Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget follows closely after the report by the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE). In the course of our five decades since Independence, we had to reinvent ourselves many times, with the Government playing a proactive role in enabling the process. The CFE Report marks the plan for the next phase of our development.

The focus of CFE is rightly on economic growth, as this is the only way to meet the expectations of our future generations for better jobs and opportunities in an increasingly competitive and volatile global landscape.

CFE includes a broad range of plans to ensure Singapore remains linked to the global economy, our people develop the deep skills needed to stay relevant and our enterprises develop the means to compete. There are roadmaps tailored for the different industries, too. All these are welcome, and I look forward to the upcoming initiatives and changes to execute against the plans by CFE.

Equally important though is to ensure that our growth is equitable and sustainable and, on this, I would like to deal with a few matters.

The first is a sustainable fiscal base. In this Budget, we already see some of the strains that will face us in the coming years. Our spending on a wide range of areas is expected to rise, including, in particular, on health and social spending, as our population ages. At the same time, our working population is likely to fall, creating a double whammy as our income tax base grows narrower and our spending needs rise.

There are also limits to how much we can raise taxes, as we need to remain attractive as a business destination for the best companies and global corporations can simply choose to do business elsewhere if Singapore becomes unattractive, relative to other destinations.

We, therefore, have to be very prudent in our spending. Many sectors, for example, SMEs were also expecting more support from the Government. While I fully support the Government helping businesses to tide over difficult times, I am concerned about subsidies becoming entrenched.

In many other countries, subsidies to different sectors of the economy become entrenched, allowing them to continue operating inefficiently and preventing the redeployment of resources to sectors where they are more likely to produce more value.

In fact, I think the only principal justification for a subsidy to any segment is if greater welfare arises from that subsidy. Thus, if giving a business a small subsidy to tide over a difficult cyclical setback prevents substantial numbers of jobs being lost, then it is probably defensible. In short, there should be what are called positive externalities arising from Government support to businesses and not just private profit for the business itself.

Let me now touch on three very specific measures that relate to this. The first is support for seniors. In this context, one of the schemes that I support in principle is the Special Employment Credit scheme which encourages the employment of older workers. With the rising quality of healthcare, many of our workers are able to work even though they are older and, often, it is with some sadness that older employees tell me they have been "retired" by their companies.

The unspoken reason for this is often higher costs associated with hiring older workers, particularly in relation to matters, such as workplace insurance, as well as the availability of younger and cheaper workers.

Yet, there are numerous benefits with allowing older workers to continue working for as long as they wish. For the individuals, it allows them to remain economically active and independent, and there many studies showing that there are mental and physical health benefits for seniors who remain active in the workplace. From the country's perspective, this would ameliorate the strain on our fiscal base as economically active seniors will remain more able to take care of themselves.

Indeed, I would go even further on this front and suggest that both the Government and the unions look into the specific concerns employers have to employing older workers so as to eliminate structural factors contributing to age discrimination as much as possible in the workplace. Ultimately, it is my hope that older workers will be more able to stop work at a time of their choosing, rather than being forced into retirement that may be against their will.

The second aspect of the Budget that I am heartened by is the manner in which it deals with environmental concerns. In fact, this Budget specifically takes into account environmental consequences. One of the fundamental causes of environmental pollution and damage is that businesses, in their determination to maximise profits, do not adequately take into account the damage caused to the environment by their business practices.

The costs of environmental damage and pollution are often felt by the entire community, while the profit is enjoyed by the businesses themselves. This is a classic example of what economists call a "negative externality" where society pays the price that is higher than the benefit the company receives.

A carbon tax is one way to ensure that businesses pay a price for polluting as well. This will, hopefully, incentivise businesses to innovate or invest in green technologies to reduce their carbon footprint. I am also heartened that the revenues raised from these taxes will be used to support the growth of green businesses, as this is one way of reducing the private costs for socially useful innovation, and if these technologies are effective, they could also be something else Singapore could export to other parts of the world.

One matter that has received a lot of attention is the rise in water prices. This has been extensively discussed in many forums as the headline rise of 30% was seen as high by many Singaporeans. Following clarifications, I think most households have realised that the net impact on them will be manageable. For example, I think people mostly understand now that for most people living in 1-room and 2-room flats, the average water bill will actually be lower by around $1 a month. For those living in 3-room flats, it may rise by around $2 a month; for those living in 4-room flats, around $5 and, for those living in 5-room flats, around $8. So, although this is an increase, most people I have spoken to believe that this is manageable.

Everyone also agrees that water is a precious resource for Singapore and people should be encouraged to conserve as much water as possible. While nobody likes to pay more for water, I think everyone agrees in principle that water must be priced at a level that is sustainable for Singapore in the long term.

One suggestion I have in this regard is whether we can relook at water pricing to make it more flexible, so that, like energy prices, it, too, may go up or down depending on the costs of production. This may mean that we have small gradual increases every year, rather than a one-off lump sum increase after 17 years.

In fact, anecdotally, a few people I have spoken to were actually surprised that their water bill had not increased in 17 years. As many people received their water and power bills together, they had assumed that both prices were going up when, in fact, it was only the power component that was changing and the water component had remained the same in their bills for the last 17 years. So, what I would suggest is, in order to prevent sticker shock or surprise every 17 or 20 years, as the case may be, that we find a way to make the water price more flexible as well so that people can adjust their consumption patterns along with the rising cost, and our usage of water will remain sustainable.

One last area I wish to touch on is added support for parenthood. I should declare my interest here as I recently joined the Club of Parents with my first child, and I have to say that it is a wonderful joy to be a parent. But the reality is that many young people hesitate in taking the step both towards marriage and towards becoming parents, and the demographic time bomb I mentioned is a very real one, and the best way to diffuse it or at least reduce some of the pressures on it is to encourage more people to take on the challenge of becoming parents.

