Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I know the hour is late. I shall try to read my speech as quickly as I can. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Betterment Charge (LBC) Bill has significant implications in shaping the future of development in our country. My parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua will make an important speech, situating this Bill in the context of the Government's overall stance towards land sales in the treatment of the various revenue streams it thereby gains. While I support this Bill, I will focus my speech here today on three broad areas which are mostly technical and clarificatory: firstly, greater transparency on information and consultation on this new Land Betterment Charge Bill; secondly, issues around concessionary relief in deferment of liability to pay, ensuring that we give incentives only to developments that are rightly and squarely in the public interest; and thirdly, technical clarifications of interest to industry stakeholders. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as a CEO of a research consultancy that undertakes work in a broad range of fields. Firstly, Sir, on streamlining. This Bill brings together in streamlines three separate charges under a single Land Betterment Charge framework. By streamlining and combining these three charges into a single charge, this could simplify the processes for stakeholders and iron out any earlier disputes of unfairness in the different calculation methods for the different charges. However, to unlock these benefits, there should be greater transparency, accountability and stakeholder consultation on how this new Land Betterment Charge regime actually works. Under clause 65 of the Bill, the Minister may make regulations to use the Table of Rates method.”
“Yes. So, it appears that the Government does not. My question would be: would the Minister consider creating a structure within the CLG to ensure that senior editorial appointments are seen to be independent and safeguarded from any kind of influence whatsoever, and that is seen to be the case?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, very briefly, as we have been enjoined to do, I think with this latest move, the Government seems to acknowledge that commercially, it is very challenging to run a media operation, hence, the transition to the CLG structure. Given this context and given the NPPA regime where broadsheet newspapers need to obtain NPPA licences, going forward, will the Government consider practising a light touch in awarding licences to Singaporean-owned companies who feel that they might want to enter this space and give it a go? Because, they feel that they can innovate and somehow overcome these commercial hurdles as some media organisations in other parts of the world, like The Guardian in the UK, for example, have done. Secondly, I welcome the Minister's emphasis that the new entity must be seen to be non-partisan, objective and independent. To that end, would the Minister consider – either the CLG doing this or the Government doing this – to set KPIs that are regularly measured to ensure that the public actually believes in the independence of the new CLG, in its editorial independence, and to measure that regularly, given that taxpayer monies will be pumped in? And lastly, I would just like to ask a question about how senior editorial appointments in the new CLG will be made. In his memoirs, the former chief of SPH, Mr Cheong Yip Seng wrote on page 432, and I quote, "the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act gives the Government veto powers over who gets to edit newspapers". He is referring to his experience some time ago. I asked a Parliamentary Question more recently about whether the Government plays a role in newspaper editorial —”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed explanation. Just one supplementary question relating to the hotline. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that MOM has a hotline, a web service that migrant workers can use to raise these kinds of complaints about healthcare or other issues, and that awareness is raised about that when they initially come into Singapore. Can the Senior Minister of State share if this hotline or complaint service is widely used and is there any level of comfort that the migrant workers are comfortable with using this hotline and this appeal service, whether it is on the web or by phone? Because a lot will depend on the migrant workers coming forward to highlight these abuses; no one else may be aware of them at the point when these things happen.”
“Are low-income groups contracting more diseases, more severe diseases or even earlier diseases? Secondly, can we make more data public and healthcare outcomes for low-income groups? Are they receiving a later diagnosis with poorer outcomes compared to wealthy Singaporeans who can choose top tier private care, for example? I am not suggesting that this is the case but it would be useful to have the data. Some doctors have observed COVID-19-related backlogs and patients transferring from private to public to save money, pressuring the public system and lengthening waiting times for subsidised patients. Thirdly, could we develop a National Health Equity Index? This could be created by an independent group of academics and include social determinants of health as well as health care accessibility, affordability and outcomes. This will pinpoint areas for targeted action. Once we have more data, we must act decisively. I note that HPB piloted the Healthy Living Passports Scheme in mid-2020 and aim to reach 15,000 lower income residents over three years. How effective have the incentives been among lower income groups? Other than the number of participants, can we targets in terms of better health outcomes? The National Health Screening Programme, Screen for Life, heavily subsidies screening for some conditions. What is the take-up rate and outcomes thus far, particularly for those who are less advantaged socio-economically? Mr Chairman, Sir, we must improve outcomes at the intersection of health inequality and preventive health care. Not only because we have a responsibility to the less fortunate but also because this problem creates spill-over effects that can cause society more if left untreated. Cost of Public Health Services”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, from a recent reply to my Parliamentary Question, we now know that residents aged 25 years old with below Secondary education have a life expectancy 5.8 years lower than that with those with post-Secondary education. I thank the Minister for Health for the detailed answer. We also learnt that people with below Secondary education have a greater likelihood of chronic illnesses like diabetes and high cholesterol. Sir, for many of my lower income constituents, convenient and cheap food options are unhealthy ones, like instant noodles. Research shows poverty often overwhelms one's cognitive ability to make good decisions on health. I, thus, speak on the urgent need to tackle health inequality. It would seem that the prevalence of conditions like obesity, diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol has risen over the years. Sir, I would suggest that there is an urgent need to revamp for preventive healthcare efforts, particularly for poorer Singaporeans. While many efforts have been undertaken, the outcome seems to be moving in the opposite direction. To achieve better outcomes, we need better measurement. Firstly, could we make public more timely and comprehensive data of chronic diseases by socio-economic groups? Other than the response to my recent Parliamentary Question for what I understand the most recent publicly available data on health risks, behaviours and outcomes by socio-economic class was 2010 National Health Survey. The National Registry of Diseases already collects data on the incidence of cancer and chronic kidney failure. It is an easy next step to include SES indicators like income and education. We must also study the entire life cycle of chronic diseases.”
