Shawn Loh
Singapore
“The Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, for example, is also not without policy risk. And I am glad that we are taking this bet together again. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I acknowledge the SDS' positive outcomes for the CPF members who benefitted. It was a good chapter in our nation-building story, with a happy ending.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. In my view, second-hand smoke is a scourge in our heartlands. I note that the last time the Ministry replied on this matter was in 2018 and there was a review done then. I do not believe the issue has improved and I was wondering why there are no plans to do so again.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her response as well. I asked this question because when I first looked into the issue, four hours seemed short. But the Minister of State has clarified that there is more ECG than just the four hours of curriculum time, so I am grateful.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the update. I am very heartened to hear it, that MAS has agreed to do a review because the current level of consumer protections are not adequate. I have two questions. The first one is how long will this review take?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question pertains to early signals. One, does the Government detect any early signals of job losses arising from the new disruption? Two, does the Government detect any early signals in terms of wealth inflows into Singapore, given our status as a wealth hub?”
“Second, make it as easy as possible to opt in for the LRIS, perhaps even make the LRIS the default option for some. For example, default Ordinary Account savings above the Full Retirement Sum into the LRIS, unless the CPF member opts out. Third, add more friction for Singaporeans to speculate with the LRIS.”
The complete record
Every one of 65 lines we hold for Shawn Loh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“The Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, for example, is also not without policy risk. And I am glad that we are taking this bet together again. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I acknowledge the SDS' positive outcomes for the CPF members who benefitted. It was a good chapter in our nation-building story, with a happy ending. I support the closing of this chapter and look forward to CPF Board writing similar chapters in the future. And may they all have happy endings too.”
“The spirit of sharing economic success directly with our citizens, who form the backbone and lifeblood of that very economic success. We have done this in a few ways. Singapore has historically not shied from innovative policies that marry economic objectives with our social compact. HDB flats are a great example. Mr Louis Chua mentioned this just now. Singapore's land increases in value when our economy grows and because Singapore is a nation of property owners, many Singaporeans benefit from this land appreciation through owning HDB flats. Another way is through surplus sharing programmes. Such as the Growth Dividends of 2006 and 2008. But these surplus sharing programmes have been ad hoc for now. Perhaps we can think of a longer-term programme to allow Singaporeans to have a stake in the economic upside of Singapore, even if they are no longer in the workforce and are not business owners. Third, we should emulate the attitude of the Government in the 1990s. It was a Government that was not afraid of taking some policy risk. Today, the SDS programme is seen positively because Singtel has done well; well, at least, Singtel shares have done well. But this was not a foregone conclusion when the scheme started. The company could have done poorly or the business environment could have been worse. And shareholders would not be in-the-money. It is not that hard to imagine. Yet the decision makers of that day decided that it was worth the policy risk. They took a bet. Singaporeans, with their eyes wide open, took a bet with them. And the bet paid off. I hope this will continue in our Government schemes today. Minister Chee Hong Tat mentioned this in the previous debate for the previous Bill, to be able to take some policy risk.”
“Even I myself have been approached many times by my residents on what to do with their shares. When they ask me, I will reply: I am only a grassroots advisor, not your financial advisor. Mr Speaker, taking a leaf from the experience of the SDS programme, I would like to make a few larger points. First, the spread of policy reviews on the CPF system this year reflects good policy housekeeping. It is a bit like taking care of a 70-year-old tree, since the CPF Board just celebrated 70 years last year. We need to keep pruning our policies – remove the unnecessary ones so that new ones with green shoots will flourish and provide more shade for all in retirement. One such policy with green shoots is the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme. The scheme will empower Singaporeans to take a larger role in investing for their retirement. With the upcoming LRIS, other schemes which have outlived their purpose should be sunset, like the Singtel SDS. In my view, it is time to consider closing the CPF Investment Scheme for the Special Account, where three out of four who invested through the scheme have been worse off compared to leaving their savings in the Special Account. In fact, taking it a step further, the Special Account itself should just be called the Retirement Account from day one, instead of the current system where the Special Account is closed and the Retirement Account is created at age 55. To the CPF member, there is no functional or financial difference between the two. Hence, doing so could simplify the CPF system significantly. Second, we should continue the spirit of the SDS programme – the spirit of providing ordinary Singaporeans access to the returns from otherwise privileged financial instruments.”
“Mr Speaker, I am mindful that I am the last speaker on the last Bill on the last day of what has been a very long Parliamentary Sitting. It is also the birthday of one of my daughters, so I am doubly incentivised to make this a short speech. I support the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. There is no longer a need for the CPF Board to serve as a trustee for Singaporeans' SDS. The Government's approach to sunset this programme is fair and it is prudent. It should save the CPF Board some resources. I hope that the Ministry can share an evaluation of the programme, both where it went well and areas for improvement. For example, did the scheme achieve its original objectives? Have we become more of a nation of investors? And has financial and investment literacy improved? In addition, can the Ministry share the overall administrative costs associated with the scheme and therefore the resource savings once the scheme is closed? In terms of the implementation approach, I support the Government's effort to reach out to legacy shareholders, many of whom are seniors, who are not financially savvy and who are more vulnerable to scams. For such seniors, trusted physical touchpoints that provide financial advice are crucial. Can the Government clarify how long any physical touchpoints will be operating for? I suggest that the CPF Board can provide resources to some of our community centres to set up physical touchpoints, especially those in neighbourhoods with a lot of seniors, such as those in Jalan Besar Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Can the Government confirm that Silver Generation ambassadors will also be empowered to direct our seniors to channels to receive appropriate financial advice? I believe there is definitely demand for such advice.”
