Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 20.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to clarify again. I do not think the definitions of NIR or NIRC, all these are IMF definitions. Can you provide documentary proof on that?”
“But he did say that recurrent expenditures are possible. Some expenditures, like the COVID-19 expenditures and all that, of course, are not predictable. But some are possible. So, I am requesting whether he can provide those that are possible. That is all, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for your indulgence. Thank you for allowing it.”
“Okay. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he could provide the recurrent expenditures as expected over the next 10 to 20 years. If I may request that he provides us with that so that we can scrutinise —”
“Mr Speaker, that is very important. What the Deputy Prime Minister is saying is – whatever he says is fact. Whatever we present as an alternative view is something that can be brushed off and I have to go back and do more homework and be more rigorous. That is, I do not want to take offence. Something that I take—I think that is not professional.”
“Mr Speaker, I am also speechless. All the numbers that I am saying are backed by research. So, what the Deputy Prime Minister has said just now, can I confirm again that you agreed that: first, we have $128 billion of fiscal resources this year but you define and classify some of it into revenue, and some not into revenue. So, the Government is doing a different classification from what we see as total resources available. So that, I take it —”
“Sorry, I have to interject because there were a lot of allegations.”
“Every year, we have about 7% to 8% of our GDP in this sort of resources. And you tell me that going forward, our expenditures will still be more than this. Then, we have to look at our expenditures very carefully. Those are the four questions, Deputy Prime Minster, please.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you. I have four questions to clarify for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am very perturbed by his saying that I am not contributing to this Parliament. I do not take umbrage because I aim to be a gentleman, but I am seriously perturbed. I think what I am trying to do here is to complete the picture. I think maybe because of the various commitment of Government, some of the information that is coming out of this Parliament is not complete. Let me ask four questions to complete the picture. One, I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister: do you agree that this year, fiscal resources amount to $128 billion. We do not care how you classify that resources into revenue, but you have $128 billion; $39 billion of NIRC; $12 billion of land sales and $77 billion of taxes. Two, while you refused to announce the accurate figure for the reserves, the Government publishes Government financial statements every year; and as of March 2020, the total financial assets reported on the financial statement was $1.35 trillion. Please confirm that. Three, you provided some figures to say that middle class Singaporeans are getting more from the Government than the taxes they pay. One question I want to ask you is: why do you not go to our constituency and tell the constituents, "Please pay more taxes; you will get more from the Government." Have you taken into consideration all the indirect taxes when you presented your conclusion? And fourth, for the expenditures that the Government is trying to incur, are you prepared to give a 20-year forecast of all the expenditures that are going to come? It is a very serious matter, you know. If we have that much resources, we almost have 7% to 8% of our GDP, including when you take into consideration the land sales and the NIR we have.”
“I support the SINGA Bill more because it can increase our financial efficiency and fiscal accountability. Financial efficiency means that, when the returns from the reserves are higher than the borrowing interest of international market, we should not tap on our current resources to fund significant infrastructure projects; instead, it is more worthwhile to borrow from the international financial market. SINGA therefore, provides an additional option for the Government. We have issued more than S$700 billion Singapore-dollar bonds and treasury bills. But strictly speaking, these are not debts because this S$700 billion is reinvested in the financial assets of foreign countries through the GIC. It is only the SINGA loans that will be our real debts because these loans will be used for significant infrastructure projects. I therefore hope that the Government will increase the accountability for SINGA loans and report to Parliament regularly on the progress of these projects. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, with no real lack of fiscal resources and SINGA as an additional funding source, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) calls on the Government to review our long-term fiscal plan and allocate more funds to alleviate the financial pressures of our middle class Singaporeans and help them improve their quality of life. This is necessary because the future of our country depends on a resilient Singaporean Core of skilled workers and motivated entrepreneurs. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“[Mr Speaker in the Chair] For better fiscal accountability, I would expect to see the pre-investment feasibility studies for the SINGA projects to be subject to public consultation so that we can tap the collective wisdom of Singaporeans and not be guided only by the experts engaged by the Government. Regular progress reports of SINGA projects should also be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The SINGA Bill is no indication that the Government is short of funds for national development. Today, the total financial assets owned by our country have reached $1.35 trillion by end March 2020. And despite the drawdown for the five COVID-19 Supplementary Budgets, our total financial assets are probably still growing because large capital inflows should have allowed MAS to accumulate more foreign currency assets in order to keep the Singapore dollar within its policy band. Even without touching the principal of the reserves, the Net Investment Return of about $40 billion a year from the reserves is enough to fund the infrastructural projects and social spending increases especially those in the healthcare area into the foreseeable future. Hence SINGA is just an additional financing scheme and not an absolutely necessary funding source. Because we have the sufficient resources, we do not need to use SINGA to achieve intergenerational equity, that is, allocate national resources between generations fairly. As long as the Government recognises the huge size of our national reserves and that it continues to grow, we are already providing a strong safety net for our future generations. It is time that we do more for this present generation.”
