Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to join the debate on this year's Budget.

The Labour Movement, representing working people of all collars and ages, looks at this Budget with keen interest. We strongly believe that if we as a country and as tripartite partners set our sights high, put our shoulders to the wheel, persist through difficulties and setbacks with courage and not lose heart, we will get lead our people to a better future. That said, we must indeed expect significant difficulties in the economic and job transformation journey.

Over the decades, the economy, job types and workforce structure of Singapore have all become more diverse. Consequently, the needs, hopes, fears and prospects of the working people in Singapore have become more segmented as well. The traditional blue-collar and white-collar workers are increasingly joined by highly skilled professionals on one hand, and workers of the gig economy on the other. The typical workforce comprise workers across widening age bands and multiple nationalities. The lines between these different groups have become more porous, sometimes due to choice and at other times, owing to circumstances such as restructuring. This renders social mobility more fluid in both directions.

Both the corporate sector and Singaporeans at large tended to read and rely on the choices and signals by Government to guide their education and career decisions. This is fine when things are stable and predictable. In an environment that is more likely uncertain and fast-changing, how should companies and workers sensibly decide on their steps and paths?

My fellow Labour Members will elaborate on the various segments of the working population that they are championing. For me, my speech today will focus on the economic transformation aspects of the Budget and on the impact on mature workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, when the Committee for the Future Economy (CFE) was set up last year, some people took the view that it was for the Committee to produce magic bullets that would take away the stress of transformation and yet produce a quantum leap in business outcomes and living standards.

Thus, when the CFE issued its report earlier this month, we hear comments that the strategies sounded somewhat generic, and that there were no clear magic bullets. They then pinned their hopes on the Budget.

When the Budget was announced last week, we again hear people saying that they wished for more painkillers for the immediate strain and that the path toward transformation is still not set out clearly enough. I believe this reaction reflects a mismatch of expectations, mindset and capability.

Last Friday, I attended the third annual Projects of the Year Awards presented by the Singapore Chapter of the Project Management Institute (SPMI), a body whose membership comprise project management professionals.

The leadership of the SPMI shared with me developments in their profession. They told me that if one goes back in time, project managers are deemed good if they are able to execute to a given plan, within time and budget. For that, they would be deemed to be good. But that is no longer the case.

Clients today look for much more from project managers. They expect such managers to not only execute well, within time and budget, but also be able to add value and create value up and downstream from their traditional work − in areas of coordination, integration and unleashing synergy.

Those who can do so have developed capabilities and connections both broadly and deeply, which they then leverage to good effect. They are valuable to clients and are in strong demand. On the other hand, those who can still only execute conscientiously to a plan given to them will see their relative value decline, and the need for their services progressively supplanted by re-design and technology.

This account mirrors that heard in many other forums, across different professions and industries. What does this tell us?

To me, this means that life will no longer get better just by executing someone's plan conscientiously. That was value, but that was past value. The bar has already been raised.

Going forward, we must focus on leadership that can skillfully and effectively work the white space between boxes marked "Funding", "Schemes", "Regulations", "New Technology" and the such, bring them together in order to develop the critical partnership capabilities and reflexes needed to produce innovative and valuable new platforms, products and services.

If we understand this, then we will also understand that much needs to be done to move us from a traditional "execute to a given plan" mindset to a leadership mindset. In other words, it is akin to moving from being a chess piece to being a chess player, and a strong one.

Therefore, even as I support and commend this year's Budget for adding another $2.4 billion in CFE-related funding over the coming four years on top of the $4.5 billion that was already set aside in last year's Budget for the Industry Transformation Programme (ITP), I want to emphasise the importance of implementing the Industrial Transformation Maps and in building leadership and partnership reflexes and capability in the Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs), and the Tripartite Partners.

This is because ITMs, whatever their details, will begin to be outdated the moment they are defined. Therefore, we must not delude ourselves into believing that submitting or approving a ITM, or even in implementing fully an approved ITM, would suffice. Indeed, we must see ITMs as Dynamic ITMs, ever changing, never ending, always adjusting, because the underlying forces are such.

In a sense, we have to complement once-in-seven or 10-year Economic Committees such as the ERC or the CFE with a decentralised yet capably led, continuously adaptive, responsive, innovative partnership structure that is alive and that goes on all the time, with all the partners that I have mentioned drawing upon all the resources there are. The point I want to emphasise is, many Members have spoken about the different schemes, whether or not there is a plethora of them, whether or not any particular one is sufficient or not. These are the boxes. But I think it is really in how you draw all these boxes together, whether as an individual, as a firm, across clusters, in partnership. That is the one that will create that value.

Thus, "Building Agility through Capabilities and Partnerships" as highlighted in the Budget Speech, especially through strengthening sectoral tripartism, would be critical. In this regard, the scope of the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative should not only build skills for operating internationally, but also build "white space leadership and partnership capabilities", which I deem to be equally important.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I move now to the topic of mature workers.

