Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Singapore
“EDB conducts regular reviews to GIP to ensure its effectiveness in attracting only top-tier business leaders who are interested to drive the growth of their businesses and investments from Singapore.”
“MAS may vary the size of the additional capital requirement imposed on the bank and take other regulatory actions depending on the outcome of ongoing reviews. MAS requires all retail banks in Singapore to ensure that their mission critical systems supporting digital banking are resilient.”
“This question will be answered in the reply to Dr Tan Wu Meng's Parliamentary Question filed for tomorrow's Sitting. [Please refer to "Probe into Recent Disruptions of DBS' Digital Bank and Physical ATM Services and Preventive Measures Implemented", Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 107, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Ans…”
“Borrowing from the banks is one of the ways in which MAS carries out MMOs to soak up such excess liquidity. Like other central banks, MAS does this daily through an auction system, enabling MAS to withdraw liquidity through the Primary Dealers that submit the most competitive prices.”
“To mitigate consumer over-indebtedness, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires financial institutions (FIs) to implement a range of safeguards when extending mortgage loans and unsecured credit.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore imposes on external asset managers the same stringent regulatory standards for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism that it imposes on banks.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,416 lines we hold for Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 49.
“We cannot ignore the sacrifices of those who report diligently to serve their NS. We must adhere to the above principles in order to preserve the integrity and strength of our NS system. Nevertheless, in selected situations, MINDEF does exercise flexibility while still upholding these principles. In particular, MINDEF allows deferment from full-time NS for exceptional sportsmen who have been selected to represent Singapore in major competitions based on the merits of each case. In assessing each case, MINDEF considers his past achievements, his potential in his chosen field and the need for the deferment. For example, MINDEF granted deferment for sailor Justin Liu. Justin had proven himself an exceptional sailor by winning gold medals at the 2006 Doha Asian Games and 2007 SEA Games, and was granted deferment to allow him to train full-time for the 2010 Asian Games. MINDEF had considered Matthew's case very carefully, but turned down his appeal as the circumstances were not exceptional to warrant granting of deferment. SCHOOLS' RESPONSIBILITIES IN CASES OF INJURIES AT INTER-SCHOOL SPORTS EVENTS 26. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education in the light of the recent injuries at inter-school sports events (a) what are the roles of the school teachers and external coaches at school sports events; (b) how are participants imbued with the spirit of sportsmanship; (c) what precautions have been taken by the schools to ensure that such events are not marred by acts of hooliganism or a "win at all costs" mentality.”
“To encourage charitable giving, Government has, since 2005, granted double tax deduction for donations to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs), whether in cash or in kind. This has been enhanced to a 250% tax deduction for donations made during the period from 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2010. The 250% tax deduction allows corporate donors to deduct effectively up to 43%(1) of the donation against their taxable income. (1) 43% = 17% corporate tax rate x 2.5 NON-DEFERMENT OF NATIONAL SERVICE FOR SPORTSMAN 22. Ms Joscelin Yeo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence what is the reason behind his Ministry's inflexibility in not allowing local sportsman Matthew Goh to defer his National Service for three months so that he can compete in an international competition for Singapore. Mr Teo Chee Hean: Ms Joscelin Yeo has asked about local sportsman, Matthew Goh's application to be deferred from full-time National Service (NS) in order to participate in this year's Asian Junior Championships and World Junior World Championships. NS is to meet the critical need of ensuring Singapore's security and survival. It is therefore important that it has the support and the commitment of Singaporeans, especially those who are required to serve NS. We have been able to achieve this because we have consistently adhered to the fundamental principles of universality and equity in NS. Universality dictates that it is the duty of every NS liable male to serve NS. Equity is where every National Serviceman is treated the same way, regardless of background or status. Every NS liable male has to postpone his personal pursuits to serve the nation. This is why we have to be very careful when granting deferment, even if it is for three months.”
“The Goods and Services Tax is a tax on the consumption of goods and services in Singapore. Any person, including a charity, has to pay GST on goods or services from a GST registered supplier, regardless of whether the good or service is bought or donated. This ensures tax neutrality between donations in cash or in kind. Take the example of a charity that wishes to obtain a donation to purchase furniture costing $1000 plus 7% GST, or a total cost of $1,070. If the charity were to seek a cash donation, it would need a cash donation of $1,070 to purchase the furniture. If instead it secures a donation in kind from a furniture supplier, it would obtain the furniture that costs $1,000 plus a 7% GST charge. The 7% GST arising from the donation in kind would have to be accounted by the furniture supplier, who can charge it to the charity – as if it is a customer – or bear it on behalf of the charity. Either way, the total cost (including GST) of the donation in kind is $1,070. The value is the same in both cases, regardless of whether the donation is in kind or in cash (which could indeed be a cash donation from the furniture company). If we were to make a special exception on GST for donations in kind, we will be favouring donations in kind over cash. The Government does not have the breakdown for the amount of GST paid on donations in kind, as GST-registered donors commingle GST imposed on such donations together with the GST they charge on supplies they make in the course of running their business. However, the GST imposed on goods donated to a charity is far more than offset by the tax deductions we grant the donor.”
