预算辩论 · 2024-02-26 · 第 14 届国会

2024年预算案中的共享未来

Debate on Annual Budget Statement

AI 治理与监管AI 经济与产业AI 与就业AI 与公共部门争议度 3 · 实质辩论

辩论围绕2024年预算案展开，质询方关注政府信息透明度、社会公平及退休保障等问题。政府回应部分采纳反对党建议，如临时失业援助计划。核心争议在于政府是否真正开放接受多元意见及如何缩小理想与现实差距。

关键要点

• 信息透明度不足
• 理想与现实脱节
• 退休保障需加强

政府立场

支持预算，采纳部分反对党建议

质询立场

呼吁更多开放与公平保障

政策信号

强化社会保障与包容发展

"The real challenge to the People's Action Party (PAP), however, is for it to be open, and the extent to which it is prepared to accommodate the diverse views of Singaporeans."

完整译文（中文）

Hansard 英文原文译文 · 翻译日期：2026-05-02

[(程序文本) 恢复辩论问题的议程宣读 [2024年2月16日] [第一指定日], (程序文本)]

[(程序文本) “议会批准政府2024年4月1日至2025年3月31日财政年度的财政政策。” – [副总理兼财政部长]。(程序文本)]

[(程序文本) 问题再次提出。(程序文本)]

议长先生：普里塔姆·辛格先生。

上午11时33分

普里塔姆·辛格先生（阿裕尼选区）：议长先生，前进新加坡的口号是“建设我们的共同未来”，而2024年预算的口号是“共同建设我们的共享未来”，两者极为相似，这绝非巧合。政府意图将2024年预算作为迈向前进新加坡的一步。

前进新加坡计划有三个主要目标，面向未来十年及更长时间。新加坡必须：第一，拥有强大且不断增长的经济；第二，发展更公平的社会；第三，加深我们的团结感。在此过程中，从多次公众参与会议中提炼出的共同未来，是一个充满活力、公平、有韧性、包容、繁荣且团结的新加坡。

先生，可以公平地说，这些是描绘我们所有人所追求的新加坡的宏观蓝图。预算2024在阐述政府方向方面并无异议，因此工人党支持该预算。

然而，对人民行动党（PAP）真正的挑战，是其是否开放，以及在多大程度上愿意包容新加坡人对如何实现前进新加坡愿景的多元观点。毫无疑问，人民行动党要求反对党提出替代方案，虽然有人怀疑这只是修辞上的要求。工人党真诚回应，提出了不少建议，最终政府以某种形式接受了这些建议，尽管最初有时存在显著阻力。

事实上，今年的预算包含了工人党的提案；财政部长宣布的临时财政支持计划就是一个例子。虽然细节有所不同，但支持非自愿失业者的理念是工人党倡导的。

同样，工人党提出的反歧视立法建议，以更好地保护工人权益，也得到了体现。与人民行动党不同，工人党在竞选宣言中明确提出这些建议，且我们的议员在议会中系统且反复地提出这些观点。

议长先生，现在让我提出五点，作为我对预算回应的基础。

第一，政府需要更加坦诚地提供信息，以便新加坡人能更积极地参与政策讨论。第二，新加坡人的期望与现实之间存在日益增长的不匹配，必须加以解决。第三，政府必须改善退休保障的充分性。第四，雇主需要对员工表现出更多支持。第五，我们必须努力在这个不确定的世界中进一步加强新加坡人的团结。

我的第一点是，政府需要更加透明和坦诚地提供信息，以便新加坡人在影响我们最关键的事务上能有意义地参与。这是我演讲中反复出现的主题，但我绝非唯一持此观点的新加坡人。

《海峡时报》2024年2月19日刊登了一篇题为“经济学家赞赏2024年预算，但担忧可持续性”的文章。文中引用的经济学家担心大量现金发放与缺乏有关新加坡财政实力来源的信息相结合。在报道中，一位前提名议员呼吁政府提供更多关于其支出资金来源的信息。

另一位经济学家指出，新加坡独特，不遵循国际货币基金组织（IMF）等全球机构关于财政平衡中收入与支出差异的标准。还有一位经济学家被引用说：“作为一个社会，我们现在面临一些非常重要的选择，除非我们获得充分信息，否则无法做出良好选择。”先生，后者的观点涉及储备金，这是我们本月早些时候辩论过的主题，工人党提出了五项原则。

