Debated in Parliament on 6 Mar 2013.
Debate resumed.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this significant debate. This year's Budget is an important one and it seeks to achieve some essential objectives. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has rightly pointed out that our economy and indeed the society are both undergoing a transition. We have yet to attain the levels of productivity and income that are representative of an advance economy but we can certainly no longer be classified as a developing one. At the same time, we are facing a social evolution and emerging trends such as widening income inequality, infrastructure strain, particularly in the housing and transport sectors, as well as a changing social compact between the Government and people.
There are many reasons for these social developments and many different reactions from the ground. Some are unhappy, some are angry, some choose to express their emotions outwardly, some choose to leave and others stay and adapt.
In addressing the need for a social and economic transition in Singapore, this year's Budget has a focus on creating quality growth, that which is to achieve through innovation and increased productivity which will benefit all Singaporeans. Indeed, the focus on creating more inclusive society, which was the theme of last year's Budget, continues in 2013 and has been bound together with the drive for quality growth.
Page: 144
Sir, transition periods can be challenging and Budget 2013 is one of the most generous in recent years with a number of measures totalling $5.9 billion in helping businesses struggling to re-invent themselves to cope with the changing times. As we seek to manage this transition, we have to be mindful of one key factor – the pace of the changes we are trying to implement.
Minister Lim Swee Say has pointed out that if we restructure our economy too slowly, we risk losing our competitiveness amid an increasingly competitive global stage. If we move too quickly, companies in Singapore, especially SMEs, could be left high and dry and unable to adapt to the new requirements. This adds to the Government's already difficult challenge of managing all the various moving parts that make up a country's economic and social policies.
In this year's Budget, it was heartening to see that the poor also receive help as part of the drive to narrow income inequality in the country, with $1.7 billion in financial aid to be dispersed through various means, such as GST Vouchers, conservancy rebates and MediSave top-ups. The provision of such financial assistance is important as it will have a direct impact on Singaporeans trying to cope with the current challenging environment and also on closing the income gap. This is especially critical for those working at the lower rungs of the income ladder, who have seen little or no rise in real income over the past five years. But it will be important to see if these measures will enable wages of all Singaporeans to keep pace with the rising consumer prices which have been rising significantly in recent years. Many Singaporeans I have spoken to have expressed scepticism that this can be achieved.
There is also increasing concern that middle income Singaporeans, the so-called sandwiched class, will begin to feel increasingly disadvantaged as they face slow income growth on one hand and inflation on the other. While Singaporeans benefit indirectly from measures such as the increase in assistance in healthcare which will benefit those with aged parents, they also feel the squeeze from other policies like the new restrictions on car loans. I hope that future measures and policies will be able to offer more direct help to this large group of Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is important to ask if the measures in this Budget and those of previous ones would be enough to build a better society that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman mentioned in his Budget speech. The issue of a better quality of life was raised during the recent debate over the Population White Paper, and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman alluded to this when he said that we should aim to shorten working hours over time and allow Singaporeans
Page: 145
to enjoy a better worklife balance to improve productivity.
At the moment, the strategy to achieve this better life quality is apparent to many Singaporeans. We are generally victims of our own success having been conditioned to aim for certain definitions of academic, financial and career successes, sometimes at the expense of other concerns. We are accustomed to social and economic policies that are effected through financial incentives and disincentives. But these are not necessarily suited towards creating the intangibles and make up a better-quality living.
Deputy Prime Minister Tharman said that this year's Budget will make significant investments to nurture the sports and arts and acknowledge that this plays a growing role in enriching lives in Singapore. It is certainly heartening to hear that 30% more investment will be made into sports programmes while investment in regional and community level sports facilities will be doubled. I will speak more on this during the Committee of Supply.
The Cultural Donation Matching Fund will also go a long way in terms of encouraging more donors to come forward to support arts and cultural activities here. Funding for activities such as sports and arts have typically been low compared to other sectors in Singapore. And this reflects the priority of the Government and, indeed, Singaporeans. So, it is welcome news to hear that the numbers are going up, but at the same time financial support is not the only thing that is needed.
For pursuits, such as sports and the arts, much progress is made when true passion drives and motivates athletes and artists alike to commit and sacrifice for their craft. Having a secure financial pathway, of course, helps, in terms of motivation, but, in many cases, it is about being given the space to grow and develop that passion without conflicting pressures and demands on our time and energies.