“I thank the Foreign Minister for his comprehensive reply and his clear condemnation of the situation in Myanmar. I think since I filed this question several days ago, the situation seems to to have worsened. I just have one supplementary question for the Foreign Minister, which is that at the ASEAN level, is this being monitored with a view to keeping other options open to nudge the government in Myanmar towards reconciliation, towards political settlement, should the situation worsen even further in the days and weeks ahead?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for his reply. I certainly do agree that penalties have a critical role to play to control the supply and availability of drugs, as the Minister has explained. Rehabilitative approaches and preventive and early intervention programmes, such as what the Minister has explained, also have a critical role to play as well.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I think that was very helpful. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Government consider publishing these statistics on an annual basis? Secondly, does the Government regularly conduct a survey on perceptions of discrimination? I did actually ask this in the House in the last term and my understanding is that such a survey is carried out occasionally. But could there be a regular cycle to understand within the job market what are the perceptions of discrimination on the part of jobseekers? And thirdly, could the Minister of State share if there are cases of companies from this group who have been found to engage in discriminatory practices who have not been amenable to pressure by way of having their foreigner work passes curtailed, because they do not employ foreigners, and therefore, they are not amenable to the warnings and the pressures from MOM based on the current tool-kit.”
“As has been argued by Members of this House, such as my Parliamentary colleague then, the hon Ms Sylvia Lim in the past, I urge the Government to implement measures of under-employment so that we can track this and refine our tools against bad employment outcomes.”
“Mdm Chairman, OPEC forecasts that the green transition in shocks like COVID-19 place a big question mark over the future for oil markets. Last year, Shell announced its intent to axe 500 jobs or 38% of its Pulau Bukom workforce and aims to reduce its global workforce by up to 9,000 by 2022. Just today, ExxonMobil announced that it will be cutting 7% of jobs in Singapore. No doubt, these developments owe something to COVID-19 but jobs affected by changes in fossil fuel demand over the longer term may eventually go beyond the refineries and include those in bunkering, rig building and other businesses in the fossil fuel industry eco-system. In a Parliamentary reply to my Parliamentary colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, MTI said that the shift to low emissions mobility would not result in significant job losses for Singapore. But can the Government share its expected outlook for jobs in the oil and gas and petrochemicals industry clusters as a result of the longer term global decarbonisation trend? Could we also consider making career conversion programmes more targeted for workers affected by this green transition through proactive pushing out of awareness campaigns and targeted ad campaigns? Worforce Singapore has implemented career conversion programmes like the PCP but reskilling can be more proactive and should not happen only when the transition is in full swing and jobs are already being lost. Lastly, even if the majority of our workers in potentially affected industries are able to transition successfully, I expect some will fall between the cracks into unemployment and under-employment through no fault of theirs.”
“Next, I would to like to urge greater support for teachers to a progressive reduction in average form class sizes. This would better enable teachers to focus on pastoral care for students. Research has shown that smaller classes may stimulate non-cognitive skills or soft skills, a point I have made in my Parliamentary Adjournment Motion on the subject in 2017. I would thus like to suggest that MOE pilot CCE classes and smaller class sizes to study their effects on students' non-cognitive development. My Parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim will elaborate on the subject of class sizes in his subsequent cut.”
“Mr Chairman, during the COS debates in 2020, MOE announced that Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) would be refreshed, reinforcing the teaching of moral values increasing emphasis on mental health and cyber wellness, engaging students more actively in contemporary issues and being more integrated into subjects and activities. There is growing recognition that soft skills that are crucial for 21st century employees. I am using soft skills here as a convenient broad shorthand for a number of skill-sets such as, firstly, critical thinking and problem solving which top the list of skills many employers believe will grow in prominence in the next five years. Secondly, self-management such as active learning, resilience, stress tolerance and flexibility, all ranked highly in the World Economic Forum 2020 report. And thirdly, resilience and curiosity, which are reported as priced by industry leaders. The PISA 2018 results indicate two areas of concern for students in Singapore: adaptability to new challenges and the fear of failure. 2.15 pm Only half of our students said that they could deal with unusual situations compared to an OECD average of more than that. Over 70% expressed concern about failure versus the OECD average of just 50%. How can our CCE curriculum help to plug these gaps? For one, we should cultivate some form of standardised measurement of soft skills, spanning not only tests but project work, classroom interaction and other work streams. After all, we need to build measures of success into our policies so as to ensure that in education, as in all domains, we are striving for outcomes and not just effort. Hence, I would like to ask how does MOE intend to measure progress towards soft skill formation objectives in the CCE?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, just very briefly. I thank the Minister for his answer. I just wanted to clarify that in the case of TOLs issued to sites which have been slated for future re-development – sometimes, the terms are very short – where possible, would the Government consider, in a rather than one year, say two year or three year extensions where there is a strong heritage case and where heritage groups have made that argument. That is the first clarification. Second and last one, does the Government work with heritage groups to take their inputs into account when making these TOL decisions.”
