Liang Eng Hwa
Singapore
“Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank IMDA for its flexibility in allowing the filming of "Dear You" in the Teochew dialect, and for approving additional screenings to meet public demand.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, we hope that there will be peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict soon and that the Strait of Hormuz will be fully open.”
“Sir, I believe the political office holders have not replied or responded to my cut on traffic congestion, so can I perhaps ask the Minister, whether is it because he disagrees with me that the traffic congestion has worsened or that there is no non-pricing solutions to traffic congestion, which I had asked for.”
“Sir, Minister Chee, in his speech mentioned that this year we will be launching 19,600 new BTO flats. So, I would like to ask, how he sees the trajectory in the next two, three years.”
“Also, flexible work arrangements, through inter-agency coordination, could also help flatten peak demand. Sir, road pricing remains important, of course, but it must be a multi-pronged approach to manage congestions. And all these suggestions that I have made, I hope would also help to reduce congestions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Sir, there are Singaporeans who felt strongly that the founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew's original wish to have the house demolished should be respected. It is not just because this is his personal wish but also the values that he espouse, which is not to have personal monuments.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,031 lines we hold for Liang Eng Hwa, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 21.
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I understand that the reason the gencos were able to offer TRECS to the mid-sized consumers, the business consumers, is because they can draw on the standby LNG facilities set up by EMA. So, can I ask the Minister, is that the constraint why we cannot expand this TRECS scheme further to even larger consumers? Secondly, I am also concerned that if we keep tapping on this standby facility, in the event that there is an outbreak of conflict in Ukraine and so on, and LNG prices were to shoot up, do we have enough to manage the volatility that is to come and to secure the energy supply for our consumers?”
“It highlighted that today, there are more than 450 job roles in 17 sectors that require green skills, including manufacturing, financial services, trade and connectivity, hospitality, and the built environment. We can expect more jobs to be greener. It is therefore important for the Government and businesses to help workers to equip themselves to take on these green jobs, whether within existing sectors or in new sectors. Time and opportunity cost on the part of the workers must be factored in to allow them to acquire the new skills and adapt to a greener business environment. Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to press on with our efforts to transition into a greener Singapore that contributes meaningfully to the global efforts to combat climate change. There are pain-points we will need to address to ensure a smooth transition for businesses and people. To do so, we need to pace out our green transformation and support businesses in their journey, seize the green economy opportunities, and equip our workforce with the skills to take on the jobs in the green economy. Sir, with that, I support the Motion.”
“There is an emergence of green growth areas, such as in electric vehicles, green financing and research and development (R&D) of the low-carbon technologies and solutions. Some of these areas are more developed, while others are more nascent. But these are all exciting areas. Singapore needs to ride on this green wave to seize the economic opportunities and not be left out. As a country with limited resources, we need to identify the key strategic growth areas for Singapore that builds on existing strengths such as our position as a business and a financial hub. There are also newer sectors that we can go into by leveraging our strengths in R&D. For example, R&D presents a pathway for Singapore companies to develop new capabilities, technologies, and innovative products and services in the green economy. Such solutions are particularly sought after in carbon-intensive sectors such as power generation, industrial processes, transportation and construction. To seize green growth opportunities, it is important for the Government to support and partner the industries and businesses. We have done it before to grow globally competitive industries. We should and can do it again to grow a thriving Green Economy in Singapore. Sir, as our economy shifts towards a greener one, new employment opportunities in the green economy will arise. We need to develop the talent pool for Singapore to remain as an attractive destination for businesses, especially for those who place a premium on sustainability. The green economy was identified as a key growth area in the recent SkillsFuture inaugural report.”
“It is also important for Government to be open about the timeline to increase the carbon tax so as to give businesses time to adjust. Inevitably, there will be businesses that may not be able to break even or cope with the carbon tax increases and may exit. We have to minimise such casualties and help as many businesses as possible to transit. While the healthy tension by way of carbon tax is necessary to nudge practices, it must be complemented by support measures from the Government. MSE Minister Grace Fu has indicated in an answer to a recent Parliamentary Question that the Government is prepared to spend more than it collects from carbon taxes on worthwhile projects that reduce carbon emissions. In the same reply, the Minister also mentioned about increasing funding support to assist industries in improving energy and carbon efficiency by way of the Resource Efficiency Grant and the Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F). The Government is also working with companies based on Jurong Island to transform the island into a sustainable energy and chemicals park, and to develop and export the low-carbon solutions globally. For SMEs, they can tap on the Enterprise Sustainability programme to build capabilities for the green transition. These support measures and plans are useful. I urge the Government to continue reviewing these measures, taking in feedback from businesses and consumers, and enhancing the support where necessary. Sir, the accelerating global momentum and traction on climate action creates new opportunities. A 2020 report by Bain and Company has estimated that ASEAN's green economy could be worth up to US$1 trillion in annual economic benefits by 2030.”
“In some markets and industries, we may also face competitive comparisons as a place to invest and conduct business, with competing economies who have fewer sustainability requirements or are less strict in their implementation. The carbon tax is a case in point. We recognise that having carbon tax sends a clear signal that we are serious about decarbonising our industries and to become more energy efficient, and therefore spur the necessary industry transformation. But on the other hand, the impact to our businesses would be that companies may be disadvantaged when competing with jurisdictions that do not impose such taxes, or provide exemptions for some carbon-intensive export-oriented sectors. For example, some of these sectors in the EU, China and South Korea do receive free allowances under their emissions trading systems. And closer to home, in South East Asia, there are still economies who compete with us that levy no or lower carbon tax. The short-term impact on business competitiveness and compressed margins may be inevitable. Businesses would need to rely on or strengthen their other competitive propositions such as quality and reliability to defend or grow their market share. But, in the longer term, sustainable businesses may have a competitive advantage as consumers increasingly demand sustainable products and services. Sir, I support the imposition of carbon tax and to progressively increase over time to disincentivise the high carbon emission business practices. But we have to pace out the incremental increases so that our industries would not be dislocated and businesses can carry out the transition while staying as a going concern.”