The Sports School and the School of the Arts are good initiatives which will hopefully create new generations of sportsmen and artists who have nurtured their talent and ability and passion from an early age. But it is also imperative for us to encourage the rest of society − individuals, schools and other institutions – to also support such individuals and activities by recognising the important role that sports and arts can play in creating a better quality of life and more fulfilling lives for Singaporeans. This will require a shift in our attitudes towards what is deemed as traditionally important – academic results, high salaries or soaring career trajectories – and other less tangible but no less
Page: 146
important elements that feed the soul of a country. The need for the Government to balance this shift against the imperative to maintain the country's competitiveness and economic growth is yet another challenge to be managed in the ongoing transition and transformation.
Sir, another area I was heartened to hear in the Budget Speech was the recognition that meritocracy, a long-held core value of Singapore, may not be the key to achieving and sustaining social mobility and an inclusive society. Meritocracy holds that individuals should be recognised and rewarded based on merit. It perceives intellectual talent as well as ability as measured through examination or demonstrated achievement. It has been a cornerstone of Singapore's growth story and the driving force behind many of our achievements. But it also encourages a very self-centred approach to life with one's own interests, progress and achievements – the key concern. This could then lead to, at best, an indifference to the plight of our neighbours and fellow Singaporeans and, in the worst case, a beggar-thy-neighbour outlook.
Building a more inclusive society has been an aim of this Government for a number of years now. If we are to succeed in this, then an alternative loss of the other than meritocracy, especially meritocracy taken to its extreme, might be needed.
We can learn from other cultures, including some in the West, where progress and success is celebrated at a community level and not just individuals, and also where definitions of success are not restricted to just the attainment of top jobs or salaries but include those who excel at whatever their chosen path is. The creation of a new philosophy and culture will take time of course, but I believe now is a good time as any for us to think about it, given the broader transition that we are facing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my debut speech in Parliament at last year's Budget debate, I mentioned that communication between the Government and the broader society would be important in rebuilding the social compact. In the current social climate, I believe this remains important when it comes to securing broader buy-in from Singaporeans in support for policies and plans that are needed to keep us moving forward.
There have been a few examples in recent months where policies were unveiled at times and in ways that created unnecessary unhappiness and angst. While the perfect time and place and message is an elusive target, I feel strongly that more effort needs to be invested in ensuring that all aspects of policies and
Page: 147
programmes are clearly communicated to all Singaporeans in ways that create a more informed society where intelligent debates and discourse become commonplace. If we are unable to do this, then much of the effort now and in the future may be destined to fail to achieve the whole potential impact. And that will be a shame if it affects good policies in that of improving lives and creating a better society for all of us. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the key thrusts of this year's Budget to spearhead quality economic growth and build an inclusive society. Faced with rapid globalisation and an ageing population, Singapore will encounter many challenges to sustain its economic competitiveness and provide a good quality of life for Singaporeans. In an increasingly globalised and competitive world, Singapore has no choice but to enhance our competitiveness through productivity and quality improvements.
Sir, increasing productivity will help our companies to secure more business thus creating more jobs for Singaporeans. Focusing on quality of our products and services will help companies to sustain their business operations, and thus continue to provide employment for Singaporeans. Therefore, it is crucial that we invest in both productivity and quality growth of our businesses, workforce and business operating environment.
Sir, many Singaporeans welcome the $1.7 billion assistance and benefits given to them to cope with the rising costs of living. However, I would urge the Finance Minister to be more generous in giving out more U-save and S&CC rebates to the lower income HDB heartlanders living in 1- to 4-room flats.
Sir, there are three areas of concerns which I would like to urge the Finance Minister to consider in the Budget: first, safeguarding interests of low wage workers; second, setting up a Health Promotion Endowment fund; and third, supporting active ageing of elderly Singaporeans.
First, safeguarding interests of low-wage workers. Sir, the Budget provides innovative solutions to boost wage increase of Singaporeans through the Wage Credit Scheme and the tightening of foreign workers. The control of S Pass and employment pass holders will create more job opportunities for Singaporeans. But these measures will also increase business costs and threaten the sustainability of businesses, especially smaller firms.
Page: 148
Sir, SMEs face enormous challenges to recruit and retain good staff to sustain and grow their businesses. As such, the staff turnover affects the productivity and quality of their businesses. Furthermore, SMEs lack resources to invest in technology to improve productivity and quality.
