Xie Yao Quan
Singapore
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister mentioned the incidence rate of bullying behaviour in our schools and I would like to stress that this is based on reported incidences.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I thank MSF for responding to our cuts and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $5,822,529,800 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“What would be a fair valuation of fairness to current, affected homeowners? The Government will need to use sound and consistent principles for such an exercise, to justify the higher public spending that this implies.”
“My idea of balance that I prompted you on was not so much about keeping versus sharing at the individual level, but about spending and saving at the societal level.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just reiterate two points that I have made in my speech. First, I think it is more meaningful to look at how a term of government balances its collection against spending over its entire term in government.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for both clarifications. My basic response to both clarifications is yes. I accept that surpluses can be transferred into Past Reserves at the end of a term of government.”
The complete record
Every one of 336 lines we hold for Xie Yao Quan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Speaker, I go to the question that I filed, suggesting the set-up of a centralised anti-bullying unit to support schools to not only investigate the most egregious cases of bullying, but also to follow up with disciplinary and rehabilitative actions with the key purpose of avoiding overburdening our teachers. And I would just like to ask the Minister if that is one of the specific measures being considered under the review?”
“Speaker, I have a clarification for the Minister, similar to hon colleagues Mr Saktiandi and Ms Nadia. It is a question about sanctions, but I would like to go specifically to the context, also of the question I have filed, which is regarding Israel's attack in Qatar. The Ministerial Statements did not quite answer my question, but I know MFA put out a statement, condemning the attack and stating that it is an egregious violation of Qatar's sovereignty. So, given that Singapore has been a staunch supporter of this core principle of respect of the sovereignty of all nations, big and small, not just any piece of international law but of this very core principle of international law, because it is fundamental to our survival as a small state and therefore, Singapore has also responded robustly to other instances of the violation of sovereignty of other nations by other nations in the past, going beyond verbal condemnation, imposing sanctions. How does Singapore's response in this instance to Israel's attack in Qatar compute, vis-a-vis our responses to past instances of violation of sovereignty? Can we not consider imposing sanctions, as an expression of our disapproval, to a violation of this very core principle of international law?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to state that PUB, as our national water agency, has a critical mission of ensuring Singapore's water security. I think it is also important to state for the record that, in my view, PUB has excelled in this mission by boldly innovating. So, my question really is in the wake of the AGO's findings and PUB's response to tighten processes. How will PUB also ensure that it preserves and indeed, continues to grow this spirit of innovation, of boldness, of mission focus?”
“Sir, the Prime Minister spoke about the rest of the world not needing to follow the US as it turns protectionist and about Singapore's hope to work with the rest of the world to double down on global integration. I agree with this point but my worry is about global leadership for and from the rest of the world to double down on this integration going forward. So, what is the Prime Minister's assessment of how the void in global leadership, left behind by the US, can be filled; and also how may Singapore contribute to and support this backfilling in the global leadership void?”
“Thank you, Chair. Two clarifications for the Minister. First, do we expect the merger of NYSI, SSI and ultimately, the Singapore Sports School to impact existing staff in any of the current organisations, and more specifically, do we expect any retrenchment of staff? Second, what are MCCY plans for the Singapore Sports School post-merger? Specifically, will the merger impact the support that will be received by our student athletes? I also have a question for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua on the CALM and adaptive sports programmes. Is participation in these programmes chargeable, and how do we ensure that these programmes are accessible to all seniors, including those who are less mobile who live alone, who do not come to the Active Ageing Centres in the first instance?”
“Madam, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While ActiveSG's new balloting system has reduced the issue of scalpers booking sports facilities and reselling bookings for profit and has given more residents who have never used ActiveSG facilities the chance to make bookings, some residents still find the balloting system cumbersome and awkward. Under the previous “first-come first-served” system, if residents were unsuccessful in securing a booking, they would know immediately and could quickly look for alternative venues. Now, they have to wait for the ballot result with each booking attempt, taking more than 24 hours. Some residents would prefer a system that provides immediate result. (In English): Madam, second, we should not allow individuals who secure ActiveSG court bookings to host strangers and organise games for a fee. While this practice is not outright "on-selling", it is effectively "fractional on-selling", masquerading as the hosting and convening. Do not get me wrong. I am not against private players creating a market to convene strangers to play sports together, but do this on private courts. We should not allow the hosting of games for a fee on public courts funded by taxpayers. I urge ActiveSG to step up efforts to detect and weed out this practice. Be a "mystery shopper", join these hosted sessions and gather direct evidence of what is going on. Or better yet, ActiveSG itself can step into the market and host groups on public courts. Emulate private market practices, do it ourselves on public courts for the public good. ActiveSG Credits”
“Chairman, for any advanced economy, keeping social mobility alive is a key challenge. Fighting what we call sticky floors and sticky ceilings, and breaking not just the chain of transmission of disadvantages for those at the bottom, but also the transmission of advantages for those at the top, from generation to generation, is tough and is an uphill battle. I am glad that in Singapore, we have a government that is determined to keep social mobility alive and keep social mobility an integral part of the Singapore Story going forward. We will need to mitigate unequal opportunities at birth, indeed, before birth, and through life. It will take dealing with the hand that folks are dealt by life. It is complex work. This is why ComLink+ is so important – focusing on families in rental housing, getting them to send their children to preschool, stay in good jobs and build savings, and rewarding them with financial support for such positive behaviours, ultimately, helping to equalise opportunities for their children, and getting coaches and volunteers to journey with them. It is important work. If ComCare is assistance to meet today's needs, ComLink+ is empowerment to build tomorrow. If ComCare is a safety net provided by the state, ComLink+ is a new trampoline, formed not just by the state but by all of us. It involves all of us. To keep social mobility alive, we need ComLink+ to work. On that note, can the Ministry provide an update on the progress and achievements of ComLink+, including the rollout of ComLink+ Progress packages? Update of ComLink+ Progress”
“Also, when can we expect details of the higher subsidies for dialysis services to be announced? Finally, on the quality of long-term care, how does the Ministry plan to further develop both skilled manpower and a quality assurance framework for the sector even as more providers enter the space? MediSave Withdrawal Limits”
“Chair, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs COS discussed three frontier technologies that will shape our foreign policy in the coming years. Well, in my mind, there are also three frontier policy domains that will transform our social support system for Singaporeans going forward. They are: adult education, social mobility and long-term healthcare. For long-term care, our needs will only grow sharply because of our ageing population, longer lifespans but not necessarily healthspans, and changing family structures. So, we got to get this frontier domain right and ensure that, well into the future, Singaporeans can continue to access and afford long-term care services of high quality. To this end, I have a few questions. First, could the Ministry set a clear policy goal for affordability of long-term care? Today, we say no one will be denied appropriate services because they cannot afford it. But that is an assurance for Singaporeans with the least means. It is not a policy goal for affordability for the vast majority of Singaporeans. Today, we do have such policy goals for affordability for other domains of social support. In housing, we peg affordability to various levels of income. In retirement support, we crystallise the notion of adequacy in figures like the Basic and Full Retirement Sums. For long-term care, what is our policy goal for affordability? It is about time we define such a goal. Second, taking a leaf from the fee cap framework that has been in effect for the preschool sector, would the Ministry consider a fee cap framework as well for the long-term care sector? Third, on the enhanced subsidies for long-term care services and the Home Caregiver Grant, can the effective dates be brought forward to bring earlier relief to Singaporeans?”