“As businesses look to lower their carbon footprint to meet the demands of their customers, or business partners or even their bankers, they may also experience higher capital outlay and operating costs, such as the need for mandated sustainability reporting, the requirements to adopt of low-carbon technology, or the use of greener but potentially more expensive raw materials. Domestically, the source of higher cost pressures could also come from Government regulations, such as energy efficiency requirements and the carbon tax as Singapore strives towards more sustainable growth. Externally, as the world decarbonises, it can also lead to rising energy costs. In the case of carbon tax, it is estimated that every $5 per tonne of carbon tax could lead to approximately 1% increase in electricity prices for households and businesses in Singapore. Businesses now need to ready for the next round of carbon tax increases, with the likely announcement at next month's Budget Statement by the Finance Minister. Sir, while increased costs would be a concern, we cannot allow that to be the reason to slow our decarbonisation efforts. The higher near-term business costs may well be the necessary nudge needed for businesses to pivot, and when overcome, can enable these sustainable businesses to reap good returns and capture new and greater market share in the longer-term. Hence, it is pivotal that we closely support our businesses as they overcome the initial steep challenges in their transition journey to low-carbon practices. Singapore has no domestic hinterland and we compete with the rest of the world to sustain our livelihoods.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Member Ms Poh Li San and the Members for tabling this Motion to debate on our actions towards a low-carbon society. I would also like to thank the activists from the Young PAP for their detailed and passionate proposal to mitigate climate change. Sir, the Motion statement has thoughtfully captured the key thrust of efforts to transit towards a low-carbon society, focusing on creating green jobs, corporate accountability, partnership with the stakeholders and importantly, that this transition must be an inclusive one. We are all aligned in recognising the severity of the climate change threat that is upon us and are mindful of the urgency of actions. Doing nothing or status quo is not an option. As a responsible global citizen, we take our climate change commitments very seriously. But we also know that transiting to a low-carbon society is a mammoth undertaking, especially for a small, alternative energy-disadvantaged country with resource constraints like Singapore. While we hope to get to the promised land in double-quick time, we have to also ensure that the stakeholders are all able to keep up with the pace, achieve the outcomes we set out to do and importantly, sustain high level of public support throughout this sustainability journey. There will be pain-points and trade-offs that we will need to be addressed and for us as a nation to make, as a society as well and as individuals. The obvious immediate concern of many businesses is the transition cost towards more sustainable and low-carbon business practices. This takes place against the backdrop of other worrying global trends, such as supply chain disruptions, protectionism and slower global growth.”
“Can I ask the Minister of State if the FSDF would also encourage donations or contributions from stakeholders such as financial institutions or industry professionals who have benefited from the development of the financial sector. Sir, I want to declare my interest that I work in a financial institution which also benefited from the FSDF. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the intent of this Bill, which is to enable SEL Holdings, as shareholder of SGX, to participate in corporate actions of the company such as receiving new shares as dividends. It is logical, as that is the ownership rights of any shareholders of a listed company. However, what interest me on this Bill is the structure in which the shares of SGX are being held and how dividends are used to fund FSDF to support various initiatives set out in the MAS Act. The EDMA came about because of the demutualisation and merger of the Stock Exchange of Singapore, SIMEX and SCCS. SEL is a special purpose vehicle designated to hold the SGX shares, specifically for the benefit of FSDF. And FSDF is set up to support the promotion of Singapore as a financial centre and is controlled and administered by MAS; subject to the directions of the Minister-in-charge of MAS. Notwithstanding, Sir, I have a couple of questions for the Minister: I can understand the historical context of this arrangement. But I want to ask the Minister of State if MAS still sees the continued need for SEL to be the largest shareholder of SGX; and as a result, the holdings of SGX shares would constitute a significant part of the investment for FSDF? Would FSDF be being better served with a more diversified portfolio and its interest to SGX reduced? Secondly, may I use this opportunity of the Second Reading to ask the Minister of State also to share on the governance structure of FSDF; and also how often are the objectives, scope and outcomes of FSDF reviewed? I thank the FSDF for being proactive in responding to the pandemic by launching the $125 million COVID-19 support package in 2020 to help the industry navigate through the crisis and enable the sector to emerge stronger.”
“Sir, this Bill empowers MAS to subscribe to the RMGS issued by the Government in consideration for the OFR to be transferred to the Government and thereafter for GIC to manage. With this transfer, the excess OFR can be invested in portfolios with longer-term horizons and relatively more risky assets so as to achieve higher returns than what MAS can deliver. This instituted transfer mechanism sharpened the clarity of the role between MAS, which primarily focuses on price stability; and GIC, which invests for longer tenures and take on higher risks for higher returns. So, on this aspect, I have two further questions for the Minister. Would the excess OFR that is being transferred to GIC be managed as a segregated pot from the rest of the financial reserves that GIC manage? My second question is, would the returns from these excess reserves contribute to the annual NIRC? As to whether the Government could use the RMGS proceeds to finance Government spending, I am satisfied that the current legislative safeguards, namely the GSA and the current amendments to the MAS Act, are adequate to prohibit that. In addition, the Constitution also requires the Government of the day to balance the budget over its term of Government. Sir, with that, I support the amendments.”
“This is quite a significant increase from the year before of S$479 billion in December 2020. That is an 18% increase. The current level of OFR represents more than 100% of the size of Singapore's GDP. The Minister mentioned that it is about 110% or 111% of the GDP. MAS determines that the optimal level of the OFR should be about 65% to 75% of Singapore's GDP. I suppose this takes into consideration the size and the daily turnover of the Singapore dollar traded in markets and the ability to buffer against large and sudden outflows of capital that could result in extreme volatility in the Singapore dollar exchange rate. To serve this function of managing extreme volatility, the OFR are kept in cash or high-quality liquid assets so that it can be drawn upon immediately when the need arises. Whether in absolute amount or relative to the GDP or on a per capital basis, our OFR stock would be among the highest in the world. So, there are no real merits to further add to the stock of the OFR if the optimal level is already more than adequate to manage monetary operations and to tackle markets' tail risk events. Besides, we also have two other pots of national reserves managed by GIC and Temasek, which could further shore up confidence and strength in Singapore's financial position. While the OFR amount is regularly published, I would like to take this opportunity in this Second Reading to ask the Minister to share on the framework under which the OFR are managed. What are the liquidity and risk guidelines and is there a target return for MAS in managing the OFR? Also, how often does MAS review the optimal level of OFR to hold and do significant economic or market risk events such as a regional currency crisis immediately trigger upward adjustments of the OFR?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has always been an attractive destination for foreign investments; both direct investments and financial investments. In 2020, despite being an uncertain and challenging year, EDB was able to attract direct investment commitments of $17 billion, very much keeping up to the trajectory for inbound direct investments. On the financial investments front, the Singapore dollar denominated equity and debt market assets continue to attract significant capital inflows as investors take comfort in our solid sovereign ratings, our strong economic fundamentals and political stability. Coupled with the country's net positive savings, our local dollar persistently faced strong appreciation pressures. In order to manage the Singapore dollar within a tolerated trade-weighted band, MAS would often need to intervene in the foreign exchange markets to moderate the rise of the Singapore dollar and as a result, accumulate a growing size of foreign currency, known as the Official Financial Reserves (OFR). To many jurisdictions, this would be an enviable position or a happy problem to manage. It demonstrates the international markets' confidence in the Singapore’s economy, the securities that we issued and the Singapore dollar. While this may be a happy situation, we need to manage a couple of related issues. Firstly, how much of the OFR does MAS needs to conduct monetary operations effectively and to ensure price stability and markets stability? In excess of that OFR, what do we do with the accumulated OFR which are in foreign currencies? How can we derive decent returns from these accumulated funds? Firstly, on how much of the OFR should MAS hold. The Minister has just mentioned that the MAS, as at November 2021, holds S$566 billion of OFR.”
