Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Madam, I thank the Member for his clarification. I will keep this short in the interest of time. I listened to Prof Hoon Hian Teck yesterday and he spoke about every society having to find its own judgement about where is the sweet spot. And, so, to Mr Perera's question, I think it is really a question of judgement. And if we look at the entire revenue mix, our NIRC rate now as it currently stands of 50/50 is, in my view, the right balance and we should look at other revenue levers in the first instance. Thank you.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Finance Minister for a very well-thought through Budget 2022, which balances dealing with immediate needs and preparing for future challenges and opportunities. Several parts of the Budget deal with developing our manpower resources to ensure we remain competitive, as well as how we can uplift our lower-wage workers. My speech will centre on two key themes: first, ensuring that our workforce remains motivated and enterprising, and making sure we level up the working conditions of and opportunities for our lower-wage workers.

There has been an inexorable global drive by employees to seek work-life harmony. This has dominated the headlines recently. Employees, especially new job entrants and younger workers, are drawn to workplaces that offer flexible work arrangements, like work-from-home and compressed work weeks, and that can guarantee freedom from work considerations outside of contracted working hours. It has even been suggested in this House that we consider implementing a four-day work week and the right to disconnect.

This move to find workplaces that are more accommodative of workers’ personal pursuits and aspirations has been called the “Great Resignation” or the “Great Re-alignment”. A 2021 talent trends report by Michael Page indicated that 56% of Singapore workers see themselves searching for new jobs post-pandemic. Although the statistics bear out that this may not have happened yet, it appears that the trends underlying the Great Re-alignment are likely to become the new norm. To give effect to such aspirations, the Government has, amongst other things, introduced the Tripartite Advisory for Work-Life Harmony and instituted an Alliance for Action for Work-Life Harmony.

Madam, I fully support these initiatives that help employers adopt good and progressive employment practices. It is, however, easier for larger corporations and those with deeper pockets to put in place work-life harmony initiatives. SMEs may need to be more creative since – and this is something that Minister Tan See Leng mentioned earlier – they have less resources and could do with experts assisting them to design and implement such measures. In this regard, I would like to suggest that Enterprise Singapore’s Enterprise Development Grant include work life harmony as a specific fundable area, so that SMEs can avail of the grant to help them formulate work-life harmony programmes for their employees.

Notwithstanding my support of these initiatives, I have some reservations on how we are approaching work-life harmony and this has to do with, first, how we can continue to encourage high performance and, second, how it applies to lower-wage workers.

I read a recent survey by recruitment agency Randstad Singapore that showed that an equal number of respondents ranked “work-life balance” and “attractive salary and benefits” as the most important employee value proposition they looked for in an employer. In other words, employees’ expectations are to find a workplace that offers both work-life balance and an attractive salary and benefits. This is, of course, aspirational and, on the face of it, it is a good aspiration.

However, there will always be workers who wish to do more, to go the extra mile, who take additional pride in their work and desire to do a good job. Sometimes, this may take them beyond their working hours. I refer to these people, Madam, as “dedicated workers”.

There are also workers who upend and buck the trend of work-life harmony, who are willing to forgo their benefits and their rights. They are ambitious, driven and committed to achieve and surpass their organisation’s goals. They want to do more because they want more. They are hungry and their professional goals have become their personal goals. I refer to these people, borrowing a phrase from professional sports, as “elite performers”.

Both these types of workers go beyond their contractual obligations and they do so not because they are asked to or because they are pressured to. They do it out of a sense of responsibility and commitment to their job roles. They still feel that they have work-life harmony, just perhaps a different form, because work-life harmony means different things to different people.

As we move towards balanced workplaces, we need to make sure that, inadvertently, these dedicated workers and elite performers are not discouraged from wanting to be the best and, if they wish to forgo their rights and benefits, we should not judge them, dissuade them or, even worse, ridicule them. Importantly, we must not allow a culture to develop that is against hard work and hard workers.

A case in point is the varied reception that Twitter's new CEO Parag Agrawal received when he announced that he would be taking "a few weeks of paternal leave" after the birth of his second child. Twitter offers its employees up to 20 weeks of paternal leave. Many applauded him, seeing his move as helping to normalise the taking of paternal leave. But there were some who questioned why he had taken only a few weeks and not the full 20 weeks he was entitled to; and others yet who criticised him when he said he would still be taking meetings while he was on leave and keeping up with the company's business. It is almost as if the responsibility and dedication to his work was being vilified.

Now to be clear, I am not saying that everyone should strive to be an elite performer. A recent article on Rice Media titled "Everyone's Progressing, but I Lack Ambition. Is That So Wrong?", carried a quote as follows: "Just because I'm not ambitious doesn't mean I'm lazy or lagging behind. I don't need a big house, for example. I don't need to travel the world too. If I'm earning enough and happy, it's my choice". Madam, I agree with this and indeed, it is everyone's right to make choices about how they want to live their lives and how they want to structure their relationship with their jobs. And this is equally so for elite performers and dedicated workers.

But the difference may be felt ultimately in promotions and increments, and employees who decide to enjoy the fullness of their benefits should temper their expectations. This is not because they are being punished – it is because it is fair, just and equitable to reward dedicated workers and to reward elite performers. The hard truth is that those who do more, especially if it exceeds expectations or contractual obligations, will get more. And yes, this will inevitably spark others who also want to get ahead to go the extra mile. What is important is for employers to put in place mechanisms to prevent their elite employers and dedicated workers from burning out or suffering from mental health issues arising from work. But employers and peers should never hold them back.