“That said, we should resist the temptation to lower the quality bar and avoid companies with poor business fundamentals or bad corporate governance to list on the SGX. The uncle and auntie in our heartlands should not be seen as the retail investors providing exit liquidity for private capital owners, whether businessmen or fund managers, looking to make a quick buck. The foundation of a vibrant stock exchange is built on quality companies that attract more investors because these companies are well run, well governed and growing. We should therefore continually endeavour to raise standards for companies listed on the SGX so that investors continue to come to it to invest in high quality listings. Some may suggest that we do not have enough quality Singapore companies because we do not have a vibrant SGX. I beg to differ. It is the other way around. We do not have a vibrant SGX because we do not yet have enough quality Singapore companies that meet the standard. So, we should focus on further improving corporate governance, disclosures and minority investor protections. Over time, these efforts will make our SGX one that all Singaporeans and Singapore companies can be proud of. Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments are a move in the same direction towards this larger vision. I support the Bill.”
“This is understandable; we do not want to increase the barriers for quality growth companies to list here. That said, I hope that other Government agencies, like the Economic Development Board, can use this new opportunity to create new jobs for Singaporeans, by encouraging these firms to move some headquarters functions to Singapore after listing. And for Singaporean firms looking to dual list, I hope that a local listing encourages them to further anchor their headquarters and high value-added functions in Singapore for the long term. Second, the arrangements do not, in and of themselves, mean that a greater number of Singapore companies will benefit from the equities market. But fundamentally, we must ask ourselves what we want our Singapore stock exchange to accomplish for our broader economy and society – and what it should not accomplish. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me answer my own question. We want an avenue for quality Singapore companies to raise growth capital by issuing equity. Larger, high quality Singapore companies that can achieve a Nasdaq listing already do so and they would continue to do so. They could perhaps be encouraged to dual list in Singapore, with the benefit of some additional liquidity from Asian-focused investors. But mid-sized companies with a more local or regional presence are unlikely to benefit from this arrangement, as they would not typically be considered for listing on global exchanges like the Nasdaq. Such companies also need a vibrant SGX. And so, we should also continue to focus on helping ambitious, high-growth mid-sized companies to raise the capital they need, so that we can accelerate their growth and create more good jobs for Singaporeans.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill. Before I begin, I declare that I am the Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group, a Singapore global enterprise operating a conglomerate of businesses. The move to provide for dual listing arrangements and for the GLB is unobjectionable. First, global firms with an Asian nexus will benefit from the option of getting the best of both Nasdaq and SGX liquidity pools. While Nasdaq offers a deep pool of global capital, investors there may not necessarily have the understanding of the Asian growth story. A dual listing on SGX would allow such firms to tap our local liquidity pools, where investors have a better understanding of regional prospects and nuances. Second, a more vibrant ecosystem of listings will benefit the financial services industry and create some good jobs for Singaporeans. In short, the financial services sector will not experience jobless growth. It will also benefit the SGX as one of our local companies. Third, this could be the first of many other dual listing arrangements, that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim alluded to, which could make the SGX a regional hub for such listings in the future. And perhaps, not just in the technology sector. However, like Yip Hon Weng, I believe it is equally important to talk about what dual listing arrangements do not provide on their own. This is so that we can manage our expectations and can continue to strive towards additional ways to support our equities ecosystem and the growth of our Singapore businesses. First, the arrangements do not guarantee spillovers beyond the financial services sector. We are unlikely to require overseas firms to have a Singapore presence before listing.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. In my view, second-hand smoke is a scourge in our heartlands. I note that the last time the Ministry replied on this matter was in 2018 and there was a review done then. I do not believe the issue has improved and I was wondering why there are no plans to do so again. Both sides of the House actually have raised this issue in the House very recently. When I looked into the issue a bit more, we were asking about whether we could do more in our HDB flats, but we had not yet confirmed what threshold would lead to a public health concern, including what a threshold of duration qualifies as prolonged. So, could MOH reconsider whether it is then timely to make a clear statement on the threshold of how much second-hand smoke is bad enough, and how long the exposure should be before it is bad enough – so that we can then make good policies in our heartlands?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her response as well. I asked this question because when I first looked into the issue, four hours seemed short. But the Minister of State has clarified that there is more ECG than just the four hours of curriculum time, so I am grateful. We discussed extensively about skills and careers yesterday, and I am sure we will do so more today. The Minister for Manpower said, no less than five times in his speech, that we need mindset shifts. And shifting mindsets start from school. So, my question to MOE is whether ECG is considered core to the curriculum, and not extra. And if so, can we increase the standards and the resources for ECG? Because we teach chemistry very well, and maybe we can do the same with career guidance. We teach geography very well, and maybe we can do the same for job awareness.”
“The agency must be adaptable enough to embrace the uncertainty that we cannot possibly know which skills are in demand in the future. These jobs have not even been created. The agency must also be agile enough to work within a changing landscape of partners, such as the e2i and the new Tripartite Jobs Council, for the delivery of programmes. I hope that MOM can also clarify how there will be synergies and not a duplication of programmes. Overall, as many other Members have said, the success of the SWDA will depend on how we can structure the right incentives and measure the right outcomes. The right incentives, so that any training provider knows that we are looking for good long term employment outcomes and not just a good course feedback form. The right incentives, so that employers are able to train more workers to acquire the right skills and stay employable, instead of expecting to only hire workers after they are fully trained. And most importantly, the right incentives, so that employees have greater assurance that if they put in effort to find a job or to go for training, they will have a better chance of growing with a good job. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and let us weather the next storm together.”
“As many Members of Parliament, like Dr Wan Rizal said, we do not want a situation where Singaporeans are spending time and effort to learn skills that employers simply do not want. It is therefore better to put these resources into the hands of those who are most likely to know which skills are valued. These are the employers who compete daily in the marketplace to stay relevant. They are our best bet to forward-sense the demand signals of a constantly changing market. These are also our trade associations and our unions, who are able to aggregate demand across multiple employers. In fact, Mr Kenneth Tiong also spoke about trade associations and accrediting training. So, perhaps the political officeholder at MOE and MOM can also have a role at NTUC: three-in-one, like the coffee, and we need to give a caffeine boost to our skills and workforce development initiatives. Therefore, I hope that SWDA under MOM will have renewed focus and an increase in resources to support enterprise-led on-the-job training as well as training only if it is accredited by trade associations or our unions. We should move away from short-term SkillsFuture courses that do not have good employment outcomes. By helping companies to hire workers first and then train them on the job, the skills being taught are immediately relevant and utilised for both employers and employees. And in a world where younger workers may find themselves irrelevant, we should not discriminate against long-term jobseekers by age. Anyone looking for a job for more than six months, even a recent graduate, should qualify for the same support. And as a final point, just as we want employers and employees to be adaptable and agile, I hope the SWDA will, likewise, be the same.”