“Sir, my question is for Second Minister for Finance. Yes, we know that it is never a good time to raise taxes. Indeed, the Government has been helping Singaporeans to mitigate the cost of living with the various support measures. But given the series of cost increases that we have seen in recent months, with perhaps more to come and that we are still in this pandemic fighting mode, would the Government consider delaying the GST increases so as to avoid adding on to inflationary pressures?”
“These would give greater clarity to the market participants and analysts on the level of the borrowing by the Government. Sir, notwithstanding my queries, I support the technical amendments in this Bill.”
“Does MOF see the need to retain this separate borrowing limits for these two buckets of issuances given that they both have different risk profile? My third question is, the main bulk of the securities issued by the Government is the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) which I believe account for about over 70% of the SGS. This is issued to CPF Board so that the Government can pay the bond coupon rates to the CPF members, which match the interest that CPF members receive. These bonds are not traded in the market and are directly placed with CPF. Hence, this is not for the purpose of creating high quality liquid assets for the financial institutions or to build a domestic risk-free yield curve, as opposed to the purpose of SGS. Because of its sheer size, this SSGS, and that it will continue to grow in tandem with higher wages and growth in our resident workforce, we can expect the SSGS to get even more sizeable as the CPF savings increase. As the SSGS is aggregated with the SGS, the overall debt level of the Government will come across as very high relative to our GDP and give the impression that a lot more SGS is issued or traded in the market. These CPF related issuances, the SSGS, are also not invested by external investors because it is hold by the CPF Board, and its size of issuance and coupon rates therefore do not have any impact on the Singapore bond market nor its liquidity. Hence, I would suggest that MOF consider classifying these private placed securities which it privately placed to CPF Board as CPF Bond rather than called it the SGS, and it should come under a separate borrowing limit and, of course, to be approved by Parliament and the President.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest that I work in a financial institution which trade and transaction in securities, including Government securities. Sir, the Government has issued more debts over the year, largely for investments, and also to develop the bond market and to manage the CPF monies. Earlier this year, the House has also passed the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA) in which the proceeds raised can only be used to fund major and very long-term key infrastructures. So, the Government's balance sheet has indeed expanded and hence, it does make good sense do some "housekeeping" to the various Government borrowing legislations, and in particular, this Bill to consolidate the GSA and LTBA as well as make consequential amendments and repeals to the other Acts. Sir, notwithstanding my support, I have three questions for the Minister. Firstly, can I use this opportunity to seek an update on the outstanding amount of securities that the Government issued under the GSA and the LTBA? Secondly, clause 14 of the Act merge the two borrowing limits, the GSA and the LBTA, into a single borrowing limit of $1.065 trillion. Can I ask the Minister for the basis of this change? The reasons for my question are as follows. Firstly, SGS are long-dated debts greater than one year, while the Treasury Bills tends to be just a few months to a year. Both debts come with different tenures, repayment obligations. The Treasury Bills tend to be more liquid in the trading markets because it is shorter dated. Hence, from the credit market standpoint, the two debts, say, the three-month Treasury Bill versus 20-year SGS would be accorded with different risk ratings.”
“Sir, the Minister of State mentioned about monetary policy as one of the very important tools to fight imported inflation. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether there is further scope for our strong Singapore dollar to mitigate imported inflation, given that it does impact our export competitiveness; whether, from our trade consideration standpoint, is there further room for that to be used to mitigate imported inflation? Secondly, besides imported inflation, we are also faced with domestic cost pressures. The Minister of State also mentioned about the push for higher wages, the additional measures from the COVID-19-related safe management procedures that the businesses got to follow, the energy prices and others. My concern is whether all these upward pressures on cost will lead to businesses pricing in this anticipated increase in cost and, therefore, will create a spiral in inflation. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State how the Government is going to manage this, whether there will be interventions and also for items that are outside the CPI basket, how are we going to mitigate those cost increases as well.”
“So, I urge EMA to look into further measures to mitigate these counterparty risks; including allowing for the novation of some of these in-the-money fuel hedging positions from the retailers who may have abruptly exited the market, to allow this novation of this contract, this position that they hedged on, to come to the new retailers the consumers choose, for example, SP Services, so that consumers' interests can be safeguarded. Sir, notwithstanding that, I support the Bill. 2.29 pm”
“In recent years, we have seen more forward-looking businesses incorporating sustainability into their corporate agenda. Hence, rather than use the powers derived from this Bill to institute broad-based measures, I would suggest that EMA can look at more targeted measures to move the sector towards lower emissions. With the progressive build-up of the four supply "switches" and the diversification of the various energy sources, the regulations and the development of the sector would also need a more differentiated approach. Sir, as this Bill is also about resilience, can I use this opportunity to seek a progress update from the Minister on the alternative sources of energy that EMA is developing? In particular, whether hydrogen, which has been quite talked about, can be a viable source or game changer for Singapore energy supply; and also, what would be the likely timeline? Sir, my final point is on the transition risks as we journey towards the new landscape. As EMA embarks on this multi-decade programme to transit to a low-carbon, four-supply switches setting, it would, understandably, change the overall market dynamics of the incumbent operators. Some of these new plans may directly or indirectly impact the operations and financial performances of these players. How would EMA ensure that this transition can be smoothly carried out with no or minimal disruptions to our energy supply? Also, what is the estimated infrastructure cost to realise our new energy vision? In this Bill, there is also an amendment to clarify the ability to draw down on electricity retailers' deposits to offset outstanding settlement payments to protect consumers' interest. This amendment is necessary in light of the disruptions in the open electricity market that we saw.”