Even though mature workers welcome the raising of the re-employment age ceiling from 65 to 67 that will happen from July this year, many are worried about their Job Security. They see that in industries where demand has dropped significantly, companies had begun to shed workers, both foreign and local. They therefore worry if they would be axed next, and whether they would be unfairly targeted for termination or retrenchment on account of their age or because they are deemed to be more costly.

In this regard, the Labour Movement and tripartite partners are monitoring the situation closely. The tripartite partners have long agreed that mature workers, including re-employed workers, are not to be targeted for discriminatory retrenchment or termination. Companies tackling excess manpower are to abide by the relevant Tripartite Guidelines, which emphasised that such action should be based on how workers demonstrate capability and value on the job, rather than on age, gender or other arbitrary non-work criteria.

On the Government's part, the extension of the Special Employment Credit and the Additional Special Employment Credit, being wage subsidies to companies to lower the cost of employing mature workers, will help address cost differentials between older and younger workers in the same jobs, and in this period, particularly pertinent.

As stated by the Finance Minister in his Budget speech, "To help firms with rising wages, more than $600 million will be paid out in March 2017 under the on-going Wage Credit Scheme, while more than $300 million will be paid out in FY2017 to benefit 370,000 workers under the Special Employment Credit (SEC).

The Additional SEC will also be extended till 31 December to provide wage offsets of up to 3% to help older workers stay employed. The extension will benefit about 120,000 workers and 55,000 employers, at a cost of about $160 million.

Taken together with the SEC, employers will receive support of up to 11% for the wages of their eligible older workers",

This wage subsidy for mature workers in a slower economy helps boost their cost-competitiveness, and the Labour Movement is grateful to Government for that.

Older workers who feel that they have been unfairly targeted for retrenchment or job termination can seek help from the unions, TAFEP or the MOM.

Every effort will be made by the tripartite partners to help displaced workers of all ages find new jobs, whether in the current line of work or, through conversion, to other lines of work. We must not under-estimate the ability and will of mature workers to adapt and grow. Many have shown by example their resilience, and have demonstrated reliability and openness to learning new skills. Those who adopted a flexible attitude helped themselves seize opportunities faster.

Government has also introduced or enhanced initiatives that help displaced mature workers get back into work more quickly. These included improvements to the Adapt and Grow Programme and related schemes such as the Career Support Programme, the Professional Conversion Programme, the Work Trial Programme and the Attach and Train Programme.

I draw attention especially to two elements in these programmes which are very important. The first is developing a keener sense of where the jobs are today and where they will be in the future. The second is the wage and training support within these programmes.

These are critical ingredients especially when helping middle age workers transit and adapt to structural shifts in the economy. While displaced mature workers want to get back into work quickly, they also have many commitments to meet. In such a situation, many risk becoming structurally unemployed or underemployed, if they hold out for too long or if they do not get the offers. The help with adaption and job matching must seek to minimise such risks.

On the Labour Movement's part, the NTUC has set up a unit called the Future Jobs, Skills & Training (FJST) Unit to integrate and maximise our efforts, as well as to complement those of our tripartite partners. As an example, we believe that as the mature workforce will be a growing part of the local working population, it is important for ITMs to include plans to fully utilise and continual sharpen this resource − and to do so within the ITMs as part of strategy, rather than as an accommodation or afterthought.

At the same time, companies must be reminded that should they lose experienced manpower because of lowered demand, they will find it harder to recruit such manpower quickly when the demand returns. They will then constrain their own prospects for growth. So, please do not under-estimate the value of an experienced worker.

This is also a time and opportunity for the HR profession to step up and help companies maximise the contribution of their human capital, beyond just making tactical moves. In this regard, I urge the HR profession to pro-actively and seriously support and adopt the recommendations of the HR Sectoral Tripartite Committee and initiatives under the MOM's Human Capital Programme (HCP).

Mr Deputy Speaker, the future is full of danger and uncertainty. That same future is also full of opportunity, promise and prospects. The paths we choose and the actions we take, individually and jointly, will decide our chances of success. We must not drop the ball. I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to start my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, during the earlier debate, Mr Dennis Tan could have given the impression that with the increase in water tariffs, the additional U-save rebates could only help the minority of Singaporeans, while middle income Singaporeans, in particular, might not receive much help from the U-save rebates. In reality, however, the U-save rebates will indeed help to buffer the impact of higher water tariffs for most Singaporeans.

How is this so? According to PUB's analysis, Singaporeans living in one- to two-room HDB flat will not see any increase in their water bill after factoring the U-save rebates, while Singaporeans living in 4-room HDB flats will only see a small increase of $5 per month. For 75% of shop owners, they will only see an increase of $25 in their monthly water bill after tariffs go up. Companies can also tap into the Water Efficiency Fund to install water-saving devices to mitigate over the longer run price increases.