“Mr Chairman, migrant workers currently pay hefty agency fees to secure a job in Singapore. In 2019 migrant worker NGO TWC2 found that, for the first-timers, the average agency fee paid, especially for Bangladeshi workers, was $7,606 and the median was $7,750. For repeat workers, the average was $4,733 and the median was $4,000. When migrant workers lose their jobs, they fall into heavy debt because they are unable to pay off the loans that they have taken for the agency fees. It is perplexing that migrant workers bear the brunt of agency fees when it is common in many industries in countries for the employers to bear such fees. MOM could consider setting up a standardised Singapore licence in mandatory online job portal for both jobseekers who are already in Singapore as well as overseas jobseekers who want to work as migrant workers in Singapore. Employers with quota in Singapore licence employment, agents should be the only ones allowed to advertise vacancies on the portal. This cuts out unlicensed job brokers. Under such a scheme, it would be mandatory for the company and worker to transact the job application and acceptance through the portal. Mr Alex Au of TWC2 and others have called for such a reform. Singapore licensed and regulated employment agents could still engage in bulk recruitment for specific end employers in Singapore, provided all recruitment goes through the portal for the sake of transparency to the worker, MOM and all stakeholders. Such a portal may also be useful to enable the authorities and the workers themselves to track compliance with insurance requirements. Entry of Approved Foreign Workers”
“For fixed-term work passes, firms should have action plans for capability transfers to equivalent locals as well as mentorship schemes if feasible. Training can be tied to existing schemes in workplaces or academic institutions. Extensions to fixed-term work passes can be considered in the case of very extreme extenuating circumstances. Targeted Framework for Work Passes”
“Mr Chairman, in October 2020, I called for a mix of fixed-term and non-fixed term work passes for foreigners, to attract investments in next-generation industries and stave off job displacements. Such a mix could be offered to investors for specific projects, especially in highly desirable future-ready industries where Singapore has competitive advantages. The mix could be tweaked, depending on the degree of international competition for that investment. I reiterate this call today. For fixed-term foreign work passes, the foreign worker would be hired for a fixed term of, say, five years, for example, and this time would be used to train up Singaporeans with equivalent skills. After the fixed term, hopefully, there will be enough Singaporeans with the relevant skills to replace that foreign worker. This shares similarities with the Temporary Skills Shortage Visa in Australia where, if appropriately skilled Australian workers cannot be found, employers can bring in skilled workers for a fixed period. Furthermore, the Employment Pass scheme aims to train Singaporean citizens and upgrade their skills, fixed-term work passes meet precisely the same. I acknowledge that the current work pass scheme such as the employment pass and newly-launched Tech.Pass aimed to attract skilled workers redressing skill shortages. However, more can be done to train up a Singaporean Core in next-generation industries and incentivises employers to hire Singaporeans. For example, while the Tech.Pass is targeted at the movers and shakers of the tech world, fixed-term work passes target or broader spectrum of skilled workers across disruptive industries.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. And I thank Minister Chan and all the MTI officeholders for their replies. I have just one more general point of clarification which I suppose I should direct to Minister Tan See Leng because he talked a lot about the take-up rate for various schemes, like the ESG and so on. So, I think that it is important for us to monitor these take up rates, like the number of firms which have availed themselves of the scheme. I would like to ask the Minister: would he agree that that is not an effort indicator? And effort indicators are important. They are useful and we should measure them. But does the Ministry also measure outcome indicators? What do I mean by "outcome indicators"? At the end of the day, how many of these local companies are achieving a certain threshold in terms of shareholder value, in terms of market share in a particular product category, in terms of absolute revenue signs or so on? Now, I know that it is difficult to assess causation versus correlation. I know, at the end of the day, the entrepreneur is responsible for delivering outcomes. The scheme is just an enabler or facilitator. But would it not be useful for---does the Ministry actually do this to measure at the end of the day, and we have a pool of local companies who have benefited from various schemes after a certain period of time, X number of these local companies have attained these performance benchmarks and these thresholds, so that we know that we are sort of moving in the right direction, even if it is not possible to pinpoint causation?”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore provides amongst other things tax incentives for MNCs to set up regional headquarters and other investments because they contribute towards our economy. SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy, making up 72% of employment and 44% of added nominal value in 2019, also received support. But the pandemic has given us a sobering reminder that SMEs play on an unequal footing because of their smaller balance sheets and brand value. MNC investment is often attracted by incentive packages that include tax incentives and other forms of incentivisation. These are tied to economic targets like total business spending, fixed asset investment and headcount. As I argued in my Budget speech, can incentive packages for MNCs include an additional tier of incentive if the MNCs work with local SMEs in executing the investment project. This additional tier can be offered very selectively where there are good local SMEs that can be partners to MNCs and it should be meant as a nudge and encouragement, not mandate or dicta. There are schemes like PACT which reward MNC and SME collaboration, just like there were schemes like LIUP in the past. But, however, SMEs really grown into regional and global players helped by these schemes. In other countries in the region, MNCs are sometimes required to have a certain percentage of local equity. I am not advocating that at this point as it may make us too uncompetitive to attract MNCs. Last but not least, do our economic agencies regularly audit these schemes to weigh the cost in terms of cash outlay and so on, versus the benefit in terms of job creation and economic multipliers?”
“I thank the Minister of State for a very comprehensive answer. I just have one small point of confirmation, which is to confirm that there is no legal or regulatory impediment for LTVP holders to be self-employed. And I think the Minister of State did say 1% of them are self-employed. So, I just wanted to confirm that. The context for that is that self-employment could also be quite useful for them to support themselves and their Singaporean children in these difficult times. So, I just wanted to confirm that there is no impediment or there is no difficulty or confusing procedure for them to go through to obtain the ability to be self-employed.”
“But I am wondering whether there is a formal process every year or every few years to assess whether the Board and management have done well or whether they have done not well enough, so that they need to be taken to task or, in extremis, whether they need to be replaced. Does that sort of happen within MOF or somewhere else in the Government?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Lawrence Wong. I thank the Minister for responding in detail to my MOF cuts. The first one is on the National Research Foundation. I think the Minister referred to some of the downstream outcomes. For example, four of the top 10 blockbuster drugs in the world are manufactured in Singapore. I believe those four are by MNCs though. So, my question would be, really, in terms of local companies, locally owned companies, does the NRF actually track the IP that its spending has resulted in, the IP that is co-created with local companies, and does it track whether that IP then is used to create a blockbuster drug or a blockbuster product by the local company itself further downstream? Is that something that the NRF looks at? I accept, of course, that there are different uses for research, not just one. But is that dimension kind of being tracked or will it be tracked, going forward? I know that these results take time to manifest. I believe NRF was set up in 2002 or 2003, so it has been 17 or 18 years. So, I am wondering if that is being tracked, examples of that. Secondly, in relation assessing performance of Temasek and GIC, the Minister helpfully shared about advisory councils that help to guide Temasek and GIC. So, my question is, really, that the Government in the form of MOF is the sole shareholder, basically, of GIC and Temasek, and as the sole shareholder, is there a process within the MOF where you assess whether their performance is good enough? In past debates on this subject, I believe that the Government has said its approach is a bit hands-off; it leaves it to the Board and management.”
“Mr Chairman, I am heartened by the growing passion and quality of debate inside and outside this House regarding our climate challenges. Our sovereign wealth funds as global players should rightfully play a leading role in the effort to decarbonise. We could kickstart this by having our Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF) adopt the PSTLES style framework directed by MOF. First, it is good that Temasek has committed to half 2010 net portfolio emissions by 2030 and to deliver net zero by 2050, But this refers to only scopes 1 and 2 emissions. Can Temasek include scope 3's indirect emissions into its commitment since portfolio companies are often investors themselves? On GIC's end, we have no visibility in its portfolio environmental targets, will GIC release this information? While it may be impossible to disclose the full extent of investments, the declaration of standards companies must fulfil before a SWF can invest in them would be positive. Norway's SWF outlines concrete expectations of companies that it invests in and has an exclusion list on the types of companies that do not meet ethical and environmental standards. An explicit statement allows for accountability and sends a powerful message to the business community about what the Singapore brand stands for.”