Therefore, I am concerned that the three-year transition support package and Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) bonus may not be effective in encouraging many SMEs to achieve higher productivity and quality.
Although technology can help to improve productivity, the key driver of productivity and quality of SMEs is the quality of manpower. Thus, I would urge the Finance Minister to consider providing more support for SMEs to retain good staff through a "Work Performance Support" scheme.
For example, the Government can co-share 50% of the annual variable bonuses, that is the Annual Wage Supplement or Annual Variable Compensation, given to workers earning up to a gross monthly wage of $4,000. The co-sharing support can be capped to the yearly bonus payable to civil servants. In this way, SMEs will be in a better position to reward and retain their staff, thus enhancing productivity and quality.
To further safeguard the interests of low-wage workers, I would urge the Government to provide free NTUC union membership to low-wage workers. This will provide better safeguards for low-wage workers and enable them to enjoy union membership benefits such as discounts at NTUC Fairprice or Foodfare outlets.
Sir, at present, many part-time, contract and casual workers are working without written employment contracts, employment benefits, and CPF contributions. Such unfair employment practices of low-wage Singaporeans are not acceptable and should be stopped.
The Government must ensure that all Singaporean workers are properly employed with fair terms and conditions. Every Singaporean worker must be registered and make monthly CPF contributions irrespective of the amount of their salary. This will ensure that all low-wage workers can benefit from the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme and receive proper employment benefits entitlements.
To further increase the salary of low-wage workers, I would urge the Government to provide higher quantum of WIS to all low-wage workers
Page: 149
including part-time, contract and casual workers.
Two, setting up a "Health Promotion Endowment" Fund. Sir, although the total expenditure for MOH in Financial Year 2013 is estimated to be $5.68 billion, only $176 million or about 3% is allocated to the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to build a nation of healthy Singaporeans.
In a recent The Straits Times report on 28 February 2013, healthcare experts have recommended that our Government should spend more on preventive care and public health rather than disease care.
Sir, as the saying goes, "Prevention is better than cure". We need to invest in preventive care services instead of focusing on healthcare. More needs to be done to keep Singaporeans fit so as to reduce their needs for medical treatment. This is especially so for an ageing population.
Sir, in North West CDC, we have been advocating healthy lifestyle among our residents for the last 12 years. Despite much outreach and engagement efforts, we only managed to encourage 18,000 residents who are active in participating in our healthy lifestyle activities, such as brisk walking, health qigong, dance-fit, community aerobics, swimming and sports. It is indeed an uphill task to encourage Singaporeans to exercise regularly.
Sir, there are three lifestyle habits which will increase the healthcare costs and shorten the lifespan of Singaporeans. These are: (a) cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking; (b) excessive eating; and (c) lack of exercise.
Over the years, many health promotion pilot projects were launched to address these health hazards. But not many of these pilot projects are successful to be implemented nation-wide to produce good health outcomes. As a result, we are still facing problems of obesity, chronic illnesses and cancer deaths among Singaporeans. If HPB were to set a Body Mass Index (BMI) cut-off point of 23 as the passing standard, many Singaporeans will fail.
Sir, I urge the Government to invest in the health of Singaporeans and allocate more resources to promote healthy lifestyle among Singaporeans both young and old. MOF must understand that it is difficult to set KPIs for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion programmes. Thus, MOF should consider setting up a Health Promotion Endowment Fund instead of working out yearly budget for health promotion initiatives.
Page: 150
More sports and fitness facilities should be built in the community to encourage Singaporeans to exercise regularly. The Government must be prepared to subsidise or provide free usage of community sports facilities to maximise the usage of such facilities.
Investment in health promotion and the health of Singaporeans will definitely yield more returns both economically and socially. It will also reduce healthcare expenditure in the long run. Thus, I would urge the Government to set up a Health Promotion Endowment Fund to support Health Promotion initiatives of the public, private and people sectors on a sustained basis.
Three, supporting active ageing of elderly Singaporeans. Sir, many Singaporeans welcome the top-up of MediFund and ElderCare Fund to provide more assistance to the needy and elderly. The top-up of the Senior's Mobility and Enabling fund will also improve the quality of life of seniors. But many seniors are facing rising costs of living and depleting income or savings. This has caused much anxiety among our seniors, especially those with limited savings.
As such, many seniors are trying to stretch their savings so that they can maintain a certain standard of quality of life. One way we can better support our seniors to live an active and healthy life is to consider providing free bus services, and free usage of sports facilities during non-peak hours. This will encourage our seniors to be more active and keep fit, thus improving their quality of life.