The other benefit, of course, apart from the personal joy of becoming a parent is that society as a whole benefits because, ultimately, the children are the ones who will take Singapore forward over the next 30 or 50 years, and they will be the ones to support the older generations, to support us when we are no longer able to work.

And there are tremendous benefits to society for encouraging parenthood. Of course, with parenthood, the economic issues are a bit reversed because the cost of parenting is largely borne by the individuals themselves, whereas the benefits are not only to the individuals but also to society as a whole. This is why I have always believed there are strong justifications for socialising the cost of parenthood more.

There are many measures in place already assisting parents to defray the cost somewhat. But there is always more that can be done, in particular, childcare is one of the areas where there is a great deal of demand. And if you go before childcare, there is infant care. So, in this Budget, we have a doubling of places for infant care over the next four years, which is a measure I welcome. This will help to take more of the strain off working families and working parents and grandparents.

But as we go forward, my suspicion is that there will be a correlation between the more we socialise the cost of parenthood and the more willing people become to take this plunge. I think costs are often a consideration for people considering marriage and parenthood and, sometimes, there is misinformation about the costs as well. But in countries like France, which is one of the few developed countries where they do not have a major issue with the population, we find the cost of parenthood being heavily socialised. So, I think this is one area we can look more at in future Budgets as well.

Broadly speaking, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think this Budget will put Singapore on the right foundation for sustainable growth in the coming years. What I am most heartened is that the focus is not only on growth but on sustainability and the measures taken to ameliorate both the demographic and environmental challenges we face in the coming decades. I will now speak in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I had previously raised my concerns about the relatively lower participation in preschool by Indian families. In particular, there appears to be a correlation in lack of preschool education and difficulties in primary school, where some of our students lag in areas, such as Science and Mathematics.

In this year's Budget, I am grateful for the Government's initiative to increase infant care places to over 8,000 by 2020. This will be particularly important for working mothers and single-parent families. I would strongly encourage all Indian families to enrol their children in preschool and take advantage of the subsidies available. They should allow professionals to come in and assist.

At the other side of the educational range, there are also more grants for post-secondary education, particularly for those going to the Institute of Technical Education, polytechnic or university. I strongly encourage all our youths to strive for post-secondary education and to take advantage of the opportunities made available.

In an ever-changing world, education and relevant skills-based training will be important for us and our children to keep up with the new opportunities available. The Government will provide assistance and opportunities and we should, at the same time, not be afraid to learn and do so continuously.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Budget. Our nation is at a critical transition point. We must seize the opportunities brought about by the disruptive technologies erupting all around us or risk being irrelevant. We must help our local companies, including our SMEs, survive and grow. The plans outlined in the Budget will go some way, but companies must also help themselves.

Our schools, companies and people have to be ready for change. Lifelong learning and training will be an integral part of our lives. Over the last two days, my colleagues have touched on these topics, so I will not go there. But I want to talk about something that is equally important from the medium to long term, something which bothers me and my residents and, that is, the issue of healthcare.

Our healthcare services in the public and private sectors are lauded around the world as progressive, high quality yet cost-effective. Our unique MediSave, MediShield and MediFund (3M) system and Pioneer Generation (PG) Package have served us well. Many more have benefited as the enhanced MediShield Life now covers everyone, regardless of age and health status. During house visits, my residents would chat about many things and one recurring topic is their worries about becoming a burden to their loved ones, especially when it comes to medical bills. Allow me to share some stories.

Last year, Mr Tok's mother was hospitalised for two separate brain tumour surgeries at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. She was hospitalised for 58 days and her medical bill was about $102,000. She stayed in a B2 ward and, after Government subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave deductions, his family's cash outlay was zero. He is very grateful to the Government and the system. He and his siblings are all below 30 years old and starting out in their careers. It would have been difficult for them if they had to pay the full bill. His mother is now well and resting back at home.

Our 3M and PG Package have done well in helping families reduce their anxiety over medical bills. So, why are my residents so concerned about healthcare costs? Are our medical fees truly unaffordable? According to a study, global medical inflation in 2015 was 10% but, in Singapore, it was 15%. I believe there are several reasons why healthcare costs are escalating.

One is the moral hazard of health insurance. My concern is whether more comprehensive insurance coverage might lead to over-consumption of healthcare. Are patients tempted to use more resources than they otherwise would have, because they think someone else is paying the bill?

MediShield Life, which currently covers all Singaporeans, has a deductible and co-insurance portion. In recent years, more Singaporeans are enhancing their coverage with Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) for additional private insurance. Riders are available to cover both the deductible and co-insurance portion.

Here comes a potential problem: are Singaporeans with better IP coverage more likely to spend substantially more and consume more healthcare than those who merely have basic MediShield coverage? Let me give Members two examples.

A resident in his 40s recently hurt his knee while playing soccer. He was sent for a magnetic resonance imaging scan at a reputable private hospital. The scan revealed a Grade 1 sprain of the anterior cruciate ligament. He was given two options by the doctor. One was to undergo physiotherapy. Two, he could go for a relatively quick minor keyhole surgery with a night's stay in an A-class ward. He went for the second option − surgery. The bill came up to $24,000. He paid nothing because he had an IP rider.

Another spoke of his father's cataract day surgery for one eye. He showed me the bill. The Ministry of Health (MOH) website shows that the 75th percentile bill size in private hospital for this surgery is between $4,000 and $9,000. His bill was $27,000. I verified with two other eye specialists and they commented that, from the bill, it looks like a standard cataract surgery. I am afraid some people might wonder if doctors are charging more because the insurance companies are footing the bill and not the patients. With IP riders and patients paying next to zero dollars, the patients are less likely to scrutinise their bills as thoroughly and this is not helpful.

