Chua Kheng Wee Louis
Singapore
“It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving w…”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just one clarification for Ministers on the EV chargers. I think the MOT has previously said that we are looking at three to 12 charging points per HDB carpark by 2025, but my question is not so much on the deadline, but more in terms of the number of chargers that can be supported, because in most of the multi-storey…”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that? Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026.”
“Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model.”
The complete record
Every one of 716 lines we hold for Chua Kheng Wee Louis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 15.
“For many of these own-account workers, especially in the ride hailing and delivery industries, they exhibit many employee-like characteristics such as working exclusively for one company and/or having fixed working arrangements and key performance indicators (KPIs) which are tied to that of the company. On 19 February, the UK supreme court has upheld a ruling that Uber's drivers should be classified as workers rather than independent contractors. California's Proposition 22 ballot measure, passed by the voters in the November elections, could also serve as a third way of classifying such gig economy workers. It allows companies to offer private hire drivers partial benefits such as a minimum base pay that is higher than the minimum wage and healthcare subsidies for some drivers, depending on the number of hours that they work. I would like to ask if more could be done to protect the interest and provide a safety net for this group of workers, such as mandatory insurance and minimum levels of benefits and protection for them. Progressive Wage Model and Foreign Worker Policy”
“Mr Chairman, based on the MOM's latest 2020 labour statistics, own-account workers, defined as persons who operate their own business or trade without employing any workers – this includes taxi drivers, property agents, tour guides, freelance artists – account for 9.7% of the total workforce, or 228,000 workers, up from 8.8% in 2019. While some own-account workers are truly independent, such as working proprietors, there are many who offer services as part of a wider organisation, such as taxi drivers, private hire car drivers and food delivery riders. The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably pushed more workers into the so-called gig economy. Such a rise can also be attributed to the advent of aggregated apps such as Grab and Deliveroo, which have provided platforms for people to seek assignments in exchange for monetary incentives. We have to recognise that this is a sizable population of the workforce that is not protected by employment laws and regulations. These own-account workers are not deemed as employees of companies and the companies are also not obliged to provide CPF, medical insurance and other employee benefits for these people. Moreover, the own-account worker's income is subject to incentive structures which companies can have the power to change at any point in time, without notice, and often do not require consent. Many of these workers end up stuck in the cycle of insecure work, reducing their opportunities for career advancement and, as access to credit is restricted, exposing them to greater risk of financial shocks.”
“Chairman, CPF has been able to maintain its interest rates at 2.5% for Ordinary Accounts and 4% for Special MediSave and Retirement Accounts. The interest helps our CPF members to grow closer to their time and goals, which is to meet or exceed the minimum retirement sum. Now, even though 2.5% or 4% compounded over a long period of time can lead to significant interest income. I would like to ask if there can be a choice for CPF members, especially with a long-term time horizon. For example, the 20- to 30-year-olds today with 30 or 40 more active working years to devote a portion of their CPF to earn higher returns. For example, MINDEF already has a Saver Premium Fund where investors have an option to choose between dynamic balance and stable according to the investment needs. Is there a possibility for CPF members to have similar options where they can opt a portion of their CPF savings for a dynamic portfolio, such as to co-invest with the Government's investment vehicles to enjoy the higher returns. Up to 50% of the net returns from the reserve do flow back through the NIRC framework. Could there be a more direct means by which members will be able to earn high investment returns through co-investing in the Government's investment vehicles, especially given the long time horizon for CPF monies held for our members' retirement. There is already a CPF Investment Scheme in place with a list of specified investment products included under the CPFIS. Should we look further when you really have the highest quality fund managers in the Government's investment vehicles and does it not make sense to allow Singaporeans to directly benefit from the Government's prudent and astute investment capabilities? Workers' Capabilities and Job Transfer”
“Would MND explore harmonising this remission to this group of citizens who wish to fulfil their housing aspirations? Building Public Sector Capabilities”
“Chairman, with a 9% increase in private residential volumes in 2020 despite the absence of foreign buyers and despite COVID-19, the Singaporean aspirations of upgrading from public to private property is stronger than ever. Aspirations for better housing is particularly pertinent for residents aged 35 and below, with 73% aspiring to upgrade according to the HDB's latest sample household survey. Enabling financially able Singaporeans to upgrade from HDB to private not only fulfils their aspirations, but it also eases demand for homes in the public residential market. While Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) has helped reduce excessive demand for property investments, it has also affected genuine HDB owners to upgrade to a private property. An HDB owner today has to pay 12% ABSD upfront within 14 days of signing the S&P agreement for a private property if he or she has not already sold their current home. Given the rising prices of private property, 12% is no small amount, even though this could be remitted for married couples once they sell their first residential property within the specified timeline. This experience is different for a HDB owner who upgrades to an Executive Condominium (EC) or even buying another larger HDB unit. The Government grants semi-automatic ABSD remission providing them six months after collecting the keys to sell the flat. Mr Chairman, this remission reduces the pressure of having to pay the ABSD in a short span of 14 days, a relief the HDB owners transitioning to private properties do not enjoy. I would like to ask if there is any rationale behind the absence of remission for a HDB to private property automatically, as a compared to HDB or EC upgraders.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister. I would just like to share that I did not make the allegation. Basically, what I was trying to get at is that if you look at the context of Singapore, the land sales revenue, I think that is a recurrent source of revenue for the Government over a period of time. I am actually not belittling the work of our MND and the good officers of the URA. I think that is something that they have done well in terms of the concept plan and the master plan. What we are looking at is in terms of the level of cash surplus that the Government is generating, understanding where this comes from. Because on the technical point as well, if the NIRC is something that is to be used, then that should not actually form part of the cash surplus if it has already been used.”