“Chairman, online safety is a work in progress and perhaps, will always remain so. The inaugural Online Safety Assessment Report bears this out. IMDA's mystery shopper test showed that Instagram acted on just 2% of legitimate user reports on content that violated its own community guidelines in the first instance. Facebook took an average of nine days to act on legitimate user reports, and X took an average of 10 days, much, much longer than the median time of 15.06 hours – very precise, I must add – that X itself has declared in its annual report. Taken together, most of these designated social media services took action on only around half of legitimate user reports and took an average of five days to act. Do not get me wrong. I think MDDI has done a lot to advance online safety for Singaporean users and our online safety laws are landmark. Yet, much more needs to be done. I have a few questions for the Ministry. First, how would the Ministry work with the designated social media services to ensure that they do much better in acting on user reports and take down harmful content much more quickly? Two, would the Ministry consider stepping up punitive measures on the social media services? How many fines has IMDA imposed so far on the platforms for failing to fulfil their obligations under our laws? And three, are there plans to finally designate Telegram as a social media service, too, because, in practice, it is a social media service, not just a messaging app?”
“Thank you, Sir. And I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Two clarifications. First, I note the Minister of State's reply that there are cyclical factors, but I wonder whether there are also structural factors at play in some of the data and trends that we are observing. Because compared to pre-COVID levels, full-time employment of graduates did go up sharply and exceeded pre-COVID levels in 2021 and 2022, as the Minister of State has also noted in her reply, as we recovered from COVID. But this regressed back to pre-COVID levels in 2023. And then in 2024, the full-time employment rate for fresh graduates has actually come in below pre-COVID levels, and quite significantly so for certain sectors. In Business, it is about five percentage points lower in 2024 compared to pre-COVID levels; in the Built Environment, seven percentage points lower in 2024; and in Engineering, five percentage points lower compared to pre-COVID levels. And one would imagine that these are growing sectors and there should be growing demand for our graduates in these sectors. Can I ask the Minister of State what is driving this trend and are there structural factors at play? The second clarification also on the basis of my first question, have these observations given the Ministry of Education (MOE) any cause to look at and adjust its fundamental assumptions in the determination of the number of places available in each course of study in each university going forward?”
“And in particular, for those who were told to "resign", ostensibly on their own accord, but were, in reality, laid off and thus involuntarily unemployed, will they still be able to access the Jobseeker Support Scheme and the temporary financial support of up to $6,000 for six months when the Scheme requires the jobseeker to have been involuntarily unemployed? Productive Longevity for Senior Workers”
“Chairman, according to our tripartite guidelines for retrenchment, an employer is presumed to have retrenched an employee when the employer terminates the employment contract with "no plan to fill the vacancy any time soon". However, in practice, there could have been instances in which employers terminated employees in ways that were calculated to fly under the radar of retrenchment. Employees might have been made to resign or are let go in the name of poor performance, even if employers were really planning to make their roles redundant and not planning to fill the vacancy any time soon. So, the affected employees feel like they are in fact being retrenched. If they file a case with the TADM, they can probably get a judgement in their favour, but affected employees might not have chosen to do so for various reasons and effectively they chose to forgo the retrenchment benefits that they ought to have received. I call this stealth retrenchment. We know mature workers in their forties and fifties are especially affected by retrenchments in general. My guess is that they are also disproportionately affected by stealth retrenchments, as I just described. Retrenchment affects a mature worker profoundly. Emotionally, for sure, but also financially, especially if the mature worker is sandwiched between children and elderly parents. And retrenchment done in stealth adds salt to the wound and cuts even deeper as the worker feels a sense of injustice, betrayal and suffering in silence. 7.45 pm What are MOM's plans to enhance job matching support for mature workers and help them bounce back from setbacks?”
“Thank you, Chairman. Two questions. First, on my suggestion for a separate buyer stamp duty regime for the HDB market to give the Government greater policy optionality to cool the resale market quickly when needed, I would just like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would be minded to consider that suggestion, and if not, why not? The second question is to Senior Minister of State Tan, and it is about pest birds. I just want to stress again that this can be a huge pain point for us locally, especially when the bird population flares up and we need quick fixes to bring down the bird population. So, really, are there further strategies and measures that the authorities are considering to help the Town Councils to manage this problem? And could he also share further details about the pilot Pigeon Management Framework that he mentioned in his reply?”