“Mr Chairman, the reserves consist of various classes of assets held by Temasek, GIC and the MAS, if we are to exclude land banks. During typical economic crises some asset value such as equities may fall on the whole. This is fairly typical. If a result draw-down is financed by liquidating assets in a time of crisis, this may not necessarily be advantageous for Singapore since it may mean selling fundamentally good assets, such as shares and good blue chip companies, for example, at low prices rather than hanging on to those assets to realise future value when the economy recovers. However, if the reserves draw-down is financed by borrowing against the collateral of the reserves, that may in some circumstances prove to be more advantages to Singapore, especially given that interest rates may be lower in a time of global economic crisis as central banks slash the cost of credit to financial institutions as they often do. Or is the first line of execution for reserves draw-down utilising cash or cash equivalents held by the MAS or other institutions? Hence, I would like to use this cut to ask the Government what is the operating principle that determines how reserves draw-downs are financed and executed with these considerations and questions in mind? And in conclusion, I just like to add that I am aware that during the COVID-19 period, some sectors and some stock exchanges and market indices actually rose. In that sense, this crisis has been atypical. My comments earlier referred to more typical global economic crisis. Leveraging Upstream Design to Cut Operating Expenditure”
“Secondly can the NRF be given a more structured or built-in mandate to direct some of its spending towards green tech in ways that would help national and, indeed, global decarbonisation goals. The two objectives, of course, are not mutually exclusive. Performance of Sovereign Wealth Funds The second cut on assessing the performance of sovereign wealth funds. Mr Chairman, Temasek and GIC, no doubt compare their performance against various global market indices and other standards of performance internally. It would be useful for these Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) to publish these comparisons in the analysis for the reasons for better assessment of their performance. In fact, it would be useful for the Government in the form of MOF to understand these comparisons in some detail. With that said, I would like to ask how does the MOF itself assess that the SWFs Boards and management have done a reasonable job in terms of returns. What internal metrics, indices and benchmarks and processes are used? In the case of Temasek, the MSCI is used as a reference. As I understand it, Temasek also sets its own hurdle rate at a risk adjusted cost of capital that its market value TSR has under-performed on the one, three, 10 and 20-year periods, as of March 2020. It has argued that its under-performance relative to the risk adjusted cost of capital is because it is making a systemic shift to build resilience for the future. I would like to ask does the Government have clarity on the transformation Temasek is undertaking and why they think the future rate of return will outperform the current rate of return on these new investment strategies? Reserves Draw-downs Last cut on reserve spending.”
“Mr Chairman, my first cut on National Research Foundation. The National Research Foundation is responsible for directing a huge amount of Government spending. The Research Innovation and Enterprise RIE 2025 Plan announced in December 2020 plans for investments of $25 billion between 2021 and 2025. In other countries, we do hear anecdotally how government-supported R&D initiatives help seed IP to domestically based companies. In the US, for example, it is known that in the past, NASA might have seeded technology to American companies, technology that arose from the state-funded space effort. I have spoken in the House about this before. The nexus between state research institutes and research centres on the one hand and local companies on the other, is not non-existent. For example, some new initiatives were rolled out in 2018 to try to ease the process by which local firms can engage with the R&D capabilities residing in our RIs and RCs. However, I still hear anecdotally that local firms find this process not altogether easy to navigate and that there is a perception that those local firms, able to write and present their proposals well or those that hire consultants, are best able to navigate this process as opposed to those with the best ideas. I would like to suggest that the NRF be tasked with a number of hard mandates: firstly, that KPIs be set for engaging the local firms on co-generating or supporting the generation of commercialisable IP, with the economic impact and multipliers of that IP being measured and tracked going forward. This is in line with one of the themes of my Budget debate speech that we should score an "A" for outcomes, not only an "A" for effort.”
“Mr Chairman, the MAS-regulated Singapore Stock Exchange currently has a "comply and explain" policy on sustainability reporting for its listed companies, which was first announced in 2016. It presents a range of internationally accepted standards which companies are encouraged to choose and follow, but are not mandatory. This has resulted in inconsistencies in reporting methods, quality in data disclosure and, hence, rendering the reports ineffective due to lack of comparability amongst the listed companies. It could also lead to greenwashing. According to an NUS study done in 2019 on sustainability reporting, there are clear differences in the sustainability reporting performance among different industries. Perhaps we could move from a "comply and explain" to a mandatory regime, as some other major exchanges have done. Studies are needed to determine the best frameworks to align with, such as GRI, TCFD, SASB, and so on, and we could also add industry-specific frameworks, such as RSPO. But more broadly, can MAS share its plans to improve SGX's sustainability reporting policy to ensure quality and comparability of sustainability reports and provide support for SMEs to encourage sustainability reporting?”
“I would just like to invite the hon Member Mr Alex Yam to agree with that general philosophical point.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker and I thank the hon Member Mr Alex Yam for his comments. Just a couple of clarifications on his cookie jar metaphor. He mentioned that when we draw upon the reserves or when we suggest that the rules governing the use of the reserves should be changed, this is akin to sort of taking cookies from the cookie jar. I think the Member is well aware that in 2008, I believe the Government itself, the PAP Government amended the rules governing the use of the reserves to create the NIR framework. And in 2015, those rules were amended again to include Temasek into that framework. Is it the Member's position or argument that those were really raiding the cookie jar as well, in 2008 and 2015? That is kind of my first point. Secondly, it is really to ask the hon Member, is it the Member's view that any kind of deviation away from these rules that are currently entrenched in the Constitution, in the current rules, amounts to sort of raiding the cookie jar and becoming a cookie monster, even if those rules are slowing the slope of the growth of the reserves, but do not actually draw upon and pull down the reserves, but they merely slow the growth from this sort of a slope, for example, to this sort of a slope, for example? Is that being a cookie monster? That is my second question. My third question would be really to ask, over time, over decades, as the absolute amount of reserves relative to GDP changes, does the Member not acknowledge that these rules should also evolve and change, and as society changes and the needs of society change and the opportunities to invest in our people, in the country change, should not those rules also be subject to change as well?”