“And I think earlier today, a separate Member also asked how long do we need before we can replenish our reserves. So, probably it will be helpful for Members of this House to understand, after accounting for the additional $11 billion of the draw at the end of FY2021, where would our reserves be? I mean, we do not need to know an absolute number, but where would our reserves be compared to 10 years ago, five years ago. That also helps us to understand the context, but without knowing the absolute amount of the reserves itself.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for responding to some of the points I raised in my speech. Just two clarifications, Mr Speaker. The first is one where I raised that the Government cash surplus from 2011 to 2019, that is about $261 billion or about $29 billion of cash surplus a year. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that the land sales revenue would form a key part of it. Based on what I could see, that would be about a $138 billion within the same time period or about $15 billion. So, in the spirit of accountability, just so all of us can better understand, where did the balance of $14 billion of cash surplus come from? And I understand the need for us to be prudent about the use of land sales and this is something which I understand, but I think it is not one where we are calling for the use of land sales revenue in its entirety. It is one whereby, if you look at the incentives to using land sales revenue, they already exist today, but probably in a different extent. And I think it is also important, I guess, for me to share that — Sorry, so, what I mean is that the incentives for using land sales as a means to increase revenue. I think that is something that is already done indirectly and so that is already in place although to a different extent. But I think the broader point that I also would like to share, is in the context of Singapore, when it comes to land sales, it is something which I believe is a recurring source of revenue for the Government as well. That is the first clarification. The second is, there has been a lot of talk about our reserves. Just now Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that is about 20 years of surplus. Yesterday, a different Member shared that we have blown about 10 years' worth of savings.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just a short clarification on Member Shawn Huang's clarification earlier just now. I do recognise that the $6 billion assurance package does go some way to offset the GST increase for families up to between five and 10 years. But I think, thereafter, the reality of the higher GST will still hit them for the rest of their lives. So, I think the starting point is then, there are progressive elements in our tax system and regressive elements. As what another Member, Ms Foo also said, perhaps we could look at wealth taxes being another option if we really do determine that a raise in tax in necessary. But I think the broader point that I was raising in my speech is actually is the imposition of such a tax necessary in the first place, especially amidst the macro economic uncertainties.”
“Similarly, while it is important to ensure the sustainability of our economy, the country’s sustainable development is also based on social sustainability. The pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of our society and reflected the many inadequacies of our social safety net. It is a continuous effort to strengthen and expand our social safety net. To encourage Singaporeans to face changes more bravely, to transform and accept re-training with more adaptability in the post-COVID era, we need a strong safety net to enable Singaporeans to face future challenges with greater confidence and ease. 4.10 pm”
“And I do recognise efforts by CPF to make it easier for members to top up their own or their loved ones' CPF accounts. However, this only seem to pass the problem to the younger generation, where they not only have to worry about having adequate CPF balances for their retirement, but they also worry for their parents' retirement as well. All this while the rising cost of living, increase in property prices continue to erode the disposable cashflow of households, and therefore the ability of the sandwiched generation to contribute more to their own and their parents' CPF accounts. What can we do to ensure that we progress closer to the 100% mark that all Singaporeans are adequately prepared for retirement, with minimal financial stress on the younger generation? With rising life expectancy and an ageing population, how can we devote resources to ensure that Singaporeans who devoted their lives building the country, can retire with a decent living standard and live their lives in dignity? Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, COVID-19 has undoubtedly brought about a crisis, but it has also brought about opportunities for change. There is no doubt that we should take this opportunity to restructure the economy and encourage businesses to transform, so as to ensure that our economy can ride out the storm. However, we should also bear in mind that in formulating policies, we should not just consider the economic aspects; we should give priority to the welfare of all Singaporeans and take care of the disadvantaged groups in society. As Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat has said, the focus of our next phase of work should shift from tackling the pandemic to emerging stronger in the post-COVID era.”
“The bottom line to me then is therefore that we must caution against being overzealous in strengthening our revenue position through multiple pathways, such as the impending GST hike, especially amidst the macroeconomic uncertainties of today. This brings me to my third point, and that is on a countrywide level, while we talk about how much excess cash we truly have, and how much of our revenues are not revenues at all, on an individual level, Singaporeans are increasingly worried about their lack of a rainy-day fund, with many of our elderly residents suffering from retirement inadequacy. Earlier this month, I filed a Parliamentary Question on the number and percentage of active and inactive CPF members who are able to meet the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS). While the proportion of active members turning 55 who have been able to set aside the BRS improved from 62% in 2018 to 66% in 2020, there remains a third of active members today who were not even able to have $93,000 in their Retirement Accounts last year. Last year, Deputy Prime Minister Heng shared that 435,000 Singaporeans aged 55 to 70 have not been able to set aside the prevailing Basic Retirement Sum. This represents approximately 58% of Singaporeans in that age band in 2019. Despite a lifetime of hard work and contribution to our nation, sadly more than half of our seniors do not appear to have sufficient funds to have the option to retire comfortably. We can choose to think that outside of CPF balances, our elderly residents are likely to have other means of provision, which the CPF Board has no sight of. We could also fall back on self-reliance through working beyond retirement, or family support.”
“Such a calculation, while simplistic would also be broadly in line with official data from the Department of Statistics, where the Government cash surplus from 2011 to 2019, the latest available data point, is a cumulative $261 billion. In other words, we run on a recurring basis an average of $29 billion of cash surplus a year. Why is this important? I recognise that the official Budget is based on revenues that the Government of the day can spend under the Constitution. Not all Government revenues and receipts collected can be spent by the Government. But when we say that we need to raise GST sometime during 2022 to 2025 and sooner rather than later, that “without the GST rate increase, we will not be able to meet our rising recurrent needs”, and that “it is not tenable for the Government to run persistent budget deficits outside periods of crisis”, then these statements ought to be framed in the context of the Government’s recurring cash surplus every year up to 2019. Is the imposition of a broad based, regressive tax then truly justified? Further, I observe that in the official Budget, NIRC contributions are expected to continue its steady path of increase, from $17 billion in 2019 to $18.1 billion in 2020 and $19.5 billion in 2021. Even amidst the crisis of a generation, the NIRC alone is expected to rise by $1.4 billion in 2021. With NIRC estimates supposed to be based off expected long-term real rates of return, and with a draw on the reserves amounting to a generation's worth of savings, what then has led to the increase, and is the growth in NIRC expected to continue accelerating?”
“We should thus continue focusing on policies that aim to stimulate and boost domestic demand and keep our economy going, keep businesses and consumer confidence high, while minimising the long-term scarring caused by the pandemic. As we speak, the largest economy in the world, the US is looking to put through a $1.9 trillion stimulus package, equivalent to about 9% of GDP, on the back of a $3 trillion package in 2020. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has highlighted the case for increased fiscal spending to avoid a "longer, more painful recession". She said and I quote, "the smartest thing we can do is act big. In the long run, I believe the benefits will far outweigh the costs, especially if we care about helping people who have been struggling for a very long time". I believe Singapore is no different. In order to reverse the pains from this recession, we must be willing to devote more resources to supporting our businesses and fellow Singaporeans. I recognise that Budget 2021 is an expansionary one, similar to Budget 2020. The Government expects an overall budget deficit of $11.0 billion, or 2.2% of GDP. But this has to be seen against the context of Singapore’s unique budgetary policies. Had we taken the total estimated receipts of $103.7 billion, less the total expenditure of $107.2 billion, then the deficit would have been a more modest $3.5 billion or 0.7% of GDP. If we extend this analysis and took the total receipts less the total expenditure over the last 10 years from 2011 to 2020, then the total surplus would have amounted to about $205 billion. This would be vastly different compared to the reported cumulative deficit of about minus $32 billion over the same period from 2011 to 2020.”