As regards to elite performers, we must make special effort to identify, nurture and promote them. They pull their organisations forward; in the private sector, they drive profit and growth, attract and keep clients, and they help to create more jobs. They include business leaders, entrepreneurs, admin service officers in the Government, senior counsels. They include Razer CEO Tan Min-Liang, Singapore's youngest self-made billionaire, who recounted at a Singapore Management University commencement ceremony that he was spurred on by his parents who told him that he needed to just go get what he wanted out of life through hard work, attention to detail and responsibility. They include Carousell CEO Quek Siu Rui who has said that he had not taken a holiday in years due to his obsession with his work and with doing things well and good.

For a country that has nothing but people as our resources, we need these captains of performance to continue to be motivated, to continue to push the boundaries and ultimately to expect, see and feel the rewards of their hard work. And while we raise awareness about the importance of balance and mental health, an extremely critical endeavour, we should not forget to concomitantly celebrate our elite performers, to fortify them and to recognise them.

This is because their successes are the successes of their organisations and ultimately, of Singapore. While striving for work-life harmony, we should not lose our culture of meritocracy and our system of meritorious rewards. In this regard, I am happy to hear Minister Wong’s announcement of the new Singapore Global Executive Programme and I trust that our elite performers will be identified to be involved in it.

Separately, I call on the Action for Alliance for Work-Life Harmony and TAFEP to consider how to make sure that even as we adopt work-life harmony principles as norms at our workplaces, we do not at the same time unwittingly discourage elite performers and dedicated workers from putting in hard work and effort, and rising above the rest nor should we allow a culture of complacency and adversity to work to foster, because Singapore cannot afford it.

I will now move on, Madam, to my next points on lower-wage workers, before which I declare my interest as President of the Security Association Singapore.

The narrative on work-life harmony is weighted towards flexible work arrangements. This is more suited to office workers and those whose work can be done remotely. We need to consider the work-life harmony of employees who are in jobs that require them to be at their workplace, many of whom are essential workers like nurses, or in lower paying jobs like bus captains, cleaners and security officers.

In particular, Madam, I would like to raise the issue of the unearthly working hours of security officers, who generally work 12 hours a day, six days a week. I raised this last year, but I feel compelled to raise it again this year.

Security agencies, who are the employers of security officer, can only do so much to change the norm of 12-hour work shifts, because as an outsourced service, supply follows demand. Hence, if a buyer stipulates 12-hour work shifts, that is all that an agency can bid for. Most security contracts in both the private and public sector are based on 12-hour shifts.

We need to seriously think about whether this pattern of work is reasonable. Put ourselves in an officer's shoes. Her shift starts at 8.00 am. If we cater one and a half hours for her to wash up, have her breakfast and commute to work, it means she has to wake up at 6.30 am. She ends her shift at 8.00 pm. By the time she gets home, it is 9.00 pm. If she has young children, she has barely an hour or less of time with them before they go to sleep. After she has her dinner, spent time with her family and done some chores, she goes to bed at 12.00 am. If she needs more time for these things, she sleeps later. This routine then continues, Madam, for the next six days before she has one day off and this day off may well be a weekday.

So, Madam, amidst all this hullaballoo about work-life harmony, where is the work-life harmony for this security officer? Where is the work-life harmony for the 50,000 security officers who live this life right now? In fact, more than 50,000 if we consider ad hoc workers and many of them, Madam, older workers.

So, the private sector will take some convincing to move away from 12-hour shifts because it involves costs. In this regard, I would like to ask the Government, as one of the largest buyers of security services, to take the lead by changing the working hours for security officer in all Government tenders to eight to 10-hour shifts. This will have a knock-on effect on the shift durations for security officers in the private sector.

Achieving work-life harmony for our lower-wage workers means challenging and changing their working conditions. The chief issue in working conditions for security officers is that of unreasonable working hours. I plead, Madam, that as we take steps towards achieving better work-life harmony generally, that our security officers, low-wage workers and older workers are not left behind.

Another group that may be left out in this drive to improve working conditions and work-life harmony are workers in outsourced services. These are sectors where workers do not work at their employer's premises, but at third party sites that their employers are contracted to supply manpower. As such, these employers do not have much control over their employees' physical working conditions. Working conditions and how these outsourced workers are treated are dictated by the service contracts between their employers and the service buyers, not the employment contracts. Outsourced workers are not even parties to these contracts and have no say in how they will be treated at their workplaces. Pursuant to the service agreements, they often face the threat of summary immediate removal from their workplaces or discrimination. And they have no recourse nor protections under the law.

This issue must be addressed urgently as it affects a large proportion of our outsourced lower-wage workers. To address this, I call on the MOM to ensure that the upcoming legislation enshrining the TAFEP guidelines includes obligations on buyers of outsourced services, in that, service agreements must not contain clauses that result in unfair or discriminatory working conditions for outsourced workers. This is similar to the Workplace Safety and Health Act, which imposes obligations on building owners and managing agents. If we fail to do this, Madam, we are leaving the employment conditions of almost 100,000 outsourced workers to be subject to the whims and fancies of service buyers and managing agents without recourse.

Madam, the current Progressive Wage Models (PWMs) have been very successful in raising wages and I thank the Tripartite Committee on Low-Wage Workers for their recommendations, as well as MOM and the tripartite partners for their hard work and commitment. However, prices in the PWM outsourced sectors continue to lag wages, as Minister Wong noted in his Budget speech and the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) has been introduced to support businesses in the short term. But the PWCS may operate ultimately as a crutch, in which service providers use it as leverage to bid lower in upcoming tenders. The net effect is that these companies will find themselves in a similar position when the PWCS tapers off: that is, providing services at a rate that is unsustainable vis-à-vis the PWM wage increases.