“This is a clear direction, given that SSG and all of its resources would effectively be moving from MOE to MOM. I support this. But I also hope we will retain some of the strengths of the earlier model at MOE, which developed a strong nexus between our IHLs and the SkillsFuture movement. MOE could and should maintain some level of oversight and accountability. Perhaps, the Government should consider appointing one of our MOE political officeholders to have a secondary role at MOM. I am sure the Minister for Manpower would welcome that extra help. Yet, this is only the first step. The longer-term question is how to redirect more of our limited resources and efforts towards continuing education and training. We have to move away from the mindset that a degree or a diploma is the be-all and end-all of learning. In fact, it is but the start of a lifetime of acquiring and applying new skills. I sometimes wonder why we need to cram so much knowledge into our students before they join the workforce. Is it not better to provide a shorter duration of pre-employment training and to redirect more resources to mid-career training programmes? The second shift is a shift from a supply-driven model that is less likely to lead to a job, to a demand-led model, which is closer to the employers and to the marketplace. I have also mentioned in Parliament before about the need to be more focussed with our Government-funded programmes to move away from SkillsFuture programmes that are unlikely to lead to employment which, in my mind, is not an effective use of the Government's resources. We all have residents who tell us that they attend SkillsFuture courses, thinking that they would find jobs, only to be bitterly disappointed.”
“Mr Speaker, I first declare my interest as group managing director of Commonwealth Capital Group. We steward more than 1,000 livelihoods and interact with Government agencies on workforce development initiatives. Mr Speaker, there is a storm outside – literally. You could hear the thunder just now. Thankfully, I am from the Party that uses lightning as a symbol and we are not afraid of storms. There are also other storms in the world today. And this Bill provides for a change that is an appropriate response to inexorable trends from these storms, trends that I highlighted in my maiden Parliamentary speech – that the technology cycle has shortened significantly and therefore, skills are becoming obsolete faster. At the same time, we are living longer. If you combine these two trends, the natural conclusion is that the traditional "learn, work, retire" trajectory is a relic of the past. A young Singaporean today may have to navigate a 50-year career spanning multiple companies and perhaps, quite possibly multiple industries. We can, therefore, no longer rely on what we learnt in pre-employment training to carry us through to retirement. Perhaps, there may even come a point in time that we learnt in the first year of tertiary education will become irrelevant by the time we graduate. We see this manifest in greater anxieties across the workforce, especially on the faces of new graduates and older PMETs. I have spoken to many in Jalan Besar and Whampoa-Boon Keng and I feel for them. The new integrated SWDA reflects two important generational shifts for our system. First, a shift from focusing on education only before getting a job, towards continuing education and training throughout the lifetime.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the update. I am very heartened to hear it, that MAS has agreed to do a review because the current level of consumer protections are not adequate. I have two questions. The first one is how long will this review take? And my second question is, while the review is ongoing, can MAS also increase public awareness of the protections offered to consumers, as well as the limitations? So, today, you can only set a limit per transaction, but consumers are not protected because agencies or organisations can have multiple deductions within that transaction limit. So, can public awareness be increased prior to the review being completed?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question pertains to early signals. One, does the Government detect any early signals of job losses arising from the new disruption? Two, does the Government detect any early signals in terms of wealth inflows into Singapore, given our status as a wealth hub? And three, does the Government detect any early signals with regard to Singapore's status as an aviation hub? If the answer is yes, what is the Government's position and what is the Government's response?”
“Second, make it as easy as possible to opt in for the LRIS, perhaps even make the LRIS the default option for some. For example, default Ordinary Account savings above the Full Retirement Sum into the LRIS, unless the CPF member opts out. Third, add more friction for Singaporeans to speculate with the LRIS. For example, there could be cooling off periods. And those who want to sell before retirement could be required to attend a financial literacy course explaining the dangers of short-term speculation for non-professional investors. Overall, with better financial literacy and wise behavioural nudges, we can empower more Singaporeans to optimise their lifetime of retirement savings and retire with peace of mind.”
“Mr Chairman, the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS) will be a game changer for the CPF system. When I raised it in Parliament in January, I was glad to hear that MOM was in the final stages of implementation. After 10 years of study! Over that period a typical global investment portfolio of 65% equities and 35% bonds would have earned around 6% per year in Singapore dollar terms. Investible savings in the CPF Ordinary Account would have earned only 2.5% per year. These few percentage points, over a long time horizon, could be the difference between retiring with anxiety and retiring with peace of mind. This could also be part of the solution to address wealth inequality, given that the broad middle class has a significant amount of assets in CPF savings. The CPF LRIS may not be for everyone. As Mr Sanjeev said, individuals need to assess for themselves based on their own risk appetite. Some may want their Ordinary Account savings to be more liquid for future housing needs. Others may prefer not to use their Special Account savings that earn 4% risk-free. In fact, given the Prime Minister's update last week that three in four CPFIS investors using the Special Account underperformed the 4% risk-free rate, the Ministry should consider closing the CPFIS scheme for the Special Account once the LRIS is launched. Overall, I believe the LRIS will benefit the majority of Singaporeans, especially if we can do the following. First, mount a large scale public education campaign over the benefits of taking long-term investment risk to achieve a higher expected return. This should not be routine public communications, but more of a sales pitch to Singaporeans on balancing long term, non-speculative investment risk for higher expected returns.”
