look at the four levers that we have described, only one of these – what we had called "the wealth tax" lever – actually approaches the high-income, high net worth individuals. And even within that particular scenario, we had made very modest recovery assumptions, amounting to something in the order of $1.2 billion on wealth taxes alone.

Of course, the hole is $3.5 billion and so, it is important to understand that the rest of that hole would have been met by much more broad base forms of taxation. Similarly, for the corporate taxation lever, when we made that proposal about raising the rate of corporate taxation to what would be compliant with the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) agreement, we also made very clear that the target of that would be the multinational firms and not the small and medium enterprises.

Keeping with that particular scenario, we would have kept the corporate taxation rate on them at the effective rate of 3% or so.

The reason why I think it is important to clarify that we are not philosophically seeking a very narrow tax base. We are, in fact, seeking alternative revenue levers that subscribe to the general principles of public finance, which are, as much as possible, to spread the revenue schemes in as broad a manner as possible.

But at the same time, recognising the importance, as suggested by Minister Wong in his speech, of a certain degree of fairness and equity, and that is precisely why we have some components, in fact, one third of one of our four levers, where we do include wealth taxation. I hope that clarifies and perhaps Minister Tan can clarify a little more.

Minister Tan.

Again, I thank Prof Lim as well as the Leader of the Opposition for their concerns. I am fine to take any number of questions and happy to engage because it is also good to clarify the points. As I have shared earlier on, in my speech, what the impression that we have taken in terms of where you have decided to load this is on the wealth tax portion, which seems to put a huge burden on a certain very small group of Singaporeans, and I question its sustainability.

And hence, if you noticed that in my speech, I said consequentially, this will eventually end up having to be more spread out, in terms of having to be borne by more people.

In terms of the philosophical differences, therefore my point to perhaps Assoc Prof Lim and the Workers' Party is that: do they now, having heard our explanation, decide that they support the GST hike and support the Budget.

The other point is that Minister Wong will address a number of your points in his round-up speech tomorrow.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Madam, I think I understand the policy intent of encouraging able-bodied people to work more, but has the Government done studies on what they think would be the best way, or what would be the best way to achieve this policy intent? How did it arrive at the conclusion that imposing a $500 minimum income would encourage, rather than discourage, them from working?

Because to me, it seems to fly against the logic of the WIS which is the whole purpose of the WIS is to supplement the income of low-wage workers, so that they would be encouraged to work more. So, why would you have a cut-off such that the lowest income workers are not encouraged in that way to work more. And if the Government is still intent on keeping this $500 dollar minimum, can I get an assurance from the Minister that the Government will adopt a more flexible approach to take into account the various constraints faced by workers that prevent them from earning more than $500 dollars.

For example, some may have caregiving responsibilities who just cannot spare the time to work, to earn more than $500 dollars a month, or to work more than two days a week. So, can this group of people be extended some flexibility so that they can also get Workfare?

Senior Minister of State Zaqy.

I thank the Member for his question. So, I responded earlier and as I responded to Leader of Opposition, every low-wage worker who is working part-time, who is also receiving ComCare, will get Workfare. Whether there is a bar or not, as long as you are low-income, part-time, working and getting a sum less than $500, you will get Workfare. So, to some extent, I hope that clarifies and responds to the Member's question.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I am sorry, Senior Minister of State, I do not quite understand how those who earn less than $500 will get Workfare still. Can you explain a bit more please?

Senior Minister of State Zaqy.

As what I have shared that as part of the concession given, for as long as you are low-income, you get ComCare, you will get Workfare. So, that differentiates our low-income workers from the casual workers who may not necessarily come from low-income households. There is a difference. And also, from some of those who are doing vacation jobs and so forth, this puts a differentiation and puts our focus on our social compact that you are low-income, and you need the money, you would not be left behind. I hope that answers.

Okay, we will move on. Leader.