Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Mdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mdm Speaker, I rise to thank the Minister for Finance for delivering a good Budget that can spur long-term growth in our economy during this challenging time. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to serve on the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE), whose recommendations are broadly reflected in this year's Budget.

This era is marked by rapid changes in technology, which is exciting because this presents many new possibilities for productivity. Indeed, this bright spot is, unfortunately, slightly clouded by the growing push from globalisation. It was the emblem of the United States (US) Presidential Elections. We may see more of it when other European countries go to the polls later this year. Concerns were raised of their impact on an already dull economic forecast. For Singapore, the policies of the Trump Administration may contribute to a slowdown in foreign direct investments from the US. Thus, it is good that we look at other areas for growth. CFE has rightly shifted its focus from just productivity to healthy sustainable growth by looking at new opportunities.

CFE identified seven strategies to achieve growth. Charting our route ahead will enable us to steer our ship clear of the reefs. It is imperative that we develop and implement the Industry Transformation Maps (ITM) for important industries in Singapore. I am pleased to note that 23 industries, and about 80% of the economy, are set to benefit from these maps. I would now like to discuss three areas where we can add to these maps, particularly from a social point of view.

First, inclusive and sustainable growth. Equality is key to promoting inclusive and sustainable growth. The political lessons from the US and United Kingdom elections point to a failure to reconcile the vast differences between the voters. Globally, policymakers will be hampered by widening chasms, how to meet the needs and aspirations of the middle class and the rise of populism. It is vital that we recognise and prioritise the need to reduce gaps in living standards.

In order to sustain public confidence in the various Government schemes, like the SkillsFuture Credit, that promote upscaling skills and continuing education, as well as various technological advancements, we must assure everyday Singaporeans that the Government is working to support the aspirations of all Singaporeans to have higher living standards and no erosion in social mobility.

The World Economic Forum commends Singapore for faring well in many areas. But we ranked low in gender equality in the workforce. We are still struggling to improve female participation in the labour force and narrowing the gender pay gap. Measures were introduced to encourage men to play a more active role in fatherhood, through paternity leave, for example. However, parenthood does not stop at the baby stage. More needs to be done in this area. Tax reliefs for working mothers are well and good but, ultimately, the root problem must be solved − in my view − by creating a family-friendly working environment, without compromising overall productivity and growth. We should lift some of the load off the mother's shoulders, so that she does not feel the need to resign or compromise her work to care for the child.

Other forms of assistance to alleviate childcare costs and measures to encourage enhanced flexible work arrangements in the corporate and public sectors for all mothers, including working single mothers with children, will go a long way to alleviate childcare concerns as they struggle to also bring food to the table.

My next point in this area is with regard to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). Even as we talk about help for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) over the past one day − SkillsFuture training, job matching and others − I believe one basic bedrock and core business of Government that we need to enhance further is TAFEP.

As it is, most of us in Singapore or Singaporeans are employed, and not business owners. I am an active advocate for a stronger TAFEP. I believe it has greater potential to further eliminate workplace discrimination. In order to do this, TAFEP must be equipped with more teeth. Due to the changing social and global labour trends, we have a few groups of people vulnerable to workplace discrimination. They include expectant mothers, older workers aged 45 and above, blue-collar low-income workers and Singaporeans working for foreign companies.

I raised this last year and I reiterate my call to Government again to please give TAFEP more investigative and authoritative powers to keep errant employers in check, especially so in this current global labour market, and also one where the gig economy is taking form where we have a rising freelance and contract workforce of experienced specialised talents supporting businesses.

We need to ensure that these contract or part-time staff are treated fairly and are not exploited by employers. Eventually, this rising number of contract staff should enjoy mandatory employment benefits, such as annual and medical leave and other medical benefits, if possible. We also need to introduce wider laws to make discriminatory hiring and workplace practices illegal and punishable by law. Also, as we raise the retirement age for the older workers, we must also look into how in this age of digital transformation, they can be retrained to stay relevant to the workforce. We are a country that thrives on meritocracy, and this must be reflected in our labour market and labour laws, which is one of our most crucial propellers for growth for Singapore.

The next point I want to talk about is on helping employees − still within inclusive growth. Minister Iswaran has elaborated at length yesterday that SMEs are our central focus in transforming our economy. Minister Iswaran's speech yesterday has reassured SMEs, in my view. Indeed, some of the short-term relief and targeted help for some sectors were made in this Budget. However, broad social transfers to businesses are taking a backseat this year, as we all know, but I hope more can be introduced.

Over a decade ago, one of the measures included helping businesses to cope with various structural shifts and changes to key policies. This includes the SME Rebate Scheme, a two-year assistance to help registered SMEs to adjust to rising business costs due to − at that point in time − an increase in employer CPF contribution rate. I hope that, in the future, some of these one-off measures can be rolled out to help SMEs.

In the past year, social transfer to SMEs has also been generous. Some SMEs are still struggling to make sense of the schemes though, and some do not have the prerequisites to qualify for the schemes. For example, a lack of SME cash-flow visibility forces some of the banks and financial institutions to place greater emphasis on collateral requirements when assessing SME credit risk, but very often, SMEs are not able to provide such collateral, leading to their loan applications being rejected.

I applaud the new International Partnership Fund to help SMEs scale up and internationalise, which is good. But the concern is that it would tend to invest in more established or initial public offering-ready firms. It may not benefit smaller, less-established SMEs which are capable of going into the region as well.

I hope the relevant authorities can work closely with SMEs to help them realise their full potential. One direct area of help would be to defer the construction levy hike, and in the scheme of the working capital, to raise the SME loan minimum to $500,000 for Government co-funding, as I feel that the $300,000 amount is quite small for working capital these days.

The next point is about the tax system. It has been a while since we last reviewed our tax system. In fact, one of the CFE's recommendations is to review and reshape our tax system to keep in step with the changing times. Tax incentives should perhaps be given to the sectors that are favourable for our growth.

One question I have in relation to the tax review is the concern whether we are taxing the current generation disproportionately, relative to the savings set aside for future generations. The tax review mentioned in this Budget is timely as our funding for social spending is expected to continue to rise. In that sense, I hope the tax review will incorporate all options on the table. Also, the review should broadly not just include more taxes but also Reserves accumulation and formulation of the net investment income. For example, how much flow or revenue is going into Reserves each year and whether it is falling sharply?

For example, the possibility of considering a proportion of land sales and recurrent revenue from extension of leases of leasehold land into operating revenue rather than into Reserves, a situation we are seeing now.

I also hope there will be a similar Manpower Transformation Map II for our Singaporean workers to get guidance and help. I note that CFE has identified six favourable sectors that promote high growth − the digital cluster, advanced manufacturing, hub services, logistics, urban solutions and infrastructure and healthcare. Will more jobs be generated in these sectors, especially for the younger generation? How about the older employees who are not technology- or computer-savvy, but wish to do a mid-career switch? How will they be helped?

The second area is professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) stress. Moving on to the next topic, there have been a number of high-profile cases these couple of years whereby large companies have had to retrench some of their staff. Undoubtedly, there must have been more in smaller companies that flew under the radar. These are certainly tough times for businesses, but even more so for the retrenched employees. Our tax filing season is just around the corner, and this brings to mind that those who have just lost a reasonably well-paying job due to retrenchment may find it tough paying for the income tax and other forms of taxes. I would like to suggest tax relief of, say, 20% to 30%, for those who are in such a situation. Alternatively, allow the period for tax payments to be spread out over a longer period of time and allow for income tax payments to be deferred for unique circumstances.

My final area of focus is on overcoming global protectionist tides and having diversity in policies. With the more advanced western countries coping with problems of their own and turning inwards, I am, hence, pleased to note that the economic focus is shifting back to our immediate neighbourhood − countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Now that the cards have been shuffled, we need to examine our approach and explore enhancing our various language policy options to make us the true global trader that we are in Singapore.

If we look at the protectionist rhetoric coming out of Washington, then the Indonesian economy is likely to be the least affected in the region, as they are not heavily dependent on the US. As such, I would urge the Government to bring back some element of the Malay connection in the primary and secondary school education system. The Malay connection as in the context of reinforcing the relationship with our neighbours, through language and cultural ties, by learning the Malay language.

Compared to the older generation, the younger generation are also becoming less adept at the Malay language and understanding the culture as an extra option. As for India, if we tap on the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, we could do well to also expose our students to learning Tamil and Hindi as a third language. Madam, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For Singapore to remain adaptable and competitive, diversity in education and proficiency in three languages may be necessary.

And starting the learning process from a young age is one of the keys to proficiency. I hope the Government will encourage the availability of more language options in schools. Sharing a common language or lingo will go a long way in managing bilateral economic and people-to-people relations.

I would also like to suggest that the current work pass schemes for foreigners be reviewed, with a goal of facilitating the entry of more startups to relocate or to anchor their businesses in Singapore. With a growing number of technology startups, and with the US currently making it more difficult for foreigners to enter their country for work purposes, it is an opportune time to attract talent and investments, particularly in the technology sector. It would have a positive impact on our employment rates and upgrading efforts.

I am also encouraged to see the launch of the Global Innovation Alliance to help Singaporeans gain overseas experience, build networks and collaborate with others abroad. The Innovators Academy would allow our tertiary students to build networks and capabilities overseas.

I hope that within the next five years, we can also include students from our polytechnics and even our Institutes of Technical Education in this scheme. Society is at the stage where we increasingly recognise and encourage many different pathways to success and many students who select these institutions have high aspirations and career paths that they would like to pursue.

Some are even more confident and clear about their future compared to their GCE "A" level counterparts from the same cohort, for instance. Those who have studied abroad would appreciate that through our interactions overseas, we would benefit from cultural diversity and this would help to open our minds as a community.

We are all aware that if we want to broaden and deepen our perspectives on a particular topic, there is value in reading books by different authors on the same subject, and the same thing also applies in terms of policy.

(In English): Madam, we are expecting difficult, unpredictable times ahead. If we do not make changes now, many workers may find a bee in their bonnet, worrying about having a job tomorrow. By diversifying our economy, policies, supporting homegrown businesses and keeping the people's morale up, I believe that we will become more adaptable and resilient than ever. We have a bright future and this Budget puts us in good stead.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mdm Speaker:  Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this Debate.

Madam, I strongly support the current Budget proposals. They address ongoing challenges in the economic restructuring process and, despite the changes the last year has brought, reiterate the vision of a secure future that Minister Heng has set out from last year's Budget.