“Or why not fold this into the permanent Workfare scheme? This is particularly important if technology changes widen productivity gaps beyond what is reasonable for our lower wage workers to close despite all their effort. In addition, the minimum wage increase to qualify for PWCS support should be retained at $100 instead of the Government's change to set it at $200. Third, integrate the Government's traineeship and place-and-train programmes, such that employers get time-limited salary support to hire any jobseeker who has been actively looking for a job for six months. The Government already has a working model today in the form of Career Conversion Programmes. In my proposal, we should then not need to impose a different job or different sector requirement for those who are looking for a job for more than six months. This effectively covers Mr Gerald Giam's proposal for our youths who are looking for jobs. These moves are pro-business. And ultimately, they are ultimately pro-worker. This will definitely do a good job in alleviating the job-related anxieties that many of our Members have raised. Driving Workforce Transformation”
“Mr Chairman, I declare that I am the group managing director of Commonwealth Capital Group, a Singapore global enterprise that stewards more than 1,000 livelihoods. A core part of the Government's agenda is jobs. In addition to an income, jobs provide dignity, meaning and confidence to our workers – something that Government handouts cannot fulfil. We should be pro-jobs and pro-worker. I would add that the Government should embrace the philosophy that to be pro-worker, our policies also have to be pro-business. We should see companies as platforms and partners for the Government to achieve its policy goals. Let me name three. One, we want to keep seniors employed longer and ideally on similar salary terms as when they were younger, even if their productivity declines. Two, we want to narrow income inequality by uplifting wages at the lower end, even above productivity levels of lower-wage workers. Three, we want jobseekers to find jobs as soon as possible, even if it means they have to acquire skills on the job in order to do the job well. From the perspective of employers, hiring is seldom short-term. Companies plan more than one year in advance. I therefore suggest that MOM's policies incorporate two more principles. First, as Mr Mark Lee also said, companies should be given more time to adjust and adapt to policy changes. Second, companies should be given more longer-term direction instead of annual, effectively ad hoc grant extensions. I propose to apply this immediately. First, to the Senior Employment Credit, extended again this year after extensions in 2023 and 2025. Why not just commit to a longer-term extension, with employers given two years' notice of any change? Second, the PWCS can be made more longer term.”
“Is the Government aware of any coordination challenges preventing similar business-led platforms from forming? Does the Government see any value in playing a stronger catalytic role to address these challenges? Mr Chairman, I hope the Ministry can consider these perspectives to strengthen our enterprise landscape. Singaporeans can look forward to a new generation of Singaporean global enterprises with pride. Enhancing Consumer Protection”
“To that end, I have no objections to the Budget announcement to improve the Enterprise Financing Scheme for trade and fixed asset loans. But organic growth is way too slow. We should be more impatient and help firms get to the moon faster. Focus on inorganic growth through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to turbocharge our local companies. Affordable capital is also required for M&A. Currently, the Enterprise Financing Scheme supports domestic acquisitions undertaken by firms up to $500 million in revenue, but this support lapses in a month. This was not mentioned in the Budget Statement. The Ministry should consider extending or broadening this support. Second, once firms have product-market fit, they need to scale through new markets. We can do this in a few ways. We can bring those markets into Singapore through tourism. This speaks to our tourism strategy to bring more high-spending tourists who can revitalise traditionally domestic-oriented industries, like F&B and retail. More tourists also mean more GST collections. Of course, the more conventional way is to go into new markets overseas. When our firms expand overseas, the biggest constraints are often networks, credibility and distribution channels. This has traditionally been Government-led, but strong business-led communities can complement Government efforts. They can engage regulators and partners in a more informal and commercially driven manner; facilitate peer-to-peer sharing of intelligence and experiences; and build a sustained Singapore-branded presence. I sometimes wonder why there are not more Singaporean business chambers of commerce overseas. For example, there does not seem to be one in the United States (US) or the United Kingdom (UK).”
“Many of our larger local companies are already winners in their respective industries. They are capable and ambitious, yet few manage to break into the next tier. That is because unlike other countries, we do not have a large domestic market. So, to scale further, our firms have to internationalise when they are smaller while operating headquarters with a higher-cost base. This is a structural disadvantage and makes scaling much more difficult. So, to be clear, when the Government supports larger local firms to scale, it is no longer about picking future winners. It is instead about doubling down on current winners, helping them win even bigger in the future and thereby bringing more benefits to Singaporeans. To scale, firms must do two things. First, firms must develop more products and services with market fit. The Government has no business in telling companies what to do or how to do it. That is the job of entrepreneurial enterprises. But the Government can create a conducive economic infrastructure to improve the chances of success. MTI's efforts to sustain a dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystem will help. Such an ecosystem can foster broader, deeper and richer collaborations that lead to a faster cycle of product development and market testing. We also need to consider whether our factors of production, taken holistically, are competitive. These include manpower, land, energy and capital, to name a few. I will focus only on capital today. Firms need access to sufficiently affordable capital in order to invest in fixed assets, such as machines to increase output, as well as working capital, which can grow quite quickly as firms scale.”
“Mr Chairman, before I begin, I declare my interest as the group managing director of Commonwealth Capital Group. I have spoken in this House before about the importance of growing Singaporean multinational companies (MNCs) that are deeply rooted here. Ultimately, size matters. When a Singapore enterprise scales successfully, it anchors high value headquarter (HQ) functions here. It develops local managerial talent pipelines, and it contributes to economic and supply chain resilience. Singaporeans will benefit if we have more local companies crossing the $1 billion mark in annual revenues. 12.00 pm MTI could consider setting an ambitious target for a number of new local companies to reach that scale by 2035 so that all Government agencies can marshal their resources to achieve this. While it remains important to help the broad base of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as defined by those earning below $100 million of annual revenue, there are unique challenges for companies to scale beyond $100 million. At the $100 million-level, these companies are still small enterprises on the global stage. MTI could consider adding a separate tier of companies between $100 and $200 million in annual revenue, with slightly lower support than the SME tier, so that there is a gentler cliff effect in support levels, which are typically more generous for SMEs. Today, the support levels can drop from 70% to 30%. I wonder if this is incentivising some companies to stay below the $100 million mark in annual revenues unnaturally. This is similar to legislation passing through the European parliament last week on a new tier of small mid-cap companies. Coincidentally, this new tier was set at 200 million Euros.”