Furthermore, in order for companies in these sectors to meaningfully transform, including implementing work-life harmony schemes and adopting technology, they will need to earn enough to afford these measures. If prices continue to lag wages, SMEs will invariably forego transformation initiatives for day-to-day operational needs.

In this connection, I would like to ask how the Competition Act applies to the PWM outsourced sectors, given that in the outsourced services sectors, fixing wages is essentially fixing the cost of supply. On a related note, will the Government consider working with the tripartite partners to set out reasonable prices that service buyers can expect to pay for each of the PWM outsourced sectors, derived from objective costs, for example, insurance and costs of replacements, so that prices can keep in tandem with wage increases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is our third year into the COVID-19 pandemic. As Singaporeans adjust to the new norms and with borders opening up progressively, our economy has also gradually improved, and the outlook is optimistic. Although I am heartened to hear that the MTI's projection of a 3% to 5% growth in Singapore's economy in 2022, I continue to be mindful of the uncertainties in the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential downside risks it has on our economy and our people, especially with also now the war in Ukraine.

Last year, I rose to speak about safeguarding and improving the welfare of three vulnerable segments of our population – persons with disabilities, women who are caregivers, and seniors living alone or with their spouse only.

Given the 2022 Budget's focus on charting a new way forward together, I intend to highlight three areas where I feel there are long-term implications to pay more attention to as our nation moves forward to living with COVID-19. These three areas are: (a) social mobility amidst COVID-19, economic restructuring and digitalisation; (b) managing long-term healthcare needs; and (c) fulfilling the housing aspiration of our younger generation.

First, I would like to raise the issue of social mobility amidst economic restructuring and digitalisation.

COVID-19 has exacerbated the need for economic transformation and digitalisation. We know that this is important as we strive to thrive in a volatile, unpredictable and fast changing world. Yet this may also bear a considerable impact on vulnerable groups including the lower-wage workers, middle-aged workers, persons with disabilities and their families.

While Singapore's overall unemployment rate saw a decline from 3% in 2020 to 2.6% in 2021, we know the recovery in the labour market remains uneven, especially for those that are more impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Families with members in these sectors would likely have experienced a greater loss of income or job insecurity and their children may face a host of obstacles in their social mobility.

A study in the UK assessing the social mobility implications of COVID-19 has shown that a fall in earnings can reduce the options available to displaced workers as they have less resources to finance reskilling and to lean on while they search for re-employment. For their children and young who are still in education, a fall in parental income or job loss has been shown to reduce attainment in school and through this, have long-run impacts on future earnings.

I am thus really glad to hear in the Minister for Finance's Budget speech that we will continue to invest and upskill our workers and encourage companies to do so through skills development initiatives, increase in support for continued training and SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes. These will certainly go towards helping our people remain employed and to transit into new growing industries and the digital economy.

Programmes such as the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, KidSTART, UPLIFT Community Pilot and scaling up of ComLink are also helpful in ensuring that our children in disadvantaged and low-income families have opportunities to improve their lives.

However, I note that many of these schemes will take years before they can reap their full benefits. I would thus like to ask how will the Government monitor and ensure that the families these schemes are targeted to help are making the transitions in these few years of rapid and intense changes?

I also observe that families, for example, with parents who are trying to upskill, find new employment and manage their transition into new jobs while raising young children all at the same time would be struggling in juggling multiple demands. I would like to ask how would the Government help to streamline all these programmes and help the family in a more wraparound holistic manner for them to navigate between social and manpower schemes that are targeted to help them?

The second topic that is close to my heart is the issue of managing the long-term healthcare needs of our ageing population.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed us the importance of building a resilient healthcare system. Singaporeans, healthcare and frontline workers have rallied together and through the cooperation and efforts of everyone, we have avoided overwhelming our hospitals. I take this opportunity to salute all our hardworking healthcare workers and frontline workers.

We need to continue to strengthen our healthcare systems and build capabilities to ensure that our frontline workers would remain adaptable in responding to future crises. Besides being able to be prepared for future pandemics, a resilient healthcare system should also meet new challenges and changing healthcare needs.

The 2020 population census report showed that residents aged 65 and above has increased from 9% to 15.2% over the last 10 years . At the same time, the National Population Health Survey 2020 highlighted that diabetes prevalence increased with age where more than 20% of adults aged 60 and above are diabetic.

Despite Singapore's effort to tackle diabetes, the crude prevalence of diabetes showed an increasing trend from 8.6 % in 2010 to 9.5% in 2019 to 2020. Although the crude prevalence was partly attributable to population ageing, it is nonetheless important to know that more than one in every five older adults aged 60 to 75 are diabetic.

Furthermore, the numbers of patients with hypertension does not fare well either, with an increase of the overall crude prevalence of 24.2% in 2017 to 35.5% in 2019 to 2020. Similarly, the age-standardised prevalence also showed an increasing trend from 21.9% in 2017 to 31.7% in 2019 to 2020.

This data shows that we must do much more to manage chronic diseases in an ageing population. In my Committee of Supply cuts for health, I will also elaborate on my suggestions on activating more primary care general practitioner's (GP) clinics as well as the use of technologies to help our population manage chronic diseases. I look forward to hearing from the Ministry of Health their overall plan for managing population health.

Lastly, I would like to speak about helping to fulfil the aspirations of our younger adults and the challenges that they are facing in building a home and a family.