The circumstances we face are undoubtedly unique, but there are important lessons from the experience of other countries that we only ignore at our peril. We could just as easily become trapped in our own lost decade, exhausting our limited resources on a dispersed agenda without heed to strengthening our economic foundations. Our priority, therefore, should be to provide a footing for future generations that is even more secure than the one we now have.

Madam, to me, this Budget is about seeing beyond the uncertainty, taking leadership responsibility on issues that matter, and possessing the courage of our conviction to complete the restructuring task at hand.

This Budget takes a strong lead in shaping the environmental agenda. We have enjoyed our entitlements of clean air and clean water for as long as we remember. But the unwelcome reality brought about by changes in our world is that not only are both in short supply, the two are growing sources of contention in an increasingly fractious world. Singapore has developed a lead in clean water technology and we can do the same with green technologies in general. A fundamental element in managing the competing access to clean water and air is to correctly price their availability. The long-term consequences of mispricing water and pollution are severe and incompatible with the direction we intend to take for our future economy, as well as for our society. We should not leave future generations unprepared to confront a problem that is developing now.

The issue is not how much clean water we still have or where the current threats to our environmental air quality lie. The issue is much broader and has to do with our collective responsibility for the environment and societal development. Hence, I would like to urge the Minister to consider price corrections in other areas in urgent need of attention as well. Areas, such as electronic waste generation, should be incorporated into a comprehensive strategy for responsible environmental advocacy. By ensuring that pricing is imposed on both water and pollution, Singapore is not just taking a responsible leadership role in pushing forward the agenda for dealing with climate change, we will also be putting in place incentives for nurturing the development of technologies whose global economic potential is rapidly expanding. These lie in the path of our future economy.

Madam, there are some areas, however, where I feel that further clarification on how the long-term vision could be achieved would be useful. The first of these is our manpower policy. We should strengthen the connection between our manpower policy and our skills framework.

Foreign workforce growth has been slowing since 2011. Although the recent weakening in demand has been partly due to economic conditions, there is little doubt that the primary mechanism bringing about this shift is the system of levies and dependency ratio ceilings (DRCs).

Our policy on foreign manpower should not just be about restrictions. It should be about promoting long-term economic competitiveness for the benefit of our overall workforce. In order to realise this objective, we must be open to the type of skills we lack and incorporate foreign manpower contributions into a comprehensive strategy for filling our skills gaps.

The indications are that we have made promising improvements in this direction. In the third quarter of 2016, the number of Work Permit holders in manufacturing and construction declined, contributing to a rare quarterly contraction in total employment in Singapore. As a result, preliminary statistics from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) show foreign employment, excluding foreign domestic workers, shrinking over the course of 2016 as a whole, the first time this has occurred since the global financial crisis for the whole year. At the same time, labour productivity measures depict improving performance. Full year 2016 figures show real value-added per worker hitting 1%, after having remained stubbornly negative in the preceding two years. And the quarterly statistics show the improvement was sustained throughout, with fourth quarter real value-added per worker hitting 2.4%. What is reassuring is that these changes occurred gradually, despite the fluid environment and turbulent global backdrop.

The work is far from done and the productivity challenge is an ongoing one. The delicate balance of maintaining robust domestic employment, ensuring global standards of openness to deep and diverse skills, and injecting momentum into the productivity drive is a challenge that all countries face.

Given the limitations of our domestic labour market, the magnitude of the challenge we face in Singapore is far greater. That is why robust yet flexible policy instruments are so important. There is no doubt that our foreign manpower management policy has encountered enormous challenges. This should not detract from the tremendous success it represents as well. Compared to many other countries, we have taken a lead in this area and we should recognise its effectiveness.

Going forward, we should reorientate our policy to move away from restricting inflows and focus on growing skills sets that our domestic workforce alone will be too slow to achieve on its own. This idea is not new. The "triple weak" system promulgated by the Minister for Manpower for monitoring companies' with poor hiring practices already contains essentially the same key ingredients, which is that companies should be assessed on a multi-dimensional metric, rather than a single-dimensional measure.

The predecessor to CFE, the Economic Strategies Committee, originally proposed the system of levies and DRCs. CFE has developed the principle further. In its report, it recognises the need for foreign talent with specialised skillsets and calls to develop a more differentiated foreign workforce policy. To achieve this differentiation, instead of using the number of workers as the basic unit of measure, we should measure skills instead, and determine levies based on the extent of the skills gap that an employer encounters within the existing domestic workforce, as well as the changes in the gap over time.

The measurement of skillsets and skills levels should be carried out in coordination with the skills framework constructs being developed by SkillsFuture Singapore. The resulting system should be validated by the needs of the ITMs, merged with the current levels of foreign workforce passes, and used to assess the extent to which gaps at the company as well as sectoral level can or cannot be filled by the existing local workforce supply. Such a system can also be used to track whether the gaps are effectively closed over time through training, and how fast this is occurring.

The system of foreign manpower levies and DRCs forms a clear set of rules for managing foreign manpower participation. In recent years, including the current Budget proposal, the system has been used to moderate the impact of manpower cost pressures when economic conditions are poor. As a counter-cyclical tool, the system of levies and DRCs can be adjusted by sector. On this basis, levy rises in the marine and process sectors have been frozen, while those in construction have been allowed to proceed as earlier announced. And compared to alternatives, such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF) cuts that were used in the past, this approach is much more amenable to finetuning.

My second concern is about the challenges of scale that we, in Singapore, almost uniquely in world, face. Whether we are prepared for the reality of competing against countries much larger than us, this is something that we will have to deal with as a result of the proposals set out in this Budget. This Budget makes a significant push for internationalisation. This will increase the companies and local talent being given greater exposure to global competition and will serve us well in the long run. While programmes, such as the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA), can help Singaporeans gain a foothold in overseas markets, as well as a better appreciation of our global competition, there are adjustments that individuals have to make. Hence, the transformative impact of the GIA will take some years to become visible.

The issue of scale has always been something of a challenge for Singapore's economy. We have pushed near to saturation point in many of our efforts, but the competition can harness vastly larger numbers without batting an eyelid. This fact is visible in every aspect in which we compete internationally, from trade figures to our workforce composition, to even our robot density.

In 1984, China's share of manufacturing exports in the world's total, 1.1%, equalled ours. In 2015, as the world's leading exporter, China's share had grown 16 times, to almost twice that of its nearest rival, Germany. Our share, of course, has also grown, more than doubling to 2.3%. Between 1984 and 2015, the share of the US in world manufacturing exports fell by a third. These developments have redefined the global economic balance. They have also brought about the tremendous groundswell of reaction that ranges from the Brexit vote outcome to the repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In 2015, world manufacturing exports shrank more than 8% in nominal terms. Singapore's trade performance suffered as a result.

The options we have in reacting to these changes are determined not just by our preference, but also by the choices made by the countries we compete against.

China is also the world leader in high-technology manufacturing exports. However, Singapore's share of global high-technology exports is about a quarter of China's, which makes this sector more important to us than general manufacturing.

Across all regions of the world and in many countries, the proportion of manufacturing classified as high technological activity is on the rise. A comparison across countries reveals a visible correlation between this rise and the increasing use of robotics.

As the Minister for Finance Mr Heng had already pointed out last year, China is the world's largest buyer of robots. And other countries are keeping pace, including Singapore. According to a recent update from the International Federation of Robotics, between 2010 and 2015, the operational stock of industrial robots in Asia rose 70%. The same report placed Singapore within the top ranks of countries in the world, in terms of robotics density, just behind South Korea, and nearly five times ahead of the average global density.

Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are just two of the things that are often mentioned in the same breath as Uber and Grab when discussing technological changes and disruption. These two groups are obviously very different. However, what concerns those who cite them as examples in the same breath is not necessarily their economic or technological novelty but the loss of control workers feel in facing the rise of these innovations. This fear of loss of control is the most important reason why ordinary workers today identify with the notion of being caught up in an industrial revolution beyond their control, no different from the original one.

Research supported by the International Federation of Robotics argues that while there have been job losses, their magnitudes are small, compared to the increase in employment over the same period.

Regardless of whether one believes in net gain or loss of jobs due to the introduction of new technologies, such as robotics, there is little doubt that existing jobs will have to give way to new ones and the workforce must, therefore, be prepared to adjust to this reality.

Although we cannot be certain about the precise rate and impact of the change on all jobs, the pattern of change and the nature of jobs of the future are becoming increasingly evident. Job creation is increasingly concentrated in domains requiring high intensity of knowledge and skills. In research and development (R&D), for instance, across countries and with very few exceptions, the number of personnel has seen strong upward trends. This is true both in absolute terms and as a ratio of the population.

Singapore, of course, as usual, faces the limitation of size that our competitors do not. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of persons employed in R&D in Singapore rose 265%, way ahead of the 50% gain in the US, 160% gain in China, and even 216% gain in South Korea.

But as a result of our population limitations, our R&D personnel numbers are already among the highest in the world on a ratio basis. China's ratio is only one sixth of ours, despite boasting the largest number of R&D personnel globally today. This means that in Singapore, we have a far smaller pool of workers from which to draw, and if we continue to grow the numbers in order to keep up with global competition, domestic sectors in need of skilled manpower will be squeezed further. The only solution is for our workforce to push beyond the existing frontiers of skills acquisition that other countries take for granted. To remain competitive despite our limitations, our workforce must be prepared for a continuing process of advancement and workplace transformation.

Madam, Budget 2017's push to develop Singaporean workers into regional and global leaders will take us out of our comfort zones. Singaporean workers, many of whom juggle their regular jobs with important roles, such as family caregivers, will have to add regular overseas postings to the list. This is what we have to do as an innovation in order to overcome the limits of scale.

Given our size, we are already at the boundaries of what we can reasonably achieve if we go by norms. Both in R&D personnel and in robot density, we are already at the limits. Countries whose sizes are multiples of ours have a lot more scope for expansion in absolute terms and will reap further economies of scale. Internationalisation will, therefore, expand the potential space within which our companies and workers operate, but not completely overcome the fundamental disadvantage of scale that Singapore has always faced.

It is not just workers who will be challenged. SMEs will also feel the discomfort in operating outside of their comfort zones. The question I am trying to ask is: are the internationalisation initiatives a realistic option for local companies which do not have the basic capacity to scale up beyond their setup in Singapore?