“Whistle-blowing allows us to have this early signal, so I hope that MOE could also consider how we could look at early signals to avoid a situation where MOE and parents and children and staff are caught off guard in the future.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I declare that I am the advisor to the Education Services Union that looks after the affected teachers. Second, I declare that I am the advisor to the Singapore Teachers Union that looks after the teachers who stepped in to help. And third, I declare that Hong Wen school, which is one of the affected schools, is in my constituency. And to that end, I asked not one, not two, but three Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the matter. When I visited Hong Wen school the day after the closure, I was glad to see the parents' support group and the teachers coming in to make sure the kids had the continuity of care. They told me that the incident was regrettable, but possibly preventable. So, my two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, are about how we can prevent these incidents from happening again. First on MOE's due diligence, both before an operator is appointed and during the operations. What levels of safeguards can we expect MOE to implement to ensure that operators with financial standing are appointed? And during operations, that they continue to be in good financial standing, so that we are assured of the sustainability of the operations. This is conceptually no different from how other Government procurement entities, such as those in the built environment sector, look at the largest contractors and vendors of the Government. The second and final question is on MOE's whistle-blowing policies. Because parents in our Whampoa and Boon Keng estates told me that they had given feedback about the deteriorating quality of the SCC last year. So, when MOE said that they only found out about it in February this year, the parents told me that this did not gel with the feedback they had given.”
“Based on their parameters, such as scale, industry and markets, companies could receive bespoke recommendations on applying for upcoming tenders or relevant grants; get customised real-time updates on how policy changes impact their business; and ask questions about how investment or hiring decisions would impact their payouts from the Government under all relevant policies. Second, on the back-end, it currently takes between four to 10 weeks to process grant applications. Could our public servants use AI tools to expedite these assessments? Third, adopt more pro-business payment terms and disbursement schedules, which should be at negligible cost to the Government. Some grants, like the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, can be paid earlier and more frequently, instead of only once a year. This would have an immaterial impact on the Government’s cashflow but could make a difference to our cash-strapped local companies. Mr Chairman, the Government operates at a scale which no local enterprise can match. It is best placed to invest in the right technology and processes to support our local enterprises to succeed. 7.00 pm Inclusive Procurement and AI-enabled MOF”
“Mr Chairman, I will try to do better with time. I declare my interest as Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group. While the vast majority of our conglomerate’s revenues are with retail customers and private businesses, there may be occasions where some of our investee companies serve the Government as a customer. In my engagements with the private sector, including with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), it is clear that our Government is a key player in our corporate ecosystem. It spends close to $30 billion a year on procurement, contracting with close to 8,000 vendors. It also disburses significant sums in the form of grants, much of it goes to SMEs. Given its heft, the Government can shape the rules of the game to support our local enterprises: one, by taking a leadership role in adopting new technologies to improve efficiency; two, by shaping market norms and business practices, and three, by reducing unnecessary frictions when interacting with the Government. To this end, the Ministry could consider the following. First, rethink how the Government interacts with businesses. Let us not ask companies to navigate the Government but instead ask how the Government can proactively use technologies to guide companies in the right direction. At the front-end, GoBusiness and the Business Grants Portal are good first steps. But they still require companies to sift through a smorgasbord of policies and pick out the relevant ones. Instead of relying only on SME Centres, can we go further with AI? For example, imagine a “GovAI Enterprise Assistant”.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. In my COS speech, I had suggested that we should try to defer the day in which the number of new citizen immigrants exceeds the number of citizen babies born in Singapore. It looks like that day is fast upon us, from what the Deputy Prime Minister Gan mentioned. To that end, given the update on the immigration rates, would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that any increase in the number of immigrants should focus more on assimilation, specifically, for example, prioritising families with young children so that the young children, who may not be born in Singapore, grow up in Singapore as citizens and can assimilate better into Singapore to build that next Singapore core?”
“And it also means ensuring that our common spaces at work, home and play support the continued integration of immigrants. This is not the Government's job alone. Businesses and the community have a part to play. Second and finally, technology has advanced, and especially at the intersection of AI and robotics. This has granted us a new opportunity to reduce our reliance on foreign labour. Today, our economy creates one million jobs that are held by Work Permit holders, with a significant number in construction and manufacturing. COVID-19 showed how vulnerable we were. In other countries, intelligent robots destroy jobs and displaced citizen workers. But in our situation, intelligent robots can help to reduce our reliance on foreign labour, creating a more resilient economy and freeing up infrastructure for other uses. In conclusion, if we are willing to take new action with greater ambition and align all Singaporeans with our strategies, we can build a better Singapore together. Tackle Wealth Inequality with Baby Bonds”
“Mr Chairman, during the Budget debate, I spoke about the need to take decisive action by assuring Singaporeans that the basic costs of child-raising should never be a barrier to having children. The Prime Minister said the Government will not give up. His words will resonate with many Singaporeans – perhaps, even my wife. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair] It is also now time to fundamentally rethink our long-term population strategies and plans. First, for the past few years, our fertility rate has been far lower than the Population White Paper's assumed fertility rate of 1.2. This has implications on immigration and integration. Slowly but steadily, immigration rates have been creeping up. New citizenships granted reached an all-time-high – around 23,000 per year. If our citizen births – around 29,000 in 2024 – continue to decline, there will come a day when the number of new citizenships given to immigrants exceeds the number of Singaporean babies born. We must delay this for as long as possible. Singaporeans deserve a lot of credit for maintaining an open and harmonious society, but we should not take this for granted. We must increase the emphasis on assimilation. Within our immigration framework, this means prioritising immigrants who have spent a longer time in Singapore and who have married into Singaporean families. It means prioritising those who are contributing in a larger way to society. It means prioritising those who have a basic proficiency in English, which is the language of interaction in our common space. By extension, this also means rejecting behaviour which ostracises our minority communities, such as shop signs that do not have English.”