COVID-19 has accentuated the challenges of home ownership amidst the supply crunch in the construction sector and the rising cost of utilities due to the increase in energy prices. Many young couples in my constituency have written to me or approached me at Meet-the-People Sessions about their difficulties in successfully balloting for a Build-to-Order (BTO) flat although they want to settle down and have a family.

In Singapore, a study conducted by the Asian Development Bank has shown that the idea of "no flat, no child" is prevalent among our young generation. Thus, it is definitely important for us to engage Singaporeans more, especially during these few years where housing remains an issue for many of the young couples who want to settle down. This, in the face of our continued declining rate, is an important issue that I feel should be addressed.

There are two suggestions that I would like to suggest for better meeting the housing aspirations of young Singaporeans.

Firstly, I would like to suggest for MND to consider extending greater interim subsidies or housing loans to young couples who are trying to get a resale flat if they have immediate housing needs and cannot wait for the longer waiting time for BTO flats.

Secondly, I would also suggest for MND to consider reviewing some of the criteria of the current schemes to give more flexibility for young couples to be able to find their flat if they do not meet all the criteria immediately.

Mr Speaker, as the economy gradually recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and we move towards the goal of an endemic Singapore where Singaporeans coexist with the virus, it is timely that this year's Budget focuses on how we can chart our new way forward as a nation. As we strengthen our resilience from the shadows of COVID-19, my hope is that the Singapore Dream – where opportunities and care continue to be available to all and aspirations of all Singaporeans can become real – will remain alive in the many years to come. On that note, I support Budget 2022.

Sir, every year during Budget season, we ask ourselves how we can best support the most vulnerable members of our society. Let me start this time with one story of what vulnerability looks like.

Allie – not her real name – is a girl who used to live in my constituency. When I first met her in 2016, she was just eight years old. She was like a big sister to my daughter Ella, and they used to play together. Her family had little and lived in a rental flat, but she gave what she could. She gifted Ella her toy car. She patted Ella on her back whenever she coughed. One could not wish for a sweeter, kinder child.

But all this changed when in about a year later, Allie was sent to live in a place of safety – to protect her and to help her. But it also made her a completely different person. Torn from her friends, her family and her home, she shrunk into her shell. When I visited her, she barely spoke a word. She just sat in the room and stared into space. This was not the lively child I once knew, and it was heartbreaking to see how much she was affected and how she had her childhood ripped from her.

It is hard to blame the social workers at the place of safety. I saw firsthand how much they cared. They tried their best with the limited resources they had. When I was there, I saw a little boy climbing the fence and the barb wires, trying to escape. The social worker was trying so hard and so gently to calm him down.

Children like Allie need all the help they can get. I spent a lot of time thinking about what we can do to help children like her. I raised questions in Parliament about places of safety and about intergenerational incarceration.

I thought, surely, we can launch new programmes, more programmes, to help. But as we deep dived into the issues, I realised we have plenty of programmes. The issue might be that social workers had too much on their plate and many were burned out.

Over the past year, I talked with many social workers. I met with social workers every month. I spoke to senior social workers and junior social workers. I spoke to those in the frontlines and those who have left the profession. I spoke to those from family service centres (FSCs) and from other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). I also carried out a public survey and reached out to over 120 social workers.

I listened to their concerns, their worries and most of all, their deep passion in wanting to help others. But Sir, they too need help, especially during this pandemic.

A study found that nearly 60% of frontline social workers were affected by anxiety at the height of the pandemic, with 45% facing depression. The study also found that social workers in FSCs faced higher depression rates.

These findings mirror what I was hearing from social workers in my dialogues. One after another, social workers described their heavy caseloads and exhaustion. I heard the same requests over and over again: requests for more time, more resources and more help.

Today, I want to focus on social workers at our FSCs. FSCs are often the first port of call for those in need. Many see them as a clearing house for all social services. They advise and support families with financial, housing, employment, social and emotional resources. Families rely on their support when applying for financial assistance, seeking housing assistance, requesting food donations, seeking new employment, solving marital problems and much, much more.

It is no surprise that active cases handled by FSCs skyrocketed during the pandemic, increasing from 17,000 per quarter to 20,000 cases – and cases are also getting more complex.

Sir, we need to do more for our social workers who are just as much at the frontline of this pandemic and are in a tight situation like our healthcare workers.

Today, I have three recommendations to give our social workers the time, resources and support they need.

My first recommendation is to set a cap on the number of cases that each social worker can take on at any given time. Currently, too many social workers are forced to juggle an excessive caseload. According to MSF data from the past five years, the average social worker at a FSC handles 22 cases a year.

If 22 cases was the maximum, that might be fine. But 22 cases is the average. This likely means many social workers are out there working far heavier caseloads. I met many of them during my dialogues who told me that they often have 30 to 50 cases at any given time. This is a shocking number. Maybe they are outliers but their views are important too.

Social workers have told me that excessive caseloads directly hurt their ability to do a good job. A FSC social worker shared with me that they feel that they are shortchanging their clients who so desperately need help and they feel bad.

Another social worker shared this quote with me to explain how they feel, "If you ever wanna know what a social worker's mind feels like, imagine a browser with 2,857 tabs open. All the time."

With a huge caseload, they obviously have to give less attention to each case. Often, they end up doing what they call "firefighting", which means tackling only the most urgent problems. This firefighting makes it hard for them to give 100% to each case. It also denies them time to attend courses, mentor junior staff and create community programmes, equally important tasks that build organisational capacity, transfer knowledge and support communities.