“All these requirements and often competing needs may not be best served by commercially-run business enterprises. Having these infrastructures largely owned and operated by, say, foreign commercial entities, may leave us exposed to potential disruptions should the parent head offices or other subsidiaries of these companies run into problems or that they have no plans to reinvest and merely want to sit out the legacy investment till it is fully depreciated. Of course, the Government can regulate to require the gencos to close the line, but we know that too much of regulations and directives can actually kill the enterprising spirit and defeat the purpose. The other steep challenge faced by power generation companies is the ability of the company to fund the long-term capital expenditure needed to renew and to grow the capacity. Not all companies are able to raise long-term capital which can stretch more than 10 years or 20 years, at a reasonable cost. The commercial returns from the generators may not be adequate to service such long-term debts which also come with project risks and, therefore, higher risk premiums. Hence, I am supportive of the new provision in this amendment that allows EMA to raise capital or issue bonds to finance the construction of these projects where necessary. Sir, next, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as provided in this Bill. This is needed to facilitate the decarbonisation of our gencos and, importantly, it signals the way forward in how we generate electricity. Besides enabling EMA to push for carbon-efficient technologies through this Bill, there are also the upcoming carbon taxes to incentivise the reduction of carbon emissions.”
“It is a key strategic policy decision the Government has to make and to implement. But this major transition to a more efficient, resilient and sustainable energy architecture for Singapore also requires new executive powers to effect massive industry changes and restructuring. Among others, this Bill empowers EMA to directly build, acquire and manage these essential electricity infrastructures, if need be, to ensure the resilience and security of our power supply. It also enables EMA to issue licences, import of electricity and issue bonds to finance these critical facilities. Sir, I support giving EMA these powers to ensure that the country will be reliably powered. This is of paramount importance. In situations of crisis or significant market disruption, EMA may require this delegation of authority to take necessary decisive actions. I will go further to submit that critical infrastructures like power generation which has a direct bearing on our security, economy and the well-being of our people should be a nationalised company or maybe even Temasek-linked companies. This would ensure that the power generation companies would be operated and invested with our long-term national interest in mind. This is especially so for a small island economy like Singapore, where we lack the scale. Power generation infrastructures do have their useful lifespan and obsolescence. It requires continuous long-term investments to renew, repower and invest in new capacities to meet our growth demands. There is now also the added sustainability emphasis as well as the need for further resiliency to be built into our future energy supply. Whilst doing all the above, we also want to ensure that electricity prices stay affordable to consumers and to businesses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak on two key areas in this Bill that sets out the powers. One, for EMA to safeguard energy security; and two, to enable EMA to implement policies to reduce carbon emissions. Firstly, on energy security. Sir, this is the most interesting time to debate on energy security and energy resilience. Energy prices are surging in the global markets due to a combination of factors: supply crunch, weather, soaring demand and geopolitical tensions and so on. And this would soon translate into higher electricity prices to consumers. It does not help that a number of the electricity retailers, also impacted by the recent price volatility and have exited at this time, leaving thousands of households who have subscribed to the fixed plan exposed to the impending hike in electricity prices. Adding to the uncertainties, the imported piped natural gas from Indonesia is also disrupted, leading to EMA taking the extraordinary pre-emptive steps to establish standby fuel facilities where power generation companies or gencos can draw upon. Credits to MTI and EMA for also establishing the liquified natural gas (LNG) infrastructure about a decade ago to serve as a back-up source to the piped gas supply. This is most critical as, today, 95% of our electricity is generated from natural gas and, by far, still the cleanest fossil fuel to date. Beyond the current energy woes, the longer-term challenge for Singapore would be how we can repower ourselves as almost all the existing natural gas-powered plants will reach the end of their shelf life and would be retired in the next one to two decades. What would be the new mix of energy sources in the future that will be both efficient and resilient and also meet our sustainability goals?”
“Among others, would the Government see the need to introduce, for example, mid-career sabbatical leave so that workers can take a longer break during their mid-careers and to stay charged up for a longer working career? Or to allow mature students to become students again by allowing them to admit to the Institutes of Higher Learning to pursue new disciplines and to acquire new professional expertise? Or whether there will be further SkillsFuture support for senior workers? Finally, a very important part to clarify again with the Minister is whether notwithstanding the raising of the retirement and re-employment age, to clarify that the Government would continue to delink retirement age and CPF payout eligibility age. I think this is important, especially for today's Second Reading. We are debating both Bills together and members of the public may be confused and think that could be linked together: retirement age and your CPF withdrawal age. I hope that the Minister can clarify this so that there will be no misunderstanding on this part. Sir, notwithstanding that, I support both the amendment Bills.”
“We need new thinking on this front and I hope that the Government can reconsider this when formulating policies. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, with the increase in retirement and re-employment age, will the CPF withdrawal policy remain unchanged? We must clarify this so that Singaporeans do not misunderstand the intention of this Bill. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Minister. Firstly, to seek the Minister's view on his assessment on the readiness and willingness of employers to raise the retirement and re-employment age to 65 and 70 respectively. Does he see uneven readiness among the bigger and smaller companies, among the different industry segments, global versus local companies and employees of different wage profiles? Does he see different levels of readiness in employers adjusting to the rise in retirement and re-employment age? Secondly, has MOM surveyed the attitudes of workers on higher retirement and re-employment age and what are their major concerns? I mentioned in my Chinese speech there are some concerns about contractual terms and whether the workers are prepared for those changes. Thirdly, to what extent can we reduce the dependence on foreign manpower with the raising of the retirement and re-employment age, especially for the PMETs, as there will be a bigger pool of experienced workers for businesses to tap on? Fourthly, following the progressive raising of the retirement age, will there be further measures to counter age discrimination and importantly, to step up monitoring of undesirable employment practices? Fifth, with the employment runway of workers extended, will the Government institute new policy measures to help workers stay employable?”