I hope the above explanation can clarify our understanding about U-Save rebates.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in English. This year's Budget seeks to position Singapore to be "future-ready" to meet the challenges of a future filled with uncertainties and opportunities. Together with the Committee on the Future Economy report, it identifies how Singapore and Singaporeans can navigate the seismic economic and technological shifts. Being nimble and adaptable to change are the names of the new game.

Everyone knows that this change is inevitable. But the breakneck pace of change is almost unforeseen for many. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is well under way. The race for artificial intelligence had actually started quite a few years ago. The speed of innovation brings the "future" much closer. Our workers and companies need to be future-ready. In fact, for some of them, they actually need to be "now-ready". How do we gear them up for this so that they can seize the opportunities of tomorrow today? Whether we succeed in this economic transformation or not, we cast our lot with our millennials and Generation Z. They are at the threshold of opportunities unseen in a century. Yet, the job search has also become more trying. And, in itself, that causes them worry.

There are three major challenges confronting them. Firstly, it is less about what to study and what skills to master, but more of what would keep them relevant. In essence, what to invest their time in. Secondly, it is not so much about having no job but which job would allow them to build up their careers and life journey. In short, how do they go about navigating the shifting turbulence of the new job market? Thirdly, businesses are placing greater importance on work experience, on top of academic qualifications. The latter is what new graduates and first career Singaporeans would not have.

I believe that there are three ways to tackle these challenges. I believe that helping younger Singaporeans and workers is no longer about a massively sophisticated blueprint. The speed of change certainly defeats the best intents of such blueprints. It should be a system where young workers help one another to navigate in this new economy. So, how would this work?

Allow me to share the story of 23-year-old Yam Su Xian who was looking for a job, and 38-year-old Zuhaina Ahmad who heads business support in her company. Su Xian was a Business Management major who was finding it difficult to land her first job. She sent out many job applications but could not find any positive responses. Zuhaina was a pioneer career guide in Young NTUC's Youth Career Network (YCN) programme. She volunteered to pay-it-forward to help others who might have struggled as she did in her earlier years.

Through the YCN engagement sessions, Su Xian better understood the different jobs that would suit her skills and personality. Zuhaina then helped Su Xian to build and enhance her resume. They worked together to create a LinkedIn profile to boost her visibility to prospective employers. Every day, she suggested to Su Xian on how to expand her network to enhance her job opportunities. They worked together on boosting Su Xian's self-confidence. Su Xian eventually found a position as an accounts officer. She recounted, after getting a job, "I was alone by myself with friends on different paths. Some of them had already found jobs, some were holidaying and others were still studying. I was on my own until I found out about career mentoring with the Youth Career Network."

YCN empowers youths to take up ownership in charting their own career journey. With no fees and not limited to any Institute of Higher Learning, the YCN is accessible to all. We can see from Su Xian's story that we saw neither blueprint nor career counsellors. The programme worked because Zuhaina wanted to pay-it-forward and Su Xian found help that was current, personal and approachable.

We can and should invest in such mutual help platforms to unleash the collective strength and potential of Singaporeans. The system is almost future-proof because there will always be people like Zuhaina and Su Xian who are leaders in their own industries keen to help, and young people who need them. A networked system of mentors like Zuhaina could potentially serve more students and Singaporeans than physical career centres would ever do. If we can expand this programme, it would be more than building mentoring networks but also about the strengthening of community bonds amongst Singaporeans. In doing so, we can continue to leverage on the extensive network of the Labour Movement. Then, it can truly be the Singapore Career Network.

Now, let me move on to the National Jobs Bank and the National Talent Bank. The National Jobs Bank has helped many Singaporeans to find work. It puts in one convenient location, the job vacancies available in Singapore. It also allows for the analysis of jobs and skills trends. Going forward, we would need a National Talent Bank where jobseekers and would-be jobseekers can access conveniently, to be headhunted for jobs. This system should also include networking features like those on LinkedIn and Facebook. The National Talent Bank also allows us to analyse the deficit between national skills, competencies and what is required in our economy. As we go global, international companies should now know where a good place is to reach out for Singaporean talent. The current job sites are specific industry-focused and tend to be used mostly by professionals. Hence, I encourage the Government to work with private sector companies, such as LinkedIn and Monster.com, for example, to develop such solutions on a national level.

Next, I would like to turn our attention to the "gig economy" as the third leg of the proposals. The recent Graduate Employment Survey (GES) showed a growing emergence of a "gig economy". These part-time and freelance jobs will increasingly become more prevalent as both employer and employee can react to economic changes better. This "gig economy" can be an important feature in managing structural changes in the economy. It also helps in continuous learning and being entrepreneurial. However, it cannot develop without stronger workplace protection and retirement support. We need a robust network to protect freelancers and the employers hiring them, giving them a sustaining ecosystem to grow. With the three proposals above, I believe that we can better help our younger Singaporeans navigate in these times of rapid technological and economic changes.

I would like to shift our attention now to empowering our women to get back to work. I applaud the Government for announcing the Attach and Train Programme. I think that it can be a real boost for back-to-work women.