Ms Elizabeth Quek, a community social worker, shared about "the helplessness social workers feel when we don't have the time or resources for someone who needs more support." This is not a sustainable solution and many social workers are reaching or have reached their breaking point.

We need to have a cap on the number of cases that social workers can take on.

This is nothing new. In many industries, caps are set to ensure service quality remains high. Schools, for example, limit the number of students in each class so teachers can dedicate more attention to each student.

In a survey I carried out, 87% of social workers felt that there should be a cap on the number of active cases a social worker handles. Ms Quek, whose quote I shared earlier, said that reducing caseloads will improve social workers' capacity to help their clients.

I know this cannot happen overnight and it is not easy to implement. It will require changes in FSC human resources (HR) practices but this cap is absolutely necessary. The actual number of the cap should also be decided in consultation with social workers from across the profession and take into consideration the wide spectrum of cases – Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4 cases – a social worker handles.

Sir, my second recommendation is to increase the time, resources and headcount for research work at FSCs.

Social workers told me they spend a significant part of their work entering data from their cases into the Social Service Net, or SSNet. This might sound like a miserable task but many social workers I spoke to talked about SSNet as a treasure trove of data. They think the rich information stored on SSNet could provide useful insights on the communities they serve.

Some social workers have spent their personal time, after work hours, to trawl through and crunch the data in search of insights. One enthused to me about how it would be possible to run a sentiment analysis by applying natural language processing techniques to the data, to surface trends across cases in the same community.

Sir, our social work degrees are rigorous. Their graduates emerge with research and technical skills. It would be a waste for them to let these skills atrophy. As I have mentioned, the only barrier is that FSCs often do not allocate time or staff to do research. The same social workers who beamed about unlocking the insights held in the SSNet data were also the ones frustrated by how they never had the time or support to do so. About half of the social workers that I surveyed shared that their FSCs do not have dedicated manpower for research work. About 85% wanted Government funding for headcounts dedicated to research.

I know MSF is trying to help and recognises the importance of research work. It does provide FSCs with data from SSNet whenever a social worker request for it. But we can cut the administrative workload of social workers making these constant requests by having in-house researchers.

I hope MSF will respond positively to this appeal by social workers. I know it can provide funding for this through the new Community Capacity Trust which will open for applications from 1 April 2022, and I hope MSF will ensure that all FSCs use this funding and hire in-house researchers.

With funding support and dedicated headcounts, our FSCs can arm themselves with data about the vulnerable families and communities they serve and they can go upstream to solve these issues within the community.

That brings me to my third and final recommendation today – to increase the time, resources and headcount for community work.

I spoke earlier about how social workers do not have the time to do things like create community programmes. Indeed, when I met them, some social workers described community work as their CCA, as something secondary to case work, something they dabble in during their spare time. But it is something they feel is crucial.

Sir, community work, in fact, has two important contributions.

First, community work is prevention. It enables FSCs to reach at-risk families not yet clients of theirs. This improves outcomes as the families can receive support before their problems worsen significantly. Easier to put out small fires than raging infernos, after all.

Second, community work builds social bonds. No man or woman is an island, and everyone needs a robust social network to succeed. Often, families working with FSCs lack friends and neighbours they can count on. Through community work, FSCs can link their clients with others in the same community and enable them to provide mutual support. This reduces the family’s reliance on institutions such as FSCs, helps them succeed in a sustainable way and also offers a way for families themselves to support others around them.

Community work will also help to slow the inflow of new cases which will give social workers the space and time they need. It might help to break the vicious cycle some social workers are in.

There are other NGOs that do community work and, indeed, many do excellent work. But why not empower FSCs to do the same? FSCs are located in the heart of the community and they have their finger on the pulse of their community. FSCs are already working with many of the people in the community, already meeting with them regularly and have the data on the trends and needs on the ground that many other NGOs do not have.

There might be worries about duplication of work but there is so much to be done. We should be concerned but I think we hardly need to fear the duplication of work currently.

About half of the FSC social workers I surveyed said their FSCs do not have dedicated manpower and resources for community work. About 84% wanted Government funding for headcounts dedicated to community work.

I know MSF will agree that community work is important and, in fact, they already provide funding to FSCs for two headcounts for group and community work. But there is a lot more we need to do.

First, social workers need to know there is existing funding for this. During my consultations with social workers, many were surprised to hear that funding for this headcount existed.

Second, we need to increase the funding available. Many social workers shared that funding for two headcounts is hardly sufficient.

Third, MSF needs to work closely with FSCs and ensure they use this funding available to them and hire the headcounts required to focus on community work.

Sir, in conclusion, let me end my speech by returning to Allie’s story. She has been released from the Place of Safety and I brought her out for a meal and a day at the arcade with my daughter recently. I hope that one day Allie will be able to lead a stable and fulfilling life within the community in spite of everything she has gone through. I hope no other child has to go through what Allie went through. To do this, we need to help our social workers.

In summary, I am asking that the Government introduce a cap on the number of cases each social worker can take on, provide funding for dedicated headcounts and resources for research work and provide more funding for dedicated headcounts and resources for community work.

For all these recommendations, we need to make sure that it is not just rolled out as guidelines but that FSCs should follow and implement them, and MSF should help FSCs in the implementation.

Sir, I recently met with MSF to discuss and share the concerns that social workers have shared with me. I appreciate the important work that MSF is doing and I could feel the passion in the room when they spoke about how they were helping FSCs and social workers. I thank them for their hard work and dedication.

Let me end my speech with a quote, "Being a social worker is easy. It’s like riding a bike. Except the bike is on fire. You’re on fire. Everything is on fire".