“Of course, we must also give the employers some flexibility and allow them to adjust the nature of work, role in the company and working conditions for that employee. Mr Speaker, while this legal mechanism provided by the Retirement and Re-employment Bill is important, it will take some time to achieve a win-win situation where there is no age barrier in the labour market, where manpower resources are used more flexibly and effectively, and where both employers and employees alike have the open mindset. There are a few issues that we have to deal with. First, have the employers adjusted their mindset regarding age discrimination and adopted a more positive attitude, and proactively utilised manpower supplement brought about by the increase in the retirement age? Second, re-employment is a rather new concept. Have employees fully grasp its core meaning? For example, how to adjust their expectations and manage changes in employment terms which can be based on part-time re-employment or time-based employment? In terms of the employment contract, has the employee and the employer come to a consensus? Third, in terms of job redesign, there is more work for the Tripartite partners to come work together to redesign jobs that are more suitable for older workers so as to attract more older Singaporeans to join the workforce and help companies raise productivity. Fourth, with the extension of our work-life, we should also make the necessary policy adjustment when we plan employee training. For example, can middle-aged employees be allowed to further their studies in our Institutes of Higher Learning to upgrade their knowledge and skills and improve their re-employment opportunities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is currently facing two major trends. First, our life expectancy continues to rise, from about 78 years old 20 years ago to 84 years old today and is expected to continue to rise. Singaporeans are not only living longer, but also more energetic and spending more years in a healthy stage. This is a good thing. There are many factors contributing to this, mainly because of our better quality of life and better healthcare amenities, and that people are more aware of the importance of healthy living and live a more fulfilling life. Second, because of the rise in life expectancy of Singaporeans, we are also facing a second major trend, which is a major shift in our demographics. We have now entered a phase of rapid ageing. These two trends mean that, first, Singaporeans are now healthy enough to work longer and stay active in the workforce if, they choose to do so. They extend their active working lives, earn more, save more and enhance their retirement adequacy. Second, employers can also tap on a wider manpower pool available to continue employing experienced workers to cope with the current manpower crunch. This is also the main objective of the Bill today, which is to legalise and operationalise the implications brought forth by these two trends. The most important thing is to give employees appropriate legal protection so that they can remain in the workforce until the statutory retirement age. For those who have yet to reach the statutory retirement age, employers cannot stop employing these workers simply because of their age.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want to thank the Minister for his reassuring reply on how we are going to deal with the ongoing energy crunch and volatility. My question is going to be on the electricity retailers. In the light of the current disruptions, as the Minister said, some retailers are ill-prepared for this current volatility, would the Government still recommend consumers to switch to the retail price plan? That is my first question. The second question is, while the OEM has indeed brought significant savings to households in the last few years – having discounts over the regulated rates and so on – does the Government see the need to review this, review the regime, given the situation that we are facing now, perhaps to have fewer, but stronger and more regulated retailers? Or just having one, Singapore Power, but offering different price plans so that they can benefit from the scale efficiency.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister in his reply mentioned about the PPHS earlier on, that young couples who are still waiting for the flats may want to consider PPHS. But from my indications, from the appeals that we have received, it seems that rental flats under PPHS are not so forthcoming and there is still some amount of waiting there as well. So, can I ask the Minister what is the availability of the rental flats under the PPHS scheme and whether there is enough to meet the demands or requests from new home buyers?”
“We all know that in the eyes of law, ignorance does not mean you are not guilty. Hence, they are worried that their past interactions and future engagement with overseas organisations might cause them or their company to be listed as being politically influenced. I hope that the Minister can give a more detailed and simpler explanation of the coverage of this Bill, what is allowed and not allowed. It is best to illustrate with situations that we often encounter, for example, how the authority designates individuals or organisations as "politically significant persons/entities". This will require MHA's further clarifications. Given that the conditions in different countries are different, will there be room for flexibility under the Bill? Will the Government set up a consultative mechanism to allow companies to discuss and communicate with relevant authorities so that the business community can better understand the purpose of the Bill? In this respect, I feel that if trade associations can participate more in the communication, the objective of the Bill can be better achieved. Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister for his view on the medals, honorary degrees and awards conferred to Singapore businessmen by overseas governments. Businesses in overseas markets often have to follow local customs and contribute in many ways to the local community and society. These acts of kindness are sometimes recognised by the local government. Some Singaporean businessmen or enterprises will also receive awards or medals from the local government. Here, I would like to seek clarification on these matters too. (In English): Sir, notwithstanding the points above, I support the Bill.”
“During the 2019 unrest in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government repeatedly mentioned that the demonstrators had received funding from foreign organisations. Mr Speaker, the business community recognises the need for Singapore to introduce FICA and understands that this Bill is not targeted at any country. Of course, the business community also hopes that Singapore's economy and society, as well as the democratic process can develop steadily, and that our society will operate according to the rule of law and public opinions, and not be influenced by external forces. However, some business, especially those that often do business overseas, still have concerns about this Bill. Singapore is a small island state, lacking a large and high growth domestic market. Hence, our economic development strategy must be open and connected to the world. It is only natural for local companies to seek business and growth opportunities through internationalisation and cross-border operations. Singapore companies that do business overseas will inevitably have dealings with organisations that are connected to the local Government or semi-Government organisations. Sometimes, they may also have exchanges with these local entities in cultural, educational or ancestral matters. Some of these companies support various exchanges between the two countries in the form of sponsorship, charity or donations. For example, at anniversary celebrations, trade associations or clan associations may receive congratulatory support from foreign organisations or receive goods, sponsorships and donations according to etiquette. Not all businesses are familiar with the intricacies of FICA. Some are concerned that they may inadvertently be caught under the new law.”