Madam, my last concern is about the timeline for restructuring. The timeline this time around will, I believe, turn out to be the greatest challenge. Many of the past restructuring efforts had tangible endpoints, such as the challenge of a recession, that it could take reference from.

This particular restructuring is a long drawn-out process and it is going to be challenging to focus minds on the intangible aspects of the strategy. Although the restructuring is aimed at addressing the challenges caused by disruption, as the timeline for restructuring lengthens, it will heighten uncertainty among companies and workers. For some, the distinction between restructuring and disruption could begin to blur.

The completion of this restructuring will not be readily marked by new buildings or highways. Instead, it is a process of transformation. Success will probably mean not just an endpoint but an ongoing process of change.

Hence, in closing, I would like to thank Finance Minister Heng for staying the course in this restructuring journey as well as for providing a personal model of resilience through adversity.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

Mdm Speaker, technological advancement has changed the work environment that we are in quicker than before and it will continue to be so in the future. While it improves the way work is done and alleviates the issue of manpower shortage, it will have implications on our workers and they could become tomorrow's unemployed. The challenge is whether we can help tomorrow's unemployed today.

How technology impacts our work can be broken down into three broad categories: "Known-Known", "Known-Unknown" and "Unknown-Unknown".

The first refers to a situation where we know the technology and know its impact. One such example is the self-checkout kiosks found in supermarkets today. Just within NTUC FairPrice, almost half of its 130 outlets have self-checkout counters. Other supermarkets, such as Cold Storage and Sheng Siong, have also implemented such "do-it-yourself" services. The job of the traditional cashier is slowly replaced by new technology.

The next category is where we know the technology, but we are not sure when and how it will impact our current work. As we speak, trials of autonomous vehicles, like cars, buses and even trucks, are ongoing at different parts of Singapore. While we know that such driverless technology exists and is developing at a rapid pace, what we are uncertain of is when it can be adopted and how extensive will the adoption be. This will certainly change the modus operandi within the transport industry and have a direct downstream impact on our workers who depend on driving as a livelihood.

Another example is additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing. With the rapid development of 3D printing technology in recent years, many applications have been developed in the food, medical, fast-moving consumer goods and other industries. With 3D printing, if our child outgrows his or her shoes, we can simply print out a brand new pair in a larger size! The potential disruption that 3D printing may have on our industries is significant. How and which industries would be affected by 3D printing? Your guess is as good as mine.

The last category refers to an unknown technology that may change our work in the future. Here, we could take reference and learn from the past "Unknown-Unknown", such as Uber and Grab. Today, Uber and Grab are providing new transport options to commuters but have disrupted the traditional taxi business. Did we expect Uber and Grab, which are mobile applications, to enter, disrupt and even revolutionise the transport industry?

The three situations above illustrate the challenges we face in the current economic landscape. Be it "Known-Known", "Known-Unknown" or even "Unknown-Unknown", there is an urgent need for both our workers and companies to brace themselves for the next wave of disruption, as business cycles get shorter and changes happen more rapidly.

First, our workers need to remain competitive amidst the changes. We need to embrace the concept of lifelong learning, continuously train and upskill ourselves and start preparing for future jobs even before the current one becomes obsolete.

To do so, companies, unions and Government agencies need to get together to identify future jobs, determine skills gaps and establish structured training programmes for workers. Industry partners can collaborate and develop sectoral level training to collectively raise standards across the industry.

The Singapore Bus Academy is a good example of a collaborative tripartite effort by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the then Singapore Workforce Development Agency, NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2I), the National Transport Workers' Union and the public bus operators. Today, the Academy standardises basic training programmes for bus captains across the industry. But the Academy has the potential to provide continuous training for all bus captains, keep them updated with industry and technological changes, help existing drivers multiskill and be better prepared for tomorrow's driverless world.

We should explore setting up centralised training centres to promote training through the respective Sectoral Tripartite Committees even beyond the transport industry, like the lift, aviation and precision engineering sectors.

The Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) is another useful training platform for mid-career switchers looking to move into emerging and future jobs. Fifty-two-year-old Wayne Lin is one such example. He left the infocomm technology (IT) sector amid the global recession in 2009 and enrolled himself into a PCP to join the early childhood education sector. Although the transition was tough as he sought to overcome job challenges in a female-dominated industry, Wayne persevered through his traineeship, took up a diploma and subsequently completed his Masters in Early Childhood. Wayne did well and is now the acting principal of My First Skool preschool centre in Sengkang.

Hopefully, with the newly announced Attach and Train programme, we can look forward to hear more of such stories of success.

Employers, too, must change their mindset. If employers proclaim that their employees are the company's most valuable assets, they should step up training investments to upskill their workers and not view manpower as simply a cost. While some companies are afraid that workers might leave after acquiring new skills, other companies have established training centres, set aside dedicated training hours and sponsored training courses to support their employees in their upgrading efforts. For example, the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) is one such company that is pro-training. OCBC topped up their employees' SkillsFuture credit and provided employees time off to attend shortlisted training courses. By grooming a competitive workforce can our companies remain competitive, productive and prepared for the next wave of change.

To boost productivity, centralisation and pooling of resources are avenues that companies can explore to raise their productivity levels. Centralisation of resources, in the form of kitchen facilities, warehousing or even training, can help reduce wastage and duplication of resources and help companies gain economies of scale.

Due to their small scale of business, SMEs sometimes find it onerous to go through the process of applying for productivity grants. For SMEs with similar products or services within or across industries, pooling of resources to apply for such grants could help them achieve productivity gains and cost savings. Multinational corporations (MNCs) or larger SMEs could help to champion sectoral productivity initiatives which other smaller-sized companies in the same sector can leverage upon. With the labour market expected to tighten further, businesses need to be supported in their efforts to raise productivity while adopting less labour-intensive practices.

The Sectoral Tripartite Committees can play an important role in identifying jobs to be redesigned and developing the necessary training roadmaps for each industry. In a fast-changing world, we can no longer depend on "one-size-fits-all" solutions. Industry-based roadmaps are very much needed to provide clarity to both our workers and companies on the new jobs and the direction in which the specific industry is moving towards.

Mdm Speaker, we cannot ignore nor escape disruptions, but we can learn to ride the waves of disruptions together. In Japan, 58-year-old Mr Kenji Takemura harnessed a wearable robot technology to help him lift 40-kilogramme boxes with ease. Like Mr Takemura, we need to learn to work with technology, collectively leverage new technologies, upskill ourselves and be forward thinking.

The success of the CFE report lies in its implementation and I am confident that with our strong tripartite partnership, we can overcome current and future challenges just as how we have done so in the past decades. Through tripartism at the national and sectoral levels, we must help our workers upskill ahead of time as our economy and our industries transform. We need to help tomorrow's unemployed today and ensure that no one would be left behind. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Budget. Madam, I am often inspired and moved by my residents and their stories. One of our young couples in Clementi had a baby girl at home. A beautiful baby with a proud mommy and daddy. But when it was time for the HDB's Home Improvement Programme − upgrading within the home − the parents were worried about noise and dust during the construction. The next-door neighbours opened their home, offered their own home as a place to babysit the baby girl. Today, the renovations are done. Baby is happy and the neighbours have grown closer together.

I am also moved, during times of sadness, when I meet with my residents at funeral wakes at the void deck, whether it is a breadwinner who passed away and the family is wondering what to do in economic challenge or whether it is an old parent who has passed on after a long illness. But I also see neighbours coming together in this moment looking out for one and another, supporting one another in this time of need.

Madam, each of these stories tells us a very deep truth: that there can be a special strength in a community and society, a strength that comes from a sense of fellowship, of being together, of being near to one another in life's journey. But I also hear stories from residents about how society is changing and how newer HDB estates seem to make it harder to meet neighbours and new friends.

Today, I will speak on how we build a stronger society and a stronger economy through stronger social cohesion and updating our social compact to keep pace with the future of jobs.

Madam, we must never take our social cohesion for granted. Our multiracial society is very special, very precious. It also helps us, as a country, connect economically to the West and to many parts of Asia.

But in many societies around the world, social cohesion is being eroded. Social media has made society more atomised: in some countries, people living in their own little world and not learning to see through the eyes of fellow citizens; watching only one side of a social media feed; becoming more vulnerable to "fake news" that sharpens prejudices while blunting human understanding; echo chambers, not just in politics, but in values and social mores, too.

Smaller family sizes are shaping societies. A child growing up in a one-child family has a different experience and may not learn the same social skills to get on with others until preschool or school begins.

So, if we lose our cohesion, Mdm Speaker, we are finished. Because we will not be able to organise to meet challenges, we will not be able to move as one, we will be less than the sum of our parts. Without social cohesion, we are less than a dot.

Even as we transform for the future economy and watch our bottom line, our fiscal sustainability, we need to keep on paying attention to social cohesion in all our policies across the whole-of-Government.

Mdm Speaker, let me speak a little on public housing. It is an important issue because design changes in public housing can be revenue-neutral, but they shape an entire generation of society and our heartlands.

We have the Ethnic Integration Policy today. But in the modern era of globalisation and wealth inequality, our Ministries should also look at closer integration of Singaporeans from different economic backgrounds within the same block.

For example, what if new HDB blocks were designed to have a certain proportion of units designated for rental within the same block? The design, proportion and distribution can be studied by the agencies, so that the effect is salubrious rather than divisive. It is something that I believe the Ministries should look into.

Or void decks, Mdm Speaker. Some of my residents feel sad that newer estates are devoid of void decks. Or the void deck is shaped such that people do not meet one another as naturally as before. I suggest, Mdm Speaker, that HDB should revive the older-style void decks or at least think of ways to channel people together, so that people meet naturally, grow to know one another, build friendships.

Likewise, the shape of our HDB blocks matters, too. Some of my residents said that our blocks today are not shaped the way they used to be. In some precincts, including award-winning precincts, the common corridors branch off. Little alcoves, little corners. It means fewer lines of sight for neighbours to meet one another, look at one another, start that conversation in the morning on the way to the lift; fewer chances for people to get to know one another spontaneously, day by day.

This is something our agencies should look at, Mdm Speaker. Urban design shapes who we live with; who we know; who we meet. How we build our homes, how we build our heartlands affect our social cohesion. Our estates are our home today, but they shape our society tomorrow.

Madam, I also want to speak about work, how work is changing and how that is affecting our social compact as well. We have seen many legal innovations in recent years. Temporary jobs becoming permanent temporary jobs where workers keep on rolling over new temporary contracts in what we call "perma-temps". Micro-jobs as well.