“Mr Speaker, I have quite a few questions. But the Prime Minister has been answering our questions for close to an hour. So, I will ask only one. And I note the collective sigh of relief in the House. I am glad to hear Prime Minister's round-up speech. Specifically, he acknowledged that rising incomes are the best way to guard against increases in the cost of living. But he also acknowledged that for the half a million retirees in Singapore, they do not experience these rising incomes when the cost of living increases. To the Government's credit, the last few years of support have given that assurance to our retirees. Would the Prime Minister now agree that we should assure this group of retirees that structural support should always keep up with the cost of living, not including the one-off measures that Prime Minister mentioned but that 95%? Can Prime Minster promise our half a million retirees in Singapore that the cost of living should be not too much of an anxiety to all of them and that the current levels of support should stay the same in real terms?”
“I thank Mr Giam for the clarification. In fact, in the last financial year we did not run a budget surplus of more than 2%. So, it was only 1.9%. But I think we agree that if it is above 2%, he agrees with my suggestion that we can redistribute that to all Singaporeans, so thank you.”
“I thank Mr Giam for the clarification. My takeaway from his speech was that Mr Giam was suggesting that we run less conservative fiscal projections. My suggestion and my view is that we should still be conservative with our fiscal projections. And twined with my idea that if we run unexpected budget surpluses, we should have that as a systematic surplus sharing mechanism in the next year with all Singaporeans. Thank you to the Member.”
“Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the speaking time budget of 20 minutes, I endeavour to utilise less time and, therefore, run a speaking time budget surplus. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget. Before I begin, I declare my interest as Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group. We are a Singapore global enterprise operating a conglomerate of businesses. Like all other companies, our business decisions are influenced by the Government's strategies and its policies. My views today are shaped by the numerous interactions I have had during this Budget season. My colleague, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, spoke about this in quite a lot of detail. The GPC for Finance, led by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, engaged widely, far more than in previous terms. We are grateful for the time taken by more than 1,000 PAP activists to participate in the PAP Policy Forum's surveys and focus group discussions. The business community, including the Singapore Business Federation and other trade associations, also shared their perspectives with us. We even had a resource panel of experts across industries that provided more insights. I particularly enjoyed the candid conversations on the Budget with our residents from Jalan Besar and Whampoa, during house visits and through policy dialogue.”
“Some of our colleagues in the House have assumed that they will continue to do so in the future. I am not so sure. For example, consider the unthinkable. What if some member countries refuse to honour their obligations to supply their currencies as required by the Special Drawing Rights? How should we respond to these new developments based on our own national interest? Should we capitalise on the opportunity to take a larger role in re-shaping existing multilateral institutions? Or should we capitulate and follow the herd of other countries looking out for their own immediate self-interest, potentially re-organising into new blocs? Or should we just carry-on assuming business-as-usual? Mr Speaker, I do not expect the Government to provide a comprehensive answer at this juncture. But I thought to leave these questions as food for thought. Because as the old adage goes, if we do not have a seat at the table, then we might find ourselves on the menu. I support the Motion.”
“Coincidentally, it is equivalent to around US$1 billion, the same fee to have a long-term seat on the US’ Board of Peace, although the contribution to IMF’s trust would be a loan, whereas the Board of Peace requires an expense. As a loan, it remains as an asset on MAS’ balance sheet. Can the Government share more about the mechanism of this loan to the IMF and whether there are any risks from this loan? Finally, and most importantly for the long term, I hope the Government can address the bigger question, the elephant in the room. I am not so sure compared to my other Parliamentary colleagues: what should Singapore’s long-term strategy be, given the emergence of a more fragmented world order, divided into more adversarial blocs and driven by self-interest among states? We should not be naive. Countries will always be self-interested. It is almost always “me first”. And blocs will always form and disperse. We have seen this in the Non-Aligned Movement of the 1950s, the formation of BRICS in the 2000s and so on. But in most instances in the past, these blocs were combinations of developing countries and middle powers, attempting to challenge incumbent multilateral institutions and an order underpinned by developed countries, first and foremost among them, the US. But now, things seem different. The challenger is not another bloc of developing countries. It is the US itself, rebalancing its interests vis-à-vis these multilateral institutions. We should therefore expect institutions like the IMF to come under extreme stress. Perhaps, they will even be unable to perform the key, international functions they were set up to do, such as development support or liquidity in times of global crises.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I also do not lose my voice. But I definitely support both Motions. Singapore has long benefited from today’s global order, which was built on multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF. It is this global order that has pretty much allowed us to earn our living in the world. Our externally oriented economy can grow faster, and Singaporeans can access opportunities better, when global trade and financial flows increase and when more of such global flows flow through Singapore. This takes place when there are clear rules that countries abide by. It also takes place when more countries around the world experience economic development, financial stability and are plugged into the global economy. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] It is therefore in our national interest to ensure that the global economic environment remains conducive for Singapore to earn our good living, way into the future. For now, these multilateral institutions help us to do so. As responsible members of the global community, we have been contributing our fair share. I would, however, like to raise three points. First, can the Government track where Singapore’s contributions are used so that we can find ways to deepen economic relations with these countries? This would help both sides enjoy economically stable, win-win relations. And Singaporean companies can also benefit. Second, as noted by my colleague, Mr Saktiandi: although not required for Parliamentary approval, MAS has updated that 746 million of SDR will be loaned to the IMF’s RST. This does not seem like a small sum in both absolute terms and as a proportion of our total SDR on our balance sheet. According to the IMF’s website, only 23 countries have contributed to this trust.