“In addition, the social security costs, namely, retirement and healthcare costs of Singaporeans, are all self-funded by themselves, without burdening the future generations. This is unlike the social systems in many developed countries like Japan where a major part of the taxes collected from the current working population is used to support the retirement and healthcare spending of the older retiree generation. As a result, the current generation in Singapore has to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the infrastructure and social security costs and has to struggle with a lower level of disposable income, giving rise to the phenomenon popularised by Jack Neo's movie, "Money No Enough". So, there is an urgent need to address this intergenerational inequity. However, SINGA is not necessarily the best way to achieve that. Rather, as I have said at the start, I support the SINGA scheme for better financial efficiency and fiscal accountability in the public finances. For better financial efficiency, I would expect GIC/MAS to generate a higher return of at least 2% more than the borrowing cost of the SINGA loans. Unless GIC/MAS can consistently earn a positive spread over the borrowing costs of the SINGA loans, there is no reason to borrow the SINGA loans and not make use of our current resources to fund our infrastructure projects. The SINGA loans should also be issued as Singapore dollar-denominated securities to reduce foreign exchange exposure and to broaden and deepen our bond markets. It will be a big step forward for our local bond markets if the Government can issue Singapore Government Securities or bonds with longer maturities like 20 years and 30 years.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill, or SINGA, in short, because it can improve the financial efficiency and fiscal accountability of our public finances. However, the SINGA Bill is no indication that the Government is short of funds for national development. Today, the total financial assets owned by our country has reached $1.35 trillion by end of March 2020. Despite the drawdown for the five COVID-19 Supplementary Budgets, our total financial assets are probably still growing because large capital inflows should have allowed MAS to accumulate more foreign currency assets in order to keep the Singapore dollar within its policy band. Even without touching the principal of the reserves, the Net Investment Income of about $40 billion a year from the reserves is enough to fund the infrastructural projects and social spending increases, especially those in the healthcare area, into the foreseeable future. Hence, SINGA is just an additional financing scheme and not an absolutely necessary funding source. The Government's narrative about intergenerational equity is also not an accurate description of the SINGA scheme. Since there is no lack of fiscal resources, intergenerational equity can be achieved as long as the Government allocates the resources accordingly. There is no need to borrow to achieve intergenerational equity. However, the Government's mention of intergenerational equity for the first time is heartening and I hope it will use it as a guiding principle from now on. Up till now, the Government has always frontloaded all the infrastructural costs to the current generation of Singaporeans and, at the same time, parked a disproportionate amount of current fiscal resources into the national reserves.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarification. I have two questions. One is when MCCY put up the first statement on "Imitation is the best form of flattery", was it before Mr Mendoza came out to claim his rights? Second question is, since Mr Mendoza had come up originally to claim his rights, after we had done our check on our rights, why did we not actually press the issue further and asked him to admit plagiarism, rather than just letting him go like that? Because in Singapore, we are aspiring to be the global original arbitration centre. Dealing with such infringement of IP rights lightly, will affect our aspirations to be that. Can the Minister clarify, please?”
“If it is so heavily funded by taxpayers’ money, we wish that the PA is a real organisation for the people with its leadership and membership not skewed towards any political party. In view of the recent debate on the CDCs, we would also like to know the CDC's budget as a percentage of the PA's budget.”
“Chairman, I will speak on the role of People's Association (PA). I share the sentiments expressed by the hon Member Sylvia Lim as far back as the 2016 COS debate regarding PA’s huge budget and unclear mandate. Despite the queries of many non-PAP Members subsequent to that, many questions remain unanswered. First, the question of why the PA is allocated such a huge budget. To put things in perspective, the PA’s operating expenditure in FY2021 is $589 million with 2,565 staff. In comparison, IRAS’ running costs are $432 million with 2,050 staff and GovTech’s $403 million, 3,610 staff. So, PA’s cost per staff is even higher than that of IRAS and GovTech, which are supposed to have a higher proportion of professional staff. Furthermore, from actual expenditures of FY2020, PA has spent only $199 million, which is about 30% of its running cost on activities and projects, with the balance of $441 million, which is 70% of its running cost, spent on administration. Why is such an expensive administration structure needed when the main job of PA is to be a bridge between the Government and the citizens, and much of the work of the PA is carried out by the grassroot volunteers and volunteer worker organisations (VWOs)? We wholeheartedly support the hard work put up by the staff and volunteers of PA to strengthen the social fabric of our country. However, is there more that we can do to redefine the role of PA at the higher level and to to ensure that the funds are deployed in areas that help our needy Singaporeans most? We would like to know the proportion of PA’s leaders, staff and volunteers who are members of any political party.”
“Chairman, excuse me, Chairman. My clarification on the pricing of the public health services has not been answered.”