Today, people can do independent work for multiple hirers, using online marketplaces to match supply and demand. It is sometimes called "the gig economy". Many of us have spoken about this. I have raised it in this House and elsewhere.

There are opportunities in this brave new world. The gig economy can unlock skills and experience not yet tapped from the labour market. This is important, given our ageing population, demographic constraints and smaller families.

Madam, many of our older workers have a lifetime of wisdom and experience. I remember a retired nurse I met on my home visit in Clementi. She is 65 years old, or rather 65 years young, full of energy, still wants to make use of her skills. But because her husband is sick, she needs to spend extra time looking after him, which makes it harder for her to work a full shift or even a partial shift.

The gig economy can help our seniors and young families who have caregiver commitments. Singaporeans with caregiving duties can also work more flexible hours − a retired nurse can keep active, does not have to work a full shift, maybe helping at a clinic near her home or as a private nurse to fellow residents in the neighbourhood, changing a catheter, changing a wound dressing. Micro-jobs, but they add up to skills that can be tapped. Additional income, helping people who receive the service, helping the person who is earning.

It also helps SMEs which may not be able to afford a full-time department, whether it is a legal department, graphic design department, copywriting department. It helps people, it helps SMEs.

But, Madam, there are also big challenges when the nature of work changes. For decades, the relationship has been very much between the employer and the employee at the workplace. For a long time, this has been a focus for legislation, sick leave benefits, healthcare coverage or CPF. All these things have been coming together through that relationship between employer and employee and at the workplace.

But today, we see that being disrupted. It is possible for an employer to redefine the job at the stroke of a pen. A delivery driver may be doing the same work as before. But instead of being a payroll employee, he is now called to be doing a contract for service.

But Madam, this shifts responsibility and risk to the worker. Who pays the CPF contribution? Who covers the insurance? Who is responsible if an accident happens on the job while on duty? And these developments could have very profound implications for Singapore, because so many of our social and labour policies today are tied to that nexus − the employer-employee relationship or the workplace.

For example, the employer CPF contribution. If the CPF system is undermined by the gig economy, there are knock-on effects as well. Home ownership, healthcare because of MediSave, retirement adequacy. And all these, if they come to a head, will affect our fiscal policies as well.

Madam, we see employers shifting these labour practices because an employer may see economic advantage: privatising the benefits of having a worker but socialising the responsibilities of looking after the worker. Some have said that the market alone is enough. But Madam, I believe the market is not enough to impose discipline. Even in the tightest of labour markets, there can be segmentation. Some workers having a more difficult time than others. Some workers needing a job more urgently. And it is the vulnerable workers who are not able to find a job in the regular labour market who will have the least bargaining power in the gig economy.

Madam, this is happening to Singaporeans today. At my Meet-the-People Session, I met a resident in his 50s. He works as a delivery driver. He used to be on an employment contract. But recently, his employer called him in and said, "We are changing you to a new contract". So, he asked what is this new contract about? His employer said, "You are no longer going to be a payroll employee, you are now going to be a contractor, a solo contractor providing contract for service". He was not given much of a choice − sign the new contract or be terminated. Same work, different contract; less benefits, more vulnerable.

So, this is a real issue affecting our workers, especially vulnerable workers. And as more jobs become part of the gig economy, I worry more Singaporeans will be affected.

Madam, it is a serious issue, in my opinion. And I believe we need to address this sooner rather than later, before the labour market norms reach a tipping point as more companies join the gig and there is a race to the bottom. Otherwise, we risk having a cohort of gig workers who have been disadvantaged by this market failure. Our policies must keep up, so that our workers are not left behind.

But Mdm Speaker, there is hope. Singapore is small enough, nimble enough and organised enough that we can reinvent our policies for a new century.

We can build a better understanding of the job market to improve opportunities for all our workers. Imagine if our Ministries apply big data analytics to the job market, pulling data from multiple databases, getting data on how training leads to jobs. Who finds work fastest? Which course helps to find work fastest and best? How many people are using the skills they were trained for? Was the training provider selling hope or helping our workers to gain skills and opportunities? This can also help us understand how underemployment arises and how to prevent it.

Our Ministries can also pull big data to have better sensing of market trends. Are people from some backgrounds having more difficulty than others? Are there areas which need to be looked into through deep dives, drilling down to understand where and how best to intervene?

Better data, Mdm Speaker, also opens the door to new policy responses. I would like to suggest, Madam, that we testbed new ways to assess the CPF contribution responsibilities for an employer. This could be done on a testbed basis in sandboxed sectors of the gig economy where you can clearly define the nature of the firm and how the workers are being contracted.

We could have a formula that looks at the total wages from the gig employer or the number of hours spent on gig jobs.

We could find new ways to measure a unit of labour. The same online platforms that create an Uber, Deliveroo, Foodpanda, all these can provide new ways to measure and ensure that workers have the same protection and benefits they did in the traditional economy.

Together, the Ministries could develop an operating system to specify employers' responsibilities. For example, a minimum CPF contribution might be pegged per hour, task or unit of labour. Or even risk pooling among the gig employers so that the worker has insurance coverage for health benefits or sick leave, rather than falling between the cracks.

Mdm Speaker, every national economy exists within the fabric of that nation's society. Singapore is the same. A strong society is a prerequisite for sustainable economic development. It gives us the resolve and courage needed to overcome uncertainty, instead of waiting and seeing, and stepping forward, moving ahead, making a difference, moving faster than the competition.

A strong society also gives us the social consensus for fiscal redistribution, for broad centrist policies, for a fair and equitable society. It binds us as one in times of challenge and creative destruction, so that we can pull together and renew and be stronger after that.

So, Madam, even as we create the future economy, we must also ready our social policies for the future, strengthening our social cohesion with a whole-of-Government ethos, strengthening our social compact to stay ahead of disruptive innovation and strengthening our labour markets so that every worker can find their full potential throughout life. Mdm Speaker, may we always continue growing, growing stronger and growing stronger together.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Masagos Zulkifli.

Mr Pritam Singh, do you have a clarification?

Mdm Speaker:  Mr Pritam Singh.

Yes, Minister. If the Linggiu Reservoir fails and we cannot draw from the reservoir, would the water conservation tax go up because it is associated with not over-consuming water?

Mr Png Eng Huat. Please keep it short.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Madam, many in this House would recall the tagline: "You push the button, we do the rest". And also the song, "Do you remember? − Times of Your life". It was for "Kodak". By 1976, Kodak held more than 90% of film sales and 85% of camera sales in the US alone. They were the leaders globally. But when Steve Sassoon invented the digital camera and showed it to Kodak, he was told to keep quiet about it as it would kill the company's crucial film industry, Kodak's golden egg.

By 2012, we recall how Kodak filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. It is likely if you ask your grandchildren and members of Generation Y and beyond, they may never have heard of Kodak.

Fuji, on the other hand, realised the world was going digital. With a long-term vision and survival instincts, it invested in digital technology; diversified into new areas; started an in-house expertise development programme; participated in joint ventures, such as Fuji-Xerox; explored and actively innovated in new areas, such as nanotechnology, placing chemicals onto films, which was even later carried into the cosmetic industry till today, and medical imaging technology and equipment.

There is really no magic wand but effort, hard work and strategy, with a touch of flexibility and adaptability that is needed. Discovery is really seeing what everybody else has seen and thinking what everybody else has not.

As one of the smallest nations on the globe, that is how we need to be − changing, transforming, and change has to really be our only constant and it keeps us up there. This mindset must be our value and our gift from one generation to the next generation, just as this quote is from Warren Buffet. He said: "Someone sitting in the shade of a tree today is because someone planted a tree (with a vision) a long time ago."

Budget 2017 must leave us thinking about this, about our survival together, about Singapore's survival. If one reviews our Budget the last few years, you will notice it is a continuum of change and development, through new schemes, enabling us to adapt to the new world order that is upon us all. It comes from a combination of two elements: firstly, good and in-depth sensing of the changes and the external environment which have impact on our economy, politics and foreign policies, besides other factors. And, secondly, our internal "conversations that matter", heart-to-heart, Singaporean conversations and feedback, which were weighted and considered to effect policies and schemes.

It is not just about wait and see. It is really what I would call the five "Ps" − to predict, to have projection, to plan, and then, of course, to progress together. And, finally, it is practical − the fifth "P". It works and it is not viewed through rose-tinted glasses. It must also make us realise the hard facts and our challenges, and water is one of them, as we have just heard from the Minister, with only people as our resource.

In the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, I quote: "To survive, we need to be exceptional". Our biggest threat is really our mindset and complacency. Together, as one Singapore, putting our heads and hearts together, we have the ability to create choice by deepening and altering our interpretation of the world today, as it moves along so quickly. We have to keep shining, shimmering and glowing as the Little Red Dot.

Madam, we also need to strike a balance, an equilibrium. Thomas Friedman, in his book, Lexus and The Olive Tree, talks of two countervailing factors in globalisation. The "Lexus" stands for modernisation and "The Olive Tree" represents our need for identity and belonging. Whilst we stay open to trade, talent, ideas and inculcate deep intrinsic and global capabilities, our racial, religious values and cultural identity are just as important. We must learn to balance the two, just as the book states that Lexus has, indeed, provided a means to growing stronger and bigger olive trees. The future of our Singapore identity depends on the right mix that we choose together. In Malay, Madam.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to share the following scenarios. Uncle A is 70 years old. When I visited his home, I met him and we had a chat. Since retirement, he is usually at home by himself during the day, waiting for his eldest child to return around 8.00 pm.

When asked whether he does any other activities, Uncle A told me that one of his friends will drop by each evening around 7.00 pm and have a chat with him. After speaking to him for a while, I moved on to his neighbour's home. His neighbour informed me that every evening, Uncle A will stand outside his corridor and speak to himself.

We assisted Uncle A with the help of the Silver Ribbon team that collaborated with me in the Geylang Serai area. Together, we diagnosed and brought Uncle A for counselling and treatment and he is better now.

There is also a family of four who lived in an HDB flat, and when I visited them, the wife and mother of that family, who is in her 40s, sorrowfully and tearfully told me about her breast cancer, the pressures that she faces and many other things that are weighing her down. We spoke for a long while and I did referral for her in terms of counselling, assistance and other activities, and her depression improved.