“In conclusion, Sir, as we face an uncertain future, as the COVID-19 pandemic winds its way to what is hopefully its end, as industries get disrupted and uncertainty casts its shadow over our workers and companies, let us bear in mind a few important truths that I have tried to flesh out in this speech. Let us always anticipate foreseeable change rather than react when change hits, even when things may be fine now. The proactive will succeed over the reactive. Let us nudge our stakeholders to recalibrate the balance in our economy towards local firms and Singaporean workers, but in ways that still embrace the role of MNCs and foreign workers where they add value. It is not a zero-sum game. And it is useful for all of us to bear this in mind – not only in Government. There are win-win approaches to drive towards these outcomes. Let us bear in mind that it is cultures and mindsets that are critical for change to happen. But at the same time, let us not treat cultures and mindsets as some rigid monolithic entity or a black box. Existing cultures and mindsets, existing behaviour patterns are there for a reason. They are usually not simply irrational. Let us investigate those reasons. Such as, work conditions for jobs that Singaporeans shun that I spoke about earlier, and try to fix them with the tools that we have, so as to catalyse change in cultures and mindsets. Lastly, Sir, let us never allow schemes to become black boxes into which fiscal resources get poured. Let us rigorously audit the impact of our policies and budget and plan for such measurement and publish the results to support informed public debate, consensus formation and genuine policy co-creation. We need to score an "A" for outcomes, not only an "A" for effort.”
“Before I leave the subject of workers, I would repeat the call I made earlier in relation to company incentives – for programmes that aim to address job market weakness, promote reskilling and so on, like Skillsfuture, SGUnited Traineeships and so on, let us undertake rigorous audits of outcomes that are made public, to ensure return on investment and facilitate course corrections or enhancements. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about our fiscal stance. Many have questioned the timing of the hike in petrol duties and the levying of GST on small-value imported items, given the fragile state the economy is still in. The Leader of the Opposition has shared some concerns about the petrol duty hike, with which I agree. I would like to make the point that before broad-based taxes are hiked that could have an inflationary impact more generally, maybe even opening the door to profiteering, could the Government consider raising taxes on transactions in the property sector by way of taxes such as stamp duty and additional buyer's stamp duties, but only for more expensive properties. Such a fiscal move would be progressive and would impact the capital gains made by sellers in the higher end of the property market. Hence the impact on the broader economy may be less than say a broad-based tax hike. A tax on such a class of capital gains will not run the risk of unintended inflationary effects and will not damage work incentives. Of course, such a move may not raise as much revenue as a broad-based tax hike such as hiking corporate tax or GST for example, but the former can be considered to reduce the need for and extent of a broad-based tax hike.”
“On localising jobs, I would like to speak about working conditions for lower wage workers. The Government has said that the progressive wage model will be rolled out to more industries. But, in some jobs, even if we manage to raise wages through some policy device or other, we may find that Singaporeans may not want to take up those jobs because of the conditions of work. Are workers in that role provided with adequate tools, protective gear and training? Are working hours and mandated break times sufficient? Are conditions of work made as physically comfortable and safe as they are in other countries? Is the culture in the workplace sufficiently respectful of the worker? My point is that even if we increase pay, Singaporeans may not want these jobs if they perceive that conditions of work are not good. I would suggest that in sectors where we struggle to find enough Singaporeans, particularly low-wage sectors, the MOM and MTI benchmark conditions of work in other developed countries where there are more locals employed at higher productivity levels in that sector, to understand what the gaps are in conditions of work, and take steps to work with industry bodies to plug those gaps. There is a lot at stake in this drive to raise pay and productivity in low-skilled jobs. Low-skilled workers are especially vulnerable. Workers in such jobs are often one unfortunate accident away from destitution. One man I spoke to on my house visits did everything right, he and his wife saved up, worked hard, lived frugally, only for him to be injured at his job and be plunged into relative poverty.”
“But in this day and age, to work in a company, you need not report to work in a physical office. You can be an intern or trainee in a company by taking part in online meetings, undergoing online training, engaging with customers, suppliers and stakeholders virtually and so on and so forth. And there are companies abroad at the cutting edge of their industries who do not yet have a physical presence in Singapore. Can we consider including some of these companies in such programmes? We should select only the most promising companies for inclusion. The benefit to Singapore would be that Singaporeans would get the benefit of training, the skills, knowledge and culture that resides in these cutting edge firms. Another benefit is that the company, if it finds the quality of workers it engages as trainees and interns high, would consider locating a physical presence here. Before I leave the subject of skills training, I would like to repeat my call to enable SkillsFuture credits to be transferable among family members, a subject on which I have filed a Parliamentary Question previously. I have received feedback from a number of older constituents who are keen to transfer their SkillsFuture credits to their children, nephews or nieces, to help them navigate the turbulent waters of the current job market. Next, Sir, I would like to speak about the localisation of jobs. There has been much discussion on striking a good balance between foreign workers and local Singaporeans. We know that in many industries, such as construction, for example, we are more reliant on foreign manpower than other developed countries are. There is a need to ensure a strong core of skilled, capable Singaporeans in key industries. It is also desirable to foster skills transfer from foreigners to locals.”
“Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said last year that there will be 60,000 new jobs created in the infocomm sector over just the next three years, but our education system is only producing 2,800 infocomm graduates yearly. This barely supplies 5% of the demand. We should carefully review our efforts to ramp up capacity in our education system for high demand skills and encourage students to consider these. Next, sir, let me touch on internships and training attachments. This is a subject that is of current concern. Given the current state of the job market, many graduates of IHLs have taken on internships, traineeships and part-time work for their first jobs, partly, one assumes, because of the relative lack of attractive, full-time positions. More than one in five fresh graduates from our four local Autonomous Universities were in part-time or temporary employment in 2020. As a proportion of the newly graduated workforce, they more than tripled from 7% in 2019 to 22.3% in 2020. Recent Government efforts have seen the creation of programmes such as the SGUnited Traineeship and SG Mid-Career Programme. Private firms like Google have also launched special trainee programmes during COVID-19. I have filed a Parliamentary Question on whether our IHLs can help our students gain sufficient access to internships in future-ready, disruptive industry sectors. Here, I would like to speak about how our economic agencies can possibly engage companies in disruptive industry sectors who have no physical presence in Singapore as yet, to take on Singaporeans for traineeships and internships such as the SGUnited Traineeship. Sir, for years, I used to think of my job in terms of putting on a tie and travelling into a physical office.”