I do not doubt that doctors are specialists in their field and do offer the best medical advice. My point here is not to question their competence. It is also not a bad thing if wider and more comprehensive health insurance means patients could have more treatment options. What worries me is that additional treatment options are sometimes made available to the patients not because they are essential but because the patients are now able to afford them, thanks to their insurance coverage. If this happens on a large scale, will this over-burden our healthcare system and infrastructure and increase costs? Over-consumption and increased medical cost will definitely lead to an increase in insurance premiums.

Another concern will be, will this result in a widening of disparity between private and public hospital bills? If so, this disparity might cause more people to shift to public hospitals, leading to overcrowding and longer waits. May I, therefore, suggest that the Government look into the following: one, have more checks in place to control healthcare cost inflation. I understand there is no straightforward and easy solution. Perhaps MOH and the Singapore Medical Council can study and regulate doctors' fees and hospital charges. Two, educate patients on healthcare options so that they can be more discerning in their choices. Three, improve hospital productivity. During last year's Budget Debate, I spoke about coordinated care. We should streamline some of this care from hospitals to primary care for more efficiency and effectiveness. Our family doctors can play a greater role in the long-term care of the patient.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope we spare no efforts in ensuring that our healthcare system remains truly affordable for Singaporeans, especially when our people are ageing rapidly. With that, I support the Budget.

Sir, I am grateful we have a Budget which is long-term and one which is not only about the economy but also our environment, our families, about building an inclusive society and about strengthening community bonds.

I have 27 specific recommendations for the Government and have filed 27 cuts, speaking about protecting the environment, curbing smoking and helping smokers quit, strengthening responsible financing, helping divorcees, single parents and their children, tackling animal cruelty and wildlife crime, improving our rehabilitation process for inmates, strengthening our humanitarian aid, helping domestic workers, helping neglected children, helping stay-at-home mothers, tackling oil spills, enhancing ElderShield, helping couples with difficulties conceiving, enhancing our ElderShield and helping our Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) which internationalise.

But the key in our Budget, our policies and all the recommendations we will be making in this House will be in the implementation. Execution is crucial. A crucial player in the implementation is our Public Service. This year, I will focus my speech on how we can strengthen our Public Service.

As fellow Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has mentioned, there is no doubt that we have an efficient and corrupt-free Public Service. My concern is that in the pursuit of efficiency, we have compromised a key value − compassion. In our pursuit to automate most things, we now have a system without a heart. Our aim seems to be to process each case as fast as possible and to follow the book as strictly as possible. Do not deviate, do not rock the boat and do not question.

Unfortunately, many people fall through the cracks when the system is so rigid, when we view things in black and white and where compassion is not exercised regularly enough. There are the famous four words "case-by-case basis" but, in reality and based on my experience on the ground, we have to fight with all our might to get that "case-by-case basis".

Not long ago, one of my residents died in very unfortunate circumstances. Her husband was remanded and she left behind two very young children. Her sister was thrown into the deep water, while grieving the loss of her only sister and, still single, she suddenly becoming a mother of two. She needed help, she needed some compassion. I spoke to HDB on her behalf urging them not to chase her for the mortgage, give her some time to grieve, compose herself for a very difficult next chapter of her life and, in any case, both owners of the flat are no longer there.

HDB agreed, but later still sent a letter demanding payment. She came to see me in tears, worried that HDB will repossess the flat. I asked HDB why did they do that. The answer was that they did not know the letter was sent as it was computer-generated. Not long after, she received a letter from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore demanding tax payment for her late sister.

I appreciate that, on paper, we are right to demand payment. But, on compassionate grounds, should we do so, as our fellow Singaporean is trying hard to get back on her feet? Can we not afford to show some compassion? And this is just one out of the many cases I have encountered.

Sir, we have spoken a lot about how we need to adapt to a changing environment, be creative and innovate. These are the exact things our Public Service needs to do as well. We need them to think out of the box. We have now developed a mindset where a solution, which has been used for years, becomes the right solution. We think that if we change, it means we have been wrong all these years and we do not like to be wrong.

I spoke about chickens in Parliament last week, and now I will speak about monkeys. Our response to monkey issues is as "knee jerk" as it can get. We receive a complaint, a trap is laid, a monkey is caught and killed, and we put a tick on the box that something has been done. And in a lot of the cases, that is "case closed".

I was there when an Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) contractor was poaching monkeys from a protected area away from where he was supposed to be trapping monkeys. He was eventually fined. But when a trapper returns to AVA with a monkey, how can we possibly verify that he trapped the correct monkey or even a monkey from the correct location? Does the trapping even help? Professors at our local universities and non-government organisations (NGOs) have all voiced our concerns and, based on science, have concluded that the culling of monkeys actually makes the situation worse.

I asked an officer on the ground why do we do this when science says it does not work. The reply is that "This is what we have always done. I do not think it works too, but my director told me to do it". There are other ways of managing this issue, we can choose to think out of the box, innovate and choose to address the root of the problem, rather than the symptoms of the problem.

Perhaps the easiest way to come up with new ideas is to listen to suggestions from others, engage the wider community, create partnerships. I have been to too many dialogue sessions where we talk so much rather than listen attentively, we defend our policies rather than listen to ideas on how we can make our policies better.

We still do sessions where we explain a decision rather than get feedback to make a decision. The cross-island line saga is perhaps the best example of how we should have engaged the wider community and how we should have done sessions to get feedback to make a decision, rather than make a decision and then call for a dialogue. Is this process more tedious? The answer, without a doubt, is yes. But will people feel more engaged, more empowered? The answer, without a doubt, is also yes.