“As the schemes borne out of COVID-19 such as the COVID-19 Recovery Grant are already designed and implemented, could they remain a more permanent feature of our financial assistance schemes to workers? Ultimately, we may need to think of implementing automatic stabilisers instead of discretionary, ad hoc schemes to enhance the resilience of our workforce. An example would be unemployment insurance, which can provide workers with resources to alleviate near term anxieties associated with job losses, while reducing the incidence of under-employment. Further, in a working paper published by the Institute of Policy Studies on 9 February this year, the researchers highlighted if the Government issues debt to finance a programme in unemployment insurance, inter-generational equality could be improved. The paper further stated, and I quote, "children of unemployed parents have a greater chance of social mobility if their parents are supported by a Government provisioned unemployment insurance programme". The second point I want to raise is a broader question on the appropriateness of our fiscal policies. Having recognised the challenging terrain that Singapore is in today, our Budget and financial policies should then be the key enabler rather than impediment, towards allowing us to chart our roadmap to success, and embark confidently on a journey towards truly emerging stronger from this crisis. In October last year, I spoke about the continued need for an accommodative fiscal policy. Despite the hopes we pin on a successful vaccination programme, we are not out of the woods yet, and the economic recovery we are hopeful of, is a fragile one.”
“Looking around construction sites across Singapore, one cannot help but notice the large number of foreign conglomerates appointed as main contractor for building and infrastructure sites. In 2017, it was revealed in Parliament that while 80% of Government contracts in number are awarded to SMEs, only half by contract value is awarded to SMEs. Could more be done to provide greater opportunities to local SMEs, to give them the chance to scale up and build up a requisite track record in our very own home market? Supporting our local workers should also go hand-in-hand with supporting our enterprises. With the shortening of business cycles and hastening of technological disruption, the threat of widespread job losses and rapid job irrelevance is only going to rise in future. During this crisis, the Jobs Support Scheme, or JSS, has been an important policy measure to provide direct wage support. Given the uneven economic recovery, in what is called a K-shaped recovery, it is important to ensure that the hardest hit sectors and workers are given a fair chance of survival. While there remains debate as to the tiering of sectors and the adequacy of continuing support, the extended JSS support to tier 1 and tier 2 sectors is nonetheless a welcome relief to companies in these selected sectors. The launch of the COVID-19 Recovery Grant to directly support lower to middle income workers, presently experiencing involuntary job losses or income loss is also a timely and important one. Whether or not COVID-19 is here to stay for the next few years, there will continue to be redundancies and job losses at any stage of the economic cycle.”
“With COVID-19 comes a crisis, but also an opportunity for us to use this time to restructure our economy, focusing our growth in areas where we might be able to develop and maintain a competitive advantage. To restructure our economy, efforts should be targeted at the building blocks of our economy, our local enterprises and local workforce. On local enterprises, I believe the initiatives announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng to accelerate the growth of new digital capabilities are laudable. These include the emerging technology programme, CTO-as-a-service and digital leaders programme to help more businesses adopt increased digitalisation solutions, as part of their core competencies. These are good solutions to support our local businesses, small or large. We should also, however, double down on efforts to better support SMEs to scale up and internationalise. While this could involve Government agencies facilitating access to global markets, while providing technical and financial assistance, could we better incentivise large local GLCs or even MNCs, to partner with our local SMEs in their internationalisation efforts? Today, SMEs represent 99% of companies in Singapore and employ 72% of our workforce. However, SMEs contribute just 44% to Singapore's GDP in 2019, having steadily declined from 50% in 2014. A vibrant SME eco-system is thus imperative for our future economy, with SMEs' success key to driving entrepreneurship and innovation in Singapore. Yet, while we look to support local SMEs' internationalisation efforts, our open economy and transparent business rules also mean that international MNCs can easily outbid local SMEs in domestic tenders, especially in price-based contracts.”
“Mr Speaker, the past year has been a tumultuous and rather peculiar one. Even as Parliament sits now, the recent Chinese New Year celebrations have been a rather quiet affair for many families and friends. While the on-going vaccination programme offers a sliver of hope that we might emerge from this pandemic sooner than later, the task of rebuilding for a new normal begins now. More than that, we must be cognisant that there has never been a more opportune time to take firm action, to reform our economy and social compact, with the hope that we might be able to come out of the woods stronger than ever. Beyond the pandemic, we need to look at not just headline economic growth, but instead quality or inclusive growth; to sharpen our focus on how we can uplift our entire country and maximise the overall well-being of all Singaporeans in a sustainable manner, in the long run. On this note, I would like to highlight three broad areas we should focus on in my speech. The first point I would like to make would be on the urgent need to restructure our economy. Even prior to 2020, our five-year average GDP growth rate through 2019 is at 2.9%, lagging that of the global economy at 3.4%. If we use the public markets as a proxy to the state of corporate performance in Singapore, return on equity for the Singapore market, ex-financials, has also seen a steady decline, falling to a 20-year low of 5.9% in 2019. In the fourth quarter of 2019, 35% of firms listed in Singapore were already loss making, the highest since the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis. And these were even before the effects of COVID-19 in 2020.”
“I thank the Minister for the response. So, again, if we just use our energy sources, I do recognise that we have geographical constraints. And even in the use of solar energy, for example, we have set a target to reach 2 GWps by 2030. But is there more that we could do to basically bring this number higher? I think in the last sitting in January, some of the Members have also asked about this question. I also understand that certain projects are basically in the pipeline in terms of potentially importing solar energy from our neighbours, or even from Australia, in terms of the project that is on-going there. I believe there are various technological pathways through which we can achieve some of these targets. But this is where, in the first place, for us to be able to recognise this climate emergency and to basically set ourselves a bit more of an ambitious target, given that Singapore has always had this history of outperforming its original expectations.”
“I thank the Minister for her supplementary questions. I think for the first question on the cabon tax, as mentioned by Member Louis Ng as well, the current carbon tax level is far too low and I would not want to pre-empt my colleague who will be speaking on this further. But I would say that, at this point in time, if you look at the Government's plan to review the tax rate by 2023, I think the $10 to $15 level is a level we believe – and I believe that Member Louis Ng has also agreed that it is inadequate. I will leave it to my colleague, Jamus, who will be speaking a bit further on what we do propose to be the levels of the carbon tax. On the second question in terms of what some of these other developed countries have done that we have not already done, I think this is a continuum. This is a continued progress. To me, the very first step is, as I have mentioned in my speech, that we have to set ourselves a bold target. If you just look at the energy mix, for example, I think that is one starting point which we could consider to reduce our reliance on, basically, fossil fuel sources for energy. I think that is one way where we can start to set the target for what is the level of energy generation from renewable sources that we would like to consider. This is something which we have to start with the end goal in mind in terms of potentially reaching net-zero much earlier rather than later.”