“Chairman, perhaps only in Singapore are birds a major issue for the country's Members of Parliament. But pest birds are a huge pain point for many of our residents, in many of our estates. Pest birds steal food, they leave droppings on clothes and all over the place, create noise very early in the morning and, in extreme cases, cause injury to residents. And while the most effective way to manage the problem is to go upstream and control the pest bird population at source, by denying pest birds of their food sources in markets, hawker centres, coffeeshops and refuse collection centres; and by catching errant individuals who feed birds, including those who throw food out from out of their windows. We also need effective measures downstream, to quickly bring down a local pest bird population when it flares up from time to time, despite our upstream measures. So how does MND plan to strengthen our capabilities across the sector to manage this "birds problem" in our estates? Integrated Municipal Services Chairman, it was announced in the 2024 Committee of Supply that MSO has expanded the integrated municipal operations pilot to cover Pasir Ris-Punggol; and if the pilot continues to produce good results, MSO will scale this to more estates. How is the pilot going and is MSO planning to expand the pilot further?”
“This separate buyer stamp duty framework for the HDB market can give the Government greater policy optionality when it needs to quickly cool the resale market, to preserve fairness for all cohorts of home buyers. Public Rental Housing Chairman, in recent years, the Government has enhanced the Public Rental Scheme by introducing new typologies to provide more housing options for lower-income households, such as the Single Room Shared Facilities pilot. Could MND provide an update on the pilot, and how the Government is continuing to improve the Public Rental Scheme to better support the evolving needs of our vulnerable groups?”
“Thank you, Chairman. In the face of disruptions brought on by COVID-19, the Government has made what I would describe as a breathtaking range of moves on housing in the last few years and achieved a very strong report card. Yet, in my view, there is one major issue that still needs intervention and that is our HDB resale market – which has risen sharply in the last few years and continues to rise. Now I know supply-side measures by the Government will need more time to work themselves into the HDB resale market and, eventually, the market will stabilise. But there is also something to be said about the fairness to whole cohorts of home buyers, especially first timers, when they are caught in a prolonged upturn in the HDB resale market cycle and are either priced out completely from the resale market or are pressured into a buying decision in order to lock-in a price, despite a preference to look around a bit more in the market. And the more time it takes for measures to cool the resale market, the greater the number of cohorts affected as such. I wonder if this is fair, especially for first-timers. I hope the Government can develop more policy options on the demand side, to cool the HDB resale market more quickly, when needed. Specifically, I suggest we have a separate buyer stamp duty framework for HDB flats. The public housing market has always been regulated separately, with its own rules and design to achieve key social goals. So, it stands to reason that the HDB market should have its own buyer stamp duty framework that is decoupled from the quanta and dynamics of private property transactions.”
“Chairman, these days, when Singaporeans prepare to travel overseas, besides our world's number one passport, foreign currency and travel insurance, they also check – e-registered with MFA already or not? The consular services provided by MFA have served Singaporeans well and over the years. What are some of the key highlights of MFA's consular efforts in 2024? And could MFA share its efforts to leverage technology to improve the delivery of consular services for Singaporeans? Engaging Singaporeans on Foreign Policy”
“Chairman, Singapore has made very significant contributions to various regions and the world over the years through SCP. Specifically, can I ask how has Singapore supported the capacity-building efforts of fellow small states through the programme? MFA's Consular Efforts”
“Chairman, not too many years ago, it was put to us that "a small nation has no foreign policy". The corollary, of course, is that "might makes right"; big countries will do what they can, while small countries will suffer what they must. Fast forward a few years, these cardinal instincts of big countries are manifesting more and more in our geopolitical realities. Where there was once polite restraint and a basic respect for rules tempered by enlightened self-interest, we now find increasingly naked, unbridled hegemony and hubris. We now see a big country invading a small country on the basis of historical errors. We see big countries laying claim on the resources and territories of small countries. We see a big country reminding a small country of its place in life, putting a small country in its place in front of world media in the most public of settings. And we see big countries dealing with one another, bargaining with one another on the fate of a small country, where the small country is on the table, not at the table. Sometimes, it feels like the world order, as we have known it for the last three decades, is not fraying at the edges; but rather, breaking down from the centre. So, how is a small state like Singapore to face and survive in this new world order? How can we go about maximising strategic space for ourselves in this jungle? And how do we secure our destiny going forward? Specifically, how can Singapore work even more closely with fellow small states around the world to find strength in numbers and secure our collective future, together? US Relations”
“As for supporting parents with more young children, I think the crux is actually the amount of flexibility that parents have today to balance work and ad hoc childcare demands as they arise, rather than the adequacy of leave entitlement per se. And so, we should push for FWAs as the dominant solution to support parents with more children.”
“Chairman, Members have called for additional childcare leave for parents with more children. But I also note the Government's position that we have already made major moves like the Shared Parental Leave recently, so we should give employers and businesses time to adjust to these moves first. I myself have constituents who are employers and also constituents who are employees covering for colleagues on parental leave. So, it does take a whole village to support Singaporeans to start and raise families and I understand the need to strike a careful balance with any move. Yet, I wish to make a push today for just a bit more childcare leave and with a slightly different consideration. My suggestion is to increase our Government-Paid Childcare Leave from six to eight days, to align with the eight days of annual centre closure that the Early Childhood Development Agency allows childcare operators. Because these eight days of annual closures are actually wonderful opportunities for young parents to use the time to bond with their young children. So, we should really try to support our young parents to make full use of these opportunities. And this increase to eight days of childcare leave should apply to all parents, regardless of the number of young children they have. In fact, for couples with more than one child in preschool, it is likely that all the young children will be attending the same preschool, with the same annual closure dates. So, it becomes all the more valuable for both parents to be able to align their childcare leave with the closure dates and allow the whole family to come and spend time together.”
“Three, let us create scholarships for the adult education and training space, just as we have done for both the preschool and formal schooling systems. Let us create scholarships, to attract and capture a fair share of our best talents, to become both adult educators, and educators of these adult educators. Sir, in conclusion, notwithstanding these comments, I stand in support of the Budget.”