The issue of mental health is becoming more noticeable and prominent. Balancing physical and mental as well as social health is very crucial in creating an individual who wants to function and mingle optimally in society.

Budget 2017 has presented ways to further strengthen the circle of treatment, counselling and the network for mental health, especially at the community level. $160 million will be channeled towards the mental health fund and new programmes and initiatives, including the dementia-friendly communities programme. With this increase in funding, all 10 organisations, which are part of my mental health Taskforce in Geylang Serai, are pleased with its announcement. They have commenced new initiatives and ideas that they will feature.

Mental illness in a multi-ethnic and plural country like Singapore is more diverse and there are different interpretations as to why someone is afflicted with mental illness. It should be handled sensitively and tactfully to avoid hurting the feelings of the community. In fact, in Geylang Serai, we always have open dialogues on mental health and sharing is done by people of all races.

We also implement cross-over referrals, which means that anyone who receives treatment and assistance from the Silver Support team, will also be directed to receive traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment at Sian Chay Medical Association to learn how to use herbs, how to relax their minds and also about acupuncture. So far, this has proven to be very popular and effective.

(In English): In October last year, when Geylang Serai partnered Silver Ribbon to organise the Asia Pacific Mental Wellness Conference with the theme of advocacy, it was attended by many international participants and speakers. And during that meeting, I launched the Global Mental Health Alliance as well. With our Budget announcement recently, I would like to share with the House some of the comments from the global mental health fraternity and leaders.

Filipa Palha from Portugal, the World Federation of Mental Health Regional Vice President for Europe said, "In Portugal, we had similar promises from the government, but it never came through."

Another person, Hugo Cohen from Argentina, World Federation of Mental Health Regional Vice President for Latin America, said, "Bravo! Good example for our own governments."

Ellen R Mercer, from the US, President for Government Affairs said, "Fabulous news…an example for other countries."

Robert van Voren, World Federation of Mental Health, Vice President for Constituency Development in the Netherlands, said, "Congrats, great news indeed. Wish we could have this back home." And similar comments came from people from South Africa, Taiwan, Pakistan and the Mediterranean countries.

Madam, even as we are a tiny red dot, we can, indeed, set the example for others. Back in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay/Muslim community and organisations have organised many dialogue sessions and I find that they have benefited greatly from the schemes under our previous Budgets. They are more confident, reassured and understand our Government's strategies better. Many methods, programmes and schemes were implemented to help the community improve themselves, their abilities and the status of their families.

This Budget also allocates $6 million more for self-help groups like MENDAKI and this is also good news for our community.

If we look around, many countries are unable to come up with this kind of Budget, especially in the midst of a dreary and gloomy economic situation. We are thankful for this vision as well as for the firm, vigilant and prudent approach in the national expenditure, where all activities, projects and enhancements are progressing as announced earlier.

In fact, the Government has brought forward building and construction projects that were supposed to be done in 2019, to this year and the following year, in order to help our construction industry.

Change and transformation will always happen. Similarly, our mindset must also change, renew and adapt in order to move with the times.

If previously, we were told about this saying "Acquire knowledge everywhere we go", now we can acquire knowledge from laptops, smartphones and SkillsFuture easily from our own homes.

(In English): To end, Madam, in the Budget, let us look beyond "just asking what is in it for me". It is really beyond that. It is beyond just handouts, although there still are. It is really about us together as a nation, Singaporeans and Singapore, moving together. It is about our future, survival and sustainability. Madam, I support Budget 2017.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.

Mdm Speaker, I support the prudent Budget put forward by the Finance Minister. Today, I would like to focus on issues that have not been directly addressed in this Budget but which are, nonetheless, top of mind for many Singaporean workers.

From my interactions with residents and their industry, I hear a rising concern about their livelihood. At the policy level, I am confident that the Government is doing what it can to protect the welfare of our workers for the long term.

However, from my discussions, the man on the street has a different perception. The question is how do we communicate the meticulous efforts in this regard by the Government to the public? How do we assure the worker that his welfare is front and centre of the Government's priority? There is a perception on the ground that the Government is not as worried as it should be, that there is a disconnect between the fear that workers are feeling and the optimistic, forward-looking messages that they are hearing.

In my view, the Government needs to calibrate the message so that it is empathetic and realistic, that people can relate to, and to also serve as a rallying cry so that people can take the steps to prepare themselves for this future. It is not difficult to understand why people are worried about their livelihoods. Globally, 2016 was a year filled with surprises and, very often, not pleasant ones.

This has created a cloud of uncertainty over global economic growth. There has been a marked rise in protectionist and anti-trade rhetoric, and this discussion has alarmed Singaporeans who are acutely aware that their prosperity is intricately linked to global trade and economic growth.

Global uncertainty is not the only thing on their minds. Other local trends are also causing concerns. For years, we have been trying to raise productivity in Singapore companies. This is the critical step towards building resilience and robust businesses to try to allow businesses to thrive in tough times. However, for many workers, this can sound ominous. They think that they will be replaced by robots or do double duty as their teams are "downsized".

Looking ahead, technology will threaten other jobs further up the value chain, and at a much faster pace than anticipated. Autonomous vehicles will displace drivers, and that we know. But increasingly, trading algorithms have started to displace trading professionals, many armed with Masters and PhDs. And in the future, artificial intelligence might replace human lawyers, doctors, accountants and even civil servants. No one is immune.

According to one research, 50% of the jobs could be lost to automation within 30 years. Of course, history shows us that as old jobs disappear, new ones will rise to take their place. But this is cold comfort for each individual worker who worries about his job being replaced by robots. There is a parallel to the rise of protectionism here. Free trade benefits the economy as a whole, but specific workers lose their jobs, as they see their wages being depressed. To them, "the greater good" is mere words, whereas their own pain is immediate and tangible.

Given these concerns, it is not surprising that many are turning to what we now term as the gig economy, doing freelance or part-time work to supplement their income. There are even full-time part-timers who do a portfolio of different jobs. Already, in the US, 33% of workers are freelancers, and are expected to rise to 40% in 2020. Singapore is not there yet, but we are certainly moving in the same direction. There are some local part-time job portals like Freeboh or MyWorkSG that are gaining a lot of traction, as even more workers report their willingness to partake in the gig economy.

While the gig economy increases our resilience of the workforce as a whole by matching workers with new opportunities, there are some concerns. And we hear Deputy Prime Minister Tharman saying that he is not yet a fan of the gig economy.

For me, there are two concerns. The first is that these freelancers may not develop and grow their skills and end up doing the same role forever. There is nothing to incentivise them or there is nobody looking out for the freelancers in terms of their career progression. The other concern that I have is that the gig economy essentially transfers the risk from company to individuals. Freelancers do not enjoy statutory benefits like the full-time work people do, such as annual leave, maternity benefits, In-camp Training reimbursements or paid medical leave.

They also lack group medical insurance that most full-timers enjoy. Although MediShield Life provides hospitalisation coverage, freelancers still lack accident, life and especially outpatient benefits that many companies currently provide. The trend towards part-time and freelance work is gaining momentum. The gig economy will allow workers to work in a variety of roles and pick up new skills. This supplements or bolsters training or retraining like what we are trying to do in the SkillsFuture. But instead of the classroom, the gig economy will let them try and learn in real life.

Let me begin to draw my remarks to a close. The role of the Government here is to ensure that worker welfare is sufficiently protected in this brave new world. As The Straits Times recently argued, we need a future-ready social safety net for the future economy. Berkeley Prof Laura Tyson has described such a system as portable, attached to the individual worker instead of the employer, universal and prorated. Heading in this direction will hopefully also dispel some of the cognitive dissonance that we currently perceive on the ground. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as I am also a staff of ComfortDelgro, a holding company with subsidiaries in Singapore that employ more than 12,000 staff in Singapore, as I talk about how to help retrenched workers better.

Last year, 4,738 workers were retrenched, 100% more compared to the year 2015. Many of the retrenched Singaporeans are PMETs. As the economy slows down and as we restructure our economy, more Singaporeans will be out of a job and be retrenched in the coming years before we can finally see light at the end of the tunnel. This is a concern. It is alarming and it is worrying.

I understand that MOM, the Workforce Developoment Agency (WDA) and e2i are of the view that they have tried their best to retrain and redeploy displaced workers. But the perception on the ground, however, paints a different picture. When companies move out of Singapore, it can be very challenging to retrain displaced workers. When factories close down and production line managers lose their jobs, it can be very difficult for them to switch from supervising processes to supervising people. Some workers are still falling through the cracks and, despite their best efforts, they cannot find jobs.

This happened to one of my volunteers, Ross. She had a high-flying career as a Systems Applications and Products (SAP) specialist, working with Apple in Singapore and the US for about 10 years and she also worked for IBM as a managing consultant. Her work was valued by big clients like British Petroleum, American International Group and even in the US State Department.

She returned home to Singapore in 2011 at the age of 48. She believed that there were many jobs in Singapore available for her. However, she only managed to find a part-time contract job as a project lead security consultant with Jemena. It was owned by Singapore Power. Her contract, unfortunately, ended in 2014 as Jemena was sold off.

Since then, she has been jobless. But this is not due to a lack of effort. She has spent the last three years applying for jobs without success. When she approached WDA and e2i for help, she was told by both organisations that they organise job fairs but do not offer job search or job matching for individuals like her. In the few job interviews that she was granted, she felt that she was discriminated against due to her age and race.

In an effort to keep up with change, Ross diligently used her SkillsFuture credits to attend classes and upgrade her IT skills. She is now 54 and is still holding on to the hope to find a full-time job. I have come across many similar, heart-wrenching stories on the ground. We need to do more to help these people.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to recommend that the Government consider setting up a cross-Ministry working committee comprising representatives from agencies like MOM, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Head of Civil Service, which represents various Government agencies and their departments, as they are collectively the largest employer in Singapore. This committee should catch those falling through the cracks.