“Okay. I would like to ask for clarifications that the MediShield Life Scheme indeed is unaffordable, as one gets older, and there is a drain on the CPF resources on the Singaporean And that is a very high number, up to $110,000 for a family. So, those are the questions I would like further clarification on. Because these are very important; has to be answered.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have two clarifications. One is I think the Ministers and the Senior Ministers of State did not answer my query on how the public health services are being priced, whether it is based on marginal cost or average cost. Maybe I add a bit more information on that, specifically about whether it is based on amortisation of assets, land cost, rental cost, all these – I hope to be clarified. Second question is on MediShield Life insurance scheme. I am actually still very puzzled why our healthcare insurance schemes are left open-ended. Because as one gets older, as Singaporeans get older, they will find it more and more unaffordable. I have also spoken in my speech that when Singaporeans get older like 80 years old or 90 years old, the premium will become very high. For example, under two scenarios, when you keep the premium —”
“The average Singaporean household expenses on healthcare costs in 2017 and 2018 were found to have increased by 4.5 to 5.5 percentage point as from five years ago. The actual increase differs slightly across different income groups, and it is somewhat concerning that the below income group, the lowest 20% bracket saw their healthcare costs forming the largest portion which is 7.8% of their household expenses. How much does the average Singaporean household spend on healthcare? And how does it compare to other developed countries? Are our current MediSave contributions keeping pace with the medical inflation? Our "3M" framework public financing healthcare plays a crucial role to keep quality of health care affordable for all. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced that there will higher remuneration for our nurses and healthcare support staff, which I fully concur with. So, we must now also examine how to fund the inevitable increases in healthcare expenses. With our ageing population, our elderly will be saddled with more healthcare costs pertaining to illness. Last year, I voiced my concerns for senior citizens who had to pay upfront cash for age-related medical treatments. I would like to suggest that medical usage limits be tiered according to age to ensure our elderly residents' growing healthcare needs are met. Naturally, we must ensure MediSave contributions would commensurate with the higher medical expenses. When is our last review of our MediSave contributions? Will the Ministry do a review on our current "3M" health financing strategy to ensure all Singaporeans will be adequately covered and keep up with medical inflation? Expand MediSave Usage”
“Chairman, escalating healthcare cost is a major worry for Singaporeans. Since cost is a result of the prices set by the public healthcare institutions, the pricing principles of the public sector is of great interest to us. Is public health pricing based on average cost or marginal cost? What are the various cost components incorporated in those costs? Is the cost-based price checked against the pricing of other countries? What are the other considerations in determining the final price? And how does MOH monitor and change the pricing overtime? Only with this information can we make an informed judgement whether MOH’s services expenditures of about $11 billion which represents about 2.2% of our GDP, is enough or not. Medical Inflation and Affordability Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Chairman, it is not uncommon for us to hear senior residents complaining about 可以病，不可以死。可以死，不可以病。Which means that can fall ill but cannot die. Singapore has one of the best healthcare systems in the world but it does not come cheap. This is evident from the effectiveness of our COVID-19 response and is further reinforced by the fact that Singaporeans enjoy one of the highest life expectancies in the world – that is 83.8 years for 2021. But with rapid medical technological and pharmaceutical advances, costs of healthcare delivery have increased exponentially. In 2018, medical inflation was at 10%,10 times more than the general inflation rate in Singapore. But this appears to be a global situation. The average global medical inflation rate was observed at 9.7% that year. As the population ages, more spending on healthcare will be required and the rate of medical inflation will need to be checked. How is MOH keeping track of the medical inflation trend and looking into its impact on Singaporeans?”
“Similarly, many coffeeshops operate on the ground floor below MSCPs and generate comparable needs for electricity load and exhaust management. Design of Use of Space due to Work from Home Arrangements”
“As our Government continues to plan its transition of our transportation towards a lower carbon future, demand for private transportation may fall even further, releasing even more spaces in our MSCPs. Needless to say, this represents an inefficient utilisation of our built environment. I would like that HDB consider the possibility of designating in part or whole the topmost floors of HDB-owned multi-storey carparks for expanded commercial use. There is precedent in the conversion of segments of the MSCP for uses beyond the parking of vehicles. Most notably, many MSCPs now feature car wash space, typically with self-operated water jet and vaccum machines. HDB also grants permits for car grooming and car sharing businesses. However, special dispensation has historically also been granted to Town Councils for setting up office facilities. As far as I am aware, however, there is no systematic scheme to permit the conversion of under-utilised MSCP space into other commercials uses, such as cafés or bubble tea shops or central kitchens. Enabling such use would not only provide additional hubs for residents to shop, eat and socialise. It would also offer convenient employment opportunities for locals who may wish to work for such businesses. For operations, such as central kitchens, the businesses may find themselves co-located closer to their customer bases. Of course, there are potential costs that have to be considered when commercial activities are allowed to operate on the top decks of MSCPs. These include the obvious noise disturbances or expanded electricity baseloads but these are surmountable challenges. For instance, noise complaints could arise just as easily when residents choose to play football in the low use upper storeys of MSCPs.”