“The article also questioned a situation in which a multinational company's (MNC) employee is vocal about Singapore politics and policy, whether that would be construed as undertaking on behalf of the MNC and hence will come under the ambit of FICA. Thirdly, the article also mentioned that FICA "is designed such that there will be little opportunity for the Courts to interpret and define the scope of its provisions", unlike the Common Law. Can I ask the Minister if he could address those issues raised and whether there is a basis to be concerned that FICA could impact our status as a global hub? Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, having heard the speeches of several Members of Parliament, my overall feeling is that we have one key consensus on this Bill, and that is: we do not want external forces to interfere with our internal affairs and weaken our sovereignty as an independent country. Our own affairs should be resolved by ourselves and there is no need for foreign political forces to interfere. Some of them may even harbour ill intentions. Singapore is not the first country to put in place a preventative mechanism to prevent foreign interference. Many countries such as the US, Australia, India and Israel have different types of legal and administrative means to deter foreign interference. In the recent US elections, we have seen from media reports of alleged foreign interference during the elections. During the 2018 Yellow Vest movement in France, the French government was also aware of the presence of clandestine foreign interference that exploited existing social conflicts to stir up public resentment and incite riots.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak from the businesses' perspective. As a sovereign country, we must always ensure that there is no foreign interference in our politics and in our political process, whatever the intentions. As citizens of this land, we are solely and ultimately responsible for the governance and the future of this country, and we live with whatever the political outcomes and its consequences. In an increasingly digitised world and given Singapore's global interconnectedness, it is necessary to update our laws from time to time to deal with the new threats that may infiltrate our shores and destabilise or divide us. Many countries like the US, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and India have done so in various forms in recent years and so must we. Sir, the business community can understand why the Government needs to institute new safeguards against foreign interference and to jealously defend our political sovereignty. As key stakeholders in the economy and society, it is in the businesses' interest to see political and social stability in the country and that the democratic processes are carry out in an orderly, transparent and legitimate manner. While the intent and purposes of FICA is clear, there are some who still felt that this Bill could make Singapore seem less welcoming of others. In a Business Times article on 1 October titled "FICA could affect perceptions of Singapore as global hub", it raised a number of concerns. Firstly, among others, the article cited a hypothetical example of an international pharmaceutical company funding Singapore-based academic research on a drug that may be caught as "influence(s) or seek(s) to influence Singapore Government's decision" under section 8(c) of FICA.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask either the Minister or the Senior Minister of State on individuals who need to do the seven-day or 14-day mandatory PCR tests. MOH, currently, publicly, runs regional PCR screening centres. They are not quite located at the convenient locations for those who need to do those tests on a weekly basis or bi-weekly basis. So, can I ask MOH if there are plans to build more of such centres? Secondly, in some estates, where there are hawker centres, they do have their own PCR testing facilities set-up. But only the stallholders are allowed to use those testing facilities. So, in such situations, can MOH allow, support or facilitate these PCR testing facilities to be used by other workers who need to do their regular seven-day, 14-day tests, so that the community resources can be shared and to ensure better convenience for those frontline workers, as well as building that community spirit?”
“In the 5 July 2021 revised estimates, I also note a new line item in the summary of the fiscal position, which is the "Debt Servicing Costs" item. With more infrastructure assets being funded by SINGA in the years ahead, we can expect the Debt Servicing Costs to also rise over time, adding new variables to the equation in how we balance the annual Budgets. Sir, our strong finances continue to be the powerful ammunition to fight the pandemic and to cushion its impact on our people and businesses. We will spend more, for sure, whether for COVID-19 or to take care of the well-being of our people, whether it is for our security, economy, environment or necessarily to also invest in our future. I cannot envisage a situation where we would spend less in the future. Cutting costs to balance our Budget will increasingly not be a palatable option. I am sure Members in this House will agree. We have to keep finding ways to grow our revenues and not lose sight of our core fundamentals that underpin economic growth, like always staying ahead of the curve, staying competitive and staying open. That is the only way we can build a Singapore that can last. Sir, with that, I support the Supplementary Supply Bill.”
“Even the $200 million of buffer is now being used up for this latest package. I can imagine that the availability of such unutilised expenditures for reallocation would increasingly be fewer and it would increasingly be more challenging to squeeze out the next drop of additional funding from the reallocations. Can I ask the Minister for Finance if there are plans to review the entire development expenditures of the Government and whether we need to reprioritise the timeline, given the COVID-19 environment so as to free up more contingency funding? Sir, in the latest revised estimates as at 5 July 2021, I note in Annex E-1 that the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) has increased to $19.6 billion, compared to FY 2020 where it was $18.4 billion. In FY 2019, the NIRC was $17.04 billion. I am sure this additional NIRC will be welcomed and helpful to the Minister for Finance as he juggles and balances a very delicate and challenging fiscal situation. I believe this is the largest NIRC ever – thanks to the steady good performance of our investment agencies and also to our prudent approach of accumulating and compounding the financial reserves over the decades. Over the last one week or so, I was also happy to read reports of improved performances by Temasek Holdings and GIC amidst a more volatile global market environment. Notwithstanding, we have to expect markets and asset valuations to constantly be fluctuating and, hence, this sound and prudent way of computing the NIRC by smoothing out the expected investment returns over a long period is necessary to ensure steady and predictable net investment returns contribution for the purpose of Budgets and cash flow planning.”
“If the situation is severe, such as where businesses and livelihoods are seriously affected, the Government may again need to step in with a fresh dosage of direct support measures. This is something that businesses feel comforted about because the Government will always be there to help when we are faced with serious situations. Sir, the current approach, when the Government intervenes to help, is by way of tabling additional Supplementary Supply Bills in Parliament each time the Government injects new spending and re-allocates expenditures. Here, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance if he could instead consider setting aside funding to establish a pandemic economic response fund or programme so that the Government will have the ready funding to provide timely and direct reliefs to small businesses, self-employed persons or workers impacted by the sudden COVID-19-related tightened measures rather than having to come back to Parliament again for additional Supplementary Bills. Sir, as the pandemic drags on, even during the endemic phase, our expenditures on healthcare and non-healthcare items like social and economic support are likely to continue rising. On the other hand, operating revenue remains uncertain as it really hinges on the state of the economy, which, in turn, depends on how the pandemic situation develops and how countries around the world respond to the crisis and whether they have stabilised their own domestic situations. For this $2 billion of additional support measures, we are counting on pockets of fiscal spaces, such as delays in construction projects, the one-off capitalisation of the two Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA) infrastructure items and the postponement of school activities, to foot the bill.”
“In my constituency, I have had to cancel some events due to the heightened measures as well. Sir, many event organisers have held out hope that the gradual reopening in the months ahead could allow activities to trickle in and that can help bring in some cash flow that minimally pay for the lights, rentals and salaries. Many of the event companies are quality local talents capable of hosting world-class events. What they need are both a minimum base load of activities as well as some support measures from the Government to keep going and to preserve their capabilities. Sir, I am glad that in the latest support package announced on 23 July, the Government has added MICE organisers under the tourism category to receive 40% of the JSS. Can I clarify with the Minister if this 40% JSS support would also include domestic event organisers, such as those that organise events in schools, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), for the grassroots, for corporate events and so on? Sir, I welcome the reopening roadmap sketched out by the Ministers in the Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF) yesterday. It gave the businesses a good level of confidence and some predictability as to how to plan ahead and how to live with endemic COVID-19. As was alluded to in yesterday's Ministerial Statement by Minister Lawrence Wong, even with a high vaccination rate among our population, we can still expect occasional sharp rises in cases due to new variants. For example, when we resume business and leisure travels, we may, from time to time, experience imported infiltrations that can potentially lead to a big cluster. Heightened measures may still be necessary from time to time even when we achieve herd immunity. That has to be featured in the contingency planning for businesses going forward.”