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is often said that time in market is more important than timing the market for investments. And so, I am glad to hear the Minister's update that the Ministry is in the final stages of implementing the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme. For too long have Singaporeans been deprived of the simplified investment choices that the scheme had envisaged. My question to the Minister is this: given the passage of time, would the Ministry also consider investing resources to educate the broad base of CPF members that can eventually benefit from this scheme? Can we invest a lot more resources to increase the level of financial literacy for the broad base of CPF members whose many CPF savings are still stuck in Ordinary Account, savings that are not used for housing and education, and can be better applied to earn a higher investment return on an expected basis?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his care for our seniors and for his assurance that the Silver Support Scheme will continue to be reviewed periodically and sometimes, fundamentally. I only have a specific question with regard to my earlier question on flat type. I cannot be the only Member of Parliament in this House who has had residents come up to me, who live in 5-room flats, to complain that their neighbours who live in 4-room flats are getting more from the Silver Support Scheme. And my question for the Minister is whether the Ministry could consider, in the future, merging some of these flat types so that residents, often neighbours who stay close to each other, can get the same higher level of Silver Support?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Silver Support Scheme is a lifeline for many of our seniors, especially our very senior seniors – maybe those above the age of 80. I see them every time in Jalan Besar and Whampoa. And as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim noted, the Silver Support Scheme is already 10 years old. My question for the Minister is whether the Government could consider a more fundamental review of the Silver Support Scheme and in particular, the eligibility criteria; not the levels, but the criteria themselves. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about the coverage of some of these criteria, like the lifetime CPF contribution. I think that we should instead review whether the lifetime CPF contribution should even be a criterion for the Silver Support Scheme, keeping in mind that there are a lot more seniors who have lived far beyond their retirement savings. Those above 80, would not remember what they contributed up to the age of 55, which is the current criteria. And the Government now has more sophisticated means testing criteria and mechanisms compared to 10 years ago, when the Silver Support Scheme was first implemented.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. And a Happy New Year to all Parliamentary colleagues, including our Nominated Member of Parliament colleagues. With regard to the Senior Minister of State's reply, I fully agree and accept that global rankings of investment returns are not helpful because they do not take into account the unique investment mandates and the unique contexts that each country's investment entity invest in. Our investment entities should have clear benchmarks and should take into account our own unique context, including, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned, that one fifth of our national Budget is from the returns on our investments and the Government has an obligation to pay interest rates on the CPF savings. To that end, I have two questions. The first question is, when should we worry? I note the Senior Minister of State's reply, but when should we worry? What level of long-term investment returns should be the threshold which triggers a Government review of the NIRC framework to look at its sustainability, based on new structural trends in the global investment climate? And the second question is in regard to the fact that GIC and Temasek are active managers that have illiquid portfolios. We should expect better returns from active investment managers, as well as a premium from illiquidity. How is the Government convinced that the active investment approach taken by GIC and Temasek is giving the alpha that Singaporeans deserve on the Reserves and on their CPF savings?”
“But the less we know, the more we need to prepare. And I believe we can adopt a fiscal strategy that provides for different fiscal futures. By default, we should be fiscally conservative so that if corporate income tax revenues are low, we would still have enough for our expenditure, especially on our expanding social programmes. But should there be unexpected upsides in corporate income tax revenues, we should think of a structure to share this systematically with all Singaporeans, both in current and in future generations. To that end, in some circumstances, I also agree with Mr Louis Chua that we should have some structures that do it systematically. There have been previous instances of such surplus-sharing initiatives, but they have been only on an ad hoc basis. Just imagine a system where if Singapore's economy does well and our tax collections are more buoyant than expected, Singaporeans will all be assured beforehand that they will benefit directly from our country's economic success. These are but some ideas that can be developed further in time to come, perhaps, at future Budget debates. And for now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“With such value propositions, multinational enterprises would be happy to pay these global minimum taxes in Singapore and be rooted here to provide good jobs for Singaporeans. Allow me to move on to my second point. The Government will need to think harder about the impact on our fiscal system, especially on its revenues. Many issues are debated in this Parliament Chamber. Almost all colleagues, including myself, are asking the Government to do more and to spend more, almost never to do less. To support its agenda, the Government needs to be on a solid fiscal footing so that its revenues can support its expenditures. In terms of Government revenues, we do not yet know how the global minimum tax system will affect us. On the one hand, some enterprises will pay more tax. On its own, this will lead to more revenues, at least, in the short term. But on the other hand, enterprises may also choose to pay tax in other jurisdictions or move out of Singapore entirely. And then, the Government's revenues will be lower. No one knows the net fiscal impact and the world is not waiting for us to make an assessment. New pronouncements come up from time to time. The Senior Minister of State for Finance spoke about it, like the "side-by-side" framework between Pillar Two rules and the US tax system. MOF echoed this uncertainty in their reply to my Parliamentary Question last month. In their own words, they could only say that the impact on our fiscal outlook was uncertain and that they were monitoring the issue closely and would review their approach once there is greater clarity. Once there is greater clarity. I would submit, however, that we will not get greater clarity on our Government's projected revenues anytime soon and this is reasonable.”