“One, let us uplift the overall quality of adult educators and trainers in Singapore. In both the pre-school and formal schooling systems, we have established and maintained a laser-sharp focus on educating the educators, through the National Institute of Early Childhood Development and National Institute of Education respectively, to ensure a high quality of educators in these spaces. We can, and we should, do the same for adult education. Establish a laser-sharp focus on educating the adult educators through a sharpened mandate for the Institute for Adult Learning. Let us aim for a world-class pool of adult educators and trainers in Singapore, a world-class pool of dedicated, full-time practitioners in adult education, on the supply side. Two, let us uplift the stature, recognition and career advancement pathways for our adult educators and trainers in Singapore. We must raise a unified fraternity of adult educators and trainers in Singapore, with a high level of professional pride and identity. On a related note, Minister for Education Chan Chun Sing has said in a speech recently and I quote, “It cannot; it must not; and it must never be the case that ‘only good teachers go to good schools’”, and this applies to our formal schooling system. I put it to this House that we should aim for the same in our adult education and training, especially in our IHLs. In our autonomous universities and our polytechnics and our ITE Colleges, the best educators and faculty members must not go to undergraduate teaching only; the best must also teach in adult education and training, and be part of that fraternity of adult education practitioners.”
“Today, we are spending around $16,000 per student in ITE, compared to around $18,000 per full-time diploma programme student, primarily in polytechnics. So, Government recurrent spending on ITE is around $2,000 lower per student compared to its spending on polytechnics; and this difference of $2,000 per student has been quite consistent since at least 2012, 2013. Of course, more spending on education does not automatically or always produce better educational outcomes. But I think there is something to be said about the principles, the equity and the reconcilability of this structural gap in Government recurrent spending between ITE and other segments of higher education in our system. I do believe there is scope to consider a reallocation of spending to achieve a better balance and a smaller gap. With extra funding, ITE can do a lot more to develop their students even more effectively, in various areas. Help its students even more effectively to discover aspirations, passions, diverse interests and individual strengths and talents. And ultimately, this will help preserve and enhance social mobility in Singapore. Sir, my third suggestion is on our allocation of resources to adult education and the entire SkillsFuture movement in Singapore. Specifically, while I applaud the Government’s very bold moves to put resources directly in the hands of our workers and adult learners, and empower them to take charge of their own learning, in other words, very major moves on the demand side, I also urge the Government to invest boldly and allocate appropriately on the supply side, to build deep and broad and enduring capabilities to uplift the entire adult education ecosystem. I see opportunities in three areas.”
“In other words, our means-testing for seniors should move away from including their children's means, whether the children are staying with them in the same address or not. In summary, my first suggestion is to rethink and rebase our means-testing framework for seniors specifically. Move away from per capita income at the household level, towards a senior's lifetime earnings primarily, proxied by lifetime contributions to his or her CPF, at the individual level. Sir, my second suggestion is on our allocation of resources to the full-time education of our students, before they enter working life. Specifically, I urge the Government to allocate even more resources to ITE students and to reduce the gap in our allocation of resources between ITE and other post-secondary students. To be clear, successive PAP Governments have been strongly committed to education, to investing in Singaporeans and developing their potential through education. Indeed, the very first PAP Government invested one-third of its yearly Budgets from 1959 to 1963 in education; more specifically, to provide basic education for a very young and growing population. And also, to be clear, over the more recent decades, successive Governments have invested strongly in ITE in particular. Therefore, our ITE system has grown by leaps and bounds and produced very, very good outcomes. I now have young residents, who are starting out in ITE as Year 1 students, telling me that choosing to go to ITE has been the best decision of their lives. So, we ought to be very proud of how far our ITE system has come. And yet, I think we can do more and strike an even better balance in our allocation of resources to ITE relative to other segments of higher, post-secondary education.”
“But, as our population continues to age rapidly, as we have many more seniors and as we spend much more per senior and, as the average household structure around our seniors in our society continues to change, I think the balance has fundamentally shifted. And the inefficiencies in our current framework to allocate resources to seniors matter much more now. So, we should get it right and we should fundamentally rethink to make sure our allocation framework remains fit for purpose. My suggestion is to decouple the means-testing framework for seniors from the means-testing framework for the rest of the population – for working-age adults and young children – going forward. And also, to anchor this refreshed means-testing framework for our seniors on two key considerations that matter most to our seniors. One, our seniors are at a different life stage. They are most likely not working at all, or working at a much reduced pace, suitable for their current life stage and drawing much lower pay. In other words, current assessable income will not be the most accurate nor the fairest way of assessing a senior's overall means. Instead, I think lifelong income, proxied by lifelong contributions to CPF, is probably the most accurate and the fairest way to assess a senior's means, at his or her current life stage. Two, our seniors do not want to be a burden to their child, no matter how well the child is doing, or how filial he or she may be. And therefore, while we place a lot of value on personal responsibility and family support, we also need to recognise this basic desire of most seniors in Singapore, to not want to burden their children and I put it to this House that our public policy should be tilted in favour of this basic wish of our seniors to not burden their children.”
“But if, instead, this single, adult child moves out and stays separately from his or her parents, then in one stroke, the elderly couple is now taken as one household, on their own, with zero income and deemed in our current means-testing framework to have much less means, even if it can be said that a single child who is able to buy and move out to his or her own place probably has more means to support his or her parents, compared with someone who does not have his or her own place and continues to stay with his or her parents. This current means-testing framework, based on per capita income, can mean all the difference for our seniors; whether they qualify for a Blue or Green CHAS card; whether they get Silver Support every three months or not; whether they get 80% or 60% or lower subsidies in a B2/C-class ward in our public hospitals and so on. To be clear, no means-test will be perfect or, in economic parlance, no means-test will be perfectly efficient. Every means-test will have its inefficiencies and trade-offs. And in an earlier era, where our population was much younger and the resources needed to support our seniors were on a much smaller scale, the inefficiencies in our current means-testing framework for seniors might not have mattered as much. Indeed, while there were inefficiencies in the allocation of resources to seniors specifically, there were probably also efficiencies in having a common means-testing framework for the whole population generally; there were efficiencies in having a means-testing framework that also applied to working adults and young children, as it applied to seniors. And, indeed, with a much younger population, the efficiencies could well have more than made up for the inefficiencies.”