Sir, it is not my intention to paint the Public Service in a bad light, but I have worked with many outstanding public servants in the last 16 years of my life as a civil society activist and the last year and a half as a Member of Parliament (MP). These are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore, but I see issues that we need to resolve urgently so that we can continue to have an efficient, committed, yet compassionate Public Service.

Moving forward, I have some suggestions to make. For a start, we need to cut some slack for our ground officers, our frontline staff members who will be the first to detect people who have fallen through the cracks, who can alert us. Many I have spoken to feel that when they bring such cases to their superiors, they are scolded for not following the books. We need to develop a culture where they are not penalised for being different and where they are giving some flexibility when processing cases.

I suggest that all Bills that we debate in this House are put on the feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) for extensive public consultation before the First Reading. I suggest that Members of this House are also provided with a report on the suggestions made by members of the public. We should list all suggestions provided, whether we agree with them or not. This is not new. An excellent example is the report done by the Early Childhood Development Agency published on 20 November 2015 with regard to the Public Consultation on Proposed Early Childhood Development Centres Regulatory Framework, the Bill that we debated just a few days ago.

I suggest that senior public servants attend Parliament and listen to the debates so that they have a better understanding of the concerns we are raising. Like football, nothing beats watching a "live" performance than reading a report.

I suggested this last year and I will suggest it again. We should release a draft Budget Statement so the public has a chance to make suggestions before we finalise the Budget. I listened to Senior Minister of State Indranee on the radio last week, and there were so many good suggestions on how we can improve the Budget. But, of course, they were made after the Budget has been cast in stone.

It is a wasted opportunity not to be able to implement some of the really good suggestions to improve Budget 2017. It is a wasted opportunity to just have a one-way conversation. I suggest public servants who draft policies actually go down to the ground and experience different jobs related to their policies. In the past year, I have experienced what it is like to be a healthcare worker, a driver, a Town Council cleaner, a coffee shop cleaner, a Police Officer, a kindergarten teacher, a cardboard collector, a customer relations officer, a full-time father and, in December, a humanitarian worker.

As I had shared on Facebook, it has been an enriching journey, to say the least. And through these experiences, I have learnt a lot, seen the struggles they face and witnessed first-hand the sacrifices they have made. And through these experiences, I have seen how we can make the lives of our workers better and where we need to make changes.

I urge public servants to also embark on this journey and see how their policies affect the people on the ground. I suggest we set up more committees like the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee and the Active Mobility Advisory Panel. Committees made up of people who are on the ground and who perhaps might even have more experience on the issues than our public servants. These are committees which give the public servants a chance to listen and work with the community, to come up with new policies and even legislation.

And as pointed out by Prof Tommy Koh last week, I quote, "When we appoint people to boards, we can also appoint challengers who are subversive and who have alternative points of view. That's the kind of cultural change we want to see. It makes Singapore stronger, not weaker".

My last suggestion is for public servants to work more closely with civil society activists. Engage them, do not be afraid of them, these are people who speak up because they care. These are people who put the welfare of others before theirs and we should embrace this spirit rather than fear it, we should support rather than penalise them. We should work together rather than go our separate journeys when the end destination might be the same. This fear of engaging them is very apparent when I speak to public servants. But I urge them to start the dialogue.

There is nothing to fear. I have been and continue to be a civil society activist. I do understand that I look too fierce sometimes. So, as the Prime Minister requested when he introduced me at the last General Elections, I am smiling a lot more now. In fact, I smile so much that it hurts, it really hurts.

Madam, I trust that the Public Service will continue to evolve, improve and always serve in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.

In the words of Martin Luther King Jr: "Everybody can be great. Because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve.... You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love."

Sir, I hope that every public servant has a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love. Sir, I support this Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am honoured to have this opportunity to share my views on the Budget Statement.

It is reassuring to know that we will have an overall surplus of $1.9 billion, even though we are running an expansionary Budget. Such prudence in our fiscal management has served us well and will ensure that we will have sufficient resources to tide us over future downturns.

The most notable feature of this Budget is the line-up of initiatives to transform our economy. These measures are expected, coming on the heels of the recommendations by CFE. I am heartened that we are taking bold and swift steps to prepare for the changes new technologies will bring. Much is at stake as our economy moves into a higher gear.

However, the impending 30% water price increase has dominated most of the discussions on the ground instead. Residents and businesses alike were taken by surprise − "why so much so suddenly" − and worried about the impact from such a big hike.

Fortunately, numerous clarifications since the announcement have helped to reduce public anxiety. The feedback I have received from many residents has been quite encouraging. They do accept that a 30% increase after 17 years is not unreasonable. They support our efforts to be self-sufficient in water. They are also aware of how expensive water processing technology and infrastructure can be.

What they did not like is that there were no prior public consultations about the increase. Such discussions would have provided the opportunity for the people to share ideas about water conservation and sources of funding for water infrastructure. While price increases are never welcomed, periodic increments with justifications shared in advance would be preferable to a sudden jump.

This incident highlights the importance of good public communication. We need a better approach for communication between the Government and the public.

How well we communicate new policies and measures will affect the level of support and cooperation we receive from the public, especially for those which affect our daily lives.

In recent years, our Ministries have held many public consultation exercises on a wide range of issues with success. Valuable inputs from stakeholders and the public help shape our policies and legislation. Such dialogues also build trust and goodwill, which the Government will need to draw upon for unpalatable but necessary policies in the future. A similar exercise for water would have been useful.

While the increase in water prices should not lead to drastic increases in the prices of our food, I still see the need to appeal for rental rebates for our hawkers and stallholders who will have to incur higher costs due to higher water bills and, later on, electricity price hikes from the carbon tax, on top of a rising trend in food prices. Their profit margins are low and any assistance will be very much appreciated. Rental rebates also mean that they will not have to pass on as much of the cost increases to their customers.