“We had recommended the provision of small but good-quality rental flats for short-term occupation of up to five years as an additional housing option for young Singaporean families and to act as a buffer to absorb sudden surge in excess demand, so as to smooth out the property price cycle. Housing is and will always be a very critical issue on our small island but more than anything, we should not bite off more than we can chew by trying to house too large a population. It is equally important for the Government not to make short-sighted decisions in destroying more forests while we try to overcome the current housing shortage problems. 4.00 pm Commercial Spaces in HDB Multi-storey Carparks Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Chairman, the design of modern towns, such as Sengkang, the constituency I represent, tends to be denser, with commercial spaces and similar amenities located in specific clusters, often close to a transportation hub. Such design, undeniably makes sense from an urban planning perspective and can help minimise residential complaints pertaining to routine business operations, such as noise or trash. The upshot, however, is that, compared to mature estates, modern towns often sacrificed more widely distributed nodes for gathering and social exchange since commercial spaces inevitably fulfil this function. Another common feature of modern towns is that multi-storey carparks (MSCPs), especially those that go into the sixth or seventh floors may inadvertently be under-utilised, especially at the uppermost levels. This reflects not so much poor planning as much as the inherent difficult of adequately forecasting parking space demand at the point of construction.”
“Chairman, there are growing signs that the shortage of BTO flats may become a serious problem. One indicator is the demand for rental units under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), which has risen to more than 12 times the available supply in February. Minister Desmond Lee replied in Parliament in October 2020 that the BTO flat supply in 2020 was increased to about 16,700 flats to meet demand. We want to know if that is enough. What is the forecasted supply shortfall in each of the next five years? In light of the constraints due to COVID-19, how is MND going to cope with maintaining the delivery schedule when the deployment of foreign workers has been hampered? Is the introduction of new building technologies, a new focus in Budget 2021, going to contribute significantly to solving the problem in the next one to two years? Our reliance on cheap foreign labour has inhibited technological innovation in the past and we are doing catching up now. Along with increasing new supply, we should also look into how to increase the number of rental flats to satisfy demand temporarily. One potential source of supply is to delay the demolition of the old HDB flats that have been the targets of the SERS or Selective En-bloc Re-development schemes. Another avenue is for the Government to rent the vacant private units in the non-prime residential areas from private owners who are willing to rent out at a reasonable price, and then rent them out to the PPHS applicants. According to property market statistics, there are 7% vacant units in the whole housing supply in the country. While not an immediate solution, the Progress Singapore Party is in favour of making rental HDB flats a permanent choice in the long term.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I just have one more question to seek clarification from Minister Ong. Because this is also a question from the residents and also I have not enough technical knowledge. What he saying is that if, at night, everybody starts to charge the battery for the car, would it not lead to a sudden surge in the demand and then if it causes blackout or things like that, something similar to like sometimes, at night, you cannot get access to the Internet properly. So, can the Minister enlighten us on this?”
“Thank you, Chairman. First, I would like to thank Senior Minister Teo and all the Ministers, the Senior Minister of State and Ministers of State for all their informative and exciting speeches. It is really very exciting. I have two questions. One on hawker culture and one on the electric vehicle. First, on the hawker culture, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor, with the declining number of hawkers expected in the future does she think it is viable to continue to increase the number of hawker centres? I am a bit worried that in the future, we may have a scenario whereby our hawker centres are no longer serving local food, but more and more foreign food. So is that a scenario that is acceptable if that happens? Second question on the electric vehicle, what kind of changes in electricity demand pattern are we expecting with the EV introduction and how are we changing our grid system to cater for that? In other words, can our grid system cope with the surge in electricity demand? And together with that, is there going to be a very significant increase in electricity prices going forward due to this structural change? 3.00 pm Of course, we have the cyclical change in the oil price and all that. That cannot be controlled. But with the change to the introduction of EVs, there will be a structural change in our energy market. Will that lead to a significant rise in electricity price?”
“Hence, there may be a need to review the policy of positioning our hawker food as a source of cheap meals. Perhaps our focus should be on the preservation of our food culture and recipes, much like the intellectual property in other industries, whilst allowing the form of the hawker centre to evolve in tandem with society. But above all, when promoting a hawker culture, we should not forget to take care of our ageing hawkers to ensure that they have a well-deserved retirement for preserving our local food culture and recipes through their decades of hard work. Hardship Scheme for Hawker Centre Stalls”
“Mdm Chair, we salute our hawkers who had toiled to provide affordable food for generations of Singaporeans and we congratulate them, our Government and all supporters on our achievement in getting Singapore’s hawker culture inscribed on the UNESCO intangible cultural heritage list. However, to protect and preserve the heritage and traditions of our hawker culture in an authentic manner is challenging. 11.00 am Hawker centres were built rapidly throughout the 1970s and early 1980s to resettle the street hawkers and to cater for the demand of the population in the new satellite towns, but they have actually been declining in popularity since the late 1980s as Singaporeans looked for a better eating environment. As a result, the number of hawker centres peaked in 1985 at about 140 and began to decline to about 100 by the turn of the millennium. As our F&B scene become more sophisticated and diverse but also more expensive, hawker centres remain a source of good, affordable meals for Singaporeans. However, high rentals and running costs have caught up making it very difficult for new hawkers to enter the market. Even allowing some hawker centres to be run by social enterprises did not solve the high running cost problem. But the most pressing problem of the hawker trade is to replace an entire generation of retiring hawkers. Today, the median age of hawkers is 60 years. Many of them do not have successors because their children mostly do not want to take over the back-breaking trade and it is also their wish not to have their children taking over from them. There is also the inherent clash between providing affordable meals which means that the hawker trade will be of low profitability and attracting young Singaporeans into the industry.”