“Lastly, clause 3 of the Bill makes consequential amendments to the Third Schedule of the Stamp Duties Act, which specifies the persons liable to pay the duty. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO THE CHAIR”
“The Amendment Bill will therefore introduce general provisions on a seller's stamp duty and allow the Government to introduce, vary or remove the seller's stamp duty via a Ministerial Order. I shall run through the clauses of the Bill briefly. Clause 1 of the Bill deems the amendments to the Stamp Duties Act to come into operation on 20th February 2010, which is the date of implementation of the seller's stamp duty. Clause 2 of the Bill introduces a new section 22A in the Stamp Duties Act to charge the seller's stamp duty on all transfers of prescribed immovable properties. Clause 2 further introduces a new section 22B which enables the Minister for Finance to bring section 22A into force from time to time by an Order to be published in the Gazette. Section 22(B)(6) provides for the first such Order to bring into effect the seller's stamp duty from 20th February 2010. The salient features of the Order will include: (a) The categories of properties that will be subject to the seller's stamp duty; (b) The minimum holding period in order for the seller to be exempt from the duty; and (c) The date on or after which the property is acquired, that will subject the transferee to the duty if he subsequently disposes the property within the specified holding period. The amendments to the Stamp Duties Act will, as I have mentioned, provide Government with the policy flexibility to introduce future stamp duty changes where necessary in response to changing conditions in the property market. The Government, however, does not intend to change the seller's stamp duty liberally. Any future change to the seller's stamp duty will be a carefully considered decision, taking into account all factors relating to the state of the market and the possible risks ahead.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." On 19th February 2010, the Government introduced a package of measures to discourage property speculation and pre-empt the over heating of the property market. One of the measures was the reintroduction of a seller's stamp duty on all residential properties and residential lands transferred on or after 20th February 2010, and disposed within one year of transfer. The seller's stamp duty is levied at the same rates as the buyer's stamp duty, as specified in the First Schedule of the Stamp Duties Act. The rates are 1% on the first $180,000 of consideration or market value, whichever is higher, followed by 2% on the next $180,000, and 3% on the balance. Sir, the Government had previously amended the Stamp Duties Act to introduce a seller's stamp duty in 1996 to cool down the over heating property market then. The seller's stamp duty was suspended in November 1997, and the relevant provisions in the Stamp Duties Act were subsequently repealed in 2005. To pre-empt the emergence of a bubble in the property market, we reintroduced the seller's stamp duty from 20th February this year. The Stamp Duties (Amendment) Bill 2010 will give legislative effect to this reintroduction of the seller's stamp duty. A seller's stamp duty is part of the range of policy instruments that the Government may use from time to time to pre-empt or mitigate the property market bubbles. However, the process of introducing and repealing provisions in the Stamp Duties Act each time we have to introduce, vary or remove a seller's stamp duty is not efficient, especially when we have to respond in a timely and calibrated fashion to changes in the property market cycle.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act 2009. The additional sums have been presented as Supplementary Estimates, which have been considered and approved by the House as Command Paper No. 2 of 2010. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Third Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY (FY 2009) BILL Order for Second and Third Readings read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, Heads of Expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund, other than statutory expenditure, have to be included in the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is therefore to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund to meet the expenditure in the Financial Year, 1st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2011. Members may also wish to note in the context of the appropriation from the Development Fund, that $25.6 million shall be met from the existing provision for the Government's share of potential loan losses incurred from loans granted between 1st February 2009 and 31st January 2010 under the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative Scheme. The Heads of Expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each Head are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2011, and appear on pages 6 and 7 of Command Paper No. 1 of 2010. The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower me to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount for each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Third Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." Question, put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to. SUPPLY BILL Order for Second and Third Readings read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. First Resolution reported – "That the sum of $55,560,908,700 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2011, contained in Paper Cmd. 1 of 2010." Second Resolution reported – "That the sum of $26,023,710,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2011, contained in Paper Cmd. 1 of 2010."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2010 TO 31ST MARCH, 2011 (Paper Cmd. 1 of 2010) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] > Head P – Ministry of Home Affairs (cont.) Resumption of Debate on Question [4th March 2010], "That the total sum to be allotted for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Alvin Yeo]. Question again proposed. Community Engagement Programme (CEP) to Focus More on Youth and PRs”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions. First Resolution reported – "That the sum of $717,933,300 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2010." Second Resolution reported – "That the sum of $1,741,368,800 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2010."”
“I can tell you that within Government, several Ministries were involved and we studied this very carefully, particularly to ensure that this was a meaningful enough step to intensify productivity improvement, starting from this year, and yet gives time for the bulk of our enterprises including our SMEs to prepare and to get started on their measures, without going out of business. We studied it very carefully. It is a measured move, it is not the last move, but it is appropriate at a time when we have to start restructuring our economy. Mr Gan Kim Yong has given more information on this and I am sure that in the COS, he will be willing to follow up with more questions. On fattening the coffers, it is not like one of the slimming adverts where the left-hand side photo has a larger than normal person and the right-hand side photo, much slimmer. We are slim all the way because I do not take the money in and keep it without giving it out. We have announced our schemes, the schemes are ready for companies to take advantage of, and we are spending on existing schemes as well. The schemes have been announced in the Budget. To be frank, the first year increase in foreign worker levy is not a very large one. It does not yield a very large amount of extra revenue for the Government. In the first three years, when we raise levies, we are putting back more to the business sector than we are taking out. And for the five years as a whole we are doing likewise. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2011.”
“I am sorry I did not refer to the point that the Member made in the debate about the Ministry of Manpower's occupational wage data, which they publish every year. And indeed if Members look across all occupations, there is one occupational group – cleaners and related workers – which has shown virtually no growth in average incomes over the decade. I believe it is about 7.5% of the workforce. Part of the reason for that was in fact a change in the composition of that group. There is unfortunately a gender gap in play in our economy, particularly for simple jobs, women earn less than men. The same occupational wage survey shows this up very clearly. There was an increase in the proportion of women in this group of workers – cleaners and related workers – from 25% a decade ago, to 50%, at the end of the decade – a very significant change. This alone accounted for a fair bit of the apparent decline in average wages. There are other reasons, but the fundamental issue goes back to what Mr Lim Swee Say was talking about yesterday – what is the solution? Best-sourcing initiative, providing better equipment, better training. The hard work that it takes to build up the productivity of the worker and give him or her a sense of self-worth. It is the solution that concerns us, bothers us and takes up our energies. The third question was on foreign worker levies. I am not sure if the Member was in the House when Mr Gan Kim Yong was speaking earlier. He addressed the issue quite thoroughly, of whether this is the right pace or the right scale of increase in foreign worker levies.”
“I will take Mr Low Thia Khiang's questions in turn. The first question he asked is a very good and instructive question – why is it that the gap widened between workers at the 20th percentile and the average or the median workers. If Members would look at Chart 4 closely, there are two things that would strike them – the periods of weak or negative growth hit those at the lowest end the hardest. So the gap was created during the first part of the decade when we went through a series of shocks. Average GDP growth was 2% per year. Everyone was affected but as you can see, the lower end was affected the worst with an absolute decline in real wages, adjusted for inflation, that they do not recover from. It takes years to recover from that. Same thing happened in the recession in 2009. Everyone was affected and everyone moved down, but the lowest end was hit hardest, harder than the average worker. And this is exactly my point. If we go for a strategy of slower growth, in the hope of reducing inequality, we will end up, very likely, with the opposite. And we will end up hurting the people we are trying to help. The fact that there is pressure on the wages of those with lower skills, is unfortunately the fact of global competition that most societies face – it is not just global cities but also large countries that face this. Even China growing at 8% - 10% per year faces this problem, at the lower end of its workforce. Published statistics or not, everyone knows it is a reality there. Stagnant wages at the lower end while the middle and upper tiers rise very fast. So that is the first question. I am glad the Member asked it because it allows me to clarify the point.”
