Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Budget. There is much in Budget 2018 covering key priorities which Minister Heng Swee Keat has outlined in his Budget Statement. In my speech today, I would like to focus my discussion on social mobility and opportunity.

There is growing concern that the divide across Singapore society driven by inequality of opportunity is leading to social stratification by class. The very fabric of Singapore and the Singapore Story is based on our people and how they have worked hard to build Singapore and a better life for themselves and their families. Hence, it is important that our systems and structures must continue to ensure access to opportunity for all Singaporeans to do better and move up in society based on ability and hard work.

When we talk about social mobility, we can give our attention to growth and how we make the pie bigger for everyone. I do, however, hesitate to say that the rising tide will lift all boats as we have seen examples in many countries, including Singapore, where this has not always been the case. While growth is important, if we are to be able to address the widening inequality, growth has to be coupled with access to and, more importantly, the ability of all Singaporeans to take advantage of the opportunities, if social mobility is to be achieved.

The Budget Statement each year outlines the Government’s revenue and expenditure for the upcoming financial year and the Budget measures. Each year, when I listen to the Budget, I pay a lot of attention to the measures because the measures outlined the aspirations of what the Budget sets out to achieve for Singapore.

I was very happy that Minister Heng Swee Keat clearly stated that Budget 2018 is about laying the foundation for our nation’s development in the next decade. He outlined the three major shifts which are confronting us: the shift in global economic weight towards Asia, accompanied by broader shifts in the global order; emergence of new technologies; and our ageing population. These will provide opportunities and challenges for all Singaporeans. These shifts could improve social mobility or cause an even greater socioeconomic divide.

Budget 2018's strategy is to anchor Singapore as a node for innovation, technology and enterprise. This will focus our efforts as a country to capture the opportunities presented by the shifts and capture them not just in Singapore but beyond. It will also create opportunities by developing and attracting growth to Singapore and transform our businesses to be manpower-lean, to enable older workers to continue to contribute.

While this strategy cannot guarantee success, these policies seek to provide appropriate support and equalise access to opportunity. The measures outline the Government’s intent to enable businesses and individuals to transform, build capabilities and tap on partnerships both locally and abroad to be able to engage and capture new opportunities. These measures, as the hon Member Mr Azmoon had mentioned, are not exhaustive but they do set out the foundation and direction. They will need to be refined and to evolve, given the pace and scale of the shifts that confront us. But if they are implemented effectively, they will enable companies and individuals to take advantage of these opportunities and have a very good chance at success.

Minister Heng outlined several measures to foster pervasive innovation to support businesses to innovate across the entire value chain. Additionally, the pilot of the Open Innovation Platform will also encourage the co-creation of digital solutions by providing that virtual crowdsourcing platform to help companies find partners to address specific challenges they face.

I would like to touch on the increase in tax deduction on licensing payments for commercial use of intellectual property (IP) which is capped at $100,000 of licensing payments per year. Minister Heng did indicate in his Budget Statement that this cap is to ensure that smaller businesses will benefit more from this measure. The feedback from SMEs on this measure as well as the increase of tax deduction for IP registration fees and for qualifying expenses on research and development (R&D) done in Singapore, is that for many of the SMEs that are developing in this space, many have little or no profits. Hence, they would not be able to benefit from these tax deductions. More targeted grants oriented for IP and R&D-related cost would better benefit these smaller companies.

The new opportunities that are presenting themselves would also require new skills, know-how and relationships. Building deep capability both for our businesses and workers is necessary to enable them to compete on value and skills and not cost. The various measures announced focus on capability development in internationalisation, digitalisation and productivity improvement. These skills are needed to equip Singaporeans and our businesses to be able to have the know-how and skills to take advantage of these new opportunities in Singapore, regionally and globally, and to create value to differentiate and compete.

Another important factor that Minister Heng touched on as well was partnerships, both locally and abroad, to allow our companies to harness one another’s capability. Why is that important? It is important for scale. But more important is speed, because the pace of change is happening so quickly and continuously that trying to do it ourselves is not going to be tenable.

There have been many measures but I was glad to see the focus, even for SkillsFuture, on areas of developing talent for being Asia-ready and developing talent for us to be able to compete and engage in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region. Because what is important is not just know-how but, to operate regionally, we will also need to build networks and plans that will allow these expansions.

I would now like to touch on the topic of our seniors. There has been much discussion in the Budget Debate over the last two days on our ageing population and the need to strengthen the support for our seniors. While I agree that this is important, I do want to talk about how companies can benefit from the mature workers in their workforce.

I have spoken about the movie "The Intern" in this Chamber before and I would like to use the example again. First of all, because I do not watch that many movies, so I do not have that many movies to give examples on but, actually, I thought it would help illustrate the point on the value of a diverse intergenerational workforce. I believe this is an area that we have not tapped.