“Chairman, I thank the Ministers and Ministers of State for all the work that MOM is doing for the workers in Singapore. I have two questions. First, I would like the Minister to confirm whether the Singaporean workers have been disadvantaged under the current employment regime whereby a wage disadvantage is against Singaporeans because foreign workers do not contribute to CPF, there is no quota on EP holders, there is no skills transfer requirement, there is no succession planning requirement. Is this a conscious trade-off that we have to make? The second question: given that the Ministry has already done a lot of work on the PWM – and I appreciate the work that the Government has put in and this House is also of a consensus that all of us should be helping the lower wage workers more – so, why is it so difficult to take that one small step because we have already put in a lot of subsidies for the low-wage workers, just take that one small step to make it a blanket living wage or minimum wage? And then, we can concentrate our effort and resources on upgrading our workers through the vocational PWM that the Government has started. I think that is a very good step because we really have to upgrade the skills and the income of our higher wage workers actually. Those are the two questions.”
“Finally, I would caution this House that our notion of sectors deemed worthy R&D financing for innovation need not be wedded to solely high tech industries such as innovation and communications technology or biopharmaceuticals, but also much more traditional goods and services. 1.00 pm The vast majority of our government grants via A*STAR or IMDA, even when not explicitly earmarked for technology start-ups, are still heavily directed towards supporting business digitalisation. While important, innovation may occur in unexpected ways. For example, we can look at the continued refinement of modern Singapore cuisine, developing new techniques for sustainable landscaping and energy efficient building design, pioneering new elderly care methodologies, or identifying new tools to support advanced manufacturing, as Minister Heng has already emphasised. More generally, candidate projects with the highest probability of success are seldom best identified via tightly defined conditions, which speaks to the need for us to be more accommodating in our assessment methods and more liberal in our qualification criteria for Government R&D grants. Under what conditions will MTI be willing to target and increase an R&D expenditure to bring us closer to the spending for technology driven economies? This amount, to be funded from public and private sources, will ostensibly be directed toward a broad range of innovative activity across the economy and especially in existing SMEs with innovative activity. Incoming Investments and Job Opportunities”
“The need to boost productivity is especially poignant in light of Singapore's poor productivity performance and in effect that has been collaborated study after study. It can also pay for itself since heightened productivity would itself grow out our GDP pie. Increases in national expenditure appropriately directed for R&D is, therefore, an evidently attractive avenue for not just boosting productivity and, therefore, growth but also helping companies and our people stay at the forefront of advances in the digital economy and other artificial intelligence revolution, green technologies, modern manufacturing and biotech innovations. Civil servants responsible for disbursing grant support for firms confidentially share that they often face difficulty in identifying and allocating grant financing. They add that local businesses remain reluctant to fully embrace R&D, even where financial support is available. It is critical that we convince as many local firms as possible, especially those in the SME sector, that their continued success hinges on cultivating and embedding an innovative mindset. Just as pertinent, we have to be sensitive to the transition process and channel R&D funds away from certain industries that our economy has traditionally relied on such as petrochemicals, wholesale trading or back-office finance that we deem to be inconsistent with our 21st century economic model. Instead, we can re-direct R&D grants and subsidies toward the sunrise industries that the Government has already identified.”
“In this way the capital can be channeled into proper use to help us to become a regional venture capital hub for both Singaporean and foreign ventures. The Government should confine and expand its role as a facilitator by helping local ventures through its procurement policies, which my colleague Hazel Poa has brought up in her speech, through buying local products to boost their credibility and through providing facilities for testing and commercialisation for many more companies apart from the selective few presently. Hence we urge the Government to relook at the allocation of resources to Research, Innovation and Enterprise in order to achieve better outcomes for Singaporeans and for our the economy. Spending Wisely on National R&D Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Chairman, I wish to declare that I work at a research-oriented Institution of Higher Learning. In 2017, our national expenditure on research and expenditure, as a share of national output, amounted to a low shy of 2%. This amount is actually below the global average of 2.3% and, perhaps, more tellingly, for a nation that seeks to be a knowledge-based economy is also significantly below the amounts that other technology-seeking economies have devoted. The United States, for example, spends 2.8%, Japan 3.2%, Korea 4.6% and Israel 4.8%. Our companies are also decidedly old economy. Singapore has few firms for which intangible assets make up the majority of the balance sheet. Even one of the top Singapore-based Internet and E-commerce firms, SEA Limited, reports that only about 1% of its assets are intangible. There is solid evidence that R&D investments can improve and be a boost to productivity via catalytic effects on innovation.”