“I would like to ask him specifically to clarify what the Government intends to do with the additional collection as the result of the increase in the workers' levy scheduled on 1st July? And I would also like to ask him whether and how the Government will mitigate the concerns, especially of the SMEs, that the huge increase in time to come would probably jack up business costs and as a result, may affect their competitiveness as well.”
“We are not being forced to cut back on Government spending on essential services in health and education, or to raise taxes on our citizens to rein in Government debts. We are instead investing in a new phase of Singapore's growth and transformation. If we all play our part in the productivity effort, then as Minister Mentor put it in the conclusion of his 1986 speech which I mentioned earlier, "Today will be better than yesterday. And tomorrow better than today". [Applause. ] *Cols. 3013-3014. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the Finance Minister has defended the Government's growth strategy and shown us the graph of income growth. Whilst I noted that the median income growth for households and also the low income households income growth, I also noted that there is a gap growing together with these households' income growth. I would like the Minister to clarify why is there a gap and how the Government proposes to close the gap slowly, or is it possible to close the gap at all? My second clarification is related to Ministry of Manpower's wages survey which showed that despite the growth and the benefits highlighted by the Minister for Finance – the result of the growth where income has grown for lower-income households as well – there is a disparity of wages between different occupations, which remains quite large and not closed. Would Minister explain that? Sir, my third clarification refers to the Minister's statement just now. He has somewhat admitted that the foreign workers' levy has fattened the Government's coffer. But he said that the Government will use that to redistribute the revenue, to benefit the business or the people.”
“I provide this data only because the issue has come up in various ways during the Debate – on whether we provided enough to one group or another, including whether we provided enough to the middle income group. Basically, it shows redistribution in favour of the lower income groups and to some extent, the middle-income groups. The middle-income group benefits significantly. They too benefit significantly –from the shift to a more progressive property tax system, the enhanced income tax reliefs for families as well as the CPF Medisave and PSEA top-ups announced. And these are on top of the schemes announced in previous years, like the GST Credits, the Senior Citizens' Bonuses and other benefits that middle-income families would also benefit from this year. The example of a middle-income household that I gave in the Budget Speech, a 5-room household between the 60th and 70th percentile of incomes, showed benefits amounting to $1,700 this year. Mr Speaker, Sir, our approach has produced real results for Singaporeans. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates and the highest home ownership rate in the world. Our education and healthcare systems are among the best in Asia. And we are building a society where families of all backgrounds, including our lowest-income groups have the best opportunities to progress and realise their hopes. We are fortunately in a different position from many other countries, especially following the crisis of the last two years. We are not in the situation where the net worth of our citizens has fallen over a whole decade, or where unemployment is stuck at 10% well after the crisis.”
“Their incomes would remain under pressure over the next decade because there is no lessening in the competition in Asia and globally. But there is no short cut, no quick fix, and certainly no magic solution to raise and sustain higher wages by command, as Mr Low Thia Khiang seems to believe. The only way we can sustain higher incomes of those at the lower end is by investing in their skills and expertise so that they have the confidence to do well and contribute on the job. Employers must give them every opportunity to do so, and the Government will support them strongly. However, the Government is also providing low-income families with substantial direct support that has raised their standards of living by more than their wages have gone up. Our spending on direct transfers to lower income households has increased greatly in the last five years. On our current schemes of support, to help them build up their skills, own a home and grow their savings, and to supplement their wages and provide them relief where necessary to help them meet their immediate needs, a low-income family can stand to receive $460,000 over a lifetime, in 2010 prices, as I indicated earlier. We are able to do this because we have a progressive fiscal system where those with higher incomes or wealth contribute more than the rest, but where the overall burden of taxes on Singaporeans remains low so that we encourage enterprise, hard work and allow our economy to keep growing at a healthy rate. The benefits we are providing Singaporeans this year alone also illustrate how we distribute more to the middle- and lower-income groups [Chart 7*]. This is without taking into account HDB housing grants, which if included, would show an even larger redistribution in favour of the low-income groups.”
“Every society faces the challenge of uplifting those at the lower end of the skills and income ladder in a globalised marketplace. No society can evade this challenge. We cannot determine the wages of Singaporean workers unilaterally, even if the foreign workers are not physically in Singapore. However, the average Singapore worker already commands a significant premium compared to those in competing locations in Asia because we have built up their skills over time and because Singapore remains an attractive place for companies to invest and do business in. For example, in manufacturing, the total hourly compensation for workers in Singapore is about 25% more than in Taiwan, more than twice as much as in Malaysia and about five times more than in China. Even with the recent rapid rise in Chinese wages – something in the order of 25% in the past two years – the pay of a production worker remains far lower than in Singapore. *Cols. 3011-3012. 2.45 pm We should keep our premium in wages, even as other countries such as China, Vietnam, India and others catch up. In fact, it is precisely this catch-up in skills from those who have been behind us that makes it imperative that we raise skills and expertise across the board. It is why we are making this major effort. We are also lending significantly greater support to those with low incomes so that all Singaporeans can take pride in standing on their own feet and progressing with the rest of society. Our approach is helping lower income workers and their families in real ways. Their incomes have generally risen over the last decade, although by significantly less than the average Singaporean worker.”
“We render targeted help through the Work Support Scheme for the needy unemployed, CCC ComCare Funds for families in temporary financial distress, Public Assistance scheme for those unable to work and with limited means of family support, and Medifund. This year, we are also topping up both the Medifund and ElderCare Funds to help the lower income groups with their healthcare and long term care costs. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan will be announcing refinements to the Public Assistance scheme at the MCYS COS. Whilst our help must be flexible and adequate, we have to ensure that in providing assistance we never undermine the culture of self-reliance which remains a key strength of our society. In particular, we must continue to avoid the temptation of providing a permanent and unconditional social safety net. Our current approach of providing discretionary help for individuals and families in need, is working and we must keep improving it. We must keep providing real support where it is needed, to help individuals and families to get back on their feet. For any individual who is out of work, but is willing to adapt, pick up skills and do what it takes to get a new job, we will do everything we can to help him. But we must also encourage and grow the many useful initiatives by individuals, community organisations and corporates that will build an inclusive society. The Government is committed to helping this flourish. That is why in Budget 2010, I extended the 250% tax deductions for charitable contributions, which means that Government is literally contributing up to 50 cents out of every dollar donated to charitable causes. A progressive system Let me sum up.”