With a holistic overview of job demand and supply, we would be able to better address the anguish, disappointment and needs of the displaced workers, so as to give them hope, help and a new lease of working life. Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my English speech earlier, I said that Singapore is restructuring its economy and many companies are facing the issue of survival. Amidst the economic slowdown, the number of workers who were retrenched last year had doubled, compared to 2015. However, there are still many growth sectors, such as healthcare, social services and transport. Every year, these sectors need to hire a few thousand staff. Let me cite public transport as an example. As the demand for public bus services increases, the gross monthly pay of bus captains has improved dramatically from $2,000 per month in 2011 to more than $3,000 per month now. This is even higher than the $2,500 starting monthly pay of polytechnic graduates and $2,700 starting pay of private universities' graduates. The $3,000 gross monthly pay of a new bus captain is comparable to graduates from local public funded universities with a median starting pay of $3,400. While a new bus captain's gross monthly pay is $3,000, the chief bus captain's gross monthly pay can be as high as $6,000. This is a perfect example of "every trade has its master". Hence, I urge those who are retrenched to seriously consider taking up jobs in the services sectors.

(In English): Next, I would like to move on to the sports scene, Mdm Speaker. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Volleyball Association of Singapore. As a president of a National Sports Association (NSA), I welcome the news that $50 million will be set aside to match sports donations dollar-for-dollar.

Every year, in the past, many NSAs have to raise hundreds of thousands to promote our respective sports. Currently, all of us have to compete for the limited funds from Sports Singapore for the dollar-for-dollar matching grant which is capped at $40,000 per NSA on a first-come-first-serve basis. Last year, the fund dried up as early as September, barely six months from the start of the financial year in April. So, I hope that with the new allocation of $50 million, more NSAs can benefit from the matching grant.

However, having a higher quantum for the matching grant is not sufficient. We need Sports Singapore to work with various agencies to make available more training venues for national players and amateur players alike as interest in sports grows. Take volleyball, for instance. The Volleyball Association has groomed our indoor women's team to win a Southeast Asia (SEA) Games bronze medal in 2015 after a 32-year break. And last year, our combined school boys' team won a bronze medal during the Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN) Schools' Competition for the first time in Singapore's history. And our beach volleyball Men's and Women's youth teams were invited to participate in the World Beach Volleyball Competition in Switzerland last year, again the first time in our history. During the Singapore National Games in 2014, prior to the SEA Games, the most number of teams that participated in a team-based competition was for volleyball. This shows the growing popularity of volleyball in Singapore.

Despite these efforts and our plea to Sports Singapore, many amateur volleyball players cannot find courts to train and to play. I hope that Sports Singapore can work with schools to make available more indoor volleyball courts during weekday nights and weekends. In addition, I hope that Sports Singapore can work with the National Parks Board to designate more segments of the beaches at East Coast, Pasir Ris and so on for beach volleyball.

These possible collaborations with Sports Singapore and other Government agencies will go a long way towards making Singapore a sporting nation, promoting healthy living, teamwork and better resilience among Singaporeans. With this, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to first thank the Minister for Finance and the various Ministries for preparing this Budget for 2017.

I recall my experience last year, the first time I stood before the House to speak and about the Budget. That time, I had noted that culture was not mentioned much in the speech, but this year, I am thankful and happy that the arts and culture are mentioned, although in only one small paragraph. But it is good news about a boost for the Cultural Matching Fund.

So, for the next few minutes, before maybe we go for our break, I would make arts and culture my subject: upheavals, displacements and the art of resilience.

We are all acutely aware that we live in a complex world today. We have been forewarned that the times ahead will be difficult. There will be displacements to our seemingly orderly lives.

Last month, I attended a seminar organised by the Salzburg Global Seminar. This organisation was set up 70 years ago after World War II, gathering thinkers, practitioners and policymakers to consider world issues, articulate problems and propose broad strategies to deal with these problems. For the 2017 iteration that I went to, 40 fellows from various part of the world participated in the seminar, which was held in a beautiful palace, the Schloss Leopoldskron. I cannot speak German, but this palace is famous because it is the location site for one of the beloved musical films, "The Sound of Music".

During the seminar, while overlooking the idyllic lake, we shared and listened to stories and experiences that were at times harrowing, heart-breaking and deeply disturbing.

One fellow from Uganda shared that her brother was abducted by rebels, and how her family had to keep silent, despite knowing that he would become a child soldier. Another participant shared about the unbearable lightness of existence − the result of her experience of war and bloodshed.

Our American friends said they feared waking up to another executive order that would bring the US closer to isolation. Yet, within the same country, we heard about another crisis, this time from a Native American, through songs and rituals, demonstrated the solidarity of her relatives in their bid to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

There were also stories about other urgent global issues, from climate change to social and income inequality. So many issues, so many crises and so many stories of upheavals, which resulted in a huge sense of loss and displacement.

As I listened to all these sharing, I realised that back in sunny Singapore, although we are cushioned from the immediacy of these crises, we cannot deny that they will undoubtedly impact us. For many Singaporeans, myself included, the Rohingya crisis seems far away when, in actual fact, it is really close − refugees in Johor needing help and support.

A community that is hurt and injured is a world that is not at peace.

Let us also not be complacent and imagine that such upheavals are too far away or will never happen to us.

For now, while we may not experience such gut-wrenching upheavals, we have our own issues of displacement. Migrant workers who have come to Singapore to make a living despite their personal sense of dislocation; single parents and their children who do not enjoy the same benefits of other traditional family units and who struggle to make ends meet; workers who feel that their jobs are at risk because technological advancements and artificial intelligence might make their roles obsolete and losing their sense of place at home, in the society and with themselves.

Displacements come with change. In physics, displacement maps out the relative change of the position of an object, moving from one point to another. But it does not reflect the total distance travelled and the time taken to reach there, which is just like real life.

For some, it is a straight line, quick and fast. But for others, it is a path with a lot of derailments, ups and downs, and some of them may not even reach there.

Naturally, we want the change that we experience to be good, that it brings us forward and upwards, in a straight line − in other words, positive displacement. But most of the time, negative displacement within our society is real and undeniable. With the widening income gap, the lower- to middle-income groups constantly feel the squeeze as they try to keep up with change.

At the same time, their lack of resources has resulted in derailment. When they are reminded to catch up or be left behind, it sounds as if the problem is that of a personal failing in their lack of trying, rather than a systemic one.

Change favours the privileged. Privilege comes in all different forms. All of us here are privileged because we have the power to effect change. Or so I would like to believe. You can be privileged in terms of wealth or education, or even as a race. It is thus the responsibility of those who are privileged to speak up for those who are not − those who do not earn as much, those who are not as educated, those who are sidelined by our system.

In a society that celebrates achievement and progress, no one wants to be seen as a failure. Failure results in alienation. People who feel alienated, who feel helpless, become angry. We see the outcomes of such unhappiness on social media, often resulting in an echo chamber effect, reinforcing collective discontentment.

The frustration that stems from material, emotional and psychological insecurity creates a further polarisation of society. We begin to fear the other. This pervasive sense of threat is dangerous. It not only prevents us from being empathetic and compassionate, but encourages selfishness, which can even make violence and brutality justifiable in extreme situations.

This Government is aware of these concerns and addresses them through pro-business policies and enhancing the safety net. In the immediate term, pro-business policies retain and create jobs, but it might not ensure a trickle-down effect on the economy to individuals. Standards of living may still stagnate. But the Government's extended social safety net will help. But with no substantial increase in income, the reliance on social support may be protracted. Self-esteem is directly related to self-reliance. Rather than hoping the safety net is wide enough to catch them, people would generally prefer to lead a self-sustainable, dignified life, earning a respectable wage that ensures their independence.

The late British sociologist, Peter Townsend, once said, "It may be worth reflecting, if indeed a little sadly, that possibly the ultimate test of the quality of a free, democratic and prosperous society is to be found in the standards of freedom, democracy and prosperity enjoyed by its weakest members."

I and many others believe this to be true. And in difficult times, we must be even more attentive to those amongst us who fall through the cracks.

As such, I wish to hear more from the Minister on how the real wages of the middle income and lower income can be raised. And this brings me to the next point.

While CFE focused on economic strategies, it is essential that a study on the cultural impact of these economic strategies be made. Every economic structural change affects individuals, family, society, politics, infrastructure, economy, environment, the tangible and intangible heritage, and the arts, in other words, the culture of our society and the city state as a whole.

We must take a proactive approach to anticipate the impact of these structural changes, rather than react to them when they arise. To give an example: technological advancement has progressed so rapidly beyond our imaginations that we, as humans, are trying to grasp hold of the changes and manage them well without falling behind. Another example will be the impact of the expansionary immigration policy of the 1990s to early 2000s, which could be mitigated if we had done a cultural impact study earlier. Studies of cultural impact of economic strategies will, therefore, put us in good stead to manage changes and their effects on society.

I would like now to unpack a term I have heard numerous times in the House since our Debate began, "deep skills". But what is "deep skills" without deep thinking?

What is crucial here is a culture of creative and critical thinking. Such a culture cannot be manifested overnight through new state funding schemes. There is no better time than now to scrutinise our current education system, incorporate opportunities for creative and critical thinking within it, develop our next generation and generations to come. The Government can create scaffolds and support structures for innovation, but the root source of innovation lies in the people.

We often talk about software or heartware, as opposed to hardware. Software is not just about skills, but it is about human interactions. How lacking are we these days in the art of conversations? We have reduced our exchanges to monosyllables: "Can", "Want", "K". I am not talking about language. I am talking about connecting.

How do employers and employees connect? How do strangers converse? How do we settle a public disagreement in a multiracial and multi-religious society? How do we manage the increasing moral panic? How do we not see ourselves as helpless individuals, alienated or a powerless observer to surrounding injustice? How do we see ourselves as active change agents for our society and the world?

This leads me to my next point on resilience. To manage change and displacement, we, as a society, must become stronger. We must develop the art of resilience. In trying times, resilience in individuals is key in helping us to repulse fear, resist and reject the injustice and oppressive status quo. Resilience embraces difficult yet transformative change. It takes courage and conviction; it encourages objective and critical thinking. At the same time, it enables empathy, compassion and a greater sense of hope.

I have attended a number of forums last year and there was always this call for artists to respond to these trying times.

In the Salzburg Global Seminar, policymakers, thinkers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and representatives from C40 Cities and so on, made the call for arts to be the active change agent and in building resilience. In Weimar, a conference on sharing and exchange, political scientists, economists, philosophers stressed the importance of collaboration and intercultural exchanges. In Malta, NGOs, chief executive officers of Arts Councils around the world made the call for resilience and more arts to heal, repair and imagine.

As an arts practitioner, I can attest to the fact that the arts can develop resilience because it opens up our critical thinking processes, be it as a spectator or audience, participant or creator.