“Of course, businesses would prefer to have their top line back again, that is, have their businesses and sales back again to earn their keeps. Sir, I want to speak up for another less visible group of businesses that are impacted by the heightened measures. These are the companies that support the F&B and retail sector, such as the wholesale trades, logistics, distributors and suppliers to the F&B sector. They felt neglected in the latest round of support measures like the JSS and the rental reduction assistance. They suffered from both supply-side and demand-side pressures. For example, on the supply side, the cost of storage spaces has not come down while air and sea freight costs have risen. On the demand side, the temporary stoppage of dining-in has significantly reduced orders. These businesses also hire a high number of Singaporean workers and many are already on a four-day work week. These supporting sectors function in tandem with the F&B businesses and whenever the F&B sector enter a lockdown, they are also directly impacted. This time round, some are contemplating to release workers with these restrictions. I hope that the Minister for Finance can consider extending the JSS to those businesses that directly support the F&B sector as well. Sir, another group of businesses that are also deeply impacted by the latest measures are those in the meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (MICE) sector and the event organising companies. With tightened safe management measures, many events and activities are either cancelled, postponed or downsized. Corporate MICE events, community events, schools' regular events, graduations, weddings, anniversary celebrations have all either swung into virtual format or are simply cancelled.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this latest reversion to Phase Two (Heightened Alert) has caught many businesses by surprise. Like what Minister Lawrence Wong said yesterday, many in the food and beverage (F&B) and wholesale trade sectors felt a lot more struggling this time round; more shaken as well. Businesses and the public at large have expected restrictions to be further relaxed as we approach the major milestone where at least two-thirds of our population will be fully vaccinated in August. It was not to be, following the outbreaks at KTV lounges and the Jurong Fishery Port. Those in the F&B and retail sectors find this series of roller coaster measures disruptive and added stresses to their already dire finances and also their operations. Those supporting the F&B sectors are also feeling the knock-on effects as they saw a sudden drop in their orders. These latest heightened measures happened despite the country reaching a higher vaccination rate among our population of now greater than 50%, better testing capacity, enhanced contact tracing capabilities and our healthcare system not under significant stress. Which is why the F&B operators who had hoped for more calibrated measures such as limiting dining-in to those who are fully vaccinated and backed by the rapid ring-fencing capabilities that we now have. But I am heartened that the Finance Minister and the MTI Minister have heard the concerns raised by the F&B businesses and taking in their feedback. The two doses of support measures to enhance the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) – extending rental reliefs and providing targeted support for the local delivery services, taxi drivers, hawkers and market stall holders – go some way to help those impacted by the new restrictions.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In my Meet-the-People sessions (MPS), I do encounter a few cases of requests or school transfers where parents, who have children studying in the so-called more competitive schools, find their child unable to cope with the pressures or unable to fit into the school environment. So, their child's emotional well-being, the learning developments are all affected. Can I ask the Minister if MOE can be more sympathetic to such requests to facilitate transfers? I know there will be some administrative arrangements, the matching of the request to the places in the schools and there is also a transition programme needed. But the change of environment could be what the child needs to reset and to start afresh.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, businesses, especially the F&B sectors, are finding this series of start-stop activities really disruptive and there are growing frustrations, low morale, fatigue setting in. They asked why the F&B sector seems to be bearing the brunt of each of the heightened measures. So, can I ask the Minister why did we reverse on the 19 July decision to have fully vaccinated five-person dine-n? It appears to be a reasonable proposition where the diners among them are fully vaccinated and this is, indeed, the kind of scenario we are looking at. And with that kind of de-risking, why do we not allow that to continue? I would like to hear this from the Minister.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, my question is firstly on Pillar Two. I understand that the G7 countries had initially sought a minimum corporate tax rate of 21%, but have since agreed to lower it to 15%. I would like ask the Minister whether he sees this 15% effective tax rate as a number that Singapore can agree to. And if not, is there room for further negotiations or seeking further carve-outs? Or is it the case that Singapore, being a small country, will just be the price-taker? The second question is, the Minister mentioned about Pillar One, where the location of the taxing right will be given to countries where the customers are, I want to ask how significant is this reduction in the tax base and whether that will have any fiscal impact on our Budget. For example, whether the 15% tax effective rate would be enough offset for them in the short term?”
“— our AAA rating by all three major global rating agencies. I believe we are amongst the remaining nine countries in world left that continue to enjoy this highest rating. So, being a AAA-rated sovereign enables us to borrow from the international market at a risk-free rate. It also has implications on the borrowing cost of Singapore corporates, as bonds issued by corporates/companies are often benchmarked to the Singapore Government yield curve. So, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if our AAA rating status could be affected with this SINGA Bill and how have the rating agencies and international market responded to this new move? Sir, I support the Bill.”
“And such special purpose borrowings can also be distinguished from the normal borrowing in that it is one-off, it has a clear nexus with strategies for post-COVID-19 recovery and investment and also help us keep our assets invested. Could the Deputy Prime Minister provide an update on this? My second clarification is, as mentioned in my speech, one of the most invaluable international accolades that we received is —”
“I believe this Bill will give the Government another fiscal management tool, so that the Government can respond more nimbly amidst the current uncertainties and have more policy space to address the issue of intergeneration equity. (In English): Sir, I have two further clarifications. First, during the debate on the 2021 Budget Statement earlier this year, I had suggested that if the fiscal condition remains tight, the Government could consider special purpose borrowing to finance time-critical and worthy investments to avoid having to divest our financial investments in the past reserves. In his round-up speech, the Deputy Prime Minister replied that the Government would study the possibility of a one-off, special purpose borrowing to finance economic investments to help Singapore emerge stronger from COVID-19. So, can I clarify whether the Government envisages that the considerations behind such one-off borrowings would be different from those of SINGA? My own thinking is that, when I made the suggestion during the Budget debate, it should be different. SINGA is meant to finance major, long-term infrastructure benefiting multiple generations. I would suggest that the one-off special purpose borrowing be to finance economic investments to emerge stronger and should only be done in the context of the exceptional circumstances presented by COVID-19. For example, we may need to invest in capabilities that take advantage of the new opportunities in the global economy arising out of COVID-19. So, if our revenues are insufficient to fund these investments due to the economic situation being subdued, then we can deploy such special purpose borrowings.”