“However, for workers in at-risk sectors, for example, drivers were at risk from autonomous vehicles in the next 10 years, can we do more to educate them about the need to consider reskilling and switching industries lest they become unemployed in their 40s and 50s? For example, can MTI's economic agencies support and catalyse future-ready industry groups in fields like solar, urban farming and AI, for example, to form trade associations and chambers, or TACs; and then, can these TACs be nudged and supported by Government to run campaigns to encourage workers from sunset industries with relevant skills to reskill and consider joining their industries. Government agencies can also use social media tools to target reskilling social media ad campaigns specifically at workers and such at-risk industries. Existing programmes require workers to seek them out. We need a national effort that is more proactive rather than reactive to nudge workers who are at risk to start thinking what their future career journey and how they can mitigate those risks. This effort is needed even in industries that are cyclically doing well under COVID-19 but face longer term existential threats. For example, while some sectors of the retail sector have done very well during COVID-19, wholesale and retail has been identified as the sector most vulnerable to displacement in Singapore due to automation, according to a 2018 study. Next, Sir, I would like to ask whether our education system is producing the skills the economy demands, and if not, what is being done to revisit our educational or economic planning? In 2020, Polytechnic fresh graduates found it significantly harder to land good jobs. Six months after graduation, around 12% were unemployed and over 30% were in part-time or temporary jobs.”
“These incentives are tied to fulfilling certain conditions like meeting total business spending, headcount and/or fixed asset investment targets. Can some of the incentives to MNCs be designed in such a way as to avoid a more generous degree of incentivisation if the MNC works with local partners to share know-how and gives the local firm a stake in the new investment? This approach is not novel and has been attempted in other countries. There are risks associated with this as it might be seen as pursuing an nativist agenda of grooming local champions to compete with the MNCs, thus deterring MNC investment into Singapore. But, Sir, those risks can be managed, by only awarding such a conditional incentive in fields where there are sufficient local firms who could make reasonably good partners to the MNC while not being involved in a domain that is substantially competitive with the MNC. It is worth experimenting with such an approach. Incentivising the development of MNCs and SMEs need not be a zero sum game. Of course, there are various schemes in place to encourage MNCs to work with local firms. But this approach of building a local partnership conditional element into the incentive package to secure new MNC investments, is currently not being used, to the best of my knowledge. Next, Sir, I would like now to talk about how we can help our local workers better adapt to the winds of change that will blow from industry disruption. As I shared earlier, it is never easy to rally the energy to change when things seem fine. Many of our workers are in jobs that are at-risk from industry disruption in five to 15 years' time. There are a number of programmes in place that aim to address this like the Professional Conversion Programme, or PCP.”
“Have years of schemes, like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) in the past, as well as host of other SME development schemes brought us closer to this goal? I would argue that we need regular published audits for our SME schemes to establish what causal effect such schemes have had on the long-term growth and competitiveness trajectory of local firms who use them. Only then would we understand the return on investment from such schemes and only then would we be able to design better schemes. For example, what is the evidence that the PIC scheme substantially catalysed productivity growth and innovation among the SMEs who were beneficiaries of the scheme? A KPMG report from 2015 stated and I quote, "while take-up rates have gone up, the scheme's impact on productivity has been muted". To take another example, despite concerted policy efforts to digitise, more than 60% of employees and managers in Singapore firms in a 2019 survey said that they were unimpressed or undecided about Government policies in preparation for the impact of Artificial Intelligence on jobs. Major investments in schemes intended to generate economic outcomes – or in fact any outcomes – should be accompanied with regular measures of success. Not just numbers of companies helped, but how did the schemes move the needle in terms of productivity or other indicators? And these measures should be published to support public scrutiny, accountability and debate, so that we can meaningfully speak of genuine participation in policy-making. Before I leave the subject of supporting the development of local firms, I would like to suggest one new approach that can be experimented with in incentive design. We currently award incentives to MNCs and local SMEs.”
“In 2020, when the Straits Times Index was severely weakened due to COVID-19, the US NASDAQ went up 42% and the wider S&P 500 was up 15% at the end of 2020. In fact, during this COVID-19 period, the Straits Times Index (STI) under-performed the broader MSCI Asia-Pacific Index, setting aside US markets. As my Parliamentary colleague Mr Louis Chua mentioned yesterday, 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, before COVID-19. In the fourth quarter of 2019, 35% of firms listed in Singapore were already loss making, the highest level since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Many, not all, but many of our larger firms are facing headwinds due to being in traditional sectors or not yet being able to innovate their way out. Even a number of homegrown companies have decided to go public on foreign exchanges rather than Singapore. This calls in question why there are so few examples of local firms drawing on entrepreneurial talent rooted in Singapore, who have succeeded in becoming globally competitive? Is the environment conducive to start up and scale up? Or is the talent and motivation not forthcoming? In past speeches, I have talked about the role of education in fostering an entrepreneurial mindset. Today, I would like to focus on the environment to start up and scale up. It is an important national imperative to cultivate the core of locally based firms that have the DNA to be globally competitive to balance our dependence on MNCs, who may be fickle and buffeted by the winds of global economics and domestic politics in their home countries.”