In the movie, Robert De Niro played a retiree who applies for a position in a "Senior Intern Programme" at an e-commerce company. He reports to the young successful founder of the company. Although he is not familiar with the digital world, he makes the effort to learn and adapts well to the work and his colleagues. In the movie while he is adapting to the digital world, what he has done is he has applied his experience, his experience as a businessman, his sharing of knowledge and, most importantly, his coaching to help the young founder get through difficult times in her business. And why do I say "coaching"? Because it is also the "how do you work together". That is the important piece and I really firmly believe that our more mature workers today have a wealth of experience and knowledge. If tapped well, this intergenerational diverse workforce can make a lot of difference.

By bringing together a diverse workforce of both young and older employees, companies can tap on these new perspectives and the skills of their younger workforce and the wealth of knowledge and experience of older workers for a more effective work environment.

All these measures, I was really quite excited about. You may ask, "Why is she linking social mobility to all these things about innovation?" It is because, ultimately, if we provide the platform, we enable with skills and we allow that collaboration to happen, then, ultimately, that spirit of innovation will depend on businesses and Singaporeans to do our part, to put in the effort to make the best of these opportunities, and then do better for both the country and for ourselves.

If done well, I believe that this is social mobility in action. In this new world, with the shifts we are facing, what we are seeing is that when you do not have legacy, you can move a lot faster. Therefore, it will allow that disruption to allow people to actually do better. The opportunity to do better can be there. But creating the environment to do it is what Budget 2018 is laying the foundation for.

Let me just touch on one more point. I was very pleasantly surprised when the Minister shared the emphasis on the need to build capability and skills in the area of preparing our people to prepare for their financial needs at key stages in their lives. Financial planning and making informed financial decisions are core skills and have profound impact on the lives of individuals and their families. This is not a matter of whether you are rich or poor. In many of the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) cases that I have seen over the years as a Member of Parliament (MP), much of the hardship and challenges faced by our residents and their families are usually a matter of lack of financial planning. When situations like sudden illnesses, loss of job or unfortunate circumstances occur, individuals or their families have problems coping if they had not done financial planning. This impacts the person and the entire family in managing their day-to-day expenses, as well as longer-term commitments like housing and medical needs.

So, it is good that financial education curriculum will start with our youths, as financial planning must start early. Can the Minister share more information on the financial education curriculum that is planned for our youths in our polytechnics and ITEs? Is there a reason why the junior colleges are not included?

What are the enhancements to existing services at Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to enable Singaporeans to also make better informed decisions in the purchase of their flats and retirement respectively that were mentioned in the Budget?

So, Mr Speaker, Budget 2018 sets out to build the foundation and position Singapore for the future and for growth. By providing an environment to support access to opportunities and the ability to seize these opportunities will provide Singaporeans with hope and I hope also the aspiration to do better for themselves and their families. With that, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this very balanced Budget, which invests in our people, businesses, infrastructures and environment. It clearly takes into account the need to keep up with rapid changes. From digitalisation to upskilling, to adoption of smart technologies.

The pressure to make major changes within a short period of time is daunting. On top of that, talks of increased spending in various crucial areas like healthcare, enhanced social safety nets and massive infrastructural developments, as well as the possible Goods and Services (GST) hike, have got Singaporeans waiting for this year’s Budget with apprehension.

Amidst a climate of uncertainty, the Minister for Finance has crafted a practical Budget that addresses all these challenges. He has outlined ways in which we can keep our economy innovative and vibrant, which means more opportunities for businesses and, in turn, a better future for all Singaporeans. Businesses will certainly appreciate the strong focus on the available support for pursuing innovation and increased digital capabilities. We will be making bigger steps towards our vision of a Smart City that is also green and liveable. A few days ago, Hong Kong announced their financial position as well. They have achieved a $28-billion surplus. In fact, one of the key focuses when I read up on it was how do they continue to invest in innovation? So, Singapore has our competition.

At a dialogue session with my residents in Sembawang after the Budget Statement was released, one concern among the residents was naturally on the proposed future GST hike. The residents were asking whether this was going to make Singapore an even more expensive place for businesses and for us to stay and for tourism as well.

In 2007, when the GST was raised from 5% to 7%, consumer price index (CPI) inflation rose to 2.6% in July 2007 from 1.3% in June, reflecting the 2% GST hike. How will the proposed GST increase from 7% to 9% affect Singapore’s competitiveness? Will the increase deter foreign direct investments into Singapore and hurt our tourism and the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) industry? How will the proposed GST increase impact our CPI and inflation when implemented?

The appeal from the residents was to delay the GST increase as far as possible. If it is not 2021, is it possible to push it to 2025? Better still, have plans to grow the economy, grow the income of Singaporeans, grow the revenues and incomes of all businesses and also let the revenues of the country grow concurrently. So, if we can, we can deter the GST increase indefinitely.

I support the Government's ambitious plan to develop a number of mega infrastructure projects and I support the financing framework proposed. I think it is fair. But the more we build, the more we need to maintain. Did the Government take into account the maintenance cost after the construction? And I am a little bit concerned whether our construction sector and manpower can handle so many infrastructure projects at the same time. We are worried about whether we have the resources to do so, not just about finance, but also the space and the manpower. Can we space all these developments a bit further apart?