“The second part of this strategy is to help low-income families own a home that can appreciate in value over time and give them a nest egg that they can draw on in retirement. We will also help them build up their CPF assets, through the CPF component of their WIS payments, the extra 1% interest on their balances, and periodic top-ups to their CPF accounts like the Medisave top-ups this year. Taken together, Government's support adds up over time to a large part of their retirement assets. Going back to the example of the lower income family I had referred to earlier, Government investment in their assets would amount to about 50% of the total value of their assets in retirement. Cash and support for immediate needs Our basic approach therefore is to focus on helping the low income group to build up their skills, capabilities and assets. However, many families will face difficulties from time to time and need additional support. Let me go through the main prongs of this support for immediate needs: (a) Our most important intervention was to introduce WIS. While the major part of this goes towards building up their CPF balances, a portion of the WIS is paid in cash to help them meet immediate needs. (b) Second, through heavy Government subsidies and the 3Ms (Medisave, MediShield and Medifund) framework, we will ensure that all Singaporeans can afford basic healthcare, including especially the lower income and the elderly. Minister Khaw Boon Wan will be saying more about this during the COS. (c) Third, we provide a safety net for the most vulnerable and needy in our society.”
“For the entire cohort which entered post-secondary education last year – either JC, ITE, Polytechnic, or university – we expect to spend about $4.5 billion between the time they entered Primary 1, till they graduate from the education system. This is over a third higher than for the cohort which entered post-secondary education five years earlier in 2004, a very substantial increase in spending. For the cohort which will enter post-secondary education five years later, ie, in 2014, we expect to increase spending by about 20% over the 2009 cohort. What this means is new and better facilities, improved teacher-student ratios, higher quality teaching, more opportunities to gain exposure outside the classroom and abroad, and wider cohort participation rates in our tertiary institutions including the universities. We are also providing enhanced subsidies and support for a quality pre-school education for children from low income families, which as Ms Indranee Rajah noted is an important part of how we help them to level up with other children when they enter primary school. We have also stepped up our bursaries for low-income pupils throughout the school and education system, and have provided significant top ups to their Post Secondary Education Accounts (PSEA). How does it add up? A student from a lower income family could receive more than $6000 in bursaries and financial assistance over the span of his education from pre-school up to the completion of his Polytechnic diploma. This works out to more than 60% of his total fees. If we add in the PSEA top-ups over the past three years, he would receive over $8,000 in bursaries and top-ups or more than 80% of his total fees. Building up assets Next, building up assets.”
“About 60% of this would comprise Government subsidies for their education and skills and to help them build up their assets. This excludes Government spending on education that goes to all children. The remaining 40% would comprise support to help them meet immediate needs, through WIS and discretionary financial assistance such as Work Support and Medifund subsidies. When we count in Government spending in education and other areas that all Singaporeans benefit from, the total transfers such a family would receive would be even greater. So this does not include the subsidies that the Government puts in place for all Singaporeans in the education system, from primary school upwards. Let me elaborate briefly on each of these forms of support. Investing in skills and education We are doing more to help the lower income workers to build up their skills and capabilities so that they can participate fully in a growing economy. Budget 2010 grows this commitment – through the development of the comprehensive CET system over the next five years, and through the new Workfare Training Scheme (WTS) that will help our older, low-wage workers to enhance their skills and stay gainfully employed. Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Zainudin Nordin and Dr Amy Khor have made useful suggestions on how to help casual and contract workers go for skills upgrading. The Minister for Manpower will be addressing these issues in his Committee of Supply debate. Second, we are increasing our investments in the education system itself, which remains the most basic lever that any society has in giving low income families the best chance of success in the future. Our investment in education for each student cohort will increase significantly.”
“Our basic approach therefore must be to maximise opportunities for all Singaporeans — the opportunities to get a good education, to work or to start a business, to retrain and upgrade, and the opportunity to own a home and raise a family in a community they feel they belong in. We should never reduce the incentive for people to work and to make the most of their skills and talents. That has to be the basis for our society, for how we keep our economy growing, and for how we must strive to raise living standards for all Singaporeans including those in our lower-income groups. Helping the lower-income group We have substantially enhanced the Government's support for lower income workers and their families so that they have the best chance to progress. The main way we support them is to invest in their education and skills, and help them build up their assets through their HDB homes and their CPF. We are also supplementing this by providing them with cash and support for their immediate needs – through the WIS cash component, subsidies for medical care and temporary financial support in difficult times. If we add this up over a lifetime, the support the Government is providing is substantial. Take a family in the bottom 20% of household incomes. The husband and wife are in their mid-20s. He earns $1,000, while she earns $500 from part-time work. They have just purchased a 3-room HDB flat costing about $200,000 near their parents. Let us say they have two children, one of whom eventually goes to a polytechnic, the other to ITE. Over the next 60 years, this family can expect to receive transfers of about $460,000 in real terms (2010 prices) [Chart 6*].”
“However, the reality that we face is that to create jobs and income growth for lower skilled workers, we have to first grow our economy. And we can only do so by enabling those with higher skills and entrepreneurial abilities to do well. This is also the situation faced by other global cities such as Hong Kong and New York. Their Gini coefficients are in fact more than 0.5, like several other American cities. The Scandinavians have avoided these levels of inequality in their cities. However, they have long histories as close-knit, homogeneous societies, with people accepting extremely high rates of tax on both consumption and income, in order to subsidise the middle- and lower-income groups. Denmark, for instance, has a 25% VAT rate and a headline income tax rate of over 60%. Each country has to find a balance suitable to its circumstances. The solution for Singapore cannot be to grow slowly in order to reduce inequality. If we do that, it will only hurt the people we are trying to help. Slow growth will make everybody worse off, but it will have the harshest impact on those near the bottom. Jobs will be lost and incomes will fall for those at the lower end of the workforce, while at the top end, those with the talent or entrepreneurial ability to seize opportunities elsewhere will up and go. Slow growth will not assure us of a more equal society, as long as we live in a globalised world. Even New Zealand, with its wide-open spaces and attractive lifestyle that Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about, has seen large numbers of its own talent move to Australia, the US and other countries in search of jobs and better incomes.”