“Why not tomorrow?" But how do we nudge people out of the comfort zone to embrace change and face the future, even when things are, for now, going reasonably well? This is a policy challenge. It is also a national challenge for all stakeholders. The World Economic Forum (WEF) Future of Jobs Report 2020 noted that accountants, auditors, bank tellers and HR specialists were at the highest risk of redundancy. Many workers in delivery industries and doing driving work will see their jobs displaced by drones and autonomous vehicles. However, for all these jobs, things are all right now. To take another example – discouraged workers are workers who have given up looking for work because they feel their job search would not yield results, perhaps because of a lack of employable skills or confidence. Discouraged workers made up 0.7% of the resident labour force in 2020, surpassing the previous high of 0.6% in the 2009 GFC recession; 0.7% is not yet a tsunami by any means but it is a sobering bellwether. Sir, how do we prepare for the storms of change to come, amidst the pockets of sunshine? Let me address this by making some suggestions for how our policies can be enhanced to make our companies, our workers and our fiscal institutions more future-ready. I will start with companies and as I do so, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy. A look around the world shows that many companies and industry sectors, ironically, did well out of COVID-19 and grew financially as well as in terms of market position. Industries like FMCG, online retail, ICT and biomedical, on the whole, did fairly well. However, has corporate Singapore, on the whole, fared as well?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, "the times, they are-a-changing", as the old Bob Dylan song goes. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown longer term trends into sharp relief, increasing inequality between industries and workers, with some industries basking in the sun even if sunset falls on other industries; some slowly, some more quickly. For example, fossil fuel-related industries will feel the long-term pressures from global decarbonisation, especially with the new US administration reinserting the world's largest economy back into the Paris Climate Change Agreement. In my speech, Sir, I shall speak about the changes going on in the world with industry transformation – a theme I have talked about in recent speeches in this House – and what are the strategies we should adopt to help our workers, firms and fiscal institutions adapt to these changes and use them to our advantage as a country. Let me begin by bringing out several devices. This is my first Blackberry phone, which I obtained in the early 2000s and this is my second Blackberry. I loved these old devices. It took me a very long time to switch to a different device because I was comfortable with them, because they worked fine, because it meant I did not have to learn how to use a new device. It was far more attractive to stay in the comfort zone. I only switched when things reached a point where I was concerned about being able to continue using the devices I had grown so attached to. I use this example because it tells us a lot about our relationship with technology, but also the economy. So it is with many of us. When things are going well, we like to stay in the comfort zone. Even when you can see change on the horizon, even when you know you cannot go on in the same way forever, you say, "Well, why change today?”
“Sure. Let us reflect on that for a second. Great crises can bring out the best in us. That is the fate we can choose. And it is because we need to make that choice that I support the amended Motion proposed by Mr Dennis Tan.”
“One device to move us on the right track to is to set hard national goals for renewable energy share of total energy consumption – hard goals but realistic goals, as Mr Louis Chua argued for. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to briefly share some personal perspectives on why this subject is so important. In 1990, I remember astronomer Carl Sagan persuaded NASA to get the space probe Voyager 1 to turn back towards earth and take a photograph of earth before it left for the outer reaches of the solar system. The resulting photograph became known as the pale blue dot photograph which shows us the stark reality of how small this planet ultimately is in the vastness of the cosmos and how our differences as members of humanity paled beside the shared imperative of protecting the only home we have ever known. We know the reality of the climate emergency facing Singapore in the world now. The generation that led the world through the Second World War was known in some quarters as the greatest generation. Out of the ashes of war came institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF, that continue to play a useful role, however imperfect, in the current and hopefully soon-to-be improved world order. Let us reflect on that —”
“To that end, I would also like to make two suggestions. Firstly, ensure diversity in the membership of the Future Economic Council (FEC) to include good representation of NGOs, academics, sustainability professionals and civil society representatives. And secondly, pathways into a green future should reflect transition plans for sectors and their workers that will be sunset sectors in a greener future, for example, fossil fuel industries and traditional car workshop activity. My Parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, has made an important suggestion about the use of the Special Employment Credit (SEC) to help nudge such workers to take up green jobs. I would also like to call for our Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) to set targets to wind down their investment in fossil fuel sectors which, in any case, will face an uncertain longer term future even in commercial terms. Such a strategy need not be inconsistent with earning good returns. As shown by the example on performance of the Norwegian SWF, which began divesting from fossil fuels in 2019. Moreover, can our SWFs be given a mandate to proactively invest in local firms that are developing next generation solutions for the green future in sectors like EVs, solar and plant-based proteins, for example? In passing, I would like to observe that ambition plays a key role in this climate change fight. As argued eloquently by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua, Singapore's action is still "highly insufficient" and consistent with three to four degree Celsius warming, well below the two degrees Celsius goal targeted by the Paris Agreement. Singapore aims to peak emissions in 2030 while the IPCC recommends 45% emissions reduction from 2010 levels by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.”
“I would like to suggest that the different arms of Government set targets for carbon emissions reduction in carbon neutrality at some point in the future then publish regular indicators of progress. This should be accompanied with a roadmap for the decarbonisation of the public sector. This roadmap should extend to all Government bodies with stronger targets or sooner targets for some rather than others, depending on their ability to cut emissions. This goes beyond what is currently being done under the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative. The important suggestion for green procurement by state agencies mooted by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam cuts along the same grain as this thrust. I would also suggest that a part of our National Research Foundation funds be earmarked as a matter of policy for projects that have a high likelihood of strong environmental impact as well as tracked in terms of environmental outcomes. These could include, for example, R&D projects related to electric vehicles, solar power and plant-based proteins. I would also like to suggest that green goals be reflected in our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). Our ITMs should have sustainability transformation goals and roadmaps baked into them as it were. This green dimension should not only be contained in one ITM but should be seen as a horizontal that cuts across all existing ITMs. This is not only important for pursuit of our green goals, but would also help ensure the longer-term competitiveness of our ITM sectors given that environmental and sustainability standards will inevitably rise all over the world and Singapore-based companies should be ahead of the curve on this so as to stay globally competitive.”
“But even if they are conserved, we still need to reduce impact to sensitive areas in light of, for example, the trail erosion at Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Hence, it is advisable to work with peripheral and non-core forests, some of which are in URA's Masterplan for development. This could yield public recreational and educational benefits which helps to cement public buy-in to green efforts as well as possibly garnering eco-tourism benefits. The URA's Masterplan 2019 lists 20 forest sites as being slated for development. Public attention is only focused on a few of these right now. The rest have also been earmarked for various land uses. Can some be developed into accessible public trails that can also serve as wildlife corridors? Lastly, Sir, on the theme of a national green agenda, let me talk about indicators of national development and welfare. There is room for us to review the KPIs applied to Ministries and Statutory Boards to incorporate green goals and targets, such as reducing net carbon emissions alongside reflecting more transparency in reporting these. The example of New Zealand has attracted considerable interest globally and for good reason. For years, the New Zealand government has been collecting indicators of well-being broadly defined, An OECD paper in 2019 said and I quote, "The Treasury of New Zealand has developed its living standards framework and associated dashboard to integrate well-being evidence more systematically in its advice to the government". And, of course, this approach goes beyond green goals, but the green dimension is baked into this approach. One of New Zealand's commitments for its public sector is to be carbon neutral by 2025.”