“As a nation, let us challenge ourselves to push the boundaries further to not be afraid to set the bar higher for the sake of our children and to be more courageous in our collective fight against the existential threat of climate change. Thank you.”
“Mr Speaker, Singapore still has much room for improvement in our efforts to tackle climate change, and the very first step is to recognise the climate emergency for what it is today. Rather than seeing this as an obstacle to economic growth and progress, instead, it should be viewed as an investment into future developments. Building a zero-carbon economy is a critical pathway to more resilient economic growth in the long run – a fact that is increasingly recognised by governments and corporations around the world. Temasek, for instance, has committed to delivering a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050. As a nation, let us challenge ourselves to push the boundaries further, to set the bar higher for the sake of our children, and to be more courageous in our collective fight against the threat of climate change. (In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, Singapore still has much room for improvement in our efforts to tackle climate change and the very first step is to recognise the climate emergency for what it is today. Yet, the beauty of it is that these changes need not come at the expense of economic growth and progress, but should instead be viewed as an investment into the industries of the future. The UK’s Climate Change Committee has concluded that despite there being an overall cost in bringing about the technologies to reduce carbon emissions, there is an increase in economic prosperity in terms of an aggregate increase in GDP, jobs and real disposable incomes. Building a zero-carbon economy is a critical pathway to more resilient economic growth in the long run – a fact that is increasingly recognised by governments and corporations around the world. Even Temasek, for instance, has committed to delivering a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050.”
“] Mr Speaker, even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. Upon the 5th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all governments to declare a state of climate emergency until carbon neutrality is achieved at the Climate Ambition Summit 2020. We should not only acknowledge this state of climate emergency, we can, should, and must do more. In view of this, I would like to propose four specific areas for improvement to reflect our nation’s commitment to tackling climate change. Firstly, we need to set more ambitious targets in growing our renewable energy mix. The Workers’ Party previously called for a minimum of 10% Singapore’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2025. Secondly, the carbon tax is another area with much potential for impact. I urge the Government to adopt a carbon price trajectory that is better aligned with the latest research on what is effective. This should also be complemented by financial assistance schemes to help cushion the impact of the carbon tax for lower income households. Thirdly, when it comes to Singapore’s specific measures in tackling climate change, the refining and petrochemical sector remains an elephant in the room. In 2017, about 75% of our industrial emissions were from this sector. There is therefore an urgent need to consider the role such industries will play in the Singapore economy of 2050 and beyond. How can we accelerate the restructuring of our economy to be better prepared for a low-carbon future, which is fast approaching? Lastly, to keep pace, we must continue to upsize the green industry and ensure our workforce is prepared to take on these new roles.”
“Yet, should our focus still remain on the old economy industries of the past? With oil majors pivoting away from fossil fuels, should Singapore not proactively engage these companies, to partner them on their journey to a net-zero future? How can we accelerate the restructuring of our economy to be better prepared for a low-carbon future which is fast approaching? This brings me to my fourth and final point, on Singapore’s potential to successfully drive the green revolution, if we genuinely commit to accelerating our efforts on this front. This is not the first time we are breaking new ground for Singapore. Shell built an oil refinery on Pulau Bukom in 1961 and it was the first foreign investor to receive Singapore’s Pioneer Certificate Number 1 for its investment. A small island to the south of Singapore became one of the largest refinery complexes globally and sparked the start of Singapore’s pursuit of the petrochemicals industry. While the sun is setting for fossil fuels, the time has come for a new period of rapid development in the clean energy industry. Minister Masagos previously said in 2018 that the clean energy industry will add as many as 2.2 million jobs in Southeast Asia by 2030. Looking at global trends, this number will only continue to grow. To keep pace, we must continue to upsize the green industry and ensure our workforce is prepared to take on these new roles. I highly commend the recent move to boost training and recruitment of local talents in the solar industries, and urge the relevant agencies to expand and extend this commitment to other green industries as well. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“I urge the Government to adopt a carbon price trajectory that is better aligned with the latest research on what is effective. It should also be complemented by financial assistance schemes to help cushion the impact of the carbon tax for lower income households. Thirdly, Singapore’s refining and petrochemical sector remains an elephant in the room in our discussions on climate change. In 2017, about 75% of our industrial emissions were from this sector. There is, therefore, an urgent need to consider the role such industries will play in the Singapore economy of 2050 and beyond. Already, we are starting to see key players restructure and pivot towards cleaner energy sources, particularly in the wake of COVID-19's impact on energy demand and prices. Both Shell and BP have set ambitious targets of becoming a net-zero emissions company by 2050. Shell is investing in more lower carbon technology while expanding its renewable energy and power division. Thus far, the Government has been advocating for a practical approach, a realistic approach towards the petrochemical industry, given that it is a key employer and a key contributor to our economy today. However, we are already seeing signs of the practical changes oil majors are making today, in preparing for their companies’ realistic future. In June 2020, BP announced it is cutting 10,000 jobs or 15% of its workforce. In October 2020, ExxonMobil announced it is cutting 14,000 jobs globally, 15% of its workforce. Closer to home, Shell is targeting to cut 500 jobs by 2023 at Pulau Bukom from the current 1,300 staff today, and with refining capacity halved in the next one to two years. Given Singapore’s position as a leading oil and gas hub in Asia, it is inevitable that such changes will impact our economy.”
“Yet, we were still able to punctually achieve our 2020 solar deployment target of 350 megawatt-peak in the first quarter of 2020, reaching 1.5 gigawatt-peak by 2025 and at least 2 gigawatt-peak by 2030. Solar, however, is only expected to contribute 3% of our electricity needs. Are we genuinely pushing the boundaries, or simply setting benchmarks we can easily hit? Earlier, in January this year, I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry on whether we have a target mix for the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources in 2030 and 2050, and if we would consider setting a target mix that we can strive for together as a nation. However, I do not recall such a target being shared. The Workers’ Party previously called for a minimum of 10% of Singapore’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2025. The IEA also estimates that 30% of electricity generation globally in 2020 is already from renewable sources. A starting point for us then is having a target in the first place. Secondly, the carbon tax is another area with much potential for impact. To put it simply, the IMF has described carbon pricing as the “single most powerful” way to combat climate change. It is commendable that Singapore implemented a carbon tax in 2019, the first nation in Southeast Asia to do so. But the current rate of $5/tCO2e, however, is too nominal, sitting far below global scientific recommendations. I fully recognise that this is a sensitive period to be raising the carbon tax and also note the Government’s plans to review the tax rate by 2023, and increase it to between $10/tCO2e and $15/tCO2e by 2030. As Member Louis Ng said earlier in his speech, this is far too low.”