“But what is equally important and perhaps more important as we deploy ever more resources, is to make sure that these resources are allocated effectively. The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance himself has emphasised this in his Budget Statement. So, on this note, I wish to make three suggestions – not about deploying more resources, but about achieving a more effective allocation of the resources that we are deploying. First, on support for our seniors. I put it to this House that our framework to determine which senior gets how much support – in other words, our means-testing framework, based primarily on per capita income (PCI), to determine how resources to support seniors are allocated, is due for a fundamental rethink, in order to remain fit for purpose in our super-aged future. The classic pain point arising from our current PCI-based means-testing framework is this: take an elderly couple, retired, with a child who is already an adult, working and single. If this single, adult child continues to stay with the elderly couple, then all three of them are taken as one household; this child’s income from work is taken into the assessment of the household's per capita income; and based on our current means-testing framework, the elderly couple will be deemed to have more means in this household because of the higher PCI.”
“I think, very simply, because it allows this Government to achieve a more or less balanced fiscal position, over its whole term of Government, from 2020 to 2025, if we exclude the amount drawn down from past Reserves in this term of Government. The COVID-era Budgets may be quite a distant memory already for some, but back in FY2020, just five years ago, at the start of this Government's term, we incurred an unprecedented deficit of more than $50 billion. Not $5 billion or $6 billion, but over $50 billion in deficit. And then, we ended FY2021, FY2022 and FY2023 more or less balanced. And so, this surplus in FY2024 and the projected surplus in FY2025 – and importantly, excluding the drawdown from past Reserves – taken together, these will really just allow the Government to finish its five-year term more or less balanced. And this is also what successive PAP Governments have committed to do. Therefore, rather than seeing these surpluses as potentially fomenting cynicism amongst Singaporeans, that somehow, the Government has been collecting more taxes and monies than the nation needs, I think Singaporeans can, instead, draw confidence that these surpluses represent this PAP Government's consistency and the will to maintain fiscal prudence over its entire term of Government, across many terms of Government past, and well into future terms of Government, if the PAP were to continue receiving the mandate to form the Government of Singapore. This is how we should be looking at the surpluses for these two FYs. Sir, this is a record Budget, the $143 billion in projected expenditure. So, the amount of resources that the Government is deploying to take care of Singapore and Singaporeans is really not in question.”
“Sir, off the bat, I wish to say this: rather than seeing Budget 2025 as an "election Budget", I prefer to see Budget 2025 as yet another quintessentially "Singaporean Budget" and yet another quintessentially "People's Action Party (PAP) Government Budget" – for this Budget is thoughtful, it is balanced in addressing both current and long-term priorities, it is inclusive and, above all, it places Singaporeans, both born and yet to be born, at the heart of everything this PAP Government does. And just like in previous Budgets, by successive PAP Governments, over the past many decades. We have come to expect our Budgets to look and smell like this, but really, we should never take it for granted. Because it speaks of a special brand of governance and political leadership that we have been fortunate to have here in Singapore, a special political will to do right by our people and a special compact between the political leadership and citizens. It has become quintessentially Singaporean, it permeates all our Budgets, but it is special and, indeed, it is exceptional. This Budget comes on the back of a $6-plus billion surplus for FY2024 and another $6-plus billion in surplus projected for FY2025. If elections were really the prime motivation behind this Budget, the Government must be mad to not have spent down more of this surplus on short-term measures, whether cash or vouchers. Instead, the Government has set aside just about $3 billion in this Budget on CDC and SG60 vouchers and just about 5% of the Budget on cost-of-living support measures and the SG60 package overall and left that $13 billion surplus over these two FYs on the table, in an election year. Why?”
“Three, create a new Future Generations Package; set up a new Future Generations endowment fund; to send a strong signal of the Government's commitment to our children, both born and yet to be born. And four, make student care more affordable for our low-income families and streamline and harmonise our framework of student care fee assistance for these families.”
“And for families in this income decile with per capita monthly income of $1,125, student care can cost almost $250 per child per month, after fee assistance. I think we can be more consistent and more client-centric across our financial assistance policies for children. As importantly, there is much scope for us to make student care a lot more affordable for lower-income families. I think student care should cost only $5 per child per month for all families in the lowest income decile; and $25 per month per child, not $250, for families in the next income decile, 11th to 20th percentile, just like full-day childcare is costing today, after subsidies. So, I urge the Government to review, streamline and harmonise our framework of student care fee assistance to make it more consistent and more client-centric, and to increase and enhance the fee assistance to lower-income families to make student care more affordable. Sir, in summary, my four suggestions to the Government to better support parents with the financial costs of raising children. One, make full-day childcare even more affordable; raise the Basic Subsidy for full-day childcare by $100; reduce the minimum co-payment for median- and lower-income households by $100; and refresh our benchmark for affordable childcare – $4,000 contribution from parents into the CDA should be able to cover four full years of childcare from three to six years old, with Government grant and maximum Government matching, if you are at median income and your child is with an Anchor Operator. Two, give every school-going Singaporean child, between seven and 16 years old, a "Child Development Bonus" of $600, in cash, each year.”