“Our essential services will also be affected. Our hospitals and nursing homes would be short of nurses and caregivers, and we would have one-third fewer bus drivers as Mr Ong Ah Heng pointed out, even with good pay being offered to attract Singaporeans. However, growing our dependence on foreign workers is not a sustainable strategy for the long term. It will reduce the incentive for employers to upgrade their operations and raise productivity. We will also run up against the social and physical limits that an ever-increasing proportion of foreigners in our workforce would bring. This is why we are moving forward in a balanced manner. We are phasing in an increase in foreign worker levies so as to encourage employers to innovate, and improve productivity, and to keep our dependence on the foreign workers at about a third of the total workforce over the long term. The Government will, however, provide enterprises and workers with strong support at the same time – to raise skills, develop new capabilities and find new ways of creating value. Contrary to what Mr Low Thia Khiang claimed about the increase in foreign worker levy being aimed at fattening the Government coffers, we are going to put back into the economy more than what we will be taking out by way of the increase in foreign worker levies. What businesses pay extra in foreign worker levies will be more than made up for by subsidies and grants they can receive to upgrade their operations and train their workers. *Cols. 3007-3008; 3009-3010. 2.30 pm Inequality Ms Sylvia Lim raised a valid concern over inequality. If we are able to choose, we would want growth of incomes to take place without at the same time letting incomes become more unequal. That would be ideal.”
“And we lose not just one investment. We lose the opportunity to grow a whole cluster – the critical mass of companies necessary for the industry to be in Singapore. Had we rejected leading investors like Shell or Exxon-Mobil when they wanted to expand here, Singapore would be weaker today. Our growth strategy in the past decade, therefore, was not wrong-headed. It illustrates the very real trade-offs we face in practice when deciding whether to allow the economy to grow rapidly and above its potential for a period. To do so indefinitely will lead to overheating. But it would have been ill-judged to prevent businesses from expanding in the name of avoiding rapid growth, even after having suffered a period of very weak growth in earlier years. Members would I am sure recall that there were calls from many quarters a few years ago for the Government to relax the foreign worker rules so that industries which were unable to find enough Singapore workers would stay rooted in Singapore and grow. In fact, in the 2007 Budget Debate, Mr Inderjit Singh himself had called for a relaxation of foreign worker rules to alleviate the shortage of labour that businesses faced. It illustrated the real pressures that the business sector faced at the time. If we had turned away investments and prevented competitive businesses that were already in Singapore from growing, we would have ended up with a decade of very weak income growth. In particular, low growth would have hit our low income families the hardest – as it did in the first part of the decade. We cannot do away with foreign workers. If we had not brought them in, we would not have been able to ease the supply bottlenecks in the private property markets, build HDB flats, or expand our MRT network.”
“So it was the 16% growth over 2006 to 2008, that allowed them to offset the years of weakness or negative growth in incomes, and end the decade with a total of 7% growth in real incomes – adjusted for inflation. The improvement in unemployment, and the growth in Singaporeans' incomes that we saw in the last decade, including the modest lift in real incomes at the lower end, would not have been possible if we had prevented businesses from expanding quickly in the second half of the decade. The external environment was favourable, but their growth would have been choked off if they had not been able to obtain more foreign workers. Bringing in foreign workers allowed businesses to seize opportunities, accept orders and grow, and to create more jobs for Singaporeans. Wages rose as the labour market tightened. In fact, the three years from 2006 to 2008 in which wages showed healthy growth for our lower income families corresponded to the period when the foreign workforce was growing most rapidly [Chart 5* ]. This was how we were able to offset the decline in wages for our lower-income group that had taken place in the first part of the decade. There is another reason why it was sensible for us to have allowed businesses to invest and grow in Singapore when the opportunities presented themselves in the second half of the decade. The significant opportunities come in cycles, not every year or when we want them to come. You cannot postpone a major opportunity that comes this year, even if you prefer to take it next year. In the case of the petrochemical industry, for example, the cycle is once every seven to eight years. When the companies are ready to invest, and we say no, they go elsewhere. If we miss them, we miss the whole cycle, not one or two years.”
“In other words, by achieving above-potential growth of 8% per year from 2004 to 2007, we were able to offset the below-potential growth of about 2% per year that we had over 2001 to 2003. By allowing the economy to grow rapidly in the second half of the decade, we were also able to bring unemployment down and grow the incomes of Singaporeans. The resident unemployment rate, which was above 6.0% in late 2003, and stayed above 4% for a couple of years, gradually fell to 2.4% by the end of 2007. In the Budget Speech, I mentioned how median incomes – in other words, the 50th percentile – per Singaporean household member had consequently grown over 2005 to 2008. The growth over those four years in fact accounted for all of the income growth that took place during the decade. Median incomes grew by about 20% over the decade, adjusted for inflation. [Chart 4*] I should point out that this is median, not average incomes because Mr Inderjit Singh had thought that it might reflect the growth of income at the upper end of the scale. This is, in fact, the 50th percentile household. Lower income households also saw their incomes rise. Their incomes grew by less over the decade compared to the median household. But for the lower income households as well, all their increase took place over the three years from 2006 to 2008, when their incomes grew by about 16% in real terms. Taking into account the decline in their incomes earlier in the decade as well as during last year's recession, they ended the decade with total growth of incomes of about 7% in real terms.”
“The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will be providing more of both the details and thinking behind Singapore‘s sustainable development initiatives in his COS debate. Investing for inclusive growth – raising the incomes of the lower-income groups Let me now move on to the second major theme of this Debate, which is investing for inclusive growth. I would like to start with the issue of how we must help our low-income families. This was rightly the focus of many Members, including Mr Masagos Zulkifi, Dr Fatimah Lateef, and Nominated Member, Mr Laurence Wee. I want to start with the points raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Inderjit Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim. They claim that wrong Government policies in the last decade depressed the incomes of our low income groups. They say the Government went for "growth at all costs" – a strategy which Mr Low Thia Khiang in fact says started in the late 1990s – and that by allowing in more foreign workers we reduced the wages of Singaporeans at the lower end of the income ladder. At first glance, the analysis has intuitive appeal but it is wrong and misleading. We achieved an average growth rate of 5% over the last decade. It was a healthy rate of growth. Few economists would consider 5% to have been excessive or beyond Singapore‘s potential. But we were only able to achieve this healthy average growth because we grew much faster from 2004 to 2007, when our GDP grew at an average of 8% per year. This offset the series of downturns that we experienced earlier in the decade – the global dot-com bust in 2000, 9-11 in 2001, and again when SARS hit the region in 2003.”