“Mr Chairman, we are fortunate that Singapore has adequate financial resources and is willing to think ahead by investing in RIE or Research, Innovation and Enterprise to future-proof our society and economy. Between 2005 and 2020, we have spent a total of $55 billion on RIE, an amount larger than the drawdown of reserves to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The next RIE budget for 2021 to 2025 calls for another $25 billion of spending. The budget also calls for $2.2 billion to be spent on "talent development", including postgraduate scholarships, but the majority of the postgraduate students, researchers and faculty members are foreigners. At the NUS' Centre for Quantum Technologies established in 2007, 74% of its researchers and postgraduate students are foreigners in 2019, a decade after its establishment. What does that say about our progress in building up our domestic research talent pool over the last two decades? In our opinion, it is premature to increase research expenditure significantly when we still lack a sizeable domestic pool of research talent. Also, besides looking at the research component of the RIE budget, the Government should also conduct a review of the allocation of resources used to promote innovation and enterprise. From my humble experience as a venture capitalist, new ventures cannot be effectively promoted by the Government using co-funding. This is because the limited number of public servants would not be able to assess the potential of thousands of venture ideas emerging at any one time. It is better to let the private sector do the job. A better alternative is to provide tax credit to activate access capital in our system to fund the ventures and increase taxes on passive capital that do not.”
“Mr Chairman, during the debate on the Parti Liyani’s case, the Minister for Law has mentioned the possibility to increase legal aid for the economically vulnerable. We would like to know what is the progress in setting up the Public Defender’s Office? In the interim, what is being done to beef up the Enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme to increase the availability of criminal legal aid to the economically vulnerable applicants. Access to Justice”
“Mr Chairman, during the debate on the Parti Liyani’s case, the Minister for Home Affairs has promised some improvements to the police investigation process. We would like to know: what is being done to speed up the implementation of the video recording system for police interviews of accused persons? And are there plans to increasing the pool of interpreters, specifically those who speak Bahasa Indonesia, Tagalog, and Bengali, engaged by the police to ensure that as far as possible, when an accused person asks for a translator, one is available for the interview? Also, in view of the recent Myanmarese Piang Ngaih Don's case, how is the police doing more to protect the vulnerable before the worst happens? Far-right Extremism”
“I thank the Minister for the comments. I want to apologise. Maybe MAS does have the KPIs, but I think the KPIs are not showing enough results. Even the data that was quoted in Minister's clarification in September last year, I think I and a lot of Singaporeans still have doubts. Like for example, the senior executive positions in the retail banking sector in Singapore, why should there still be 30% to 40% of foreigners? After all, retail banking is about our own domestic market, right? Can it not be 80% to 90%? Are we satisfied with a 60%, 70% percentage, for example? Secondly, I would also like to pose a question related to my speech today. Has the Government created a wage disadvantage by not having foreigners contribute to CPF in Singapore?”
“Yes, thank you, Speaker. I also thank the Minister of State for the comments. May I respond? PSP is in total agreement to the fact that we are an open global city state. So, we are in favour of having foreign talents or foreigners to come in to compliment us. However, what we are pointing out, as in my maiden speech in September last year, we need a rebalancing, and we think the rebalancing is going on too slowly. Now, with more than 40% of the foreigners in our workforce, many of them have taken over the top positions. The fact is that taking over the top positions in our company is not the problem. The problem is do we have enough policies to ensure that Singaporeans have a fair treatment? Today, I have pointed out again that for the longest time why the Government had allowed the wage disadvantage against the Singaporeans? With that, obviously, the employers would favour the foreigners over the Singaporeans a lot more. And during my maiden speech, I brought up the issue of the CEO of DBS Bank not because it was meant to be a personal attack, but I am trying to emphasise, why is there no succession planning, again, being done over the course of the 20 years? And recently, another of our local bank has employed another foreigner to be the CEO. So, what is MAS doing? In my maiden speech, I have said that during my time in the 1980s and the 1990s, localisation is almost a must in our financial sector. Today, it does not seem to be even a KPI for the MAS officials. So, that is what PSP and I are concerned about – the rebalancing and we have to do the rebalancing as soon as possible and as fast as possible.”
“By taking away one of the sources of drain on the CPF funds, most Singaporeans will be able to satisfy the basic retirement sum of $93,000, and also not to have to worry about the unaffordable premiums in their old age. This means that two social security problems of Singaporeans are resolved by one policy. And if we relax, the withdrawal limit for MediSave at the same time, because more cash is now available in the account, we will resolve another financial problem for Singaporeans. Managing healthcare cost is an on-going and complex matter, which requires many more policy and system changes. However, we believe our recommendation is a significant first step in the correct direction. Sir, in total, the three recommendations will incur a net additional spending of $1.5 billion. The Government can decide whether it wants to reallocate existing resources to these recommendations, or allow the additional spending to provide more stimulus for the recovering economy. We believe our recommendations will go a long way; helping to secure a foundation of financial stability and social dignity for Singaporeans. Only with this secure foundation, can we really emerge as one people. Sir, I support the Budget.”