To give an example: Mr Ong, an audience member of my community forum theatre play, once shared, and I quote, "I used to be a very impatient person. But after watching your forum theatre play, when I get into a disagreement with my spouse, I will remember you, Heng Leun. I remember you conducting a forum theatre play and, when a crisis happens, you will say, "Stop! Take a moment to think, to reflect." So, now, if I am going to quarrel with my staff, I stop. I think and I reflect. It makes me less impatient and, of course, with that, there are fewer arguments and more discussions."

For creators, the arts is a means for articulating difficulties otherwise left unvoiced and seething beneath the surface. Take, for instance, my friend from Uganda, Beatrice Lamwaka, who wrote stories that helped her heal from her pain and trauma of living through arduous times. I urge you to read her award-winning work "Butterfly Dream", which can be found on the Internet.

At home, we have witnessed the lyrical poetry of our migrant workers in Singapore, who have given us an unflinching glimpse into their lives here. Take Bikas Nath from Bangladesh, a poet and shipyard worker who won first prize at the 2016 Migrant Workers Poetry Competition. He shared that when he is lonely, I quote, "the pen and paper are my friends. So, when I have the time, I try to write down my feelings." And now, I quote from his award-winning poem, "Why Migrant?":

"I long to run back to the warm embrace of my homeland

Among loved ones

Laugh over a steaming cup of homemade tea to the sound of the impatient strumming of a guitar somewhere

Wearing my blue uniform

I want to lose myself

Back into my childhood

Like a stubborn child on a rainy monsoon day

Hiding under the safety of taro leaves in the swamp."

The arts offer a world of imagination and, in that, the seed of hope. In art making, an individual encounters the power of art to heal, repair and bring hope in difficult times.

Aside from individual resilience, we need to build on community resilience. By that, I mean a community that comes together to listen to differences, mediate and recognise that each differing point of view deserves respect and understanding. This resilient community will never neglect the individual voice within the sea of voices. Again, the arts compel us to be engaged through active listening and collaboration, which are essential building blocks that inform creation. Active listening allows us to develop empathy and to experience views beyond our comfort zone and echo chambers. I, therefore, urge the House that we continue to listen and give with respect. More communication, more openness. Less group think, less judgement.

Beyond our own communities, we must also build on inter-community resilience, so that we do not become insular and self-serving. We live in an interconnected world and we, therefore, need to look out for others because their circumstances will have an effect on us. To develop inter-community resilience, we must create platforms for active engagement among communities that allow for good, honest and deep dialogues. The arts are one such platform that not only entertains but also educates. It presents scenarios within safe spaces for the public, making us aware of narratives that are often concealed in our midst, and inspiring us to be the change we want to see in society.

Similarly, in building inter-community resilience, we need to build such safe spaces where rules of engagement are adhered to, to ensure that our dialogues remain respectful yet robust, critical yet compassionate, passionate yet measured and non-violent.

It cannot be stressed enough that leadership plays an important role in motivating and inspiring citizens to take greater responsibility for our shared growth, instead of just focusing on individual success stories. This means being politically motivated to gain a better distribution of wealth and success. It cannot be achieved merely through business-oriented measures or short-term handouts. Rather, in developing long-term strategies to reduce the income gap, our leaders can reignite self-belief, meaningfulness and dignity in the people.

Likewise, an enlightened leadership must respect the differences that exist within our society, not tolerating, not co-existing, but embracing and celebrating diversity and plurality of views, lifestyles and people. In an era where there is increased polarisation sparked off by religion, politics and class, our leaders have ever more important roles as beacons of reason and mediation. To be resilient is to never allow communities to splinter into us versus them ideologies but, rather, to make people see that there is a "u" in "us". We are in this together.

As our nation moves forward with the proposals by CFE, let us remember to become positive forces of change, to find new ways of seeing and listening, and to always be resilient and compassionate to those who fall through the cracks of the system.

If we are to become a community of hope in these difficult times, we cannot merely focus on straightforward success stories but must engage with those who feel most sidelined and marginalised, so that we can become more robust and resilient together, and never alone. In Pig Earth, part of the trilogy written by the late John Berger, about peasants trying to survive under capitalism, there is a scene of an old peasant training a mouth organ in his mountain while he was trying to save an old cow. And John Berger wrote, "All music is about survival, addressed to survivors." Hence, by extension, all arts are about surviving, addressed to survivors. And with that, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Mdm Speaker, this Budget comes at a time when a myriad of challenges is confronting Singapore. Globally, there are uncertainties, consolidation and key developments. These are fueled by oil prices, the US' political and economic agenda, the future direction of the European Union, the Brexit journey and Asia's growth strategy, in particular, China. The developments in each will have effects, whether direct or collateral, on economic conditions across the globe and Singapore.

Locally, Budget 2017 and beyond will have to achieve a balance to address the short-term and long-term needs and challenges of the economy and our working populace. For a start, I am glad the overall Budget has a slight surplus to cater to any uncertainties and exigencies in this financial year and which may impact Singapore and for which we need to respond to.

From a manpower perspective, there are several challenges for us, I dare say not exhaustive, with the first being rising structural forces and unemployment. We saw a record 19,000 layoffs in 2016 since the last peak in 2009. What has been a worrying trend is that the layoffs affect especially professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) and the slower rate of re-entry into the workforce for this category of workers, especially those who are older.

This is largely due to what I have previously mooted or identified as the three mismatches of skills, expectations and jobs. There is also the phenomenon of, what I call, the "slow-burn" or "churn" in several sectors, fortunately not across the board yet, of our local economy, such as in the oil and gas, offshore and marine, foreign financial institutions and retail because of global uncertainties, restrategisation, consolidation, recalibration and the advent of digitisation, robotisation, mechanisation and the Internet of Things.

By the same token, we face the longer-term challenge and need of sustaining inclusive quality growth, bearing in mind we have an ageing workforce, relatively flat productivity in the past five years and a much slower employment growth in the years ahead.

Having heard the Budget and its initiatives fleshed out, I am glad that the Government has considered and adopted several of the key recommendations by the Labour Movement. However, all said and done, I submit that the execution and implementation or, what I call, the "follow-through" of each of the initiatives and programmes are most crucial.

In response to Budget 2017's plans and programmes, I have five suggestions and recommendations in the area of future jobs, future skills and future training, with a particular focus on the plight of PMEs, as they are most vulnerable and sandwiched during these times of uncertainty and structural challenges.

First, I am glad we are rolling out ITMs for 23 industry clusters and sectors. In the course of working out the blueprint, each sector and industry has painted an optimistic future of the new jobs and the jobs growth in each sector. Infocomm technology (ICT) and healthcare sectors have highlighted there will be 30,000 jobs each. We also need 3,000 precision engineers, 1,000 rail engineers and 22,000 data scientists and robot coordinators in the manufacturing sector by 2024. There is also a need for 4,000 early childhood educators.

All these sectoral manpower plans paint an extremely optimistic picture of the jobs market. I am not sure if there is duplication in the numbers as there may be overlaps, such as between ICT and the financial sector, when we talk of data science, analytics or cybersecurity.

To the person unemployed or retrenched, all these figures mean little to him or her if he or she cannot find a job in any of these sectors. It is, therefore, imperative to paint a realistic picture of the jobs market by identifying and sharing where the jobs really are, which companies are hiring and when they are doing so. Also, what skills and experience are required of these job openings and what training must we embark on to prepare ourselves for these future jobs?

It is, therefore, vital for the tripartite partners to work together with the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), industry partners and stakeholders as well as research and consultancy companies to better sense, synthesise and provide a clear signal so as to not just place the current unemployed into current jobs but the future unemployed into future jobs.

To this end, the Labour Movement has started looking into future jobs, skills and training and getting help and support from our extensive Labour Movement network, tripartite partners and various stakeholders and partners.

Second, even as we drive internationalisation and encourage Singapore companies and Singaporeans to venture abroad and be regional and global, it is important that we provide sufficient support and assistance to those who have spent time on overseas stints to assimilate and find jobs back in Singapore when they return. My biggest worry is how these Singaporeans who have gone abroad are able to adjust and adapt when they return back to Singapore in the future.

I say this because I have met PMEs at our NTUC's U PME Centre, including classmates of mine, who have returned to Singapore after spending some eight to 16 years abroad. Many have returned due to family commitments, such as because of elderly parents or children's education, or to really come back home. One such example is a PME in his 50s who has been working for a European MNC in the oil and gas sector for 20 years in the area of project management. He was retrenched and was out of job for a year before finally landing a job as a project manager now based in Saudi Arabia. I know some who have been back for more than a year and still have not found any job despite lowering their salary expectations. Some have resorted to doing freelance work or short-term contract positions. This is an area we need to pay particular attention to, and I hope the enhancements to Adapt and Grow and the many SkillsFuture initiatives to be announced will address this problem.

Third, all the talk on digitisation, the digital divide and disruption is good but what does it mean to the layman or worker? What does he need to do to stay ready, relevant and resilient?

I, therefore, suggest we come up with a digital disruption awareness or development programme for all workers, all Singaporeans, very much similar to the Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) and Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) programmes we had in the 1980s and 1990s where we had to bring all Singaporeans and workers ahead in terms of literacy and numeracy. The future jobs in demand and future skills in demand components can be built into this programme to ensure all Singaporeans stay able, adaptable and agile. This programme can be spearheaded by the Labour Movement's e2i and NTUC Learning Hub and supported via Government funding.

Fourth, the SkillsFuture Credit utilisation has been promising and off to a good start. I have met workers who have shared how they have benefited immensely from picking up new skills via tapping on their SkillsFuture credits. With the rapidly volatile business environment and job obsolescence, workers globally are now concerned that their skills are losing relevance or what I call the "Fear of Skills Erosion". To address this, I suggest for the Government to provide SkillsFuture Credit top-ups of $500 in intervals every three to five years so as to encourage Singaporeans to take personal responsibility in their continuing education and training, embrace a spirit of lifelong learning and stay ready, relevant and resilient. The credits can go a long way for not just skills acquisition but should also include engaging professional career coach services.

Lastly, the Budget has announced proposed enhancements to Adapt and Grow funding, including the "Attach and Learn" programme which I welcome and look forward to hearing more during the MOM Committee of Supply. However, I hope as we execute the various fundings, we must bear in mind the need to be flexible, responsive in terms of speed to market and also cater to all segments of the workforce, from low-wage workers to PMEs. With about 70% of those laid off last year being PMETs, I submit that we need to pay particular attention to this group and, especially those who are long-term unemployed and mature PMEs. I am glad that PCP now supports redeployment of PMEs within the company.