“So, put together, around $400 million each year and my suggestion is to set aside a new endowment to fund these in perpetuity. We have set aside $8 billion for the Pioneer Generation Package, $6 billion for the Merdeka Generation Package and $7 billion for the Majulah Package, all to take good care of our seniors and, rightly so. I think it is about time that we also have a package for our children today and those yet to be born – a Future Generations Package, for our future generations. Set aside a package, to send a strong signal of this Government's commitment to our future generations and to the parents who are, or will be, nurturing these future generations. As with our past packages for seniors, the commitments in this Future Generations Package should be fully funded by the Government of the day, with funds set aside from its term of Government, so that future Governments are not burdened by these commitments. Sir, my fourth and my final suggestion is to make student care more affordable for our lower-income families. Where is the gap today? Well, for families at the lowest income decile, that is, with per capita monthly income of up to $750, there is one tier of Government subsidies for childcare, and one tier of financial assistance for school-going children, namely MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme. But there are seven tiers of fee assistance for student care, even for families within the lowest income decile. So, student care can cost as little as $5 per child per month, or as much as $120 per child per month, after Government fee assistance for these families within the lowest income decile, depending on very small differences in their income levels. If we go to the next income decile, there are another five tiers of fee assistance for student care.”
“Indeed, our families are spending, on average, roughly $600 every month on private tuition for their school-going children. To be clear, I am not passing judgement on whether or how much, private tuition is appropriate. Indeed, I am just looking at the facts, looking at the actual cost burdens that our parents today are facing and suggesting a way in which we can better support our parents in the face of these realities. And I believe that, ultimately, parents all want to do their best for their children and give the best to their children, and what is "best" can be very personal and varies from individual to individual. So, those who spend on private tuition do so, because they want the best for their children. And the reality is tuition is a key cost driver today for raising children in Singapore and so we ought to lean in and help. I believe that $600 every year, this cash bonus for every student, will go some way towards helping our parents and yet contain the risk of unintended inflationary effects on the private tuition market or, indeed, on any other area that our parents may choose to spend on, to provide the best for their school-going children. My third suggestion is on how to fund my first two suggestions – for both higher childcare subsidies and cash bonuses for school-going children. Specifically, I like to suggest that we create a new Future Generations Package, with a new Future Generations endowment fund, to fund these two suggestions in perpetuity. The higher childcare subsidies that I have suggested will cost the Government at most $200 million more each per year. Whereas the Child Development Bonus that I have suggested will also cost around $200 million per year.”
“Today, the maximum CDA dollar matching from Government for a first child is $4,000. So, my suggestion is that median-income parents who contribute $4,000 to the CDA, with $4,000 matching from the Government plus the First-Step Grant of $5,000 also from the Government, making a total of $13,000 in the CDA, should be able to cover four full years of full-day childcare fees at an Anchor Operator. This works out to a fee of around $250 per month, which is also why I suggested earlier to raise the Basic Subsidy by $100 and to reduce the minimum co-payment, by $100, so that the co-payment at the median-income level can be brought down to around $250. But the bottom line is this: $4,000 contribution from parents into the CDA should be able to cover four full years of childcare from three to six years old, if the parents are at median income and the child is with an Anchor Operator. This is my suggestion for a refreshed benchmark for affordable childcare in Singapore. Sir, my second suggestion is a repeat of a call that I had made in the 2023 Budget debate, which is to give every school-going Singaporean child, between seven and 16 years old, a "Child Development Bonus" of $600 in cash every year. Think of this as an extension of the CDA, which supports our children in their preschool years. So, as they enter and step through their formal schooling years, my suggestion is to extend the CDA and support them with a Child Development cash bonus in their primary and secondary school years. Why $600 each year? Because the latest statistics tell us that educational expenses for our children do not quite drop after their preschool years, when they enter their formal schooling years.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the original Motion standing in the names of hon Members Hany Soh and Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. Sir, raising a child in Singapore, today, is not cheap at all. So, I like to focus my speech today on how the Government can do even more to support parents with the financial costs of raising children. And I have four suggestions to make. First, I hope the Government can make full-day childcare even more affordable. I suggest to raise the Basic Subsidy for full-day childcare by $100, and correspondingly, reduce the minimum co-payment for median- and low-income households by $100. In this way, young parents across the board, whether higher- or lower-income, can benefit from $100 less in full-day childcare fees every month. And so, a parent at roughly the 35th income percentile, with per capita income monthly of $2,250, would pay $108 every month, instead of $208 currently at an Anchor Operator centre. And a parent at median income, with per capita monthly income of $3,000, would pay $239 every month, instead of $339 currently. Indeed, beyond the specifics, what I would also like to put forth is a refreshed benchmark – a new definition – of affordable childcare in Singapore. Today, affordability is defined as a dual-income family with a child in Anchor Operator full-day childcare paying around the equivalent of primary school and student care fees. I think we can and should go further. I would like to suggest that affordable childcare, going forward, be defined as a median-income family being able to cover four full years of full-day childcare from three to six years old, at an Anchor Operator, using just the CDA, after maximum dollar matching and grant from the Government, without any further out-of-pocket payment needed.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Currently, there are many transactions between Government agencies and citizens that use masked NRIC numbers, and this has been a long-standing practice by the public sector and citizens are very used to this practice. In view of Minister Teo's clarification that the Government is not moving to a widespread disclosure of full NRIC numbers in its transactions with citizens going forward, but only to use full NRIC numbers as an additional identifier in specific cases where this is actually necessary, it will be very helpful to help the public understand just what these specific cases might be. In what specific cases would the Government actually be using full NRIC numbers going forward, because it is necessary to do so? In what specific cases would the Government use other identifiers in lieu of NRIC numbers and in what cases would the Government be dropping the use of other identifiers altogether, because a citizen's name alone would be sufficient for identification purposes? It will be very helpful if Minister Teo could provide more clarity on this going forward and, indeed, if Minister could also provide some reassurance, even at this stage, if possible, that the Government expects that in the majority of cases going forward, the use of full NRIC numbers will not be needed. That will be helpful.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Platform Workers Bill aims to provide platform workers with appropriate rights and protections under our laws. Platform workers deserve to have rights and protections. However, this Platform Workers Bill did not come about by chance, but rather as a result of our unique Tripartite model, which has made this Platform Workers Bill possible. Looking to the future, we must also rely on our unique Tripartite model to continue to advocate for the rights and protections of platform workers and allow the legal effects of this Bill be maximised in practice. By doing this, the income, welfare and lives of platform workers will improve continuously. (In English): Sir, to conclude, ultimately, this Bill is not only pro-worker but also, in my mind, pro-business and pro-consumer. It is about the ethos of business that we want in Singapore – businesses that do well by doing good and doing right. It is also about the Singaporean consumer supporting fair and sustainable trade practices. It is about an ever fairer economy and an ever fairer and more just society in Singapore. And underpinning all these, it is about strengthening our unique model of tripartism in Singapore and strengthening our social compact. I am hopeful that all stakeholders – platform workers, platform operators and consumers – will embrace the Platform Workers Bill in this spirit and forge ahead in the tough road of implementation ahead of us with that same spirit, to continue advancing and securing the rights and protection of platform workers in Singapore in the months and years ahead.”