While the new model of having social enterprises like NTUC Foodfare manage our hawker centres has made some progress in keeping the prices of certain food affordable, this remains limited to some basic dishes in these hawker centres and I believe more can be done to reduce overhead costs for the hawkers through some form of rental rebates.

Next, I would like to speak on behalf of a group close to my heart − the elderly. As we set about restructuring our economy, we must bear in mind that whatever changes we make, we must continue to make an effort to consider the impact on our senior citizens and ensure that they are accommodated in our plans.

Coming back to the topic of better communication between the Government and the people, seniors used to joke that the answers to their queries at Government departments always start with "www" − the website addresses which the staff shared helpfully, or so they thought. We have learnt since then that we need to reach out to our elderly through more interactive ways. Making adjustments to accommodate our seniors is a signature of a caring society.

Another example of an area where improvements can be made to be more elderly friendly would be our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. Last week, I witnessed a horrific incident when a senior, who had difficulty walking, was going through the door of a train car. It closed on her hands while she was holding onto her trolley. Her trolley was out on the platform while her hands were stuck in between the doors inside the train. Luckily, the doors opened and she rushed out, very pale and very frightened.

Would it be possible for our MRT doors to stay open for a little longer during off-peak periods at stations where there are more seniors, for example, at Outram station which serves the Singapore General Hospital? How about designating a train car for the elderly, disabled and commuters with children in prams? Able-bodied passengers will be allowed to use it but priority will be reserved for the less ambulant. The train car should be the one nearest to the platform lift when it stops and have seats in a loud and contrasting colour, for example, ang pow red, to signal its function. This car will be an additional service to our current priority seats. If possible, a staff can be stationed on the platform nearest to this car so that he or she can provide assistance. This staff can also provide instructions to other passengers when necessary and help enforce order and security on the platform.

In addition, we should try to build flexible, adaptable structures which can accommodate the elderly since this is a rapidly growing group. For example, we build childcare centres to cater to children but, with shrinking family sizes and an ageing population, the childcare centres located in the older maturing estates which may experience falling enrolment in the future should be convertible into eldercare centres. This way, the Government will not have to look for a new space, nor incur heavy building expenses. Hence, when building new childcare centres, the Government should also consider that the design can accommodate changes to eldercare centres in the longer term.

The speed at which we are developing today can be intimidating for our elderly, particularly older women who are considering rejoining the workforce. I would like to request for additional course subsidies for them, on top of the SkillsFuture Credit, because many of them do not have much savings and would hesitate to ask for money from their husbands or children to attend classes. This is typical behaviour for many homemakers who are used to putting the needs and wants of their family members above their own. Since they have already embraced personal responsibility in picking up new skills, let us help them by lowering the barriers to learning as much as possible.

I am now on a personal quest to persuade more of the elderly in my constituency to pick up courses. Not all of them see the need to. It is not easy to convince some of them that learning is good for their mental and emotional health and would enhance their quality of life. How do we motivate them and get them excited about trying out new things? I hope the Government will conduct a study into the psyche of our local elderly to find what motivates them so that we can use the information to formulate attractive ways to run our courses.

It would also be helpful if the Government can support the recruitment of retirees for the care sector with subsidised training and training allowances. In the process, they may find their calling in certain areas of the care sector and want to develop further in these areas, carving out a new career in the process. These personnel will help to fill up the manpower shortage in the sector.

Finally, I would like to conclude with a proposal to engage private-hire car services, such as Grab and Uber, in community service for the elderly. Both companies have been viewed as disruptors in their sector. It would be good if they would consider giving back to the community through volunteer services, such as driving vulnerable seniors to and back from hospitals or dialysis centres. This is already done by taxi companies, such as ComfortDelgro, that have programmes in place to provide ferrying services for the elderly and the disabled. Grab and Uber should likewise consider doing so, and the Agency for Integrated Care can work with these car hiring companies to make good use of their spare capacities, instead of relying solely on ambulances. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand to speak in support of the Budget Statement raised by the Minister for Finance, Mr Heng Swee Keat.

The Finance Minister struck a chord with me when he said, "We need to foster partnerships in the wider society so we can maintain a good balance between state action and community initiative". He also said that, "It is critical that we take decisive action to reposition ourselves for the future. Budget 2017 will outline measures for our economy and our society."

Today, I would like to base the rest of my speech on the above points concerning our society. I was most heartened when the Finance Minister said that: "We are building an inclusive and caring society − one where Singaporeans of all backgrounds can improve their lives, where the vulnerable are uplifted, and where people of all ages can look to the future with optimism."

I want to suggest the following action to reposition Singapore for better care of our ageing population. The title of my speech is "SAFEcare" which stands for Smart Ageing and Future Enabling care, through technology and preventive medicine.

As the Finance Minister said: "Our needs are growing. Our population is ageing, families are smaller and our social needs are more complex." There is thus an urgent need to consider an innovative way, with the help of technology, for preventive healthcare to keep disability away for as long as possible. This will ensure seniors improve their lives with graceful living, especially at the later stages, when their needs are at a peak.

The Finance Minister said that over the last five years, our annual healthcare spending has more than doubled to around $10 billion in financial year 2016. He also said that the healthcare spending will continue to rise as our population ages. Elderly healthcare costs here are projected to rise 10 times over the next 15 years to more than $66 billion annually. This means an average of $45,000 will be spent on healthcare for each senior by 2030. This is according to a report by Marsh and McLennan. This estimate also assumes that there will be continued ready access to cheap foreign labour, which may not be the case in the future. So, going forward, how do we care for our seniors better and at the same time reduce this steep cost curve? Let me suggest the following ways.