Next, I would like to move on to our environment, a topic that I have been following closely with every Budget for the last 12 years. Environmental issues are closely related to our sustainability and living standards. Hence, it is important for us to continue to review and improve policies regarding this aspect. The carbon tax, scheduled for 2019, was announced last year, and this year's Budget revealed further details on it. The carbon tax will no doubt serve as a deterrent for big emitters of greenhouse gases.

But we need to do more to push for more measures to help companies and households to reduce their energy usage and use renewable energy. Will the Government introduce incentive measures like grants for projects to help households as well as businesses to achieve lower carbon emissions?

At last year’s Budget, I spoke about exploring the use of solar energy, and I am glad tangible progress has been made. It is heartening news that the private sector, Town Councils and various Government agencies have been major contributors to expand solar capacity in Singapore in recent years. The private sector accounts for 45.9% of total installed capacity, while Town Councils and Government agencies like HDB account for 44.7%. The residential sector, comprised primarily of private homes, accounts for 589 installations, but that is less than 5% of total installed capacity.

The way forward is to keep the momentum and increase take-up rates. Understandably, space constraint remains a challenge. While smaller rooftop systems are less economical than larger ones, making them seem to be poor investments in the short term, increasing awareness on cost-saving abilities and installation procedures can help to generate more interest among private home owners.

In the United Kingdom (UK), the National Network for Low-Carbon Open Homes, an initiative by the Centre for Sustainable Energy, provides a platform for people with energy-homes to share about the technology they use, their experiences and to answer questions. For Singaporeans, the use of renewable energy is still in its infancy stage. So, perhaps a similar platform could help to generate awareness and interest. I hope the Government can consider subsidised or free energy consultation to encourage more buy-in from the public. The Government should also work closely with private developers and residents to facilitate convenient and affordable installation of solar panels for condominiums and other private residential apartments and commercial buildings.

On a related note, from the middle of this year, Singaporean households will be able to choose which provider to buy their power from. They can tap on the e-commerce platform for electricity to pick their provider. So, now would be an appropriate time to step up on public education and encourage households to make more eco-friendly decisions. I note that many such clean energy projects are still in the testbed or pilot stage, and awareness and presence are lacking. Not many residents are aware that their homes are being powered by or will eventually be powered by solar panels on roof tops. How many are aware that they will soon have a choice to use renewable energy in their homes and plan to make the switch? More importantly, how many Singaporeans see this as a good thing? It is important to get Singaporeans excited about renewable energy, and this can only be achieved through greater transparency and public education, even for early-stage projects.

My next topic is on encouraging acts of charity in Singapore. On behalf of my residents, I would like to thank the Government, and especially Mr Heng Swee Keat, for giving an early ang pow of $100 to $300 to all eligible Singaporeans aged 21 and above. I know the schools have encouraged students to donate an ang pow during the Chinese New Year period to the welfare fund so that needy students can benefit from the fund. In the same spirit of caring and giving, I would like to propose that the Government facilitate giving by providing an easy option for Singaporeans who are keen to donate their SG bonus ang pow to local charities like the Community Chest or even the President’s Challenge 2018. Maybe the Government can provide dollar-for-dollar matching to encourage the public to donate.

Next, I am glad that the Government intends to extend WCS. The goal of the scheme is to encourage employers to give wage increases to their employees. However, I would like to know if any study has been done on the effectiveness of the scheme. How many employers are doling out salary increases because of the scheme? On the flip side, many employers are also concerned with raising salaries as this will permanently increase their manpower cost, whereas WCS is a temporary one. Most employers would prefer to share the company’s profits with the staff by special bonuses which are one-off and will not permanently increase their manpower cost. Does WCS include such one-off bonuses?

Lastly, with all the talk about SkillsFuture and upgrading, there was disappointment felt by my residents that there were no enhancement and no top-up in SkillsFuture credits. There are Singaporeans who have utilised all their credits, and there are some, on the other hand, who are waiting for a perfect course to come by. They are afraid to waste their current credit on a course that may not benefit them. Why not top up their SkillsFuture credits since there is a Budget surplus? This is investing in our people.

Mr Speaker, the Budget reveals practical and forward-looking measures that guide us towards a future that is economically and environmentally sustainable. It also promises to shape a nation that is more compassionate and empathetic towards the less fortunate, with the Government taking the lead. I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for a very carefully crafted Budget to cater to Singapore's immediate and long-term needs. Whether we are considering the impending increase of the GST or the methods to finance future infrastructure projects, the issue of our rapidly ageing population informs every decision we make. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] On the new Budget announced by the Minister for Finance, from the impending increase of the GST, to how to finance future infrastructure projects, the consideration behind these issues is for our rapidly-ageing population.

The number of Singaporeans aged 65 and above is expected to double from 440,000 in 2015 to 900,000 by 2030. Our citizen to old-age support ratio, that is, the ratio of citizens in the working ages to each elderly citizen, is projected to fall to 2.1 in 2030. An ageing population and a shrinking labour market will bring about social impact and increase the burden on the next generation.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue to implement multiple measures, including those that encourage parenthood and immigration, to maintain the dependency ratio of six to one. There are many Government policies aimed at improving productivity, encouraging the adoption of technology and lifelong learning to maintain sustainable economic growth. As the saying goes, "It takes 10 years to grow a tree and 100 years to educate a person".