A recent small-scale online poll by NTUC U Family done on stay-at-home women who plan to get back to work revealed that out of 564 female respondents, 94% are between the age of 25 and 54 years old which is in the prime working age. Of those in this age group, a significant majority (73%) are Diploma and Degree holders. More than 60% of them intend to work within the year, while others (20% or more) wish to do so within the next one to two years. Most of them would like to start immediately if there is a trial work option. That is immense latent talent waiting to be tapped upon.

NTUC recommends a Returnship Programme as a bridge to help women get back to work again. The programme targets women who are looking to re-join the workforce, and for employers to offer them a two to four months paid trial period. It provides a trial for both the employee and the employer to ascertain job fit. The goal is to place them in a permanent role in the same company or another company. The chances of a good match would be much higher if we have work flexibility built in the system as well. We should start with companies which have vacancies, or even a company whose workers are on temporary leave and need workers for the interim period, for example, employees on maternity leave. As the largest employer in Singapore, we hope that the Public Service Division can take the lead in actively looking at offering these back-to-work individuals career trial opportunities. We also hope that the Government Linked Companies (GLCs) can also answer the nation's call.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the crux of our economic transformation depends on a populace equipped to navigate and seize the skills and opportunities of tomorrow. No one entity can claim to have the monopoly of knowledge in this complex world to drive this change on its own anymore. But, together, we can build good platforms to nurture higher probabilities of good outcomes. With this, I support the Budget. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget.

I have been making rounds in my constituency in the last couple of weeks and have been reading the local and regional news with regard to the water tariff. The concerns of our people and businesses are understandable, given the current economic challenge. And much has been said about this issue, both in and outside of the Chamber. Nevertheless, it is sometimes useful to take a view from outside Singapore. For example, how do our competitors see us?

The South China Morning Post, widely seen as Hong Kong's flagship English newspaper and not always a fan of Singapore, recently carried this headline: "Can Hong Kong follow Singapore's lead in water tariffs?" In its sub headline, the report noted: "Among Asia's metropolises, Hong Kong is stuck with frozen tariff rates that are hurting water conservation efforts".

The report said experts are calling for Hong Kong and other Asian cities to follow Singapore's lead. The South China Morning Post quoted experts from the UN and think tanks, who called for countries to invest more in water infrastructure, reduce water wastage by reflecting the real cost of water, while insulating the vulnerable from the impact ‒ all of which the Singapore Government is doing. The South China Morning Post's views are also shared by leading water experts, such as Prof Asit Biswas and Robert Brears.

Indeed, the challenges of pricing water right to ensure access amidst climate change are not unique to Singapore. We must deal with them decisively while taking care of our vulnerable. And in this debate on this issue today, it is important that we separate facts from fiction, and reality from perception.

Therefore, I am heartened to hear our Government's recent clarification which directly addresses the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan's concern that the additional usage rebates will limit the impact on low-income and middle-income households. Families in one- and two-room HDB flats will, on average, see no net increases, and families living in a typical four-room HDB flat will see a $5 extra on average. I am also concerned about the impact on the hawkers in my constituency, which affects the cost of living. So, I took a look at their water bills. I saw today a bill for an entire coffee shop with six stalls. On average, each stall is using around 50 cubic meters of water a month, which costs around $100. With the new water tariff, each stall will see an increase of around $30 a month. So, while there is an increase, it is unclear that it will lead to a significant increase in the cost of living.

I am also relieved to hear that three in four businesses will see an increase of less than $25 a month, which also addresses Mr Dennis Tan's concern. Nevertheless, I call for the Government to continue monitoring the situation, both for individuals and businesses, to see whether further tweaks are necessary.

Mr Deputy Speaker, now that the CFE and Budget have mapped out the broad directions ahead for our economy, I would like to focus my Budget speech on how to best execute our plans for the CFE, and about creating a gig economy for our senior workers.

Recently, I had breakfast with a senior retired official who worked for Mr Goh Keng Swee. I asked him what did he learn working for Mr Goh Keng Swee. He thought for a while and quoted Mr Goh, "Don't tell me the why. I know the why. Tell me the how. Tell me how you are going to get this done." Indeed, many retired senior officials whom I spoke to shared the same view ‒ what separates Singapore from the rest is our focus on getting things done quietly, efficiently and quickly.

One, a strong national coordination body. To implement our decade-long CFE strategy, we will be well served by a strong national coordinating body. This coordinating body, like the CFE Committee itself, should comprise not just our civil service officials, but also key union leaders, business leaders, and educators. This coordinating body will serve as a strong centre to oversee our Ministries' efforts to translate broad strategies into detailed plans, regularly review the progress made, incorporate good ideas and seek out industry proposals along the way, and communicate to all stakeholders annually on where we are, and where we must go.

The current National Productivity Council could serve as a basis for this coordinating body. Why is this high level of coordination and communication necessary? The answer is simple. To fundamentally transform our economy, we need to go beyond the whole of Government approach. In fact, we need our Government to move as one, we need a whole of nation effort.