The concept I am suggesting is based on the tenet of prevention is better than cure. In this instance, it means it is better to prevent mobility difficulty and maintain independence, rather than treating the disability. For example, it is better to prevent fall and getting fractures, or having uncontrolled hypertension and getting strokes, rather than curing the fractures and strokes to gain back independence. The purpose is to facilitate independent living for the seniors, till ripe old age, in their usual dwelling places, without having to be admitted to nursing homes, community or acute hospitals. Presently, this is the only option available for many, although not all of them require the intensive nursing care. This is a pity, as it is not making wise use of our limited resources, which are increasingly expensive. Many older adults express the desire to age-in-place for as long as possible. Thus, the aim is to enable seniors to age gracefully in their own homes despite their frailty or medical conditions by preventing disability and to better manage disability.

How do we prevent disability among our seniors? The most common causes of disability among older adults are chronic diseases, injuries, mental impairment and visual impairment. Physical activities and keeping active can make our seniors stronger and lower their chances of falling, reducing fractures and injuries that result in disability. It is never too late to exercise even for seniors. The good control of chronic diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes, can prevent disability, such as stroke, and regular eye check-ups for seniors can diagnose cataracts and other visual impairments for early treatment. Facilitating social wellness to seniors helps prevent mental illness, such as depression, that can cause disability. All the above should be practised as early as possible before disability sets in.

The use of medical technology is the way forward. It can improve the quality of living. Technology-assisted centralised-control health monitoring can be deployed to check on the well-being of seniors. These monitors can screen many seniors for hypertension, pulse rate or heart rate, temperature and so on from seniors wearing medical technology wristbands. Monitoring devices using advanced sound event technology and long-range passive infrared motion sensors to detect abnormal sounds and motions inside the house are useful for detecting falls at home. Remote monitoring systems allow the care required by seniors to be significantly reduced, alerting caregivers to intervene early when necessary. The ideal scenario is to have one central monitor overseeing hundreds if not thousands of residents. The main aim is to have good preventive medicine in detecting emergency health conditions and preventing disability. Information technology can ensure a realtime flow of data between care recipients and providers and make administration, record keeping and reporting of data more efficient.

More collaborative partnerships with Institutes of Higher Learning can be forged to develop new technology, while researching and developing cost-effective systems that promote age-friendly living environment in homes.

In embracing technology, over time, it will be increasingly beneficial and affordable, when more advanced technology is launched with more competition in the market.

A living environment that embraces accessible design and fosters independent living can make a difference in terms of a good quality of life for seniors. The suggestion is to help seniors overcome their intrinsic disability through either the removal of environmental barriers or the provision of environmental modifications. The environmental hazards at home are situated about 60% in the bathrooms and 40% in the other rooms. Common hazards are the absence of grab bars in the bathrooms, dim lighting, slippery tiles, and absence of kitchen work surface at a height suitable for sitting and so on. The use of smart technology is useful for a safe kitchen that will help seniors to function with automatic turn-off for stoves and other electrical appliances. Thus, modifications and adaptations of the home environment or elderly-smart home for those with disability, according to the individual's need, will improve functional ability-related outcomes.

Environmental modifications are particularly important for those living alone. Today, those living alone with no family members to depend on are the ones who usually require nursing homes when they face disability. In 2012, about 7% of seniors older than 65, or 35,000 seniors, live alone. This will go up to about 90,000 by 2030. Living alone per se may not be such a bad thing. According to one study, of the seniors aged 85 and older who were found to be in excellent health, one in five or 20% lived by themselves.

What is the best avenue to practise "SAFEcare" through smart technology and preventive medicine? The main aim is to enable seniors to continue living on their own with graduated daily living assistance according to their frailty and keeping residents independent for as long as possible with the prevention of long-term disability by preventing the causes as mentioned earlier.

In these instances, the daily service delivery accessibility is important, as this will provide better management of service delivery and resources, such as helpers, nurses and doctors.

For this, accessibility to as many seniors as possible will be ideal. Cluster housing concept where many seniors live in the same block of flats is one example. Seniors live on their own in 1- or 2-room flats in such clusters. This will be better for planning and prompt delivery of services. This will also facilitate companionship for residents with their neighbours.

A team of several helpers will be able to provide daily living assistance, where necessary, such as food delivery, cleaning of the homes or bathing for the very frail seniors. Some may only need such daily assistance during short-term illnesses.

Nurses can assist in monitoring the well-being of the residents in such blocks of flats. The nurses can help to monitor the seniors' medical conditions and to refer them for early treatment when necessary before disability sets in. These conditions may include uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes.

We can build new HDB flats with the above concept or we can also modify and convert more HDB rental homes or the present 14 senior group homes, or some of the studio apartments with the above concept as and when the need increases. Instead of using the whole high-rise blocks, using the lower half of the blocks will suffice for ease of service delivery. The upper floors of flats can still be used for younger families and so on. The ground floors of such flats should cater for community services, for example, senior activity centres to enable those well seniors to come down daily for physical, social and mental wellness to prevent disability and to monitor their chronic diseases. This venue also serves as a coordinating centre, enabling concept partners like the grassroots organisations, voluntary welfare organisations and various corporations to volunteer their services. This is the concept of the many-helping-hands approach in the community. It is especially useful for disadvantaged seniors. Since we are starting the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkle Care centres to cater to the more dependent seniors, it will be good to plan such concept homes hand in hand with Sparkle Care in the same vicinity.

Presently, about 5% of seniors live in some form of residential aged care facility and this will translate to about 50,000 of seniors requiring assisted living by 2030. Despite a 30% increase in capacity since 2010, Singapore still had fewer nursing home beds per 1,000 people aged 65 and above in 2015. Besides focusing on building more nursing homes, perhaps MOH will consider my above proposal of smart cluster homes through technology and preventive medicine as a cost-effective alternative but, more importantly, to enable our seniors to remain in their own homes and to have better living.