After 2030, will this ratio still be a good one to allow Singapore to continue to be a liveable and prosperous nation? Will Singaporeans still enjoy a good quality of life without burdening the next generation? I would like to ask the Minister, if it is not the case, what would be the ideal ratio which will be good for Singapore?

(In English): We have to address the problem of our ageing population through a combination of raising the fertility rate and controlled regulated measures in selective immigration policies. Accept those who are self-reliant financially, can contribute good tax revenue for Singapore or who could create quality jobs for Singapore. Measures, such as ensuring more healthy golden years for seniors by upgrading their skills, boosting productivity and utilising technology, are all very well and good. However, there is no replacing having more babies, youths and an active workforce in our population.

Would the Minister elaborate on what other options have been considered, resulting in GST being the preferred choice? What is the average charity donation to IPCs made by Singaporeans per year for the past 10 years and whether it is stable or rising? Will the Government set up another charity fund to support ageing Singaporeans with public donations so that it may help mitigate the need of a GST increase? In Mandarin, again.

(In Mandarin): A recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in January this year showed that while 40% of Singaporeans think that the Government should tap into the Reserves, and not increase tax, to cope with the social expenditure on an ageing population, 34% of Singaporeans hold the opposite view.

Forty-one percent of respondents believe that each generation should be self-reliant and not rely on another generation. Thirty-eight percent hold the opposite view. These survey results lead us to ponder whether the many good traditions left by our forefathers will be affected by the changes in society. These good traditions have laid a solid foundation for us. Will these values disappear in the future?

(In English): An article that I read in The Straits Times written by a very young writer by the name of Ng Chia Wee, I quote, "The family is an economically important societal entity. Strong families are the bedrock of national fiscal sustainability. If the family abandons its responsibility to care for its aged members, the Government will have no choice but to step in, leading to greater spending and thus revenue-raising… rising Government involvement in healthcare does not mean falling family involvement. As Minister Heng remarked, rising amounts of healthcare and social expenditure will place greater demands on families and the Government." Sir, let me go back to speaking in Mandarin again.

(In Mandarin): The important value of filial piety is still very strong in our community and is deep-rooted. Repaying our parents is universal, regardless of ethnic and religious backgrounds. Except for a small number, Singaporeans shoulder the primary responsibility of caring for elderly parents. With small families of only one or two children and increasing life expectancy for our aged, the road ahead will be filled with challenges.

On the other hand, parents love their children and will normally not want to become a burden to them. Many senior citizens I have met told me that they do not want to cause any inconvenience or trouble for their children, and they also want to leave something for their children and grandchildren. This is the case even for those whose children are doing well financially.

In fact, there is a very meaningful tradition in our Chinese community. I believe most Members would have heard of it – the last batch of things or money left behind by the deceased – the shouweiqian (手尾钱). It is the money or things placed in the hands of the deceased before nailing the coffin; the coins are called 手尾钱. This money will be distributed to the children and grandchildren. And the ritual is called fen shouwei (分手尾).

The tradition believes that things left behind by the deceased will bring good luck for the family. It symbolises the love from the older generation to the next generations, and also the responsibility on the part of the children to carry on the traditions. To be able to bring luck and fortune to the next generations is considered a virtue according to traditional values which should be passed from generation to generation.

(In English): The same article in The Straits Times that I read, and I quote: "those who do not desire to support the older generation (must) consider that they themselves have, in fact, been supported by this very generation many times over. Would young people have been able to enjoy the quality education, the vibrant economy, the high-paying jobs Singapore has to offer if not for the values and revenue generated by the work put in by those who came before them? Paying more to support the elderly is merely a form of giving back… paying more now would mean paying less in future because it prevents additional problems arising in future which would require even more revenue-raising... policies to improve the healthcare infrastructure and social safety net will not just ensure better care for today's elderly but also ensure there are proper systems put in place to meet the needs of tomorrow's elderly. Although more top-ups would be needed to maintain these systems, the fact that these systems would already be in place will make things a lot easier for the elderly of tomorrow. Young people are, in fact, indirectly contributing to their own future care."

Next, I would like to voice my support for the plan to borrow for new infrastructure projects. Currently, some Statutory Boards are already borrowing, but doing so on a bigger scale is certainly the way forward. As the Minister had pointed out, this would help to preserve our Reserves while spreading the costs over many years. It will benefit other generations, too.

With Singapore’s triple-A credit rating, we will be able to attract strong interest and promote our local bond market. I would like to ask the Minister if the bonds will only be sold to institutions or be open to individual investors as well for Singaporeans to participate. If so, we have to be selective about which projects to be made accessible to the man-in-the-street. Not all projects will be suitable for individual investors.

For projects involving participation across borders, such as Changi Airport Terminal 5, the Kuala Lumpur (KL)-Singapore High Speed Rail, the Johor Bahru (JB)-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link, foreign entities and investors should certainly be allowed to participate and subscribe. However, for bonds to finance projects like local transportation, we have to be careful that we are not too commercialised in our offerings.