“However, we will remain open to including other sectors where there is a pressing need for land intensification, and where there are significant barriers which companies need to overcome in making such investments. Ms Jessica Tan also asked if the cap under the new M&A Tax Allowance can be removed, and if the allowance can be extended to sole proprietorships. The $5 million cap effectively allows for a company to make an acquisition of up to a $100 million in any particular year. It does not provide a significant incentive to undertake very large acquisitions but it is more than adequate to cater to the SME sector, for which it is aimed. For sole proprietorships, however, such transactions typically take the form of acquisition of assets. There is no M&A as such as there is no acquisition of shares. For his asset acquisition, the sole proprietor can claim capital allowances and deduct related financing expenses. Let me turn now to our green initiatives which Dr Lam Pin Min and Dr Lim Wee Kiak, and Nominated Member Mrs Mildred Tan had emphasised the need for. This year‘s Budget did not feature fresh green initiatives, besides the enhancements to the scheme for test-bedding of green transport technologies (TIDES). The reason why it did not contain fresh green initiatives was because we had already committed in 2009 to a significant $1 billion of funding for sustainable development initiatives over the next five years. Since then, $400 million has already been earmarked for a variety of projects, such as incentives for green buildings, test-bedding of solar panels in public housing. In addition, the Government itself will be spending about $500 million over the next 10 years to retrofit large existing public sector buildings to Green Mark Goldplus standards.”
“But if we rely only on grants, without across-the-board tax incentives, we will be relying too heavily on the discretion of Government agencies and industry associations to determine which firms or industries should be given more assistance. We are therefore offering a two-pronged approach, both broad-based and targeted, to provide maximum support for enterprise upgrading. And as Ms Jessica Tan had noted, these new programmes would also complement the existing schemes that provide companies with assistance on financing and capability-building, such as those run by SPRING. Companies can leverage on such schemes immediately even before they obtain the benefits of the new programmes. *Cols. 3005-3006; 3007-3008 2.15 pm Before I move on to the second major theme which I will address in this Speech – which concerns inclusive growth – let me quickly address three other specifics that arose in the Debate. Ms Jessica Tan felt that the phasing out of the Industrial Building Allowance (IBA) will raise costs for businesses, and that the Land Intensification Allowance (LIA) is too restrictive as it covers just nine sectors. The IBA is no longer suitable for Singapore's needs as it was provided irrespective of land intensity. It is also a tax subsidy enjoyed by a very narrow segment of the corporate sector – this is not very well-known. Only 5% of tax-paying companies made claims under the IBA and less than 200 companies account for more than 90% of the IBA claimed. The nine sectors under the new scheme, the LIA, are identified as having large land takes and relatively lower Gross Plot Ratios due to the more complex nature of their production process.”
“Thereafter we will revert to the yearly cap of $300,000 per activity so as to keep the scheme focused on our SMEs. We have also received feedback that companies will find it easier to benefit from the PIC scheme if it covers a wider range of in-house training programmes, besides the WDA-certified in-house programmes. This is besides external training programmes which will all be covered under the PIC. MOF will therefore work with MOM and agencies such as SPRING and BCA to see how a broader range of in-house training programmes can be recognised for the purpose of PIC benefits. I would also like to assure Members such as Mdm Cynthia Phua and Mr Heng Chee How and Mrs Mildred Tan that the administration of the PIC scheme will be kept simple. Businesses will be able to ride on the existing tax filing system and will not need to fill out lengthy application forms. Balance between broad-based and targeted measures The third principle is to strike a balance between across-the-board tax incentives, which any company can benefit from so long as they take the initiative to invest, and grants that are discretionary and given on a more targeted basis. The PIC is a broad-based incentive which any market participant can benefit from. But if we rely only on the PIC, we will not be able to catalyse the major industry-wide changes that are required in several sectors – like construction and F&B. Industry and sectoral grants are therefore useful in catalysing these industry-wide measures to lift productivity and will also support coordinated efforts by enterprises, unions and Government agencies so as to maximise productivity improvements. These coordinated efforts are especially important in helping our SME sector build up strengths for the future.”
“By setting the cap at $300,000 for each activity, we have been able to give companies an unprecedented tax deduction of 250% of expenses. That way, the vast majority of SMEs will receive more assistance to upgrade and upscale. If we had instead designed the PIC with a higher cap of say $500,000 but a lower deduction of 150% of expenses, it would have tilted the benefits towards larger companies who are the ones that make the larger investments. The most significant item of expenditure for SMEs is usually automation. However, under our Capital Allowance (CA) regime, only 7% of CA claims exceed $300,000 per year. Dr Ahmad Magad and Nominated Member, Mrs Mildred Tan have commented that SMEs may need some time to develop their innovation plans, including looking for suitable systems and weighing the costs and benefits. The Ministry of Finance has also received similar feedback from the business associations since the announcement of the PIC scheme in the Budget. We recognise that this is an issue. This is something newly announced, and we do not want SMEs to have to rush into implementing new investments or thinking up new schemes for innovation. This is something that has to be calculated carefully, so we want to see how we can make the schemes flexible enough to benefit them even in the initial years. To help SMEs benefit from the PIC scheme without rushing the implementation of their investments, we will refine the PIC claims process to enable companies to combine the $300,000 ceilings per year for the first two years into a new ceiling of $600,000 over two years. Businesses will therefore be able to claim a 250% deduction for the first $600,000 of expenditure on each activity that they incur for YA2011 and YA2012 combined.”