Two, our Industry transformation maps (ITMs) must contain bold ideas. The premise of the ITMs is this: each industry requires bespoke solutions to achieve deep transformation. So, I hope that we must be fully prepared to remove policy sacred cows when necessary.

If the new plans for the industries end up not differing from existing plans, and if many of our ITMs look too similar, then we should question whether we are fully stretching our imagination and aspirations. Some say there is no Big Bang in the CFE. But I feel that it is no longer sufficient to push for a single Big Bang industry. Our Government must, however, light 23 bright sparks with each of the 23 ITMs. And our industries must turn these bright sparks into a brighter future for all.

My third point about the CFE is that we must start our transformation quickly. We should roll out our ITMs as quickly as we can, far earlier than the proposed deadline of end of this financial year. The ITMs are supposed to rally their respective industries. Many businesses, stuck in the trenches of disruption, are looking for direction amidst the storm. Not all of them found clarity for their sector, in the measures provided in this Budget.

But it does not mean that help for them is lacking. In fact, I am heartened to hear that considerable resources are set aside for our industries − close to $7 billion for the whole CFE, including $4.5 billion for the Industry Transformation Program.

When we can translate this significant budgetary firepower, into concrete policies industry by industry, policies that our businesses and people can touch and feel, they will naturally gain the quiet confidence that the future is bright for all.

Also, rolling out our ITMs quickly provide much needed clarity to the supporting CFE's efforts. For example, in this Chamber, we frequently talk about using our SkillsFuture funds efficiently. But it is not easy for our officials in SkillsFuture, or any other CPE supporting efforts, to make concrete plans until they know the precise direction that we want to take each industry to. So, therefore, a quick rollout of our ITMs is critical.

In summary, to execute our plans, we need a strong centre to pull everybody together, we need bold plans to transform each and every of the 23 industries, and we must provide our industries with quick and clear directions.

Now, I would like to talk about a separate point − creating a gig economy for our seniors. When I spoke to our seniors about the CFE, they are not sure how they fit in the future economy. Today, we already have forward-looking policies for our senior workers, such as our Senior Employment Credit, and our Retirement and Re-employment Act. Nevertheless, there is room to do more. In fact, I think there is room for our Government to catalyse a gig economy for our seniors, by creating micro-jobs.

Despite legislation, it is hard for us to fully remove ageism, especially towards seniors above 67. Many companies, especially in tough times, are not willing to take the risk of hiring, or even retaining senior workers. This issue would be more serious over time as we continue our restructuring, and as our workforce continues to age.

The gig economy can help us combat ageism. Compared to companies, consumers using the gig economy are far less willing to discriminate. What do I mean? A good example is Uber. Through technology, Uber empowers hearing-impaired drivers to work in the car using Uber app. Other examples include delivery services such as Honest Bee, Food Panda, and Deliveroo, show that our consumers are less interested in discriminating, on who shows up on the door, as long as that person can do that one-off "micro-job" well.

So, how can the Government create a gig economy for our seniors? By doing three things: one, creating micro-jobs for our seniors starting with those in the social services. Two, creating a national digital platform and app, and three, equipping our seniors to do these micro-jobs through SkillsFuture.

Let me use the example of delivery of home-based health care. Today, we sometimes send two nurses to visit patients, many of whom are bedridden or have mobility challenges. Why cannot we cut down to one nurse instead, and then hire a trained senior, living in a nearby block or street, to assist such as carrying the patient and assist in wound dressing.

There are many seniors living in our midst who can qualify to do such micro-jobs. How do we page for these seniors? Simple. Through a gig economy app that the Government creates, perhaps by working with our start-ups. How do we prepare our seniors for these micro-jobs? Through SkillsFuture, of course. How do we ensure quality of service by these seniors? Through the apps that ask for feedback from the nurses, and may be even the patient.

Imagine the vast possibilities. What if we certify some of our able grandmothers to provide infant care service for a few infants at their home, or retired teachers to provide after school care for a few students at home? What if we equip our seniors to provide care-giving or respite care to their neighbours? How many purpose built infant care, after school care centres, and respite care centres can we end up not building?

When I talk to public officials or VWO leaders about this idea, they get it. But they also confide that they cannot do it alone. That is why we need the Government to spearhead a gig economy for our seniors, using social services as a start.

We can even extend this to the private sector, for example in food service. There is already a company that hires retired prata-makers today, and deploy them to meet shift gaps throughout Singapore. So, we can also help our seniors to find micro-jobs in the food service industry in their own neighbourhoods. We can also even extend this to stay-at-home mothers and special-needs workers to find micro-jobs nearby.

Now, what about meeting the practical realities like CPF contributions, or verifying who is eligible for what micro-jobs? These can be easily done, by inserting lines of code, to wire micro-contributions to one's CPF account, and to check out our seniors' SkillsFuture individual learning portfolio. In short, in this digital age, data is the new invisible hand. We should fully tap on data; combine it with our social policies, to orchestrate our economy and society of the future.