I agree that it is important to keep half of our earnings from our Reserves. We must be mindful to grow it not only for ourselves but also for our future generations, as we earn the substantial interest income in perpetuity.

Having a large, ever-expanding pile of Reserves is our best guarantee against an uncertain future. It is the mountain backing up our Singapore dollar, ensuring its stability and strength. The advantages include affordable imported goods and the leeway to draw upon these savings in times of emergencies.

It is important to remind ourselves and the younger generation that during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, with our Reserves, the Government could back the $150 billion guarantee for all bank deposits here and, in 2009, funded the $4 billion Jobs Credit Scheme and Special Risk-Sharing Initiative.

When foreigners know that we have a good fiscal system, a prudent and responsible Government, they will not speculate against our currency. Our reputation has meant the Singapore passport has been rated the most powerful in the world.

Spending is easier than saving. We have to continue our public education effort to teach Singaporeans the value of preserving and growing our national piggy bank – our Reserves.

Yesterday, our hon Members have suggested that we use part of the land sale to finance recurrent expenditures. It may be good to know the pros and cons of the proposal. From the prudent and disciplined financial planning angle, the proposal sounds similar to the concept of reducing mortgage policy, enabling long-term asset to meet the recurrent expenditure for retirement needs. So, one must know, and I do not think Singapore is going into retirement. Hence, one may ask whether it is the best policy as we need to work together to bring many more good years together to our children, to our next generation and to Singaporeans. In the finance industry, even if you ask for a short-term loan using a long-term asset, a bank or lender would ask for a repayment plan for this short-term loan. And this is also one of their prime conditions for granting approval.

Presently, there are other taxes, such as Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD), Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) and Additional Seller's Stamp Duty (ASSD), that will help us preserve our capital while allowing revenue to fund for social expenditure, such as the many different types of subsidy and special HDB CPF grants for our younger generation to buy HDB flats. For retirees, there are also many options, such as the Lease Buyback Scheme, to support their retirement.

On that note, may I ask the Minister if for every dollar paid by the low-income group, they will get $4 or more in benefit, in return? Likewise, for every dollar spent by the middle-income group, they will get back $2 or more in benefit, in return. With that, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. Minister Heng Swee Keat referred to the 2018 Budget as a strategic and integrated financial plan for the long term. Singapore has long prided itself for planning with a long horizon and being prudent with our fiscal spending, to the extent that some sceptics may say we are very conservative.

In the 2018 Budget, the statistics provided and plans announced are all focused to meet the projected needs in 2030. We know there are technological shifts that will impact our economy, an ageing population looms and we need to foster a caring society to strengthen the social aspects supplementing the Government’s efforts. But beyond awareness of trends, surely, we must do something about it.

When I first began working, I used to ask myself what is Singapore's Budget about and how does it impact me? What is this annual ritual that gets people talking and fussing around the same time of the year? Like others, short-term handouts and schemes that directly impact us are what we are looking out for. Longer-term plans that are announced usually do not retain in our thoughts for very long. After all, the Finance Minister announces many initiatives or schemes in each annual Budget. To many, the crux of the Budget is how much will I receive and how much will the Government take in return? Herein lies the problem. To many, they view our Budget on a transactional basis rather than one that is about participative nation-building.

Recently, I had a dialogue with a group of 30 youths and young working adults. At the dialogue, we did an instant poll to understand what concerns them most about their future and Singapore. The results showed three areas of concern: one, future uncertainty – their jobs and Singapore's economy; two, cost of living; and three, shrinking family support.

Upon further discussion, I understood where their concerns arise from. It is heartening to know that some of our younger generation do look forward to understanding what Singapore’s future is and think about how their future fits in the big picture. Given that Singapore is a mature economy and the nature of jobs are rapidly changing, many are worried whether the economy can sustain at healthy rates and jobs remain available over time.

Unless we maintain a high employment rate and have reasonable income growing in line with inflation, it will be difficult for the working class to manage their living costs, contribute for future needs and save adequately for retirement.

For a developed economy to maintain a sustainable growth rate of 1% to 3% is not an easy feat. Today, our competition is no longer local. The real competition is dynamic and beyond our shores. Regional, global markets with substantive scale and an active hunt for talents are what constitute our competition. As workers, we cannot rest on our laurels and expect jobs to remain status quo or to remain readily available for us. Instead, creating opportunities, being innovative and staying relevant are the new normal that we must learn to adapt to. We must possess the passion and drive to hunt for the next new and big thing. Thus, the need for constant upgrading of job skills, value adding in our work scope have readily become a requirement on our part to keep abreast with time.