“While we now have an absolute emissions target, this absolute figure of 65 MtCO2e is actually equivalent to the 36% reduction in Emissions Intensity from 2005 levels by 2030 and, hence, it is the exact same target that was set back in 2015. To put it bluntly, the updated target does not genuinely limit emissions growth today beyond what was already committed to under our first NDC. I recognise that the Government is targeting 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, which is half that of the 65 million tonnes around 2030. As a nation, Singapore’s climate targets still fall short of IPCC’s recommendations to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. In contrast, the European Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050, along with more than 110 other countries. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is pledging to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. Even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. We can, should and must do more. In view of this, I would like to propose four specific areas for improvement to reflect our nation’s commitment to tackling climate change. Firstly, we need to set more ambitious targets in growing our renewable energy mix. According to statistics from Singapore’s Energy Market Authority, as at July 2020, 96% of our electricity in Singapore is produced from natural gas, 1.2% is from coal and petroleum products and 2.8% is from other sources, including solar. I recognise that there are significant challenges to deploying solar on a large scale in Singapore, including land constraints and local weather conditions.”
“Mr Speaker, the Motion first raised by Member Louis Ng "To accelerate and deepen efforts against climate change" is an urgent one, as we make a decision on how we want to rebuild our economy and what kind of an economy we envisage for Singapore in future. Just recently, at the Climate Ambition Summit 2020, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all governments to declare a state of climate emergency. Our Government has also acknowledged the threat of climate change and put in place a number of strategies to tackle this global issue. But are we doing enough as a nation? Are we acknowledging the climate emergency for what it is? In March 2020, Singapore submitted an updated Nationally Determined Contribution to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While we previously committed to reduce our Emissions Intensity levels on a per dollar of GDP basis, the new NDC adopts an absolute emissions target instead. This is a step forward as it provides greater transparency and reinforces the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change. However, when we take a closer look at the updated target, how much has actually changed? The first NDC, submitted in 2015, stated our intention to reduce emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and this will imply emissions at around 65 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) with the aim of peaking around 2030. Similarly, the updated NDC reiterates that Singapore intends to peak emissions at 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission around 2030, and only reach net-zero emissions “as soon as viable” in the second half of the century.”
“I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation. I have got two supplementary questions. The first is in relation to the setting off targets. I note the Minister's speech that we are expected to employ two gigawatt peaks of solar energy by 2030 which we expect to contribute to 3% of our electricity generation needs, and also, that we are going to have an emissions target for 2030 and 2050. And in relation to these, if I may ask, if the Ministry would consider setting a target mix for the amount of electricity that is going to be generated from renewable energy sources as a target that we can strive for together as a nation? If we look at the IEA estimates, at present, globally, about 30% of the electricity generation is really from renewable sources. I recognise that we have geographical constraints but is that perhaps a goal that we can strive towards, especially when we are already considering new green energy sources such as hydrogen, which I recognise that the EMA is already studying. The second is in relation to the calculation of electrical tariffs. Right now, given that 95% of the energy mix is derived from natural gas, I think the fuel cost component is pretty much based on average natural gas prices, especially if future transmission from regional grids are involved. How then would the fuel costs as well as network costs component be calculated, and how would that be passed on to consumers at the end of the day?”
“With COVID-19, we have been forced to adopt digital contact tracing, which, much like digital payments, make use of the scanning of QR codes. I am sure Members would agree with me that the scanning of SafeEntry QR codes is now second nature to Singapore residents. Yet the uptake for digital payment remains low as compared to a country like, say, China, where the authorities had to intervene to ensure that merchants still accept cash as a mode of payment – quite the opposite of Singapore's experience today, with "Cash Only" signs still quite commonplace at small businesses in Singapore. I note that the SG Digital Office was established in May 2020 under IMDA, but beyond Hawkers Go Digital or Seniors Go Digital, we could perhaps ask ourselves, why is it that the uptake of digital payment still remains low in Singapore and if more can be done to encourage the uptake of digital payment in the near future. Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the payment industry is a rapidly developing one with huge potential for growth and I am heartened that we are riding this wave in the hopes that we will remain competitive for many years to come. At the same time, of course, let us not forget that the older generation might not be as proficient technologically and we should push for progress while also being cognisant of not leaving anyone behind.”
“A wider adoption of digitalisation can only be built up when consumers have adequate trust that the system works and that adequate circuit breakers or minimal fail safes are present to mitigate any damage. An example of which is the deposit insurance scheme in the case of monies in banks. A balance has to be struck, however, as mentioned by my colleague Leon Perera. There is the perception that increased regulatory powers by MAS may spark fears of over-regulation and excessively stifle innovation. In this regard, both end users and companies could benefit from greater regulatory and operational clarity sooner rather than later. The second point I would like to highlight is with regards to the potential upward revision of the current limits on e-wallet users. Under the current Payment Services Act, e-wallet users can hold no more than $5,000 in their accounts while they can transact no more than $30,000 each year. According to MAS, these limits are in place to safeguard the risk of excess monetary outflows from bank deposits to non-bank e-money. With the signing of the new trade agreement with the UK, MAS has said that it would review these payment limits. I would like to ask when is the review expected to be concluded and, with the expected passing of the Payment Services Act's amendments, could the review then being expedited? Because a higher limit would mean that firms can potentially offer more services to their customers, which in turn, encourages wider adoption and usage of digital payments in line with our hope for developing a Smart Nation. Finally, and more broadly, I would like to touch on the fact that despite the great strides we have made in advancing technological adoption, it appears that cash is still king in Singapore.”