Seniors can also build better social support groups among themselves through active participation of healthy lifestyle activities. This will further strengthen community bonding and enhance the quality of life of Singaporeans. Sir, every healthy elderly in a family will bring much joy and happiness to the family. Sir, I support the Budget.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, Minister for Finance and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has certainly given us much to discuss. He has presented a comprehensive Budget Statement and introduced many initiatives which will help Singapore to remain competitive and for Singaporeans to fulfil their life goals.
Page: 151
The highlight of the Budget 2013 certainly is the Wage Credit Scheme, which will help many employers raise the wages of middle to lower income workers. The Government has agreed to cover 40% of wage increases of workers earning $4,000 and lower, and I commend the Government for this very generous offer. At the same time, Sir, I know that employers are aware that this co-funding is for three years, and that for businesses to sustain the increase after this period, they must ensure that they can raise their workers' productivity. Otherwise, they will be saddled with higher wages and find that they cannot sustain the increase once the co-funding ceases.
In anticipation of such a situation for some employers, the Government must make extra efforts to help companies find ways to increase their productivity. This would mean that the PIC must outdo itself and productivity must be the order of the day. I hope the Government will go beyond the current models and schemes, which many businessmen have told me are too restrictive, because they depend on approved vendors or consultants. Businessmen argued that many of these vendors and consultants offer cookie-cutter solutions, which do not truly help businesses to raise the bar – whether it is in manufacturing productivity, or service innovations.
In short, we must help the companies, whether they are big or small. I believe we should allow companies to seek solutions to the unique issues facing their particular businesses. We must make the productivity grow our obsession and the single most important pre-occupation for the next few years at least.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure that this House will agree with me that in all that we do, we must always think of Singaporeans first. We are after all, the elected representatives of Singaporeans. I believe we can do more to ensure that Singapore always has a strong Singaporean Core and that Singaporeans must always come first, even as we welcome newcomers and new businesses who are sinking their roots here. I do not think anyone, either individual or company, will argue with the fact that while we welcome them in Singapore, we would also like to be assured that they will contribute to the Singaporean Core.
In this regard, I would like the Government to take steps to ensure that whenever a foreign company sets up in Singapore, in addition to offering them investment incentives, the Government should also require that companies set out plans to systematically transfer knowledge and skills to their Singaporean workers. The bottomline is they must have what I would call a "localisation" plan. The Government should strictly monitor the implementation of such plans, so that over time, the core jobs within such companies are filled by
Page: 152
Singaporeans. This will allow upward mobility among Singaporeans, and it will go a long way to address some of the complaints, especially among our higher skilled and higher-level workers that they face glass ceilings when working in foreign companies. I hope the Government will give due consideration to this suggestion.
Sir, I believe this Budget goes a long way to establish Singapore on a firm road to growth and prosperity for Singaporeans. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind. However, even as we manage the influx of foreign workers, we must not choke the legitimate needs of businesses and these are real needs. I agree over the longer term, businesses must come to accept the new reality, but again, it is incumbent on the Government and on us in this House, to voice their legitimate concerns and seek solutions together which can be sustained over the long term.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am told that perseverance is a virtue. So, I would like to touch again on the subject of public housing, which I brought up in this House last year. I concede that MND and, in particular, HDB has an unenviable task of housing a nation, amid rising expectations of quality and rising anxiety over prices.
I am very glad that the Minister for National Development has announced that HDB will be building ahead of demand. That is really wonderful. Building ahead of demand. He also said that the cost of HDB new flats is not linked to market prices. This is very reassuring, but I am sure that Singaporeans will be much more reassured if they had a better understanding of how HDB flats are priced, whether land cost is included and how land is priced.
I would like to highlight an interesting article in The Straits Times by Dr Tan Meng Wah, a research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS). He made an interesting argument that HDB could consider charging the cost of land only when a buyer sells his flat, after the minimum occupancy period. Let me read what he wrote, and I quote:
*"… new flats are to be sold by HDB at cost-based prices; and priced differently depending on location. The land value is announced but is omitted to keep selling price affordable.*
*After the minimum holding period − now five years − when a home owner decides to sell the HDB flat in the resale market, HDB will have the first right to reclaim the predetermined land value from the capital gain of the flat: the resale price minus the original purchase price. But if the capital gain is less than the land value, the shortfall
Page: 153
will be borne by HDB."*
The argument in the article is that if land costs are omitted, then, the buyer could take a smaller loan and thus enjoy substantial benefits in interest cost savings. I would be interested to learn the Government's comments about this suggestion.