However, one particular observation I have with PCP is that when PMEs move into a new sector or totally new job, he or she enters at the entry point of that new sector or job. I find this sometimes unsatisfactory, considering many mature PMEs have accumulated one to as many as three decades of work experience and that their other innate skills are not taken cognisance of. At our U PME Centre, we observed many PMEs would prefer to stay within their industries where possible or, at the most, move across into any industry by utilising their sets of skills and experience. There is strong inertia from many PMEs to explore new industries due to the high opportunity cost. It is with this in mind that I hope the Government can look into helping PMEs transit into second careers more seamlessly by exploring the adjacency of jobs and the adjacency of skills so that these PMEs can move into, move across or move up into new roles which capitalise on their acquired skills and knowledge so that they can even enter mid-career and be given credits for their experience. The public sector has successfully done this for certain job types and I suggest we replicate this to other sectors and companies. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With regard to measures introduced in Budget 2017, the key lies in implementation. I have five suggestions.

First, our foremost task is to identify where opportunities are, which companies are hiring and what skills, experiences and training are required by these jobs. By doing this, we can better help our workers prepare for these future jobs. Hence, the tripartite partners must work closely together with higher learning institutions, industry partners and stakeholders, as well as research and consultancy firms to collect needed information and not just place the current unemployed into current jobs, but the future unemployed into future jobs.

Second, even as we drive internationalisation and encourage companies and workers to venture overseas and gain overseas experience, it is equally important that we provide sufficient support and assistance to those who come back to Singapore to assimilate back into our workforce and find jobs as soon as possible.

Third, I suggest that we come up with a digital technology development programme to help Singaporeans to improve their skills in the area of digital technology. This programme will be similar to the BEST and WISE training courses offered in the 1980s and 1990s.

Fourth, I also suggest that the Government top up $500 into the SkillsFuture credit every three to five years to encourage Singaporeans to take personal responsibility for their own career development, embrace the spirit of lifelong learning and stay relevant. In addition, the usage of the credit should also be expanded to include engaging professional career coaching services.

Fifth, while we introduce and execute the various programmes, we must consider how to look after all segments of the workforce, including low-income workers and PMEs. I hope the Government can explore how to help PMEs into adjacent jobs and adjacent skills, so that they can transit into a second career seamlessly.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the challenge for Singapore in 2017 and beyond is how we are able to navigate the occasional gusty winds and flooding downpours. Although we have weathered a variety of economic calamities in the past decade alone, it does not mean we will automatically survive. The challenge that confronts us this decade will be somewhat different and diverse. The "killer app" is how we can, as one country and one people, stay not just ready, relevant and resilient but have the necessary ability, agility and adaptability to navigate and ride on the ebb and flow. We have always been on a treadmill. The only difference is the speed at which the treadmill is now moving, compared to previous years. With that, I support the Budget.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.22 pm until 4.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker, since Minister Heng Swee Keat announced the Budget, we have heard many feedback from the public and also Members of this House. While a few have expressed concerns with our Budget status, most were concerned with our individual status. Common questions and comments heard were these: how much do I get? How much more do I have to pay? Why the price increase for carbon, diesel or water? For businesses, their reactions have also been largely similar: how much would I get? How much more must I pay? Will there be more immediate pain relief? Even amongst some civil servants, they were surprised, "Wow, you mean my Ministry's budget is going to be rebased, which means a cut of 2%?" But what are the core issues for this Budget? While we can all appreciate the concerns with our individual positions, this Budget must surely be more than these.

Our Budget is also, if not more importantly, about our collective future and that of our country, beyond what it means to us individually. And the core questions that we have to come back to and focus on in this Budget are as follows: how do we earn a living for ourselves and our country? And how do we take care of one another? These are the two core issues that we must return to: how do we earn a living for ourselves and for our country, and how do we take care of one another?

Many have asked and commented: if the Budget can be a bit more generous; if our Government can spend a bit more. I can understand these wishes. But let us take a look at our Budget position carefully.

This year, we have a Budget of about $70 billion. Out of that $70 billion, $14 billion comes from our Net Investment Income (NII), which means that for every five dollars we spend, one dollar comes from the savings, or the income from our savings, to be more precise. We are, if you like, living on the income of our savings: $1 out of every $5 that we are spending in this Budget comes from the income from our Reserves.

But I do not know if Members have also noticed something that is even more significant. I have been observing this for the last few years. The top four revenue streams of our Budget are NII, corporate tax, GST and income tax. This year, the number one income stream, out of these four, is NII. This was not the position a few years ago. NII has become the revenue stream that gives us the most to do for our Budget. And if we think a bit deeper, these top four buckets of revenue stream ‒ NII, corporate tax, GST and income tax ‒ out of these four, how many of them are really under our control? NII depends on the status of the world economy. Corporate tax and income tax will be similarly cyclical, according to the world economy. Even GST, to a lesser extent, will be cyclical.

So, the question that we should all pause and think for a while is this: is this a sustainable position, going forward, for our country? The top four revenue streams of our Budget, of which three are not entirely within our control, even if we do not take into account the competition that we have to face from other cities like Hongkong in how we set our corporate and income tax rates. I always joke with some friends that our corporate tax rate and income tax rate are not set independently by the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance has to watch like a hawk what our competitors are doing. So, this is the context that we are in ‒ $1 in every $5 that we spend today comes from our NII ‒ the four biggest buckets of our revenue stream, three of which are not entirely within our control. That is the backdrop for this Budget.

Some have commented that we are running a surplus. I think Minister Heng has explained. Is this a real surplus? Even after accounting for NII, we have less than $2 billion budgeted for. The question is this: will we realise this $2 billion surplus? And I hope Mr Leon Perera is right. I will be very happy if we are right and you are right. But what if we are wrong? What if the economy turns soft and we do not realise the full amount that we have budgeted for NII but, instead, we need more money to help fellow Singaporeans if the economy turns further south? How much can we afford and how much more do we have? One programme, like Workfare Income Supplement, costs us $600 million to $700 million. So, if the revenue comes down and the needs go up, I am not so confident that that $1.9 billion surplus that we have budgeted for will necessarily come true. But like I said, I hope we are right, I hope you are right. But what if we are wrong?

There are some comments by some Members in the House to say that this Budget is a political Budget, that we spend less so that we can time the political cycle. Guess what? Our system is designed such that every term of Government has to earn its keep. At the start of every term of Government, People's Action Party or otherwise, the Government must earn its keep. We precisely design the system such that no Government will come in and promise to spend before it has earned its keep. This is unlike other countries. This is the reason why we have been able to get $1 out of every $5 to support our Budget. If our forefathers had done otherwise ‒ to spend first before the term of Government even earned its keep ‒ we can forget about that $1 out of every $5 that we are depending on for our Budget now. So, we would rather err on the side of caution, and this is the reason why our forefathers had put in place this system, and this is the reason why this generation will also continue to uphold this system.

Then, there are suggestions that we are ignoring the pains, the short-term pains of the economy. Is that so? If this is so, why did Minister Heng Swee Keat announce targeted measures to help specific sectors like the offshore and marine sector, like the $700 million that we push into the construction sector? If this is so, why do we spend all the money that we spend for that increase in the U-Save rebates to make sure that even though prices may increase on average, we will take care of the lower income first?

If we adopt such a cynical attitude to budgeting, will we have done this? Just as one of my friends' feedback last night, if, indeed, this is a cynical Government, then we should not be giving anything at all. No, this is not a cynical Government and it will be wrong for us to impute our own perverse motive on the Government. It is targeted to help precisely because we feel the pain for our people.

Managing an economy is not like turning the thermostat in the air-conditioned room, that when you want it to go up, you just turn it down; when you want it to go down, you just turn it up. If this Government is not concerned with the short term, and if the economy goes down south, who can guarantee that in two years' time, when we want to turn it up, that it will go up?

We do not have to look too far. The competition across the world is intense. Some countries lose their footing, get into a downward spiral ‒ a death spiral, if you like ‒ and never recovered. Our job is to keep ourselves on a steady path, making sure that we address the short-term pains whilst establishing the conditions for our long-term success. It is never either/or; it is always both. Because if you have managed an economy before, you will know that no one can take a cynical attitude towards whether you can time it to go up or down. No one.

Next, I would like you all to focus on what this Budget has in terms of what is new. But I would like to remind all of us that it is not just what is new that is important. It is also what is ongoing. Every policy has a long tail. Every time we make a commitment to spend on a policy, it has a long tail, which means that there are future commitments that we need to adhere to, to keep our words to our people. Every time we have a long tail, it eats into what, in budgetary terms, we call the "white space" for the future, which means that the more we commit upfront with a long tail, the less degree of flexibility we have going forward to meet contingencies and to seize opportunities.

Some of the tails do not just wind down. Some of the tails, paradoxically, creep up. So, it is not a small feat for a government, any government of any particular point in time, to make a commitment.

While Minister Heng Swee Keat has announced various things that have changed, we must all bear in mind that many things are still ongoing: Workfare, U-Save rebates, the commitment that we have done for SkillsFuture, and so forth. So, it is not just the new things that are important. It is also what has been going on and will continue to go on that define this Budget. And I hope we see that in proper context.

Let me come to how we earn a living. In NTUC, we have three priorities for this year − jobs, jobs and jobs. Jobs for those people who are displaced today, and jobs for those people who might be displaced tomorrow. But let us be frank with ourselves. Grants and subsidies alone will not create jobs, especially sustainable jobs. Grants and subsidies, as Minister Iswaran said yesterday, enable and help, but the crux must come from our businesses, our access to markets and our innovation.

How good our businesses are depend on the following: how innovative we are; how bold we dare to venture beyond Singapore; how good our workers are to keep pace with the demand for the new skills; how good our regulatory environment is to groom and enable new businesses.

When we look at our Budget, this is what we see. MTI, MOM, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and many other agencies are all focused precisely on all these four basic fundamental issues to support our businesses: enable innovation, enable internationalisation, enable SkillsFuture and enable a more progressive regulatory environment for startup businesses.

So, the businesses are not alone in this. The workers must come on board. Government agencies must come on board. And this is where it leads me to CFE.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask for your permission to show a simple slide.

Yes, please. [A slide was shown to Hon Members.]

Minister, if I can just interrupt for a while to ask the Leader to move a Motion to let you speak beyond 40 minutes.