“The PIC is a generous scheme – in fact exceeding what any other country provides – and is therefore a major push in support of companies that will help restructure our economy through their investments. A profitable company paying the headline corporate tax rate of 17% can get back $43 in tax savings for every $100 invested. A smaller company would already be paying a lower marginal tax rate, of say 8.5%, because of our partial tax exemption system – they would still get back $21 on every $100 invested. A company which does not have taxable income can opt to get a cash grant of $18 on every $100 invested, and store the rest of its tax benefits until it eventually earns taxable profits. For training in particular, employers would obtain a 250% tax deduction on top of the very substantial training subsidies that they can get from the WDA. With current SPUR subsidies of up to 90%, an employer may fork out as little as $6 for every $100 of training costs. So that is the first principle, where the incentives and schemes are skewed towards companies that will invest and innovate, because this is what will help to restructure our economy. We have to begin now. Providing bang for the buck for SMEs The second principle behind our approach is to provide the most bang for the buck for SMEs. Several Members spoke about the need to nurture local enterprises who are rooted to Singapore. Some of our SMEs also have the potential to grow into larger enterprises over time, and will add further to the resilience of our economy. The Government agrees with this. Making sure that SMEs benefit most is the reason why the PIC is capped at $300,000 of expenditure per year for each of the six qualifying activities.”
“Companies will continue to benefit this year from the extension of Jobs Credit for the first six months, as well as the other initiatives introduced in last year's Budget – such as accelerated Capital Allowance, enhanced loss carry-back scheme for corporate tax, and the permanent 1% cut in corporate income tax with effect from YA2010. Taken together, these measures will provide businesses with substantial cash-flow benefits this year. However we must now shift our focus towards restructuring our economy. Our economy is well into recovery, with improvements in most industries. While there remains some uncertainty over the pace of growth in the second half of the year, we have to set our sights on sustaining growth not just for 2010 but for the next five years and beyond. It is therefore not appropriate for the Government to extend the Jobs Credit to the end of the year as Member Alvin Yeo had suggested, or to extend the SRI beyond January 2011 as Nominated Member Mr Calvin Cheng had suggested. Doing so would dilute and hamper the move that we have to make to restructure the economy and provide companies with incentive to upgrade productivity. The measures this year aim to get businesses to invest in innovation, and to upgrade their operations and develop the skills and potential of their workers. Every company that is willing to do so will benefit from the schemes we have introduced. The PIC, in particular, will benefit businesses which are already profitable and have taxable incomes. But it would also benefit the profile of companies that Mr Liang Eng Hwa had pointed to – growing companies which do not yet have significant taxable profits but which expect to become profitable over time.”
“Let me first explain that the approach to businesses that we are taking in this year's Budget is fundamentally different from last year‘s Resilience Package, which was applied liberally across the business sector. While we are making a major commitment to helping our businesses, the benefits will not be spread out equally. Dynamic companies, those which are investing in innovation and upgrading – including small enterprises – will benefit more than others. There are in fact three key principles behind Budget 2010's package of productivity measures: (a) Focus benefits on growth-seeking businesses; (b) Provide bang for the buck for SMEs; and (c) Take a two-pronged approach – involving both broad-based incentives and targeted programmes. Focus benefits on growth-seeking businesses First, we will facilitate economic restructuring by focusing benefits on businesses that are looking ahead, innovating and investing. The approach we took with the Jobs Credit and the Special Risk-sharing Initiative (SRI) last year was a liberal one. The package was costly, but as Mr Christopher de Souza noted, it was the best way to avoid large job losses and inject liquidity into the business sector at a time of great difficulty. It was meant to reduce costs for all firms, whether or not they were in trouble. In fact, if we had extended the Jobs Credit only to companies in trouble, we would have provided the wrong incentives, and would not have succeeded in holding down job losses across the board.”
“However, they start from a low base and we still have a significant way to go in making R&D pervasive across our economy, not just in industries like pharmaceuticals. The Global Innovation Index 2009, compiled by INSEAD, ranks Singapore 5th overall, but only 21st in terms of innovation in new technologies and 17th for the presence of innovative products. We are therefore making a major push to invest in productivity. The Government will provide significant support to our enterprises to invest in upgrading efficiency as well as to develop new products and secure new markets so as to grow their top-line. We are also embarking on a major new phase of investments in our people, particularly through the development of a comprehensive system of continuing education and training. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean had set out the comprehensive approach that the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council will take as we go forward on this journey. I will take the opportunity to address some of the specific issues that have arisen in the Debate on the Budget 2010 initiatives. Investing in enterprise upgrading Most Members, including Dr Amy Khor, Mr Baey Yam Keng, Er Lee Bee Wah, Mr Ong Kian Min, Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee and Nominated Member, Mr Teo Siong Seng have provided strong support for the Budget 2010 initiatives to boost enterprise productivity, including both the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and the schemes that would be funded by the National Productivity Fund. However, several Members were concerned about whether all our businesses will be able to benefit from the schemes, and especially whether our SMEs would benefit adequately.”
“However, with domestic sectors showing weaker productivity performance and the export economy itself eventually losing competitiveness, productivity growth has fallen sharply to about 1% since 2005. To address this, Ireland too has embarked on a major plan to boost enterprise capabilities and competitiveness. The journey of productivity, innovation and service quality therefore never ends, as Ms Denise Phua, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed, Mr Wee Siew Kim and Nominated Member Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan emphasised. It will also get more challenging as we catch up with the leaders and strive for higher levels than before. But we do have significant headroom for improvements in productivity. In almost every area that contributes to productivity, there is scope for major improvement – bringing in new and better equipment or software to help workers create more value; training and upgrading employees themselves; spending on R&D or its commercialisation; re-organising the workplace so as to cut out unnecessary processes and focus on delivering customers the best service and value; and building a culture that motivates people and encourages them to take initiative. In some of these areas, there has been a distinct slowdown in the last decade. Take companies' investments in equipment and software per worker. It has grown much more slowly in the last decade, than in the 1990s [Chart 1*]. *Cols. 3005-3006. 2.00 pm Training has also slackened. While our workforce itself has become better educated as younger Singaporeans who have graduated from post-secondary education began working, average training expenditures by businesses have been falling [Chart 2*]. R&D expenditures however are growing well in the business sector [Chart 3* ].”