In closing, creating a gig economy for our seniors benefits Singapore. It can erase ageism. It can put money directly in the hands of our seniors. It can cut down on unnecessary manpower including foreign manpower. And it can help reduce our social spending. Therefore I call for the creation of a national digital initiative for our seniors involving our social services Ministries, VWOs, and SkillsFuture. It will take a few years to get this done, so I hope we can start soon. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in full support of the Budget. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one theme that stands out in Budget 2017, is the emphasis to strengthen our external orientation. The new Budget introduces a $600 million International Partnership Fund. It also extends the existing Internationalisation Finance Scheme which has worked very well.

These programmes dovetail closely with CFE's first strategy to "deepen and diversify our international connections". Under this strategy, the Committee suggests the setting up a Global Innovation Alliance, linking our IHLs to the leading innovation hubs in the world. It also recommends us sending more young Singaporeans to overseas internships and leadership development.

Despite the fact that close to 10 million Singaporeans travel overseas every year, that these programmes are still introduced says something about our realisation that we cannot afford to slacken in inculcating in especially our young, the ability to understand and appreciate the world. The world is like a vast ocean, constantly waving currents and under-currents. Singapore can only steer forward safely if only we have up-to-date weather charts and topographical maps.

Speaking of unpredictability of events, 2016 was nothing short of surprises and shocks. Uncertainties are still unfolding in ways which have profound implications for Singapore. Let us consider three trends.

Firstly, protectionism is on the rise. Amongst the first executive orders President Trump signed was to withdraw from the TPP. As Prime Minister Theresa May laid out her 12-point plan for Brexit, EU is now increasingly worried about the prospect of a "Frexit" as the French presidential elections draws near. Meanwhile, right-wing populist parties campaigning on anti-immigration and anti-globalisation are gaining ground in Europe. If EU, the world's largest single market breaks up, world trade will be in disarray. What ensues may be trade wars leading to ultimate shrinkages in trade volume causing job losses and destabilising economies. Given that two-third of our economy is externally driven, a trade-hampered world will spell great hardship for us.

Secondly, populist politics are leading people away from real solutions. From the rising popularity of far-right political parties in Europe, one has to conclude that more and more voters are taking in their campaign promises which are premised not on reasons, research and facts but on impulses, emotions and anger. Their prescriptions to economic and social woes ignore the very complex nature of economy and trade, of global supply chain and relative competitive advantages. They promise a magic wand which solves all problems merely by building walls around one-self, for instance.

David Rothkopf, the chief editor of The Foreign Policy, coined the term "the shallowness of the state" to describe politician's tactics to over-simplify issues to win votes. He reminded us that "experience, skills and know-how require time, work and study. Truth is hard, shallowness is easy".

Thirdly, news-reporting and consumption tend to be local. That most people will be concerned with things happening in their backyard is perfectly understandable. In fact, survey has shown that those who follow local news closely also tend to be more civically engaged in and volunteer for the local community, which is a good thing for citizenry.

But we also must be aware that there are a few orders of magnitude of difference when one says "local news" in continental-size countries such as the United States and China, and that in our tiny Singapore. While people in these large countries may take comfort in being contended with local news, we in Singapore cannot afford to think and behave the same. Lest we unknowingly wear blinkers to see a very narrow world.

A number of businessmen I met commented to me that many Singaporeans are surprisingly insular and inward-looking. I asked them for evidence. They told me two manifestations of this psyche. One is Singaporean's unwillingness to leave their comfort zones and take up foreign postings; two is that being very sheltered, Singaporeans become unsure and very risk adverse in poorly defined and uncertain environment. They believe that such lack of adaptability will hold Singaporeans back from many opportunities in the emerging world.

When I travel, I like to tune into news stations and see what is being reported. When I tuned into CCTV or Phoenix news, I often found their reports of world affairs very insightful and comprehensive, covering a wide range of geographies far beyond the Chinese borders. Over the years, I have also found CNN and other American news reporting to be more globally informed, often although accompanied by distinctive American view of the world. Singapore news and our public discourse must, by definition, be a keen observer of the world. This is because we do not have a continental size economy or geography to buffer us from any shocks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, at the domestic front, the issue of 30% water tariff hike seemed to have hogged the headlines of the new media space for the past week. But I just realised that in this House, it is the topic that every Member has addressed. I think it is perfectly understandable how many people had found the jump of 30% abrupt and drastic. But if we consider the subject in context, that despite the very same dry season brought by El Nino in 2016 sweeping across Southeast Asia, Singapore unlike a number of Malaysian states such as Perlis, Pahang, Malacca, Johore and Sabah, did not have to impose water rationing because of the severe drought. The belated 30% hike, put in context, is a necessary and small insurance compared to the billions of dollars we need to set aside for future new water plants and pipeline infrastructure. We can go around the world and survey more water-deprived countries. Their problems are many times more severe.