Let me share a personal account of my own. Many of you know that traditional engineering jobs involve extensive work with long hours. When I started out as a fresh engineer, there were many situations that I encountered which are not taught in books. It seemed there were always new applications to learn, new situations to grapple with that required me to think on my own feet. I recalled one incident where I was struggling and about to give up. This was what my then line manager told me: "Do not shy away from the issues. Be keen to learn or do more. Always think and go beyond your assigned tasks, continue to evolve, build your skills frequently as the company or even the global market changes. Someday, you will realise that you are the ultimate beneficiary of all the knowledge and skills that you have acquired in the process." I am glad to have heeded his advice as it has been one of the most practical and useful advice and has since been my mantra for skills upgrade and constant learning even before SkillsFuture emerged.

It has been one and a half years since the economic restructuring efforts began. To have a future-ready economy, we need more than just future-ready workers. The companies also need to be forward-looking and continue in job creation. Can Minister Heng provide more insights on how our economic restructuring efforts have been, and how we have been encouraging partnerships in the private sector? Have more jobs been created in different sectors, particularly for those in the middle-age group to senior workers?

In this Budget, much has been spoken about seniors aged 65 and above. From 500,000 seniors today to 900,000 by 2030, this is not an insignificant increase in a decade. Earlier this month, a Motion about strengthening support for seniors was raised in this House. In the Motion, we said that we should treasure and value our seniors, leverage and build upon the knowledge that they possess. But where senior workers are concerned, I do not think the society has fully embraced this.

It is true that skills gaps do exist in the marketplace today. But when the workers are equipped with new skills, will the industry hire those without prior direct experience or in the same field? I feel that the largest gap in the restructuring efforts lies with the current hiring process. Tripartite efforts with the private and public sectors are a necessary partnership. However, beyond encouragement from the Government, jobs creation for middle-age and senior workers can never be effected without a fundamental shift in the hiring process.

Today, hiring managers are very focused on past relevant experience and not the potential or the value-add that each individual candidate can bring to the job. This will limit how we can leverage the skills of individuals in adapting to uncertainty at the workplace. I believe this is also one of the factors that stereotype and keep many in the mindset assuming older workers are a burden, whether in terms of health, efficiency or knowledge.

Way back in 1998, Amazon Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jeff Bezos hired people with a different perspective. Before he says yes to a new hire, there are three typical questions that he would ask: one, will you admire this person? Two, will this person raise the average level of effectiveness of the group they are entering? Three, along what dimension might this person be a superstar? Today, these questions remain relevant in hiring. He focuses on the value the individual can bring to the team, rather than what they have done in the past.

With a limited and ageing workforce, I urge all hiring managers across the industries to keep an open mind, begin rethinking and take concrete actions around this topic, as you, the hiring managers, are the most direct and effective channel to create such change that we truly need in retaining the talents of both young and old.

Apart from the various initiatives, like Place-and-Train, Adapt and Grow, that help some mid-career switchers or displaced workers, what more can be done? I suggest that the public and private sectors consider allocating some workdays off for their staff to attend relevant upgrading classes, or for collaboration between companies and course providers to offer customised courses in modules within the companies or the same industry in order to benefit more workers.

As we move from growth to sustainability for the future, have we, as a country and Government, done sufficiently to enable this? For sustainable outcomes, I believe it is prejudiced to measure the outcomes purely on monetary terms. I would view this from three dimensions.

First, we are building a social ecosystem, not an infrastructure. It is right to begin with the end game in mind. This will necessitate the need to plan, design and build ahead of demand. Take today’s healthcare in context, our healthcare capacity has yet to achieve an optimal point that supports all near-term needs, much less the future. As we build more hospitals, nursing homes and care centres, it is equally important to look beyond the hardware infrastructure. It is the holistic care ecosystem that we want our seniors to be able to age successfully in.

What this means is that we must radically initiate at least one generation of healthy active seniors, where their needs are not dependent on healthcare infrastructure to manage multiple chronic illnesses or sickly conditions. Instead, we want to build an ecosystem that provides quality social care that caters for their well-being, one which is less medically dependent as the seniors are socially active and mentally healthy. Such an ecosystem will require investments of a different scale and in communal activities where the community or corporate organisations can be more actively involved.

Second, continuous improvement on value-for-money projects. Over time, we are seeing more value-for-money projects which are large in both physical and financial scale. We often raise questions when large expenditures are in view. Naturally, people will look immediately to cost-cutting measures and easily follow the pursuit of low-cost solutions when, in fact, what we need is a balance between cost effectiveness and execution efficiency.

On one hand, we understand the need to constantly scrutinise the projects under planning and development. We know the need to check whether projects are within budget, on time or whether any base parameters have changed with time and thus requiring adjustments to serve the primary purpose. On the other hand, as projects become more complex, what is not obvious and easily overlooked is how effective have we coordinated the execution efforts as a project team. How then, in the long run, can we ensure there is no wastage that collectively delivers more value than us purely squeezing the last dollar?

Lastly, the changing fabric of our social safety net. With shrinking family sizes, the nature of support required also evolves. Over time, the social safety net may not be meant only for the low-income bracket. We should consider if strengthening this net signifies some intervention for the middle working class. As we continue to ensure social mobility is a key pillar within our society, the changing demographics do justify the need of changing the fabric of our safety net to give it the composite strength, without which, it can be difficult for working family members, especially those who are the sole caregiver, to juggle between their work, children and caring for aged parents without external support.