“Yes, he or she is responsible for all his family members as far as medical expenses are concerned. We estimated that the total premium paid by an average family of four, up to 65 years old for the parents, and 25 years old for the two children before they become independent, will cause a drain of $110, 000 from the parents' CPF resources. Considering that those premiums, if not withdrawn from the CPF account, they could have earned a compounded annual return of 4% over the years. In other words, if the family did not need to pay the MediShield and CareShield premiums, he would have an additional $110, 000 for retirement. Furthermore, if the premium increases by 10% every five years, which is highly possible, given that MediShield premium is going to go up 35% this year. The drain on the CPF account will be from $110, 000 to $246,000. The MediShield and CareShield schemes are thus a big drag on the retirement resources of Singaporeans. And the current social security plans are highly unsatisfactory. The reason why CPF rules have to be tweaked frequently, it is not because that the Government had lost the CPF money in bad investment, like some fake news have it. Rather, it is because the Government knows that most Singaporeans do not have enough funds to cater for all the three uses. Hence, it is restricting withdrawals. So, we recommend that the Government funds, the insurance premiums of the MediShield Life and CareShield scheme for all Singaporeans and PRs. This will increase operating expenditure by adjustable justifiable some of $2.6 billion per annum, which is only 0.5% of our GDP.”
“This levy will differentiate the true foreign talents, who are high salaried and less affected by the $1,200 levy, from the foreign talents who are simply cheap labour that compete unfairly with our Singaporeans and whom our economy has become overly dependent on. The third and last recommendation is to strengthen the social security for Singaporeans by having the Government pay for all the MediShield and CareShield insurance premiums. Base on our financial projections, most middle class Singaporeans cannot afford the MediShield and CareShield premiums in their old age. And this is not clearly explained to the people. The average Singaporean can accumulate about $1 million in savings in his CPF account, if he had contributed continuously from 25 to 65 years old. With the contributions compounded at the CPF interest rates of 2.5% and 4% per annum for the Ordinary, Special and MediSave account respectively. Ostensibly, all Singaporeans should have adequate retirement resources in their CPF account. This is the reason why our CPF system is rated as one of the best retirement schemes in the world. But like the many other accolades that we have received, it only tells half the story. In reality, about half of the CPF members do not have enough money in their CPF account, even to satisfy the Basic Retirement Sum of $93,000. This is because in addition to retirement use, the Government has designated two additional uses for the CPF monies, namely purchasing HDB flats and topping up the MediSave account. The MediSave account is designed to pay for all the MediShield and CareShield premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses of a Singaporean and his dependent family members, including his parents.”
“The living wage will lift the wage share of the GDP, something that my colleague Ms Hazel Poa has recommended yesterday. There is a consensus in this House that we should care for our essential workers who are also often low-wage workers. We think the best way to achieve that is to have the living wage. Low-income Singaporeans will be able to have peace of mind with a living wage rather than those usual ad hoc, short-term and unpredictable schemes offered by the Government. The second recommendation is to level the playing field for our Singaporean talents in our very own job market. While it is understandable that we need foreign workers to complement us, it puzzles me why the Government has allowed a wage disadvantage against the Singaporeans for the longest time. This wage disadvantage against our local workers has arisen from the fact that foreigners are not included in the CPF system. While this disadvantage has been slightly reduced in the case of the Work Permit holders and the S Pass holders through the levy system, it is not the case for the EP holders. It has often been highlighted that this is a loophole for employers to exploit to the disadvantage of our Singaporean workers. Hence, in order to level the playing field, we recommend imposing a $1,200 monthly levy on all EP holders immediately. The $1,200 amount is based on the employer's contribution and part of the employee's contribution. This is estimated to generate new operating revenue of $2.7 billion per annum. If the Government needs more revenue, this is a good option to consider.”
“Hence, a good Budget must tackle the root cause of the problems with long-term, predictable policies and schemes, and it must aim to build a secure foundation of financial stability and social dignity for our Singaporeans. With that objective in mind, we would like to make three major long-term policy recommendations to nudge the Budget in the correct direction. The first recommendation is to introduce a living wage for the low-wage workers. The Singapore Progress Party (PSP) strongly believes that a Singaporean who has put in a day's work should be compensated sufficiently to allow him to live with dignity. And we firmly believe that honouring our fellow Singaporeans must take priority over all other economic arguments and we should not wait for the Government to take another decade or two to slowly review the wages of the low-wage workers, sector-by-sector, through its Progressive Wage Model. In 2019, Asst Prof Ng Kok Hoe and his team from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy had conducted a minimum income standards study on what older households need to meet their basic needs. The study postulated that single elderly households aged over 65 needed $1,379 per month and single households aged 55 to 64 needed $1,721 per month. While not definitive, this provides a good benchmark to design a living wage policy. Using this benchmark, we propose a living wage of $1,500 take-home pay for all local workers which translates into $2,055 in gross wages for a start. The Government could pay the main portion of the increase from 2021 to 2023 to allow businesses time to adjust. We estimate this will increase operating expenditure by about $1.6 billion in each of the next three years.”