Singapore's old age support ratio has been dropping from 7.4 in 2010 to 5.4 in 2016 and is expected to drop to 2.3 by 2030. How do we cushion the dependence cost curve impact? It is through preventive medicine to keep our seniors as healthy for as long as possible, and the use of technology to mitigate the manpower needs to enable independent living as I mentioned earlier.

The Finance Minister provided Enabling Masterplan 3 to support persons with disabilities and their caregivers in this Budget. In view of the urgency of our ageing population, will the Finance Minister provide another Enabling Masterplan to provide for seniors with disability next? I hope the Finance Minister would consider my "SAFEcare" or Smart Ageing and Future Enabling care favourably and to improve the lives of our seniors and helping them to age gracefully.

Mr Deputy Speaker, good evening and good evening to all Members of the House. First, let me deliver my speech in English and later in Malay.

First, let me express my appreciation to the Finance Minister for the delivery of Budget 2017. It is a Budget that I consider as targeted at ensuring continued employment and employability for our citizens by helping to keep our SMEs afloat and sustainable in this choppy and uncertain economic trend and yet, preparing the nation for the long-term challenges as recommended by CFE.

While I applaud the various measures and "goodies" that have been suggested, I would also like to highlight the worrying trend on the rate of job redundancies that has occurred in 2016. If my facts are right, there were several layoffs late last year which account to more than 10,000 jobs being lost. While this can be considered as small in percentage, it also means that the same number would have lost their income stream, which also means that the same number of families is now being impacted.

What would this mean if we are to relate it socially? What does it mean to those families who have school-going children? How will this impact us in the next 10 years, or will this, at all, have any impact? The biggest question is: what does it mean when someone loses a job today and, 10 years later, what will that be?

Before I proceed further, please allow me to share and relate the experiences which I gained whilst I was serving as a Board Member of the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) on many of the community activities there.

Many social issues which the Malay/Muslim community faced then and now, can be traced back to dysfunctional families as one of the several main root causes. Be it issues related to drugs, underperformance in academic studies, juvenile delinquency or even teenage pregnancy, and many more, one of the main root causes will often, more than not, stem from dysfunctional families.

A study made by AMP then showed a strong correlation between dysfunctional families and the financial instability of the family. The more unstable the financial position of the family is, the higher the correlation to dysfunctional family will be.

The difficult part with regard to this phenomenon is time. The whole process leading to the social problems is usually a long one. It is not immediate. When a family becomes financially unstable which can lead to social problems may take many years. The impact can only be seen much later in time. When this process starts and ends with a social problem, then a new vicious social problem cycle exists and even starts, unless we intervene. Simply said, a family with a sound and stable financial position will have a better chance to be not dysfunctional, hence will also mean a higher chance to stay out of the social problems, hence lower social issues. As such, being employed and staying employed are the best assurances to keep our social problems at bay. I guess you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

Thus, in our quest to eradicate, if not, minimise problems, it is best to ensure high employment as much as possible. And I am sure this sentiment is also strongly shared by Minister Lim Swee Say, I believe. The less social problem we have, the healthier we are as a nation. In my view, the worrying downward trend of the economy is expected not to get any better in 2017 and 2018. If this trend prevails, more job layoffs and retrenchments may occur, especially affecting the professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).

Of particular concern are the middle- and low-income segments, which the Malay/Muslim community is a big part of. While I appreciate the slew of schemes and programmes that MOF and MOM have taken and embarked on, this may not be sufficient to circumvent the problems that it may entail.

In fact, anecdotally, it is said that there are not many Malay/Muslim clients who have come forward to MOM, after being retrenched, to seek help in finding new jobs, or even for advice to take up the various schemes and programmes that MOM has to offer. It could be due to many factors which led to this phenomenon.

Understandably, this is logical as it is quite normal that a person's self-esteem is negatively affected after such an experience, which may make him to react as such. However, I believe that the affected worker may be open to engagement to his or her own community organisation like AMP, Majlis Pendidikan Anak-Anak Islam (MENDAKI), Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS) or Jamiyah. I guess they may be more comfortable to relate and be advised on the available options which MOM has to offer.

Hence, I would like to suggest the following idea. Can some of the work done by MOM in engaging the outplaced individuals be "outsourced" and handled and managed by some of the credible Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs) or even self-help groups (SHGs)? The chosen or appointed MMOs can play an important role in trying to ensure that the affected workers can be counselled and engaged so as to try to have them back in the workforce. This work must be done in conjunction with MOM.

As such, MOM will have a kind of mini-MOM at the various VWOs and SHGs. In doing so, we can expect a better outreach to the affected workers or PMETs, with the objective of placing them back in the workforce as soon as possible. This is with the belief that we should thwart future potential social problems by ensuring that our affected workers are unperturbed by the disruption in their job, leading to a stable financial position. Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall deliver the following speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Good evening. Firstly, I would like to thank Minister Heng Swee Keat for Budget 2017 which he presented earlier. It is a noteworthy Budget that aims to ensure job security for Singaporeans by proposing measures to assist the smaller firms (SMEs) and preparing our country for challenges in the long term, in line with the recommendations by CFE.

However, I would like to express my concern on the uncertain and worrying economic outlook in the coming years in 2017 and 2018. If this situation persists, I am certain that retrenchments will still occur, similar to what we have witnessed in 2016.

It is very important to look at the impact on families when a person had the misfortune of losing his job. It is very likely that this will affect the family's finances and stability and, hence, will result in a situation that is both significant and worrying.