That is the reality. That really is what some social workers are feeling. In fact, I met up with social workers right after the Budget Statement. I shared this speech with them and one social worker shared with me in the most simple terms, "just tell everyone we are just very tired and frustrated".

Sir, our social workers are our social safety net but they truly want to be more than that, to not just address the symptoms of the problem but address the root of the problem, to go down into the community to co-create solutions and address the real needs of the community. Social workers want to be the social safety trampoline that Senior Minister Tharman spoke about.

If we value our social workers, I hope MSF seriously considers the recommendations I have made on behalf of the social workers. We can and we must do more to help our social workers and empower them to help make Singapore a better place and more inclusive place for all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans and families have been facing higher costs of living prices, from food to daily necessities to utilities and all these costs have increased quite significantly for them. I think, so far, from yesterday to today, we have heard many hon parliamentarians in this Chamber talk about this. This impact is especially salient for middle- and lower-income households, both financially and psychologically.

According to the Department of Statistics, Singapore’s overall CPI, inflation, rose 4.0% from January 2021 to January 2022, although MAS’ core inflation measure was 2.4%. Household income growth barely matched the CPI growth in the same period for these households, as median monthly household income from work grew by 3.6% in nominal terms from 2020 to 2021.

So, at first glance, middle- and low-income households may feel pressured that their incomes are only barely matching the rise in prices. But after taking into account Government transfers, middle- and low-income households would have seen higher real income growth. With Government transfers and taxes considered, the Gini coefficient in 2021 evidently fell from 0.444 to 0.386, the second lowest level since 2000.

Hence, I am glad that the Government has multiples schemes, such as the CDC vouchers, education accounts top-ups and enhanced U-Save rebates, in place to support these households.

However, we must not undermine the psychological factor of the public, even if income is still outpacing inflation in reality. It is not always immediately obvious how Government transfers have buffered the impact. It takes multiple steps to calculate the net impact. Moreover, there remains much uncertainty in how costs can fluctuate in the future and, therefore, how families can or cannot cope.

The psychology of uncertainty, if left unaddressed, can severely affect one’s well-being but, more importantly, threaten our nation’s ability to stay together, overcome crisis together and progress together.

Rising global demands for the same products that we demand with the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines, oil and gas supply crunch made worse by geopolitical turmoil, and global supply chain woes are driving costs up. Clearly, these are macro factors beyond our control. But these are hurting Singaporeans.

For example, the sudden spike in energy price forced a few of the open energy market operators out of operations. Customers are transferred back to grid operator SP Group. Or, they could choose other private operators that survived. Regardless, energy prices have increased significantly across the board.

During a house visit in January this year, I met a MacPherson resident who runs a small shop and she shared her frustration and anxiety with me. She had subscribed to Best Electric, one of the open energy market operators that went bust last year. Her monthly electricity bill doubled from $1,800 in the first month after SP took over her account, and this monthly bill further increased to over $8,000. It was more than a four-fold increase.

For small operators with a modest margin, such a shocking increase drives them into the red. Needless to say, these small operators, many of whom are Singaporeans with families, will see their household disposable income being affected as well. Could the Government have stepped in more strongly in such extraordinary instances to help mitigate the increase? Perhaps, to put a cap to the amount of increment for these affected small businesses and household in such instances where the impact or the increase was not of their own doing.

In another example, an elderly couple in MacPherson in their 70s live on their CPF payouts and allowance of a couple of hundreds of dollars per month from their three children. They are typical middle-income Singaporeans who have retired and are living in a flat of their own. One may argue that this is not too bad and they certainly receive subsidies and benefits from various Government schemes as well. But both elderly have chronic medical conditions that incur recurring medical costs. MediSave savings are also fast depleting for them. They tried and are still trying to be self-reliant but rising food, groceries, utilities and public transport costs in recent times are really testing for them.

While Singaporeans understand that some factors are beyond Singapore’s immediate control, and that self-efforts are important, the pressure from fast rising costs stress them. Successive news or observations of price increases in a short time frame are unsettling.

I sincerely appreciate Government’s efforts in introducing various support packages to help households and retirees cope with living costs, as well as uplifting workers to uplift wages. The latest measures announced in Budget 2022, along with those introduced in the past, will help to push down the “bottomline” costs and push up “topline” income for households.

Government transfers through various help schemes help to offer buffer, but households are uncertain how much the costs will rise further, how long might they be eligible for Government subsidies or assistance and whether the assistance is even enough for them to cope. For retirees who no longer have active income, this worry intensifies. What happens after the Assurance Package expires in five years? What happens if the oil price spikes again or if the oil price and, therefore, the electricity bill stays high?

Singaporeans must not feel that they are left to deal with the pressures alone as this can erode our sense of togetherness and undermine the social compact in Singapore. Hence, our Government must continue to assure Singaporeans of its support through words and deeds.

Next, I would like to speak on the national reserves. Again, I am thankful that our past and present leaders have been judicious in managing our reserves, painstakingly saving up for "storms" like this COVID-19 pandemic. Money drawn from our past reserves has been put to good use as we battle the crisis and provide tangible support for Singaporeans.

The Government’s total draw from past reserves is now revised to $42.9 billion for the period of FY2020 to FY2022, less than the initial draw of $52.0 billion from past reserves announced at the Fortitude Budget in May 2020. Drawing less than expected is encouraging as it signals stable economic growth and prudent spending.

My question now is – from this point, what is the Government’s plan for our national reserves?

