Debate on President's Address

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong.

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

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

I thank the Minister again. This will be my last clarification.

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

Clarification. Is that okay, Mr Speaker?

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

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Minister.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Leon Perera.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Ms Jessica Tan.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.34 pm until 4.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

(Second allotted day)

Debate resumed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister Ong Ye Kung.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. I join Members before me to address the issue on foreign manpower.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do we deal with this as a nation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Carrie Tan.

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

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

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

Minister Teo.

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

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

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

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

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

Minister Teo.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Perera.

Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir, how do we stand up to it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leader.