“Indeed, we will probably need to bake the whole logic of fair pay into the operating algorithms of platform operators for this to really work. The task will be fraught with complexities: there are the vagaries of supply and demand in the gig economy; there are variances in the base fare and incentive structures across time and across operators; there are various types of platform work to begin with and there are other complexities to work through. But a basic principle that we can all agree on, around what constitutes fair pay for platform work, will become a north star that can guide and anchor everyone, all stakeholders, as we work through these complexities. So, we should do it, because it is right for our platform workers. And we can do it, I believe, because we have our unique model of tripartism in Singapore. My second suggestion is this. Let us not stop at pay but let us also champion and advance pay progression for platform work. It is often said that platform work provides "almost zero" prospects of career advancement and pay progression. I say, let us harness the collective bargaining structure for platform work that this Bill will enable to break these boundaries, to break that whole mental model. And let us contemplate and work towards, through collective bargaining, a future where we can provide some skills ladder, job ladder and pay ladder for various types of platform work. It will be challenging and there is no precedent around the world. But if there is anywhere in the world that can take a shot at this and do this, it is in Singapore, with our unique model of tripartism. And if we can get it done, it will be truly innovative and groundbreaking for platform workers and the platform work economy in Singapore. Sir, in Mandarin.”
“50 per hour, again net of costs; and (c) a "super garang" platform worker, pulling beyond 44 hours per week, and to hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh's point, should be remunerated for what is essentially "overtime", at a level that is, on average, at least on par with overtime pay as prescribed by the LQS Wage Schedule. So, for example, those platform workers who work 78 hours per week, or 11 hours per day for seven days of the week, should earn, on average, taking reference from the LQS Wage Schedule at least $2,000 net of all costs. And if we apply the Fixed Expense Deduction Amount framework and gross up these net earnings for costs, this would translate to just over $16 an hour in gross takings – in other words, what a platform will pay the worker, for a delivery rider on a PMD doing food delivery as a side hustle, for example, or $5,000 a month in gross takings for a private hire vehicle driver who pulls 11 hours per day every day on the road. Compared to the comments that have been offered by a major operator recently that its base fare is, I quote, "benchmarked to the F&B sector" and "something like $1,400", I think we are quite some way off the mark today. The key is also to make these earnings more stable, more consistent week to week, month on month, around the agreed average, so as to reduce the precarity of pay for platform work. It is only fair. It will not be easy to achieve and we will not be able to wait for another Institute of Policy Studies survey or the annual survey by MOM to tell us how we are doing on fair pay for our platform workers. To achieve this, we really need a monitoring and calibration logic cycle that is as dynamic as the algorithms that are assigning gigs, churning out jobs, putting out fares and incentives.”
“Indeed, I would like to put to this House that beyond the challenges, and as much as arriving at this Bill is, in itself, a great leap forward for platform workers' rights and protection in Singapore, the centre of gravity of our efforts to advance and secure the rights and protection of platform workers, in their best interests will lie in the road ahead, and no less through the way in which we operationalise and realise the collective bargaining that this Bill will empower platform workers to engage in. So, the real work lies ahead. This Bill deliberately and wisely avoids making any prescription on the scope of this collective bargaining. Platform workers, through platform work associations, and platform operators will have full flexibility to determine the scope of this collective bargaining. It is my hope that pay, specifically fair pay, will be a key issue that our tripartite partners will pick up and address in the collective bargaining going forward. And I have two suggestions. First, I hope that we can forge a basic consensus, and crystallise and enshrine a basic principle, on what should constitute Fair Pay for platform work. And I like to suggest this principle: that a platform worker should be, on average, no worse off than a local employee receiving protection and assurance on wage floors under the Local Qualifying Scheme (LQS) Wage Schedule regime. This means: (a) that a "full-time" platform worker, working up to 44 hours per week, should earn, on average, at least $1,600 a month net of all costs, on par with current LQS; (b) a "part-time" platform worker, working up to 35 hours per week, should earn, on average, at least $10.”
“Those elegant mathematical factors that crystallise the costs on a platform worker to perform platform work, so as to provide a simple and elegant way for everyone to determine net earnings from platform work – so, for example, 20% of earnings for a walker, 35% for a delivery rider on personal mobility device and 60% for a private hire vehicle driver in a car. These Fixed Expense Deduction Amount factors and the whole concept of Fixed Expense Deduction Amount itself, they are another major innovation. But they did not drop from the sky. Rather, they are borne of what must, again, have been months and months of hard work, of respectful, collaborative consultations between Government, NTUC, platform workers, and platform operators. I can imagine putting five platform workers, operator representatives, union leaders and Government representatives in the same room and asking them to try to agree on this Fixed Expense Deduction Amount values. And between the five of them, there would probably be six different views, and ask them to come back the next day, there may yet be another three or four different views. So, these must have been tough conversations. But with our unique model of tripartism, we got it done. And so, our unique model of tripartism in Singapore made this landmark Bill possible. And I say, we should celebrate and applaud this achievement by our unique tripartism in Singapore. And yes, there will be challenges and key issues to implementing the Bill, as has been discussed extensively in this debate. There will certainly be challenges, but I am confident that if we continue to rely on our unique tripartism and work through our unique tripartism, we can – and we will – overcome all these challenges.”