Our Pioneers took more than 50 years to save up this pot of gold because they want to protect their children and future generations. Similarly, we have a duty to use this pot of gold wisely and make sure that we put back what we took once we can, so that our children and their children can continue to have this asset to fall back on when they face the crisis of their generation.

Lest I get misunderstood, let me state that I believe it was necessary for us to draw on our reserves to help Singapore and Singaporeans get through this COVID-19 storm. I also believe that at this juncture when Singaporeans are struggling with escalating cost of living, now is not the right time to put money back into the reserves.

Still, we must keep in mind that we cannot deplete our reserve, that must guard it judiciously, and instil a discipline to put back what we took at the earlies opportunity when we can afford to do so – if not all at once, then in phases.

Therefore, could the Government share what circumstances or indicators need to be met for money to be returned to the reserves, and is there a timeline that the Government is looking at?

My next point is on building up for the future. Many of the problems we face today are not novel. We probably already have the solutions to these old problems and we need to accelerate the implementation. For instance, our energy needs are over-reliant on oil and gas that we import. We benefit from processing these imported natural resources but our electricity prices are almost totally dependent on the prices set by oil export countries. One solution is to diversify to use clean energy so as to dilute the impact of oil prices on our own energy cost, and I believe this topic has been very passionately debated by fellow colleagues yesterday and today. And I am also aware that the Energy Market Authority is also actively exploring these solutions.

Another possible solution is to actively deploy smart technology that allow us to move from reactive to predictive maintenance, so that we can save energy and reduce waste. This also includes other types of green technology as well. The upfront CAPEX could be costlier, but the longer-term savings could be worth it. Therefore, the problem is not without a solution, but could we hasten it?

We need to build future-ready infrastructure that can last. And we need to build up enterprises and talents that are skilled and versatile.

Hence, I am supportive of the plan to strengthen our digital capabilities and invest in next-bound infrastructure. When others are looking at 5G, we must look at 6G. When others are looking at Web 3.0, we must start imagining Web 4.0. The current S-curve is already saturated, we need to get onto the next. And to do so, of course, we need good people.

Therefore, I am definitely also very supportive of the plans to invest in our people throughout the stages of their lives, from when they are young and in school to when they have entered the workforce and can benefit from mentorship to when they reach mid-career and to when they have become mature workers. It used to be that one’s career is a straight-line progression, hardly changing jobs or industry. But it will increasingly be commonplace for one to change path multiple times in his/her working lifespan.

Hence, by investing in our people, we not only help Singaporeans to achieve their many aspirations but also recognise them as our nation’s key asset. I will also speak more on this during the Committee of Supply debate.

By building up for the future, we can better take advantage of the opportunities and rise comfortably above the challenges that we now face. To move away from quibbling over small margins but changing games altogether.

Singapore’s social compact have evolved over time. From focusing on survival as a nation in the 1960s to the 1980s, to the "Many Helping Hands" approach that encouraged a greater sense of collective responsibility, and that was from the 1990s to the mid 2000s, to now recognising that Government and the community need to play a bigger role to complement individual and family efforts. Singapore has done well so far.

As we look ahead, the world is getting chaotic again, Singapore’s society is also getting more complex with more sophisticated needs and issues. There are still many challenges and uncertainties ahead.

Therefore, to continue keeping our people and Singapore together, we must have sufficient guardrails, sufficient support and very importantly, mutual trust that we will be there for each other in good times and bad.

As the Government draws from our treasury and reserves to provide financial stimulus and put in place the various schemes and legislation to distribute help fairly and boost failing sectors and groups that need help, businesses have to do its best to survive, to transform, to keep jobs for workers, to make space, to create capacity, to help groom our workers. And workers too, will need to be willing to accept concessions during tough patches and also be willing to learn and keep learning to always be better than who we were yesterday.

At the society level, the more abled must also be willing to take less and give more. And the less abled need to also be willing to keep trying their best to adjust, to change track, to upskill and to progress. If we can all be more accommodating, a bit more give and take, try a bit harder for each other, I am sure there is no storm that we cannot overcome or weather through. Singapore will definitely emerge much stronger with every generation. Therefore, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget Statement, Minister for Finance said that we need to transform our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) which include the six Autonomous Universities. I agree. This is because IHLs need to keep pace with industry changes.

I would like to share two personal anecdotes that would support the need for the transformation of IHLs.

The first was at my workplace. A candidate applying for an IT support position in his 50s did not have any diploma in IT or a degree in IT. So, the HR department did not think he was fit to join as an executive using the conventional wisdom. But this candidate had a lot of work experience in running an IT infrastructure and support business. He self-learned over the years and was competent in IT support. Eventually, the IT head decided to hire him, and he performed very well thereafter.

Clearly, his skill sets, real-world experience and knowledge about current IT practices trumped whatever IT diploma or IT degree he may have gotten 30 years ago, which would be obsolete by now. This episode reflects the need for continuous training and lifelong learning and IHLs need to play this role.

The second case is closer to home. When my son was about to complete his full-time National Service last year, he was searching for a temporary job before commencing university this August. While serving his National Service, he started diving into the rabbit hole of blockchain, cryptocurrencies, decentralised finance and stablecoins. With his deep knowledge about cryptocurrency, he managed to land a temporary job with a cryptocurrency firm as an analyst despite having no official training. All things related to cryptocurrency is developing very fast and is hard to imagine how the subject can be taught in the university with sufficient currency.

After working for a few months, he wants to defer his university education to pursue his interest and continue working in the same field. He does not want to miss the swift developments in the cryptocurrency industry.