“Our companies have the opportunity to build capabilities in performing installation and maintenance in and designing products for optimised for tropical environments. For example, Sunseap's Charge+ is one of the first companies to get involved in EV charging here and the company does business across the Asia Pacific. Recently, Keppel started building its first offshore wind turbine installation vessel in the US which previously built sophisticated offshore rigs. We need more of such examples and the Government should play a facilitating role by providing incentives support in proportion to how ambitious and capable these local firms are and how fast they can grow and create good jobs at home, in other words. We need a strongly developmental mindset and not a scheme with administration mindset. More can be done to nurture in a very targeted manner local champions in professional services fields where there is a relative dearth of these and these fields would be, for example, clean development management advisory, carbon trading, verification, consultancy for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, or REDD+ and other similar consulting services. Next, to make a better case for the conservation of mature forests, mangrove areas and so on, which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about and which Mr Tan and my Parliamentary colleague Ms He Ting Ru asked about in their Parliamentary Questions, can the Government commit to making sure that peripheral Woodland and green areas are accessible to the public via trails, wherever feasible? It is important to prevent mature core forests and mangroves from turning into parks.”
“The EMMP and EIA reports are intended to keep these same developers accountable. Can an independent regulatory body administer the consultant engagement and quality controls inherent in the EIA and EMMP process? Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall touch on how being green need not come at the expense of creating good quality jobs and an economy that delivers better quality of life for Singaporean. As as we promote sunrise future-ready green sectors in our economy and make plans to help sunset less green sectors pivot towards a greener future, we should always keep in mind the imperative to nurture domestically-rooted pools of expertise, know-how managerial and entrepreneurial talent together with the eco-system needed to root them here. We can show the world how a high quality economy can be combined with sustainability just as we can show the world how it can be combined with democratic ownership and participation. There is more to be done to support local entrepreneurs in fields like solar installation and maintenance, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, wind turbine construction, riding perhaps on our talent IP and know-how for oil and gas rig building, vertical urban farming, green financing and professional services for a green economy. Before I continue, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes work in environmental-related sectors amongst others. Sir, in many of these future-ready green sectors, it may be hard to compete for the manufacturing, for example, in solar cell, in electric vehicle (EV) production – not impossible but hard. But we can compete for our R&D rapid prototyping installation and maintenance activity.”
“In the climate change cause, transparency is a critical ally. We are unlikely to achieve success in any endeavour if we do not define what success looks like and if we do not track our progress towards that end in a transparent manner. On this theme, I have a few suggestions for Government and governance. I suggest a stronger suite of incentives and disincentives for quality sustainability reporting for SGX companies in line with Global Reporting Initiative and Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures standards, with additional support and a longer transitional runway for small-to-mid cap companies. The current reporting scheme does not mandate companies to report according to specific guidelines. Hence, reporting standards differ amongst publicly-listed companies and renders the process not very meaningful. SGX has announced that it will improve on this front, but the improvements can and should be done in a single step with additional support given earlier on. Next, it would appear that environmental impact assessments or EIAs are not strictly mandatory for all major projects. I would suggest that this be corrected. Moreover, it is not clear to what extent Environmental Monitoring and Management Plans (EMMPs) have regulatory teeth behind them. There has been much mature forest that has been cleared over the years that could possibly have failed EIAs. For example, 700 hectares of Tengah forest was cleared. The environmental baseline study for this has not yet been disclosed by the HDB. The same can be said of Tagore forest, which was home to several endangered and threatened species. Moreover, under the current regime, EIA consultants are hired and paid for by the developers, which can lead to a perception of conflict of interest.”
“My Parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has made an eloquent case for an upward trajectory for the existing carbon tax. One avenue towards which the incremental revenues from a higher carbon tax could be directed would be progressively-tiered green dividends paid to Singaporeans of lesser means, to cushion the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living. This is not a new or radical idea. In Switzerland, two thirds of the collected revenue from their carbon tax is redistributed to households, on a per capita basis, and to firms in proportion to their payroll. In Canada’s British Columbia province, the government makes payments of a Climate Action Tax Credit or BCCATC to families. The payment is quarterly and combined with the quarterly payment of other credits. Before I leave the issue of inequality, I would like to touch on the issue of protecting our mature forest land, but in the context of our golf clubs. The land leases of seven of eight golf clubs whose leases were due to expire between 2021 and 2023 have been renewed to some extent. Our golf clubs take up 1,500 hectares of land or roughly 2% of our land area. Sir, I am not arguing for all golf clubs in Singapore to be removed and I welcome the information shared by Minister Desmond Lee on the subject earlier today. Given the importance of protecting pristine natural habitats like mature forests, can there not be more scope to review the land devoted to golf courses as a general planning parameter, going forward, keeping in mind the fact that not everyone plays golf; the fact that there are available golfing options very close to Singapore; and the likelihood that golf is not a huge driver of inbound tourism? Secondly, Sir, let me touch on the broad subject of transparency and consultation.”
“And as we battle climate change, our fight needs to be guided by a clear idea of what success looks like. Green goals should figure strongly in the key performance indicators we adopt in Government and as a nation – not necessarily at the expense of economic indicators like household income, but alongside these. Sir, first, let me first move to sustainability and inequality. There is an important and troubling nexus between these two issues. The effects of climate change would be borne disproportionately by those of lesser means – those with less resources to move house, to air-condition their homes, to filter their air and afford medical treatment. This is true globally and within Singapore. Also, some geographic areas are more vulnerable to these impacts than others. In responding to the climate crisis, our responses have to take into account this fact of unequal impacts and burdens. Extensively built areas like, for example, Woodlands, Serangoon, Geylang, Sengkang and Punggol are listed as very high vulnerability in terms of urban heat, according to Cooling Singapore’s 2020 study. The risk is much higher for low-income residents and other people who live and work in these areas because many do not have the options for adaptation or have them to a lesser degree: no air-conditioning; shift workers who have to sleep during the hotter day-time; and older people of lesser means who are at higher risk of heat stroke. Moreover, less living space per resident means hotter rooms. This suggests the need for progressivity in terms of our policies. For example, can we do more to entrench innovations like anti-solar paint, especially for HDB rental blocks and HDB blocks for lower income constituents.”