“But the Bill is landmark not only for what it will achieve – for the rights and protection of platform workers, if passed. It is also landmark for how we are able to achieve it in the first place, make the Bill possible in the first place, because of who we are, and how we work. It is landmark for how we are able to achieve the Bill in the first place because of who we are and how we work. And tripartite is who we are. And tripartism is how we work. This landmark Bill is only possible because of our unique tripartism in Singapore. There are so many innovative and groundbreaking features in this wide-ranging piece of legislation. Take for example, the Work Injury Compensation framework for platform workers. It is a major innovation. Senior Minister of State Koh circulated this nifty A3-sized brochure in his opening speech yesterday to summarise the framework, but let us think about it. The principles and the basic mechanism of Work Injury Compensation for platform workers that this brochure so neatly summarises are thoughtful, measured, balanced, very carefully crafted. It must have taken months and months of hard work, by tripartite partners, by a competent Government, working closely with an NTUC who is all about creating better lives for workers, with platform workers themselves, and with platform operators, insurers and other business stakeholders. Or take for example, the Fixed Expense Deduction Amount that this Bill provides for. It is another major innovation.”
“Sir, let me start with a quick story. A couple of years ago, I had a meeting at a platform operator’s headquarters office in Singapore. And the person I was meeting suggested to let us meet at the staff cafeteria. So, I went to the staff cafeteria, and I remembered being blown away. It was a very nice cafeteria, offering a full range of wholesome meals to staff; there was also an espresso machine and freshly brewed coffee and even beer, for after office hours, I presume. All the creature comforts were there. And it was lunch time when I visited, so the whole cafeteria was lively, teeming with employees, lots of laughter and conversations and energy, and everyone was just enjoying themselves and having a good time in this staff cafeteria. I recall looking at this and thinking about the delivery riders who were waiting for orders at the fast-food outlet at the CC in my constituency. And I recalled thinking, both groups of workers are working for the same platform company, contributing to the platform company, so why is the difference in perks, benefits and experience so large? And I recall thinking that this does not feel fair, it does not feel right, and we got to change this somehow. Therefore, I am so glad that the Platform Workers Bill is finally before this House. If passed, it will be a great leap forward for the rights and protection of platform workers in Singapore. Platform workers deserve rights and protection under our laws. And I am glad that there is broad political consensus on this fundamental point – indeed, both the Workers' Party (WP) and Progress Singapore Party (PSP) support the Bill and agree with the Government on this fundamental point. The Platform Workers Bill has been described as a "landmark" Bill. I agree.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Ministers for their comprehensive statements about our timely, competent and coordinated response so far. But just to build on Minister Chee's point about not all oil spills being the same, and at the same time, this oil spill was significant. It is not the largest in our history. And to my question that I filed earlier about our contingency plans, I would like to ask the Minister if our contingency plans are sized for a much larger oil spill that is a lot closer to our shoreline, making a full frontal impact on our shoreline? Do we have the assets and the methods that are needed to deal with an oil spill of such a scale and with a full frontal impact on our shoreline?”
“Chairman, sports unite Singaporeans in various ways. In the area of high-performance sports, can MCCY share its plans to encourage more Singaporeans to donate to the One Team Singapore Fund? Can MCCY also share the plans to support Team Singapore athletes in preparing for the upcoming major games? 6.45 pm In community sports, sports in our everyday lives, can MCCY provide an update on its plan to upgrade existing sports facilities and build new ones to encourage sports participation? Lastly, in terms of making sports a part of our lifestyle, can MCCY share if there are plans to bring in more major sporting events to add vibrancy to our sports scene?”
“It is complex work. This is why ComLink+ is so important. Essentially, nudging families in rental housing to send their kids to preschool, stay in good jobs and build savings, positive behaviours that help equalise opportunities for their children. And having coaches and volunteers journey with these families. If ComCare is assistance to meet today's needs, ComLink+ is empowerment to build tomorrow. If ComCare is a safety net by the state, ComLink+ is a trampoline formed by all of us. To keep relative mobility alive, we need ComLink+ to work. To this end, how does MSF plan to develop the manpower needed and galvanise society to come forward and contribute? And ultimately, how will MSF measure impact? 2.00 pm Engaging the Role of the Community”
“Chairman, poverty, inequality and social mobility are related but distinct concepts. Poverty is about whether one has enough or not. To use an analogy of an escalator: whether one is above or below a certain rung on the escalator. Inequality is about the spread: how far apart folks are at various levels on the escalator. For mobility, there are actually two concepts – absolute and relative. Absolute mobility is about how much one progresses over time or how much better one does compared to his or her parents. It is about how much the escalator is moving people upwards. Whereas relative mobility is about how a person does relative to his or her peers, compared against how his or her parents did relative to their peers. It is about how much folks swap positions on the escalator over time. In other words, social fluidity. I believe we must keep relative mobility strong. Keep our society fluid and avoid permanent strata. Because this gives hope and this holds our society together. Yet, relative mobility tends to slow as we continue succeeding as absolute mobility continues benefiting everyone. Therefore, how do we keep relative mobility alive for those at the bottom, even as we keep absolute mobility going for all? This will be our defining social challenge, more than poverty and inequality. We keep absolute mobility going, keep the escalator moving for all, with macroeconomic policies. But to keep relative mobility alive for those at the bottom and keep possible that swapping of positions on the escalator, we will need to go well beyond economics. We will need to mitigate unequal opportunities at birth; indeed, before birth and through life, dealing with the hand that folks are dealt by life. It will take all of us on the escalator to move others up the escalator.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I am glad to hear that the COV situation has calmed down in the last three years. I think it is especially important for COV to remain low and stable, especially for first-timers who are buying resale flats. So, in this respect, I just want to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry will be minded to consider a tiered system of haircuts to the CPF Housing Grant, pegged to different amounts of COV, to promote prudence in the determination of COV between buyer and seller.”