I would like to ask if the Ministries will consider policy changes in these areas. First, to mandate that companies allow employees to convert unused medical leave to family care leave or eldercare leave for their immediate family members. Second, to enhance tax relief to children who are not living with their parents but are the primary caregivers. Third, to consider modelling a time bank incentive scheme that provides rebates or care options for families who have contributed their time for other elderly within the community when they are still able. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would conclude in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Singaporean, everyone has a part to play for the country’s development. We need to plan ahead and think not only for ourselves, but also for the future generation.

However, the country's future development is full of challenges. How can we sustain the multifaceted developments without burdening the next generation? The short answer is: we must take charge of our lives and be responsible for our own future first.

Next, we will plan for our family’s future and work hard for it to create a better life. Hence, we should uphold the same principle, work hard and build strong reserves for future generations. As the saying goes, "The forefathers plant the trees and the descendants enjoy the shades".

At the same time, we should have foresights to plan ahead and build more with less resources. Our forefathers did exactly that, and here we are today, enjoying the fruits of their labour.

This is not a rhetorical question, but one that makes us think about the need for wealth preservation and beyond our entitlements. Unless we are prepared to do this for our children and grandchildren, the urge to tap on the Reserves and current surplus will always be tempting.

Mr Speaker, before I commence on my speech proper, I wish to refer to a report in The Straits Times today that erroneously mentioned that I was scheduled to speak on the Budget yesterday. I think we had an arrangement with the Government Whip that under the original schedule, I would be speaking today. So, I think The Straits Times was not aware of this. But I hope that they would print a correction to correct any misimpression that has been generated by this report.

So, Sir, I would focus my Budget speech on inequality. This Budget has, as its third plan, a fostering of a caring and cohesive society. The concept of care and cohesion, though not new, is timely, given the current public discussion of a class divide in Singapore.

The recent study on social capital by IPS confirms what we already anecdotally knew. It found, for instance, that, on average, Singaporeans who live in public housing have fewer than one friend who lives in private housing. It found that people who study in elite schools also tend to be less close to those in non-elite schools and vice versa. And earlier, the Member, Mr Ganesh Rajaram also shared his own experience, coming from a non-elite background going to such an elite JC.

Sir, this Budget explicitly highlights inequality and social mobility as a concern. We also see some measures in this Budget in the direction of mitigating the class divide. For instance, tax measures, such as raising the top marginal BSD rate by 1% for residential properties valued at above $1 million are geared towards requiring the better-off to pay more taxes.

Another long-standing policy to mitigate inequality is that Government transfers are generally weighted in favour of those who live in lower-cost housing or have lower income, such as the GST Vouchers and service and conservancy charge (S&CC) rebates.

But, for all these moves made now and over the years, how well are we doing to reduce inequality and how much do we really know about the inequality that exists in Singapore? What else do we need to look at or change?

Discussions on the status of inequality have tended to focus on numerical data, such as the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality. Our Gini coefficient in 2017 stood at 0.459 before Government transfers and 0.402 after transfers, which has improved from 2013. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged in January that our Gini coefficient was still higher than that of many developed countries.

If one looks at household income from work, in 2017, the household income for the top 10% is more than $13,000 per person per month while that for the 20th percentile at the lower end is about $1,000 per person per month, or 12 times more unequal.

Our national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita last year was nearly $80,000, which means that the national GDP, when averaged out per person, is $80,000 per person per year. However, when we look at median income or the halfway point for households, the Department of Statistics' data shows that for 2017, the median income per household member was only $32,400 per year, based on a monthly median per person of about $2,700.

All these point to high levels of income inequality. The Department of Statistics' data on key household income trends indicated that in 2017, there was a slower pace of income growth for the bottom 15% of households, showing a widening income gap. Beyond numbers, it is also necessary to dig deep into the daily lives of poor Singaporeans and evaluate the reasons why they do not seem to be able to catch up with the rest of society.

In her recent book, "This is what inequality looks like", sociologist Prof Teo You Yenn shares powerful stories from her years of field work with families living in HDB rental housing. She writes, and I quote, "I saw how tough it is for them trying to balance wage work and care responsibilities. By hearing their stories about jobs, I saw how hard they have to work and how little they get in return for their labour. By asking them about their children, I saw how much their kids struggled in school and how worried parents are that they would eventually have difficult lives. By listening to them talk about their crises, I heard about their feelings with humiliation, trying to access social assistance. In paying attention to their everyday experiences, I saw how little dignity they are accorded in our society."

What Prof Teo observed resonates with what we see, too. While better-off Singaporeans plan for family holidays with their children, poorer families feel demoralised that they cannot afford to buy needed items that their children ask for. While better-off parents are busy at weekends, sending children from one enrichment activity to another, poorer parents spend weekends working and worrying about whether their unsupervised children will fall into bad company.

Many of our lower-income residents work hard and even two jobs but may still be unable to pay their bills. Richer children are served and even spoilt by domestic help. Poorer children shoulder responsibilities, like caring for younger siblings and even being spokesmen for their parents who do not speak English.