To put things in perspective, our public discourse needs to be supported by deep knowledge of subject matters in discussion. Thankfully, our schools are doing a great job in injecting realism in learning. Our teachers are taking learning beyond classrooms, into the community and overseas. We have more students at different levels participating in overseas exchange programmes than ever before. The CFE also outlined the Government's intention to provide more funding to support overseas internships and work attachments. We are headed in the right direction.

I would also argue that we should do more, for the population at large. For instance, the Government could invest more in media and content production, to help our public broadcast be even more comprehensive and interpretational in their news-reporting and analysis. Complemented by our growing think-tank and research community, there is no reason why we cannot raise our average understanding of complex issues and the understanding of the world. I think the bottom line is, how do we watch the world "live" from Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, international competition is intense and relentless. Consider this, the Single's Day Sales on Alibaba amounted to S$25 billion sale in just one day. That is 70% of all retails sales in Singapore for one year. So, 70% in Singapore is one day on the Alibaba platform.

Still in China, WeChat Pay has become the de-facto cashless payment means in China, regardless of transaction amount and IT infrastructure. By this, I mean, even hawkers at the wet market can take payment using WeChat Pay, without the cashless terminal. It makes us wonder why we are still struggling with different non-standardised payment terminals in Singapore after many years of trying to go cashless.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. Budget 2017 builds upon a plethora of support programmes previously introduced. These programmes include SkillsFuture that help the workforce in general, and a whole host of productivity-related programmes that help SMEs. And they were all summarised just now by Minister Iswaran. There is really no shortage of support programmes.

What we need is strong motivation from individuals, from firms and organisations. To develop strong motivation, there must be deep awareness of the world and the understanding of competition.

Singapore's challenge now is how not to be a victim of our own success. How can we leap from our comfort zone and overcome the false sense of security. It is not just physical connectivity that we need to build, but the psychological bridge to understand the world, to reach out to complex issues and to deal with them tenaciously. There is no silver bullet but hard work aplenty. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is great urgency. I support the Budget.

Budget 2017 attempted a fine balancing act. Trying to build for the future, for whom most discount the benefits of, and meeting short-term needs, for whom most place an emphasis on. But the future is not that far away and how we spend in the long term affects how we budget for the short term.

Uncle Koh came to see me a few weeks ago and he was in a fix. Adventurous and enthusiastic in his 60s, he had tried being a Grab taxi driver. But he did not know how to use his phone to locate customers. So, three days into the job, stressed out by the ordeal of fiddling with his phone till no end, Uncle Koh gave up and decided to be a cook instead. He took a course in culinary skills, used up his SkillsFuture credit and brought his shiny, laminated certificate to see me. He could not find a job, he said, as he did not have any prior experience being a cook. So, please, could he have more SkillsFuture credits so he can try something else?

This story encapsulates the challenges the future economy brings us as individuals, as businesses and as a government. For Uncle Koh, he could no longer cruise empty on the streets, burning up diesel, looking for customers. He had to learn how to use a taxi-hailing app. He had SkillsFuture credits, but he had not used them where he needed it most.

For firms, they can no longer rely on old business models as new entrants come in, disintermediating them, and being asset-light, did not have the sunk costs that traditional firms bear.

SkillsFuture and the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are two key pillars of our strategy to help individuals and firms meet the challenges in the new economy. And huge sums of money have been set aside for them − $1.5 billion in Budget 2015 to support SkillsFuture, not a small sum and more will be put in. And $4.5 billion for the ITMs in Budget 2016 and Budget 2017 announced further top-ups to this initiative to transform our industries. We have to make these investments work for us because every dollar spent on one item in the Budget, is another dollar not spent somewhere else.

For SkillsFuture, Budget 2017 focuses on "on-the-job skills utilisation" to ensure a better match between training and jobs. Such an outcome-based approach where employers, TACs and unions are encouraged to develop training programmes for their workers because they know best the skills the marketplace values and thus the skills workers need to have, is the right move for SkillsFuture.

With the integration of SkillsFuture Portal with Jobs Bank, the nexus between training and jobs will be even tighter. I would like to suggest that there be reviews of training providers under SkillsFuture to ensure that there is accountability on the part of training providers to provide relevant training, that is, which is linked to job outcomes. Further, that individuals are guided by industry practitioners in their choice of training so that they are likely to choose relevant training which provides tangible benefits and, therefore, motivate them to train more. Sometimes, less is more. A more targeted approach in the delivery of training is more likely to deliver tangible outcomes.

For the ITMs, their effectiveness is tied to the KPIs set out for them. While it has often been said that we should not set static targets for the ITMs, given that they defer from industry to industry, and should be instead be "live" documents, having a vision on what the industry could look like and thinking through what the parameters for automation, innovation, labour and productivity can be, will give them something to work on, to try and possibly fail, to retry, and recalibrate. For how then will we − Government, firms and workers − know whether we are succeeding?