As his father, I was quite concerned. I am old school and very much believe in the notion of having a university degree to fall back on.

But taking a step back, I am amazed that these days, young people without a university degree can do very well in certain industries especially in technology and make a very decent living. From my understanding, a significant number of young people working in the cryptocurrency industry are earning more than a hundred thousand dollars a year despite being in their 20s or early 30s.

These days, even without a university degree, skill sets, personal experiences and knowledge can take a person very far. Young people may have their own ideas about their professional development. Taking this into account, our universities need to evolve to remain relevant.

Unlike my time in the university, the main pillar of the curriculum was to impart knowledge and learn how to search for information in the library. But today, knowledge is abundant with the help of the Internet. The demise of print encyclopaedia reflects this reality. What is important about university education is to learn how to search information, verify the information and organise the information to present in a coherent, concise and simple manner.

University education is also about sharpening the presentation skills, collaboration skills, social skills and other soft skills through project works, through tutorial seminars and internship, both locally and overseas.

So, do we still need a four-year full degree course? Should we shorten the degree course? Should we have extended and more purposeful internships as part of transformation of IHLs that Minister for Education is thinking about? How do we involve industry leaders in shaping the curriculum of the IHL education so that the professors and students are more in touch with the industry’s needs and development? Can we have the flexibility of converting the second half of the full-time degree course into a part-time degree should the students want to extend his internship or even start work earlier?

Above are food for thoughts as we transform our IHLs. It is always evolving, and we cannot be static.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we look at the job prospect of university graduates over the past three years, graduates of information and digital technologies are well sought after and command the highest starting pay, comparable or even higher than the starting pay of lawyers and doctors. People with tech skills are high in demand. Will this trend last? Or will it burst just like the dot.com bubble did 20 years ago?

Given the trend of how digital technology has disrupted many industries, there is a high chance that this technology craze will continue for quite a while. In fact, every company has to be tech company to survive. Even the media companies that are reporting our speeches in Parliament have to be tech driven as declared by the chairman of the newly formed SPH Media Limited.

I know of a family where the daughter, a fresh graduate of computer science, is earning close to the pay of her mother who has been a teacher with MOE for more than 30 years. Is this an anomaly? Is the job of a teacher of less important? No. This is just market forces at play.

There is an acute shortage of IT staff in Singapore and worldwide. If our IHLs are still sticking to four years to churn out IT graduates, we might not be able to close the gap in the short to medium term without importing more foreign IT talents.

At the same time, we have many recent Polytechnic and University graduates that cannot find jobs. There are also many mid-career PMETs who have lost their jobs and aspire to earn the starting pay of the recent IT graduates.

So, what can we do? I had the privilege of visiting Tata Consulting Services (TCS) SG United Program with Minister Iswaran about two years ago. I also recently had lunch with the Asia Pacific Head of TCS. I understand that the trainees go through foundational and specialised training courses in areas like cloud adoption, artificial intelligence, machine learning, coding and getting on-the-job training by working on projects with TCS clients. Most, if not all of their hundreds of their trainees, found good jobs after the course. We need to work with more industry partners to expand the programme to produce not hundreds but thousands of such IT personnel.

If we believe in the notion that every company has to be a tech company to survive, then almost all key personnel in the company, ranging from HR, customer service, marketing, procurement, all have to be IT savvy and be able to adopt technology that can make their work more efficient and effective.

That being the case, the IHLs have the urgent need to incorporate tech components in almost every course in the university. More importantly, the IHLs have the mission to provide continuous training to existing professionals to equip them with technology and skills so that they can keep up with the industry trends.

If we take a step back, we may need to examine if we need to put a time stamp on the degree conferred by universities. What do we mean by time stamp? One radical idea is to put it as a requirement that the graduates have to attend upgrading courses every five years or so. If you do not upgrade, your degree will fade over time and you no longer can claim the degree as your credential after a while. Does it sound scary?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are serious about continuous training and lifelong learning, we have to be radical about transformation. It may not and should not happen overnight. But, we have to start to transform our IHLs. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Budget debate over the past two days has seen two consensus and one difference. The first consensus is that the Members of Parliament all agree that the country's spending needs to be increased, especially the budget for MOH. This is because our population is ageing, healthcare costs will go up year by year. The second consensus is that so far, no Member of Parliament has suggested cutting our defence spending to pay for the increase in healthcare costs. Because of the war in Ukraine, many people realised the importance of national defence. If we cannot ensure our territorial integrity, there is no need to debate this Budget here.

Therefore, I am heartened that Members of Parliament who have questioned why defence spending is so high in the past, or have asked the Government to freeze or even cut defence spending, are no longer making the same request.

However, the biggest difference now is that several Members of Parliament have called for using more Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC). Currently, half of NIRC is spent on Government spending and the other half is used for topping up our reserves to increase investment capitals, thus increasing the returns on our net investment.

Due to COVID-19, we have spent nearly $43 billion of our national reserves. Without this $43 billion, the NIRC will also be reduced. At the same time, the Finance Minister has also said that it is difficult to plug this big hole with current Government revenue, especially taxes. Without the trees planted by our forefathers, we would not have the reserves to help Singaporeans to cope with the impact of COVID-19 in the past two years.

Singapore is a small country. We do not know how many other crises like COVID-19 or the Financial Crisis will happen in the future and whether or not we need to use reserves. Therefore, I suggest that for the sake of our children and future generations, we should use half of our NIRC to slowly top up the $43 billion reserves that have been used. We cannot afford to sit idle and use up all our savings.

(In English): I support the Budget.