The bigger impact is the likelihood that this will result in social problems, for instance, dysfunctional families, drugs, youth issues, children borne out of wedlock and so on. This phenomenon was observed in a short research conducted by AMP in 2015.

This process will take place over a relatively long period of time. Hence, the impact of job loss is very serious and can haunt us in the long run.

In order to eradicate the possible social problems that may arise, it is imperative for us to ensure that every individual who lost their jobs is helped and be able to rejoin the workforce as soon as possible. This will ensure that their financial situation will remain stable. We can, therefore, avoid the undesirable social problems that may appear in the future.

Although MOM provides various schemes and programmes, it was found that not many affected Malay/Muslim individuals sought MOM's help as compared to the other races.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that action should not be undertaken by MOM solely and, in fact, we should also mobilise the efforts of major Malay/Muslim bodies like AMP, MENDAKI, PPIS and Jamiyah. These Malay/Muslim bodies can play a role as agents of MOM and help those who are affected.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the involvement of the self-help groups or VWOs and MMOs is a very important step in dealing with our social problems. Their involvement with MOM, in order to facilitate as an agent for MOM, to engage individuals who have lost their jobs and get back into the workforce is so important, in my opinion, which will help the country to avoid long-term social issues. I hope the Finance Ministry can look into this and provide the necessary financial help and funds to the self-help groups in order to be able to make this a success. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support Budget 2017.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2017. First of all, I would like to say that I am very happy to see Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat back in the Chamber delivering his Budget Speech. The past year must have been difficult for him and his family and I wish him good health for many years ahead.

Sir, last year, our economy grew by 1.8%, which is above an earlier forecast of 1% to 1.5%. However, we have to accept that as a developed economy with labour force constraints, our target long-term growth of between 2% and 3% will be slower than what we have experienced in the past. Against a backdrop of slower growth and thus flat Government revenue, our spending on infrastructure, health and social support has increased and will continue to increase significantly, especially as the Baby Boomer generation is reaching their 60s and 70s.

Minister Heng mentioned that additional investment in our public transport infrastructure is expected to cost the Government more than $20 billion over the next five years. Our annual healthcare spending has more than doubled over the past five years to around $10 billion a year.

Over the past few years, we have also introduced and strengthened various social support schemes, all of which are necessary and welcomed by residents. For instance, the Silver Support Scheme, which gives up to $750 every three months to the elderly, has really helped reduce hardship for some of our most vulnerable elderly staying in 1- to 2-room flats.

The truth is that our overall expenditures will continue to grow with an ageing population and we have to prepare for it. As a responsible and prudent Government, we must maintain a balanced Budget and ensure that the Government's revenue can match the increasing social and health spending as our population ages.

As Minister Heng mentioned in his speech, we may have to raise revenues through new taxes or raise tax rates in future to meet the rising domestic expenditure needs.

On this front, I would like to talk about our stamp duties related to residential properties, which I believe there is room for us to be more progressive.

Buyers of residential properties are required to pay Buyer's Stamp Duty. There is also Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD), which was introduced in December 2011 and revised upwards in January 2013 to cool the residential market.

Sir, I have two suggestions for consideration. First, I would like to suggest replacing ABSD with a tiered Buyer's Stamp Duty. I understand that the objective of ABSD is to moderate demand for residential properties and to promote a stable and sustainable property market. Private residential prices in Singapore have slipped for 13th straight quarters and have fallen by 3% last year.

Because the ABSD scheme is seen as a cooling measure, it is viewed as a temporary measure which will be removed when the market has indeed softened. But we always run the risk that the property market may spike up when ABSD is removed.

Sir, to solve this conundrum, my suggestion is to remove ABSD for Singapore Citizens and add an additional tier to the Buyer's Stamp Duty. ABSD for non-citizens should remain but be adjusted to take into account the revised tiering of Buyer's Stamp Duty.

Allow me to explain. As it stands, the rates for Buyer's Stamp Duty are computed on the purchase price or market value of the property, whichever is higher. The Buyer's Stamp Duty rate for the first $180,000 is 1%, followed by 2% for the next $180,000. Stamp duty payable for amounts above $360,000 is 3%.

I would like to suggest adding an additional tier of 10% for transaction values above $1 million. With the higher threshold of $1 million, I believe this will not significantly affect most middle-income families and HDB upgraders. This would also be similar to having ABSD of 7% on top of the current Buyer's Stamp Duty of 3%. This change would also be seen as a permanent change to the stamp duty structure rather than the current ABSD scheme which is seen as a temporary scheme.

Sir, my second suggestion is for the Government to review its concept of ownership of residential properties which currently only applies to the registered owner but not the beneficial owner.

Currently, if a residential property is held under a special purpose vehicle (SPV), and if the SPV is transferred from seller to buyer, normal residential stamp duty is not payable. This is because the registered owner of the residential property still remains as the SPV and does not change. I think this is an anomaly which needs to be addressed since, for all intents and purposes, the beneficial interest of the property has changed hands.

In this type of situation, not only does the buyer of the SPV avoid paying Buyer's Stamp Duty and Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty, he also avoids paying Seller's Stamp Duty, which would have been payable if the new buyer then flips out the underlying residential properties within the four-year period.

Most of the time, transactions of such nature are carried out by property developers and property investment companies, and this change is unlikely to affect individual buyers and sellers of residential properties.

Moreover, the nature of such stamp duties is that they are discretionary in nature, as buyers and sellers already know the stamp duties payable beforehand and would have a choice of whether to enter into the property transaction.

I hope that with these additional revenue sources, we will not need to increase other taxes which may impact low- to middle-income families.

Sir, in conclusion, the initiatives for Budget 2017 are balanced and forward-looking, but we need to see how we can meet the fiscal challenges ahead while minimising the tax burden on the man in the street. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.