“And it is in fact worth going back to read some of the early speeches that were made at that time. I happen to have one of Minister Mentor's (MM) speeches here with me – he was then Prime Minister – made in 1986 at the launch of the annual Productivity Month. He quotes from a letter he had received from Mr Kohei Goshi, who was at that time the recently retired Chairman and President of the Japan Productivity Centre. As Mr Goshi put it to MM, the productivity effort is a "marathon with no finish line". It is therefore a continuous and unending effort. This is also why many of the advanced countries are themselves revisiting the issue of productivity, as a basis of sustaining their growth. Take Canada for example. Productivity growth was doing well in the 1990s – growing by almost 2% a year, which is a healthy rate for an advanced economy. But it subsequently fell to about 0.5% in the current decade. In 2009, an Expert Panel made recommendations for comprehensive improvements, including investments in ICT, and sharpened incentives for innovation and commercialisation of R&D. Australia is another example. In the 1990s, the government undertook significant reforms to improve productivity by opening up their businesses to competition. Productivity went up by 2.2% a year. But it has since moderated to 1.5% per year in this last decade. The government made a renewed commitment in its Budget last year, to investments in education and other areas to boost the productivity of its workforce and economy. Ireland, a small open economy like Singapore, saw productivity grow by over 4% from 1995 to 2005, as it attracted new investments in high-value sectors such as pharmaceuticals and ICT.”
“We must also ensure that all Singaporeans are included in growth and, as Ms Jessica Tan put it, feel that they have a fair chance of success and that they can achieve more for themselves and their families through their own efforts, helped by the Government. My response to the issues in the debate will therefore be set out along the lines of these two major themes. First, investing in productivity and second, investing for inclusive growth. Productivity – a recurring priority As Members have noted, our focus on productivity is not new. We had productivity movements in fact going back to the 1970s, then in the 1980s and 1990s, each with a different focus. Some like Mr Viswa Sadasivan thought that our renewed attention to productivity growth reflects the failure of these previous efforts. This is patently not the case. The Singapore of today is a completely transformed place, in most sectors of the economy, compared to what we were 20 to 30 years ago. Since 1980, our productivity levels have more than doubled. It has brought us to about 60% of the average productivity levels of the US and Japan, despite both countries themselves moving ahead. And it has been achieved not just by investments in hardware, but by nurturing a more educated workforce, bringing in new higher value industries to replace old ones, and spreading the good practices from leading players to the rest throughout the economy. That is also why most economic studies have assessed that Singapore has done relatively well in the last three decades in growing "total-factor productivity" – in other words, not just adding more inputs but using inputs better to create more value. So the productivity effort goes back a long way.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all Members who have spoken, given suggestions and supported the Budget. I will address the main issues of the Budget Debate in this round-up speech. Members had also raised specific issues related to the programmes of the various Ministries. These will as usual be addressed at the Committee of Supply sessions. As many Members, including Ms Irene Ng, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Arthur Fong, Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman and Nominated Member Mr Calvin Cheng, have said, Budget 2010 is aimed at the long term. Most Members, including Opposition MPs, recognise this, and have expressed their support for various initiatives to take our people and enterprises on a journey leading to higher productivity and higher incomes over the next decade. Our overall commitment of resources in the Budget is higher than it was last year when we intervened robustly to counter the crisis. But the nature and purpose of the budget has shifted. This year, we make a major commitment for the future – to put our people on a path of superior skills, quality jobs and higher incomes. But the pay-offs will not be seen quickly. As Mr Zainudin Nordin put it, changing both skills and mindsets will not be easy, but we have to persevere and avoid thinking that there are shortcuts. Our ultimate aim, as Mrs Josephine Teo, Assoc. Prof. Muhammad Faishal, Mr Ong Ah Heng and several others recognised, is to raise the incomes and sense of self-worth of our citizens, including those at the lower end of the income ladder. In order to achieve this, we have to make a sustained effort to grow skills, to innovate and to raise productivity.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned?”
“In determining financial policies, the Government looks at an extensive range of financial, economic and social information and data from a wide range of sources, both within Government and outside, local and abroad. These include but are not limited to statistics, studies, analyses and reports from public agencies, international bodies like the IMF and World Bank, academics, research organisations, and private sector analysts. Wherever relevant, the Government also actively consults and seeks inputs from all stakeholders, including businesses, investors, unions and the public. When formulating financial policies, we would form our assessment by exercising judgment after taking into account the multiple sources of information and inputs, performing our own analysis and weighing the financial implications against our resources. We always endeavour to consider our policies holistically, looking at issues from various perspectives. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PROMISES BY DEVELOPERS IN HOUSING BOOM (Assistance to buyers when developers cannot meet standards) 1. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for National Development in light of the housing boom and increasing purchases of properties such as condominiums, whether the Building and Construction Authority will assist buyers when developers cannot meet the standards promised in their initial brochures and agreements as claimed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are charting a new course for our economy, growing it by improving productivity. This will put us onto a virtuous cycle: building superior skills, quality jobs and higher incomes. It will also sustain healthy economic growth, giving us the resources to fulfil important goals of our society – caring for our elderly, nurturing our young through a first-class education system, helping low- wage workers or those without jobs to earn a good living, and safeguarding our country's security. Fortunately, we have strengths to build on – our willingness to adapt to changed circumstances, our tenacity in overcoming the limitations of a small country and our will to succeed. These are real assets which will help us achieve this next transformation in our economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. *Cols. 2333-2338; 2339-2340. (8) Wikipedia – A mixologist is a term for a bartender who specialises in the creation of cocktail recipes; the term usually implies special expertise and professionalism.”
“We will be a nation that recognises and rewards many routes to success – whether by growing skills on the job, entrepreneurship, academic and professional training, scientific discovery or creative flair. But it also means a different motivation. Workers have to invest time to improve ourselves, taking years where necessary to build up expertise, and not be satisfied with doing the minimum or even being competent on the job. More Singaporeans must want to achieve mastery of the job – as machinists, engineers, teachers and counsellors, animators or even mixologists (8). For those who are not familiar with mixologists, Wikipedia calls them "pouring professionals" – bartenders who specialise in cocktail mixtures. According to Wikipedia too, the term usually implies special expertise and professionalism [Laughter in the House ]. And when we talk about a different motivation, our companies themselves have to aim to be the best they can be, beyond the immediate profits they earn. There is no expiry date for learning. Whatever our age, we can continue to learn, upgrade and add value. Ms Pauline Ten, now 51, is one of many who exemplifies this. She joined the workforce five years ago as a part-time worker at Han's Cafe & Cake House, juggling this with being a homemaker. Soon after, she joined their full-time service crew, picked up skills on the job and became a supervisor after two years. She then went for external training on customer service, and raised her capabilities further. After four years on the job, she was promoted to an outlet manager, bringing her pay to $1,800 – about $1,000 more than when she started. She is now being groomed to be an area manager in the Han's group.”