Similarly, Sir, I would like to further reiterate my call in this House which I had done on several occasions for HDB to go back to its fundamental and core business, which is to offer affordable housing to Singaporeans. In this regard, I would like to once again propose that the HDB seriously consider regulating the sale and purchase of 3-room and 4-room flats which are originally intended for low-income Singaporeans. I have previously suggested that 3-room and 4-room flats should not be bought and sold in the open market. Instead, the HDB should take over the role as the sole seller and sole reseller of such flats. If, for example, a 3-room or 4-room flat owner wants to sell his flat, the HDB should undertake to buy it back, at its original sale price plus inflation over the years that the owner has held the flat. HDB can then resell the flat to qualified buyers. The HDB will have much better control over pricing and thus can keep the prices of 3-room and 4-room flats truly affordable for the low-income Singaporean families. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud of the positive development and achievements of the Malay community in Singapore. Now, it is normal for us to hear news about the excellence of Malay children in their class or in important examinations in schools. We also have more Malay professionals of high calibre – doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers − and they lead and shine in various industries. At the same time, I am also proud of the growing number of Malays who succeed in business including those who shine in the arts and the creative fields.
But, Sir, the community is still facing a number of problems, especially among the low income and the poor. If we look deeper into the problems of those families who are stuck year after year in the same situation, continue to earn low income and do not enjoy positive progress, you will find certain characteristics. For these families, that I often meet, it seems like they have lost hope, and they are resigned to their fate. If the parents are low-educated, their children often do not have the determination to succeed, or they fail in school and drop out. Why does this continue to happen to these dysfunctional families? Is it possible that these children who come from such families are required to start working to assist the family? But I feel that the Government and the community must provide more assistance to these dysfunctional families so
Page: 154
that they can break this cycle. We must help the parents of these families so that they have the hope and the high aspirations for their children. Whatever the challenges and problems faced by these families, we must work more closely with the community organisations to raise their development and status in life.
Sir, we do hope that from the generous Budget this year, the Government will give assistance to community organisations and work with them to help these dysfunctional families break this vicious cycle: where the parents are unable to fulfil the aspirations, their children will be able to do so; so that the children will succeed in school, they will work harder and they will want to upgrade their skills and abilities for a brighter future for their children.
We should work together with the parents, teachers, schools and community leaders so that every child will have the opportunity to achieve their potential. I would like to call on members of the community who have succeeded to show interest and concern. We hope that they will come forward to help with the effort to uplift the needy families. With their involvement, they will not only achieve a sense of personal fulfilment, but also remind ourselves that every Singaporean, whether well-to-do or not, has an equal stake in Singapore.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I come now to my final point. It is clear that the Government is making great efforts to address the concerns of Singaporeans. Concerns about the high costs of living are genuine, and the Government's plan to help Singaporeans increase their earnings is a long-term solution, while the credits and rebates offered by the Government are to stem immediate-term needs. We are also building more flats and are expanding our transport system – both immediately and in the long term. This is all well and good, and I am sure Singaporeans will appreciate all these efforts. But, Sir, I would like to signal that we are still some way away from restoring the trust that Singaporeans have given to us for so many years.
Many Singaporeans that I spoke to still feel that their concerns are falling on deaf ears. They feel that our policymakers are too isolated from the situation on the ground. Sir, we risk losing the art of explaining our policies in a way that makes common sense to the common man. We risk losing the pulse of the ground and we are in danger of paying a dear price – that there will be a disconnect between our residents and ourselves. Once we completely lose our residents' trust, we will no longer be able to call on them to support difficult, yet necessary steps, accept painful policies, to ensure Singapore's long-term survival. If that happens, Sir, then Singapore will be no different to many other
Page: 155
countries – where governments have populist policies to win the day, but the populace suffers the long-term effect. If that happens, then, we have failed Singapore.
We must never allow this to happen. Sir, we must continue to hold Singaporeans at the core in whatever we do. And we must take pains to explain ourselves, so that our residents can see the bigger picture, and that they have a role in building the future of Singapore together. And most importantly, we must make every effort to understand and truly listen to the concerns of our residents. Sir, I support the Budget.
PAPERCUTS