In a Parliamentary answer in February this year, Prime Minister Lee emphasised, and I quote, "Every citizen, no matter what his social background is, must have the opportunity to do better and move up in society based on his efforts and talent. Nobody should feel that his social position is fixed based on his parents' income level or position in life."

Can we say today that the lot of our poorest fellow Singaporeans is due to their lack of ambition or talent? Or does the system itself inadvertently make it difficult for them to succeed and thus perpetuate inequality? For example, do Government policies support poor families with adequate and sustainable care for children? Does our education system penalise those who did not have a leg-up in preschool? Do housing policies unjustly discriminate against those whose marriages fail? How have children been impacted by their parents' circumstances and were they supported or facilitated to break out of the poverty trap?

Earlier, the Member Mr Ganesh Rajaram shared his own experience of social mobility. And I do not know how old he is. But looking just at physical appearance, he could be born between the 1960s and 1970s. And I think we can all agree that for persons born during that period, there was probably significant social mobility when compared to parents of the earlier generation. But an important question is, moving forward today, for the new generations of Singaporeans, is social mobility still there or is it becoming more and more difficult for people to move out of certain social classes? These are serious questions deserving our serious study.

To get answers to these critical questions, it is important to do longitudinal studies to track the fate of families over time. In 2013, the Government told Parliament that it intends to do longitudinal studies. What has the Government done since then? Has the Government, for example, started commissioning independent studies on social mobility using longitudinal data? The Government has noted in the past that we must not allow an underclass to form, and so, the Government has to show commitment to this goal.

Sir, I should add here that where there is lack of social mobility, it is not only the poorer families that are stressed, even those higher up in the income chain, including the middle class, have the stress of ensuring that they retain their current positions or climb up. The competition in the education system is high. Just look at the money spent on private tuition and other enrichment classes which, in turn, adds to the economic stress that families face.

Why is it so important to show a commitment to the goal of reducing inequality and increasing social mobility? Because it is vital to our very existence as a nation. We recite the words of the pledge daily. How can we say these things about justice and equality, happiness, prosperity and progress for the nation, if we are perpetuating a society where citizens are not equal, where some are seemingly having little hope and doomed for failure, while others boom ahead? Will there eventually be an erosion of trust where a class divide makes it harder for people at the bottom and the middle to identify with those at the top?

We fiercely guard our sovereignty and expect Singaporeans to defend Singapore. But will the day come when Singaporeans, who find Singapore a cold and cruel place, have no motivation to defend it? This will be a disaster at all levels.

Sir, next, I move on to one aspect of inequality that I believe needs to be reviewed and, that is, healthcare coverage under medical insurance. If one compares the coverage of private insurance plans and the coverage under MediShield Life, one will observe that there is significant inequality in access to healthcare that affects the poorer and older Singaporeans. As regards insurance coverage, there are some practices in the healthcare industry that need looking at.

One such practice is that of some insurance policies providing full coverage for hospitalisation bills. Such insurance policies undertake to pay for surgeries as long as they are done as day surgeries or if the patients stay at the hospital. All charges will be paid by the insurance company "as charged". Such policies do not require the patient to pay any deductible or make any co-payment.

In contrast, MediShield Life understandably has deductibles and co-insurance to avoid over-consumption. One feature of MediShield Life, however, is that the annual deductible rises when one passes 80 years old. While the annual deductible for persons aged 80 and below is between $1,500 and $2,000, the annual deductible for those aged 80 and above is between $2,000 and $3,000. Thus, the most senior of our people, aged 81 and above, who have the least income and most health problems, have to foot bills up to this higher deductible before MediShield Life will kick in.

Has the Government analysed how this increased deductible has affected the consumption and delivery of medical services to our most senior citizens? To give one specific example, operating on a trigger finger release usually costs less than $2,000. So, those aged 80 and above cannot claim the expenses for the surgery, but those who are younger can claim part of the expense as the deductible is lower for younger people. Premiums are already higher for older people. Why are deductibles also higher when, in general, the older people have less financial ability to pay? Why this reverse discrimination for our older citizens?

Coming back to the private "as charged" insurance policies, there is another aspect that needs review. Has the Government studied the effect of such full coverage policy on the behaviour of patients and its implications? When a person has to undergo a minor surgery which could be done at the outpatient clinic, does he choose instead to do it as a day surgery or as an inpatient in a hospital, so as to be able to tap on the insurance for full coverage? Does such insurance result in some unnecessary surgeries when more conservative treatments will suffice? Are there inefficiency and a waste of expensive resources caused by such policies?

Sir, I am not suggesting that patients or the medical profession is doing anything unethical, as this behaviour is sanctioned by the regulators of the insurance industry. It is important to review the kinds of insurance schemes in the market, so as to discourage over-consumption and inefficient use of resources. There have to be deductibles and co-payments for all medical insurance schemes. Regulators have to direct their attention to this area.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to emphasise that inequality is a threat to our solidarity as a nation. We have to drill deeper into the sources of inequality and take concrete steps to remedy it.