“But we know that as the economy matures and the population ages, our expenses will continue to increase, and our Budget will tighten. Worse still, with the pandemic and not knowing how long it will last, our overall fiscal outlays and revenues will definitely be subjected to greater pressure. If we continue to use the annual Budget surplus to pay for these mega infrastructure projects, we will have to face the choice between reducing expenditures in other areas or tax hikes. Both options, given the current economic situation, are not palatable. With this new Bill, we can fund lumpy, long-term infrastructure projects by issuing long-term debts. This is the next best thing at this stage. I would like to give two reasons to support it. First, the long-term interest is at a historic low so we can use this window of opportunity to reduce the borrowing cost to the lowest. Second, by issuing long-term debt, we can achieve intergeneration equity by spreading the burden to future generations as well. Projects like the Cross Island Line, Jurong Rail Line as well as the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System are all long-term, cross-generation endeavours which will benefit many generation onwards. Through long-term loans, we can more appropriately spread the burden across several generations. This is fair and can also avoid major budgetary fluctuations from year-to-year. Of course, we have the duty to ensure that we do not leave a huge debt to our future generations. This Bill has also set certain key principles that we must abide by, such as the $90 billion borrowing limit and the $5 billion annual interest payment threshold. These two ceilings will help ensure that Government will not have too much debts and that it will have the ability to repay.”
“That is why we introduced the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package and allocated more funds in each Budget to build more healthcare facilities to better look after the seniors. With regard to NIR, we amended the Constitution in 2009 to allow 50% of the NIR to be used to fund the current annual Budget spending, to help balance each year's Budget. The other half of the NIR must be reinvested in our reserves so that it can continue to grow. We can then continue to have more returns to be injected into each year’s fiscal revenues to cope with the fast-growing expenditures of the future. I think this is an acceptable and balanced intergenerational approach. As the saying goes, "50-50, feelings will not be dissipated". This will promote intergenerational harmony and allow each generation of Singaporeans to enjoy the fruits of our success Second, we also need to ensure that there is a balance between recurrent expenditures and revenues for each term, and that there is no deficit, so that we can sustain it for the long term. For each generation of Singaporeans, the recurrent expenditures must be borne by the current generation and not through loans and other forms to spend the revenues of the future. They should not pass the fiscal burden to the future generations. This is being responsible and is in line with the principle of equity. Now that the Government is introducing this new Bill, I think this is a good opportunity to adjust the intergenerational distribution of fiscal resources within an appropriate scope. In the past, we used our current Budget surplus to fund lumpy, large-scale projects. That is to say that, we are using the current generation's money to pay for infrastructures that will benefit future generations.”
“So, while we can depend on frameworks like SINGA and NIRC to seek better equity, we should never discard our long-held values and ethos of always leaving something behind for our next generation and to strengthen our future. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the SINGA Bill introduces a very important topic on intergenerational equity, that is, how to distribute fiscal resources and burdens in a more balanced way between generations? In the past, our Pioneers scrimped and saved so that future generations can have a better and more stable life, as well as more financial resources to rely on during rainy days. It was the spirit and values of the Pioneer Generation to be thrift and to toil before enjoying. Because of their sacrifices, Singaporeans today enjoy sizeable reserves. It is exactly because of our reserves that we can have the resources and confidence to fight the current COVID-19 crisis. As the economy matures and demography changes, our fiscal policies and practices must change accordingly, especially in terms of the intergenerational distribution of financial resources and fiscal burdens. Let me give two examples. First, of course, we want to strengthen our financial foundation. We should not change this principle and practice. But when each term of Government ponders upon what to do with the Budget surpluses and NIR, the idea of intergenerational distribution of fiscal resources should be considered. Over the years, as our fiscal position improves, we have been able to allow this generation of Singaporeans, including our Pioneers, to enjoy the fruits of economic growth and improve their lives.”
“As we built up our nest eggs over the decades, the Government would regularly share and distribute the fruits of our past successes. At the same time, we also accumulated where we could so as to provide for higher spending needs in the future. In 2009, the Government tweaked the reserves framework and also introduced the NIRC as another contribution to the budget to help pay for our growing current expenditures. In a way, the 50-50 sharing of the NIR represents an intergenerational balance that we want to achieve between current and future generations. In 2015 and 2018, to thank our Pioneer and Merdeka Generations for their sacrifices, the Government set aside a total of $15 billion from the accumulated surplus or current reserves to set up the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) and Merdeka Generation Package (MGP) to provide healthcare support for our seniors. The Government also increased the share of Budget spending in senior facilities and major healthcare infrastructures, amongst others, to care for this generation of seniors. On the other hand, in order not to pass the buck of current spending to future generations, we strive to use current revenue to pay for these recurring expenditures, thereby ensuring sound and sustainable operating finances. The financing of our large-scale long-term infrastructure with long-term borrowing is a further manifestation of that spirit of equity. As this infrastructure benefits multiple generations, it is more equitable to share the costs across generations by way of a long-term financing structure. Although I support the Government's greater emphasis on intergeneration equity in our fiscal management, we know it is always difficult to find that balance that everyone agrees with.”
“This is a significantly large expense item and will make the overall balancing of the Budget more challenging going forward. Hence, this option of tapping the debt market to finance very large infrastructure projects can only be palatable if interest rates and costs remain low. Indeed, interest rates are at historical lows today, presenting an opportune window for the Government to seek funding. It also makes good sense to take advantage of our very solid credit ratings to enjoy zero credit cost borrowing in the market. From a capital market development standpoint, having such a high quality issuance will also deepen our bond market and attract a bigger pool of institutional investors to Singapore. Sir, we are far from those countries with high public debt-to-GDP ratio, which transfers heavy tax burden of today onto future generations. This brings me to the next point on intergeneration equity. Perhaps the more enduring argument as to why we should introduce the SINGA Bill is that it helps better manage intergenerational equity when we fund very large and very long-term infrastructural projects. During the early years of Independence, where survivability as a nation was our foremost concern, our pioneering generations saw the need to tightened belts and save for a better tomorrow. The savings built up provided security and benefited subsequent generations who also saw as their obligation to build on past savings so as to provide a better and more secured life for the next generation. The is the self-sacrificing spirit of the Pioneer Generation as well as Merdeka Generation. They supported the Government's prudent fiscal policy and worked hand in hand with the Government to grow the reserves and strengthen our fiscal foundation.”