“The other urgent problem is the high cost of living and the heavy indirect tax burden of middle class Singaporeans. Housing prices has continued to surge during COVID-19 period. Other costs, like electricity, ERP and now, the petrol tax, are also increasing. For Singaporeans above 50 years old, the worries over retirement and healthcare is worsening by the day. In 2021, Singaporeans will not only have to pay up to 35% more in MediShield Life premiums, but will also have to start paying CareShield premiums. Seemingly, oblivious to all these pains of the middle class, the impending rise of the GST was brought up again during the Budget speech despite the Government agreeing that the GST is regressive in nature. When the top quintile income earners contribute more than 80% of personal income tax revenue but only 60% of the GST revenues, I hope the Government would also admit that a tax system relying more on GST revenue will burden the middle class most, namely, those who do not earn enough to hit the higher income tax brackets, but do not qualify for GST Vouchers. These are also the people who have young families with children, spending most of their income on essentials. Adding on social stress like the unnecessarily competitive Primary school education system and the yearly commitment of in-camp training for male Singaporeans, it is not difficult to understand how stressed middle class Singaporeans are. However, without the participation of the middle-class, the economic transformation is doomed because there will not be enough players to create healthy competition in the market if only the top quintile Singaporeans are innovating. Perhaps, it is because of an impoverished middle class that we need more foreigners.”
“With such a confusing array of schemes, it is difficult for Singaporeans to find any lasting reassurance or peace of mind and create long-term plans for their futures. A true Resilience Package must contain long-term transparent and predictable schemes which Singaporeans will automatically qualify if they fall below a certain threshold. In this way, every Singaporean would know where they stand financially in every stage of their lives and how they can work towards a stable financial position. Secondly, the Budget measures did not tackle the root cause of the problems of job security and a rising cost of living which still afflict Singaporeans today especially the middle class. There is an urgent need to rebalance the local-foreign worker mix in our job market. Mr Yeoh Lam Keong, the former GIC Chief Economist and one of the founders of FOSG or the Future of Singapore Group, has pointed out that, and I quote, "our most fundamental economic weaknesses stem (from) our structural excessive dependence on foreign capital and foreign labour." So, in preparing for a post-COVID-19 future, should we not seize this opportunity to reduce our reliance on foreign labour? I was disappointed that the Budget only adjusted the S Pass quota for the manufacturing sector for managing the local-foreign worker mix. Currently, foreign workers account for, on the average, 40% of our workforce at all levels, whether Work Permit, S Pass or EP holders and many of the foreign workers have even taken the helm of our local companies. The growing numbers of displaced PMETs joining the ranks of the private hire drivers and gig workers is the best final evidence of the shortcomings of the current employment and immigration policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome Budget 2021 announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister on 16 February. The Budget, which allocates about 20% of our GDP, has provided continued support to fight the COVID-19 and the resources to accelerate our socio-economic transformation to a new and sustainable model. The basic deficit of $31 billion is attributable to $11 billion for the Resilience Package and $24 billion spread over three years for the emerging stronger initiatives. This basic deficit can be easily covered by the NIR or Net Investment Return earned from our total financial assets of more than $1.35 trillion. This NIR is estimated to be $39.2 billion for FY2021. However, since the Government's policy is to only use half of the NIR for spending every year, we can only use $19.6 billion to offset the basic deficit, which gives us an overall Budget deficit of $11 billion for FY2021. If there is a need to help Singaporeans to survive and to do better, we think we should not hesitate to spend more, even up to the total NIR we earn every year. For the foreseeable future, we do not see any shortage of fiscal revenues. Needless to say, we must ensure that the money spent will have a lasting effect on our people and give them the confidence to take ownership of and build their own futures. It is in this regard that I think Budget 2021 has fallen short. Firstly, like the Budgets of previous years, many of the measures are short term, ad hoc and come with confusing names. Just like the Household Support Package, as an example. We have the GST Voucher Special, U-Save Special, Service and Conservancy Charges rebate, Edusave Top-ups, CDC Voucher and more.”
“Okay, in that case, maybe I would like to ask the Minister that in deciding the trade-off, very often, he brought up the example of one victim of the seven serious crimes; maybe a victim of one of the seven serious crimes. But when we are making a trade-off as leaders of the country, do we not actually think of both sides? It is about one victim versus thousands of possible drop-outs from the TT programme. Of course, I accept the explanation that he has done with regard to he does not think there is an effect on that. I would like him to clarify, what does he think about that approach to making the trade-off, which is the approach that PSP has taken.”
“Okay. Since PSP is not going to support the Bill, I think it is our responsibility to explain to this House and to Singaporeans, our position further. We thank the Government —”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make some clarifications and also to explain the position of Progress Singapore Party. Please allow me some time to do that.”
“I thank the Minister for the question. Yes. Our position will be that. But of course, in any of the decisions we make, there is a trade-off. So, when you take the position of the Bill what you are saying public trust plus the needs of public health – both of these benefits would be less than the benefits that you draw or you expect to draw from public safety. So, we have the weigh the trade-off and after weighing the trade-off, we hold the stand that we are going against this Bill.”
“Any action the Government takes to deal with this pandemic be it to prioritise public health and trust or public safety will significantly impact our people's trust and confidence in the Government's action in future pandemics and other unforeseen calamities. Therefore, when all the various issues are considered, passing this Bill may actually run against the Government's objective of rallying everybody together to fight the pandemic which should be our top priority at this moment in time. In conclusion, Sir, this Bill does not go far enough to assure our citizens that the Government will keep its promises and is insufficient to restore public trust in the Government during this pandemic. The Progress Singapore Party therefore stands opposed against this Bill and calls upon the Government to keep to his original promise by fully exempting contact tracing data from the CPC.”