“Now, I note that while the Act came into force on 28 January 2020, there remains about 361 companies that are still on the exemption list and awaiting the outcome of their PSA licence application. I understand that the MAS has a list of admission criteria but these are not meant to be exhaustive. Will the Minister provide greater clarity as to the factors and their respective weightings in MAS' considerations in granting or rejecting PSA licensees? More importantly, what is the number of applicants at the various stages of approval and what is holding back MAS from approving or rejecting these applications? Is the team overseeing the approvals adequately staffed to support the timely developments in this arena? On that note, I would also like to seek clarifications on some of the proposed amendments to the Payment Services Act. The first is with regard to user protection measures. Section 21 of the amendment gives MAS the power to impose user protection measures. However, there is no clarity for now as to what these measures might be at the moment, although MAS will consult the public and the industry on any implementation of such measures. MAS has also highlighted in an April 2020 FAQ paper that it does not intend to provide any regulatory safeguards for investments in digital payments, the safety and soundness of DPT service providers or the proper processing of DPT transactions. In light of concerns surrounding business failures and cybersecurity, I believe a clear framework should be adopted and put in place as a pre-emptive measure, which aims to imbue users with greater confidence in the payment service infrastructure in Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as an employee of a financial institution in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, the last I checked, Bitcoin was at a record high of around US$31,000, having risen almost fourfold over the course of 2020, far surpassing the previous highs of around US$19,800 set in December 2017, just before its precipitous crash in the months after. Many have called Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies a massive bubble, but fast forward to today, as alluded by other Members of this House, industry players see 2020 as a year where Bitcoin was perhaps being institutionalised. Conventional asset managers such as Ruffer and MassMutual now have Bitcoins as part of their asset allocation. PayPal is enabling cryptocurrency as a funding source for digital commerce and our very own DBS and SGX have launched the DBS Digital Exchange in December 2020 to welcome the mainstream adoption of digital assets and currency trading. This is a further testimony to how banks and institutional investors, both local and abroad, are trying to keep up with the times to ensure that they remain relevant in the financial service offerings. Indeed, the recent approval of the new digital banking licences in December is indicative that Singapore is taking a leap forward in attempting to become even more competitive as a global financial hub. Against this backdrop, it is heartening to note that the MAS is also very quick to update the Payment Services Act 2019 so as to strengthen the regulatory frameworks, especially with regards to anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing. In keeping with the spirit of progress, we should also consider the progress made in assessing payment service provider applications and the pace at which approvals are given.”
“Mr Speaker, I have two follow-up supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, I understand that because of commercial sensitivities, the exact number of doses of vaccines cannot be shared but, perhaps, the Minister can share with us, in aggregate, the number of doses that have been secured to give people the assurance that there is more than sufficient. As alluded to by Dr Lim Wee Kiak as well as Ms Foo Mee Har, I think you will also give Singaporeans comfort to know of the expected delivery timeline of when they will be able to be vaccinated in the rest of the year. The second question is also a follow-up question to what the Minister has said in terms of individual autonomy to choose the vaccines. For people who are within the same category, for example, who are Singaporeans, who are male and of a certain age, what is the approach or process by which the vaccine is being administered, given that should there be more than one that has been approved? Would the Ministry provide the up-to-date information as to the different side effects, efficacy rates as well as various clinical trial data for people who are being administered a particular vaccine to have a sense of these are?”
“I thank the Minister for his response to the question. I have got two supplementary questions. The first is, now that we know that the high speed rail has officially been cancelled, if the Minister can share with the Members of the House what were some of the substantive points of differences that cannot be breached that led to the cancellation? And in relation to compensation, I note earlier in July 2018 that former Transport Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan said that the total cost incurred back then was exceeding $250 million which is expected to exceed $300 million by the end of 2018. So, in relation to the expenditure already incurred, if Minister could share the details on what is the difference and whether or not we will be able to recover the full amount of the expenditure, excluding land acquisition costs, as the Minister had mentioned, and if so, when should we expect some form of conclusion on this?”
“Meanwhile, COVID-19 has resulted in the dual impact to the retail sector in Singapore: first, an acceleration in the already rapid growth of the e-commerce market where online sales represented 10.9% of the latest retail sales value in August, having reached a high of 24.5% in May this year; secondly, the continued struggle of bricks-and-mortar retailers amid an uneven playing field. As we look to support SME retailers with the Rental Relief Framework while providing support to employment via the JSS, it is perhaps now timely to look into addressing a growing source of tax leakage due to overseas online retailers and correct the key imbalance faced by tax-paying retailers in Singapore. More broadly, the liquidation of Robinson's after more than 162 years of operation here in Singapore is perhaps a grim reminder of the state of the retail landscape in Singapore today and how more needs to be done to address the various costs of doing business. Mr Speaker, to conclude, I support the Bill and believe we are rightly concerned about the loss of public revenues as a result of missing trader fraud and tax avoidance arrangements. But the changing economic and retail landscape is perhaps a timely reminder of our need to continue addressing other forms of GST leakage and exploring other forms of revenue sources before looking to an eventual GST hike to raise tax revenues. 2.46 pm”
“These include whether the circumstances are such that there was a reasonable risk of the supply being part of the fraudulent arrangement and, hence, whether or not taxable person took reasonable steps to ascertain these. However, even if the taxable person had taken reasonable steps and arrived at the wrong conclusion, it does not spare the taxable person from being taken that he should have known that the arrangement was fraudulent. This would this be potentially onerous on companies, especially SMEs who may not have the same capabilities to conduct extensive due diligence, as compared to larger companies with greater economies of scale. Codification of what the reasonable person or reasonable steps mean would thus be critical for SMEs to not fall foul of new requirements. Yet while we are looking to address the loss of public revenues via Missing Trader Fraud with this amendment, I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Ministry what has been the progress of the Government's study on an e-commerce tax? In Budget 2018, I note the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's announcement that the Government will introduce GST on imported services with effect from 1 January 2020 or what we commonly call a “Netflix tax”. This is to make sure that our tax system remains fair and resilient in the digital economy. For the import of goods, I noted Minister Heng Swee Keat then remarks and, I quote, "For the import of goods, there are international discussions on how GST can apply. We will review this before deciding on the measure to take." The OECD has since endorsed new rules and frameworks for the collection of taxes on online sale of goods in March 2019.”
“Mr Speaker, it has been said that in this world, nothing can be said to be certain except for death and taxes and of all the forms of taxation in the market, the Goods and Services Tax being a broad-based consumption tax is perhaps one that is most inescapable to the everyday person. In the context of Singapore, the GST is now one of the largest contributors to our operating revenues at $11.2 billion in FY 2019, behind corporate income tax at $16.8 billion and personal income tax at $12.2 billion respectively. While GST revenues were initially estimated at $11.27 in FY 2020, this has since been revised to $9.69 billion or a 14% reduction given the impact of the current economic slowdown. Particularly against this backdrop, I agree in principle that strengthening measures to enhance the Comptroller of GST's powers to safeguard public monies and minimise the loss of public revenues is of utmost importance. The introduction of measures to counter Missing Trader Fraud and counteract tax avoidance arrangement in the GST (Amendment) Bill is thus timely. In the EU, it is estimated that the losses from VAT fraud amounts to 60 billion Euros annually, as Second Minister Lawrence Wong has mentioned in his speech. To this end, I would like to ask what is the Ministry's assessment of the estimated annual losses in Singapore due to Missing Trader Fraud. In addition, I am also concerned about the potential impact of the amendments to SMEs who are already facing resource constraints. Section 20, subsection (2)(d) to (f) specify the conditions to reach a taxable person should have known that the supply made to the taxable person was part of an arrangement to cause loss of public revenues.”