“Because its benefits, as I understand it, do not scale with an enterprise's growing profits, unlike tax incentives. That said, we should not sell ourselves short. Tax incentives are not the only reason why multinational enterprises come here and create jobs for Singaporeans. We have a clear and established rule of law. We have good global connectivity from a physical and digital perspective. And we have an ecosystem of local and global talent that is sticky, because it has been developed over time and our city can provide a high quality of life. I, therefore, urge the Government to be relentless in developing new value propositions for Singapore. This includes investing ahead of demand in world-class industrial infrastructure that could support the faster deployment of high-tech manufacturing. It includes making other factors of production more competitive, for example, through investments that make clean or green energy more affordable, more available and more resilient. It also includes a deepening innovation ecosystem, as well as a preferred base for a reasonable number of global talents that can value-add to our economy and grow our local talent base. In short, if the most sophisticated and high-value products can be invented and made only in a few places in the world, Singapore must be one of them. We will then be able to transcend cost competitiveness. At the same time and this is something I feel very strongly about, and I continue to champion strongly for: we should do more to support and grow our local companies because these companies will be more rooted to Singapore even as our cost disadvantages become more apparent.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill. The Bill makes several changes to legislation, including to provide for the changes already announced at the landmark Budget 2025. I will focus only on the segment of the Bill that pertains to how Singapore is preparing to adapt to global minimum tax rules. We have already implemented the Domestic Top-up Tax and the Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax from January 2025. We should not underestimate the impact that the global minimum tax rules may have on our collective future. There are two areas that I will share on. First, the impact on Singapore's competitiveness, to be able to attract future foreign investments and create good jobs. And second, the impact on the Government's future revenue collections to support its policy agenda. On competitiveness, I believe we will very likely be worse off. I spent two years at the Economic Development Board. Tax incentives were a major way to attract multinational enterprises to invest in us, despite our higher labour and land costs, and our smaller market. The global minimum tax rules have started to render our tax incentives almost useless. It will be like fighting with not one, but both hands tied behind our back and perhaps, with our legs tied together, too. How can we start preparing for this new future, and what new tools and value propositions can we create, so that we remain an attractive investment destination? The Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), is a step in the right direction. The Bill makes amendments to the Income Tax Act to facilitate RIC's implementation and I fully support it. But in my view, the RIC is helpful; alone it will be insufficient.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. And I have read in the earlier replies over the last few days. I have also read the responses to other Parliamentary Questions filed by other Members of Parliament (MPs). Many MPs across both sides of the aisle have focused on the utilisation of SkillsFuture Credits and how to increase the utilisation. I think that is a wrong question. I think we should be asking how SkillsFuture Credits are helping to address the greater economic challenge of this time, which is how it improves the culture of lifelong learning so that it leads to better skills acquisition for better jobs. I take the Senior Minister of State's point that the SkillsFuture Credits are first and foremost, meant to improve the culture of lifelong learning. To that end, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry or the Government has measured the improvement in the culture of lifelong learning and whether it can also measure the translation from that culture of lifelong learning to a culture of skills acquisition that is industry relevant. And for future tranches of the SkillsFuture credits, would the Senior Minister of State agree that it would be better for our taxpayers' dollars to help encourage Singaporeans to acquire those skills that can help them get good jobs?”
“It also reflects a fair balance between protecting workers as well as their employers, while providing for greater access to justice. And finally, a reliance on tripartism – one of the ingredients that makes Singapore so special – to achieve productive and reasonable outcomes for all parties. I am glad that tripartism is at the core of this Bill and not an afterthought. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and wish the Ministry and our unions the very best in its implementation.”
“This would impact the total costs and the length of time that workers and employers alike have to prepare themselves for. Mr Speaker, as you can see, I agree with the good intent of the Bill. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil will be in the Bill's implementation. A policy's objectives can easily be negated or even subverted by poor implementation and a lack of resources. I fully agree with the Minister's commitment for the implementation timeline to be in 2027. It is better to ensure adequate training for our officers, our advisors and our judges, as opposed to rushing through the implementation of a Bill which would lead to reduction in public confidence if the process is not done right. The drafters and stakeholders have thought carefully about the dispute resolution process. And I hope that this commitment to a better paradigm for Singapore's workplaces, can be backed by an ecosystem of affordable and accessible professional advisers, easy-to-understand processes and well-resourced mediation and Court officers. These would make fighting for fairness in the workplace a matter of due process rather than an asymmetric battle of resources that has sometimes been foregone by the weaker party to the detriment of a more robust and united society, and a more productive economy. Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude by saying that I support the Bill. Perhaps for a more fundamental reason. And that is that it reflects the values we want to see in Singapore and our social compact. This includes the emphasis on preserving harmony and the nudge towards the amicable resolution of disputes. I am glad that we are not moving towards a litigious society.”
“I think such companies that are too small will need more time to adjust and I do not think that the implementation timeline will give them enough time. On the other hand, workers should also welcome this Bill. Workplace disputes are a difficult time for the worker. As Ms Gho said, it often feels like you are David fighting against Goliath. The Bill provides for a clearer, cheaper and faster dispute resolution process for the vast majority of legitimate workplace claims. No expensive lawyers are needed and union members can be supported by Tripartite Mediation Advisors. My main concern for workers is for those that are not unionised. This echoes Mr Cai Yinzhou's concern. It could actually be the bulk of PMETs that have disputes today. MOM should share with us the proportion of workers with workplace disputes who are not unionised. Such non-unionised workers may not have access to the Tripartite Mediation Advisors. I suggest that the NTUC consider providing the same service to such workers if they agree to sign-up as union members in the future. And is the MOM prepared to increase TADM's and NTUC's resources to handle the possible increase in caseload for Tripartite Mediation Advisers and other case officers? Finally, low cost does not mean no cost. We need answers to the following questions. What are the total administrative costs of a typical case? I imagine these would include TADM fees, costs for Tripartite Mediation Advisors, ECT fees, and so on. How will these administrative costs be distributed between workers and employers? Particularly in different scenarios, for example, when non-unionised worker loses the case, and separately, for a company which loses the case? Finally, how long would a typical case take to be resolved?”
“It is not yet clear how the ECT will impose costs against those who pursue claims without sufficient merit. And I welcome MOM to eventually publish the results of such cases to deter frivolous claims. MOM should also measure the size of claims, based on the current claim limit of $20,000 or $30,000, and whether this goes up correspondingly when the claim limit is increased to $250,000. If you ask me, speaking to many that I know, I suspect that the claim sizes are going to increase significantly in tandem. And this is not a good thing. It will make it more difficult for the tribunal to come to a reasonable and appropriate decision. I also agree with Mr Dennis Tan, that amongst all the employers, our SMEs would be the most concerned if claim amounts are inflated. Second, notwithstanding that the Bill provides for confidentiality, there could be a risk that claimants themselves publicise their cases on social media before the process is concluded. How will the MOM prevent this from taking place? Third, there will be some increase in compliance costs for employers. For example, employers will need to establish mandatory written grievance procedures with specific commitments to investigate complaints, protect against retaliation and inform outcomes. This requires HR policy development, training, documentation systems and investigation protocols. Large companies can do this quite easily but small companies, not so much. MOM can make it easier, for example, by publishing standardised free templates for small companies to use. Many Members from both sides of the aisle have spoken about this and so I will not belabour the point. However, I would like to respectfully disagree with Ms Gho Sze Kee's suggestion to cover companies with fewer than 25 workers.”