It requires great trust, collaboration and vision for firms, competitors, unions and Government representatives to come together and work effectively together. I further suggest that disruptors, entrepreneurs from adjacent industries and also overseas markets be brought in, where possible, into the discussion on the ITMs to enrich the discussion and paint the possibilities or we might be entrenched in local models and local constraints.

SkillsFuture and the ITMs are huge outlays to develop our capabilities. How they are implemented affects their ultimate efficacy and we need to be clear as to the outcomes we hope to achieve, and have parameters to track their implementation and course-correct to ensure success. For only then will they be effective investments commensurate to the amounts we have allocated them in consecutive Budgets.

That said, SkillsFuture and the ITMs form only part of the overall Budget. An analysis of how else we are allocating our resources will give a sense of how prepared we are for the future.

The Budget surplus of $5.18 billion for FY 2016, 50% larger than originally estimated puts us in a better position to react to external shocks and potentially fund future needs in the remainder of the Government's term. However, since FY 2015, we have been running a primary deficit where our total expenditure exceeds our operating revenue even before Special Transfers are considered.

The reasons provided for why total expenditure budgeted for in 2017 increased by 5.2% over 2016 when revenues are only increasing at 1.1% are that they are mainly due to higher expenditures on public housing, higher development expenditures for water-related treatment and health expenditure arising from growth in patient subsidies and improved training and retention of healthcare workers.

To ensure prudent expenditure, can we look to bind expenditures or match them with revenues, so that any increases in expenditure are carefully considered in relation to how the funds will be provided. Further, while the net investment returns contribution has helped turn our Budget into an overall surplus, the scale of its contribution relative to other sources of revenue is large, at 20% of our total revenue. It is the largest source of funds for our Budget, larger than corporate tax contributions.

In a recent article on Bloomberg, Norway's Central Bank Chief warned of how the risk of a 50% decline in 10 years of their sovereign wealth fund increases five times if government withdrawals from the fund increases from 3% to 4% of the fund. Given our reliance on NIRC to fund our Budget, what are the inherent risks we face? Should there be huge changes in global outlooks of capital markets and earnings of firms, how does that change our expected long-term rates of return and our ability to use NIRC to fund our Budget?

In Budget 2017, we see attempts to diversify revenue sources − a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by large direct emitters such as power stations, the restructuring of diesel taxes and water price changes. But these are taxes mostly to right-size behaviour and are not in the longer term derived from new economic activity. The future economy has already been shown to bring new business models and new relationships between firms and workers. With the growing importance of the sharing economy and cross-border transactions over Internet platforms, more thought should be put into how we can update our tax policies to keep in line with new emerging business models and maintain a level playing field. Otherwise, the tax burden may fall unnecessarily on certain segments, or individuals and consumers over time.

Lastly, as more individuals participate in the New Economy through freelance work arrangements, we will need to ensure that our retirement adequacy frameworks take care of our citizens. One leg of the equation is missing if companies who engage individuals systematically to work for them do not pay CPF. And regulations may need to be tweaked to bring them into the fold.

Much has been said about how firms and workers need to be oriented to meet the challenges of the Future Economy. I would like to add that our Budget and its construction likewise needs to be future-ready and future-proof. The future may be uncertain but we need to make certain as much as we possibly can. We require daring, but we also require prudence. This requires leadership and it requires judgement. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Much has been said about how businesses and workers can meet the challenges of the future economy. What I would like stress is that the future may be uncertain but we need to make Singapore's success as certain as we possibly can.

Budget 2017 attempts to strike a balance between building for the future and meeting short-term needs. SkillsFuture and Industry Transformation Maps are the two key pillars to help businesses and individuals to meet the challenges of the new economy.

Budget 2017 focused on "on the job skills utilisation" to ensure a better match between training and jobs. Outcome-based training is the right move for SkillsFuture. I suggest that there be regular reviews of the training programmes under SkillsFuture to ensure they indeed generate desired job outcome.

For ITM, although industries differ from each other, having a vision of what the industry could look like and thinking through what the parameters for innovation, labour and productivity can be, will guide firms on their next move. I hence suggest that entrepreneurs who are equipped with disruptive technologies and technology pioneers in the overseas market be brought into the discussion on ITMs to help our firms paint the future.

With regard to Government revenue, NIRC has helped turn our budget into an overall surplus, contributing a 20% share of the operating revenue. Given our reliance on NIRC, if the outlook of the international market changes, are we still able to fund our budget? Therefore, can we consider binding expenditures with revenues or performance? Be it SkillsFuture, ITM or government projects, can we determine how much we should invest in based on anticipated and quantifiable outcome?

As more individuals are participating in the shared economy or becoming a freelancer, if a company who systematically engage individuals to work for them do not pay CPF or taxes, one leg of the equation in our social safety network will be missing. Hence, I suggest that we include the new economic model into our CPF and tax regime. Facing an uncertain future, we need to make Singapore's success as certain as we possibly can. We need to be daring, but also prudent. This requires leadership and judgment.