“This would then truly give meaning to the phrase under section 26G and that is to provide individuals with greater autonomy and control over their personal data. Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the updated PDPA is the right step in ensuring the data security of Singaporeans. What has perhaps not been fully addressed is firstly, the ability to enforce such rules to protect against unsolicited messages, particularly from overseas parties; secondly, the power imbalance between organisations and individuals under a deemed consent opt-out regime; and finally, the individual’s rights to his or her data. In this rapidly evolving digital age, it is imperative that we constantly assess and fine-tune the PDPA, in order to maintain the effectiveness of its safeguards.”
“The PDPC could consider something similar by carving out exceptional categories of data where deemed consent by notification, cannot work or requires express consent. Lastly, on the new Part VIB on data portability. The introduction of the new data portability obligation is a welcome one, where an organisation must at the request of an individual, transmit his or her personal data that is in the organisation's possession or under its control to another organisation in a commonly used machine-readable format. However, while the individual can request for his or her data to be transferred from one organisation to another, individuals themselves do not have the specific right to receive a copy of such data in a machine-readable format before it is ported over. This may pose issues for individuals that may want to limit or select the data they would like to hand over to the receiving organisation. And this will be unlike Article 20 of the European GDPR, which gives individuals the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her. I acknowledge that there is an "access request" under section 21 of the current PDPA, where individuals may be able to get a copy of their personal data that is under the possession of the originating organisation. However, it is unclear to what extent this will apply hand-in-hand with the data portability obligation. Further in this digital world, it is often been said that, "the Internet never forgets". Could we perhaps go one step further and that in addition to data portability and access to one's personal data, can the individual be granted the right to request organisations to delete personal data at his or her request?”
“Individuals also have the right to opt out or withdraw consent within a reasonable period. Mr Speaker, this system reduces the power of individuals relative to organisations who have the power to determine if the collection use and disclosure of personal data have any adverse effect on the individuals. Section 15(a) also gives organisations the freedom to determine whether or not there is any adverse effect on the individual, which may not always be interpreted in the individual's favour. The new provision does serve as an exception to the consent obligation and moves the data protection framework away from express and explicit consent to implicit consent from individuals. For example, online shopping algorithms are designed to identify the type of product a person is interested in and to suggest to the person, items that he or she may like to purchase. If a person for example, has conditions that decreases his overall well-being with these advertisements, for example, having compulsive buying disorder, is that deemed as an adverse effect that should be intervened? An organisation needs to identify and implement reasonable measures to eliminate or reduce the probability of the adverse effect. What are some of the ways that these can be executed in reality? Further, what is regarded as a reasonable period for individuals to opt out? Are businesses allowed to determine this or will the commission be providing some guidance on the general timeframe? Perhaps, we could adopt the practice from the European General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR, where there are specific categories of data in which processing such data is prohibited unless explicit consent is given by the individual.”
“Now, with the revised Bill when organisations have breached the PDPA Act, they could have to pay a penalty of 10% of their annual Singapore turnover or up to S$1 million dollars, whichever figure is higher. However, I would like to ask, how can we better protect Singaporeans against unsolicited messaging and fraudulent communication from criminal syndicates, especially the elderly who are at risk of such scams. In particular, how does the Commission intend to take action against parties that are not even based in Singapore. Second is the topic on deemed consent and deemed consent by notification. Mr Speaker, under the section of deemed consent, organisations are allowed to pass information to a third party for the fulfilment of the contract between the person and the organisation. While this makes sense, we should question if there are any mitigating factors to prevent the unwanted spreading of personal particulars or information from the third party organisation to subsequent parties for their benefit. For example, targeted marketing strategies as well as also raising the possible issue of increased risk of the spread of personal information. With personal data held by multiple parties across multiple jurisdictions potentially, the risk of the data leak is much higher and data protection is only as strong as the weakest link. Furthermore, in the newly added section 15(a), deemed consent by notification, organisations are now able to collect information on the individual as long as the organisation has taken reasonable steps to inform the individual the organisation's intent, purpose to collect, use or disclose the person's data. The organisation itself also has to make sure that this is not likely to have an adverse effect on the individual.”
“While I appreciate the effort to enhance the legal framework for the collection, use and disclosure of personal data, and to strengthen the accountability of organisations in respect of handling these data, I believe that there is still room for further refinement, namely in strengthening protection against unsolicited communication, clarifications on deemed consent and individuals rights under data portability. Firstly, protection against unsolicited commercial messages. Mr Speaker, there are multiple safeguards in place within the original PDPA, with the intention to protect data privacy of individuals. One of such safeguards is the Do Not Call Registry when an individual can opt to be excluded for marketing or promotional messages. However, even with such safeguards in place, most Singaporeans still get unsolicited calls and messages from telesales agencies, moneylenders, illegal gambling advertisements and even phishing scam calls claiming to be from SingPost or DHL, asking them to collect the parcel. Improved controls for unsolicited commercial messages and the section 43, would thus, be welcomed by consumers. A few years ago, I have personally lodged a Police report over persistent and unlicensed moneylending messages, but I was subsequently told by the Investigation Officer that the perpetrators are based overseas and that there is not much that we can do. I acknowledged that some of these calls and messages are from overseas or even from masked numbers. However, some are actually conducted from local numbers and since 2005, it is compulsory to present customer details to telcos when purchasing both a prepaid and postpaid SIM card.”
“Mr Speaker, the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill is a much welcome update, eight years after the original Bill was first introduced in 2012. Eight years is a long time in the digital age. Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds and such technological improvements have also significantly changed our lives. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair] Singapore has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world. Eighty-eight percent of the population are Internet users and spend close to seven hours a day on the Internet on average. They 8.9 million mobile connections, approximately 1.5 times more than the country's population. The easy access of the Internet allows people to engage in content sharing, online shopping, access gaming sites and social media platforms amongst others. The law, too, has to keep up with the times. With increasing usage of such digital platforms comes increasing risk of personal data breaches. Most Singaporeans use their smartphones for social networking or to search for information. And as a result, the number of scammers, impersonators and cyber attacks has jumped nine folds in the last three years with 672 cases in the first 11 months of 2019, with over half the victims in their 20s to 40s. In fact, just a few days ago, personal information from 1.1 million RedMart customers were stolen from Lazada, an e-commerce platform. Personal data such as names, phone numbers, emails and physical mailing addresses were being sold online.”
“I would also like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if we can consider re-assessing the need for some of this projected spending, in the hope that we might be able to direct more of these resources towards investing in Singaporeans, particularly in the more vulnerable groups in society instead. Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude my speech by summarising what I have said. Firstly, I believe in the continued need for an accommodative fiscal policy environment. Secondly, I enquired about the status of the JSS review, in the hope that we may focus on channelling more funding to vulnerable SMEs and affected workers. Thirdly, I would like to seek clarification on the expected NIRC forecasts in the spirit of prudence. And, finally, I would also like to seek clarification on the development expenditure adjustments, in the hope that we might be able to reassess the necessity of these deferred projects and direct investments into the more vulnerable in society instead. 2.09 pm”
“63 billion. I would like to seek clarification on how this was determined. In MOF's Addendum to the President's Address in August this year, I note that we have drawn on our reserves equivalent to over 20 years of past Budget surpluses. We have used a generation’s worth of savings to combat a crisis of a generation. I understand that the NIRC estimates are based on expected long-term real rates of return and not based on short-term returns which tend to be volatile. However, I would like to ask: if the draw on reserves is that sizable, that is, a generation's worth of savings, would it not cause a rather large decrease in our reserves and, therefore, reduce the NIRC, based on the simple mathematical formulation of returns multiplied by assets? In the spirit of prudence, is it still relevant and an accurate representation to keep the forecasts unchanged? Finally, I would like to seek clarification on the Budget adjustments to Development Estimates. Development expenditures across Ministries are lowered by a substantial $6.8 billion. Among the notable reductions are MOT at $3.59 billion, MTI at $744 million and MND at $614 million. As the paper notes, a majority of the lower revised estimates are due to COVID-19-induced construction delays. I would, therefore, like to seek clarification on what the nature of these big-ticket project items are, how much of a delay is estimated in these projects and how much of these can be deferred indefinitely or even cancelled. For example, Changi Airport Terminal 5 has already been delayed for at least two years.”
“For their scheme, businesses with AUD1 billion or less in aggregated turnover require a fall in expected or realised income by 30%, whereas businesses with an aggregated turnover of more than AUD1 billion will require an expected or realised fall in income by 50% or more to qualify for the same scheme. This actually helps the Australian government to direct more help to smaller businesses that require more assistance, rather than larger ones with more resources to stay afloat. A refinement, such as this, should not be expected to have significantly higher administrative burden and would definitely be a more efficient allocation of resources to those who need it more. Ultimately, we may need to think of implementing automatic stabilisers instead of discretionary ad-hoc schemes, as I have mentioned in my maiden speech. Direct assistance to companies, such as the Jobs Support Scheme, could arguably provide indirect support to employment. Yet, many have still lost their jobs, even as the companies they work for receive JSS subsidies. I am sure many Members in this House can attest to the frustrations that unemployed residents face, particularly for those who are victims of disguised retrenchments and are unable to receive financial support from the COVID-19 support grant as a result. Rather than providing blanket wage subsidies across companies, it is perhaps the workers themselves that are most in need of direct support and financial buffers in the event of unemployment. Thirdly, I would like to seek clarification regarding the expected NIRC contribution in the revised revenue estimates and FY2020 fiscal position under the Third Supplementary Estimates. In it, I note that the NIRC estimates as at 18 February and the revised FY2020 estimates today are the same at $18.”
“The second point I would like to cover is on the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS. The JSS has, indeed, been an important policy measure to support our businesses and save jobs, amidst these trying times. The conversation in my view, however, should move towards considering how we can help SMEs more and how we can more directly support Singaporeans who have lost their jobs. As Deputy Prime Minister Heng has clarified, SMEs currently get $10.5 billion out of the $16 billion that has been given out to firms thus far. That accounts for about 65% of the total amount of JSS being given out. However, SME workers consist of 73% of the local workers supported by JSS. At the heart of the policy, JSS aims to save as many jobs as possible during this period. It would, therefore, be more effective to direct a higher proportion of JSS payouts from the scheme towards SMEs, who make up a bigger proportion of jobs saved in comparison to larger MNCs, which tend to have more resources on hand to tide them through the crisis. I would like to take this time to ask about the review of the JSS that has been mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in his answer to my Parliamentary Question on 4 September and whether the Government will consider redirecting more resources away from companies that have been resilient or even thriving in this period of time, towards companies that are struggling to survive. Administratively, I note that we already provide differentiated rental support for SMEs where, under the rental relief framework, eligible SMEs which have experienced a 35% or more drop in revenue qualify for additional rental relief. As a further example, the Australian Jobkeeper Payment scheme separates the eligibility of the scheme based on business size.”
“Here, I would like to be clear that I am not for the squandering of resources built up by the blood, sweat and tears of the generations that came before us. In fact, just as Deputy Prime Minister Heng has mentioned, I believe in the need to exercise prudence when planning for the future. However, we need to acknowledge that the current weak economic environment requires sufficiently accommodative fiscal policy. Instead of contractionary fiscal policies, such as raising taxes on consumption, which might, in turn, lower consumer spending, we should be focusing on policies that aim to stimulate and boost domestic demand and keep our economy going. In a similar vein, I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng’s position to maintain a disciplined and judicious use of borrowing. There is perhaps scope to rethink our position on debt, however. In May this year, the UK sold negative yielding Government bonds, similar to Germany in 2019, meaning the UK government is being paid by investors to borrow from them. Singapore’s long bond yields are currently at less than 1%. Temasek, a private company, albeit owned by MOF, has issued 50-year bonds at 2.5% – 50 years. In this lower for longer interest rate environment, we should, as a Government, be open to exploring such possibilities, instead of funding our expenditures with higher cost equity funding or funding from our reserves. This is especially if the funds are being used for quality investment projects that will benefit current and future generations of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate the importance of an accommodative fiscal policy environment, more so now than ever. If we, as a country, have the ability to help Singaporeans get back up on their feet in their time of need, then we must do so.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to start off by acknowledging the close to $100 billion of support measures to deal with COVID-19 as laid out in the four earlier Budgets. While the COVID-19 situation in Singapore appears to have stabilised, the same cannot be said for many other countries and our trading partners around the world. We must remain vigilant and reopen safely to prevent a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in Singapore. Similarly, on the economic front, we too must take proactive steps to support our businesses and fellow Singaporeans to ensure a sustained economic recovery. On this note, I would like to present four points that I would like to cover with regard to the on-going efforts and plans for Singapore going forward. The first is the continued need for an accommodative fiscal policy. Singapore, like many other countries, has responded to the negative economic impacts via expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. The MAS estimates that the combined Budgets will prevent the economy from contracting by a further 5.6% of GDP in 2020 and 4.8% in 2021. I also note Minister Ong Ye Kung’s Statement last week that this is not the time to talk about an environmental tax. I believe this same logic can and should be applied to the lives of all Singaporeans, in the sense that any increase in taxation, especially regressive taxes, such as an eventual GST hike after 2021, could worsen the already precarious financial position that many Singaporeans are in right now. With the depth and duration of the current global economic crisis still to be ascertained, we must caution against being overzealous in strengthening our revenue position through a GST hike.”