2月20日，《海峡时报》发表了一篇评论文章，题为“预测未来政府收入变得更难”。作者指出，由于特定税收征收可能出现17%至27%的波动，实现预算精准预测将更加困难。他认为，预算精准预测2%的时代已经过去。

两届预算前，我曾询问碳税预计总收入是多少。政府未予以透露，尽管初步数字不难估算，财政部可能已统计。类似地，2016年政府宣布了45亿新元的产业转型路线图，但直到议会提出质询前，未主动更新资金使用情况。政府在这方面显然可以做得更好。

我多年来谈论经济合作与发展组织（OECD）关于税基侵蚀和利润转移（BEPS）制度。财政部长提出了两种可能影响我们的情况：一是企业所得税增加征收；二是部分跨国企业（MNE）离开新加坡。如果近期媒体报道属实，这两种情况可能同时发生：一方面预测更多跨国企业总部从香港迁至新加坡；另一方面报道伊莱克斯将区域总部从新加坡迁往曼谷。

鉴于第二支柱的实施，政府对乐观和保守两种情景下的预计税收收入是多少？

本届议会首次预算辩论时，工人党呼吁设立议会预算办公室，人民行动党拒绝，称此举只利于反对党。秉持前进新加坡精神，鉴于更大需求跟踪政府政策及其支出效果，此类机构应成为我们民主和前进新加坡报告所要求的新加坡的组成部分。

《海峡时报》2月19日文章中引用的一位经济学家说，议会外的新加坡人渴望更深入分析和理解政府所做的事情。我分享的这些例子凸显了议会内政治反对派与议会外非政治新加坡人，以及人民行动党政府之间可能存在的差异。这些对信息的呼吁不能被视为无关紧要。如果政府在这方面做得好，私营部门经济学家不会提出这些论点。

这些呼吁体现了塑造适合新加坡目的的政治环境的愿望。新加坡人需要知道可支配资金的多少及其来源。这是进行理性财政讨论和形成现实替代愿景的基本要求。在任何民主社会，政府都应促进此类讨论，并应主动解密更多信息（如有必要）。盛港集选区议员何亭如女士将在其演讲中谈及协商民主、透明度和问责制主题。

回到前进新加坡目标的资金问题，副总理宣布本预算中已预留50亿新元用于前进新加坡政策举措，至本十年末将使用约400亿新元。鉴于预算声明中作出的承诺，政府是否会详细说明这些举措，因为显然对资助前进新加坡计划所需资金已有一定考虑？

先生，人民行动党必须告诉我们政府将如何部署这400亿新元用于前进新加坡政策，以便新加坡人理解人民行动党认为未来社会契约的需求。正如人民行动党要求工人党提出替代方案，人民行动党理应也提出自己的方案。

议长先生，我的第二点是，新加坡人的期望与现实之间存在日益增长的不匹配，必须采取措施解决。前进新加坡报告中提及过去数十年的“五C”被媒体部分人士关注。五C代表现金（Cash）、汽车（Car）、信用卡（Credit card）、公寓（Condominium）和乡村俱乐部会员资格（Country club membership）。前进新加坡报告呼吁新加坡人超越五C，追求更广泛的成功定义。这无疑是对五C中相当一部分对大多数新加坡人来说已难以实现的事实的承认，或许是无意的。

但我想说得更进一步。现实是，无论采用何种成功定义，不少新加坡人的生活都非常艰难。2023年底《商业时报》报道了华侨银行财务健康调查结果。越来越少的新加坡人能轻松支出基本生活以外的开销，更多人没有足够的紧急资金或储蓄满足家庭需求。只有40%的新加坡人大部分时间能负担基本生活以外的开销，较2022年下降8%；23%只能负担基本生活；79%的新加坡人没有退休计划或退休计划未达标，较2022年的71%有所上升。

如果这项调查反映的情绪属实，社会契约可能岌岌可危且不均衡，尤其是中产阶级对财务未来感到不安时。为应对这一可能性，结构性投资未来，特别是通过“技能未来”（SkillsFuture）计划，至关重要且关键，同时也认可并欢迎预算中的临时生活成本支持措施。

工人党预见未来需对人力资本进行更大投资，尤其考虑到职场环境快速变化，更多高薪职位需具备高阶技能，盛港集选区议员林占士副教授将进一步阐述这一点。

4000新元的技能未来学分专用于选定的就业效果较好的课程，可用于兼职文凭、后文凭、本科课程及私人财富管理（PWM）相关课程。工人党认为，将技能未来学分用于经济生产性课程并带来就业成果，是本预算的重要政策举措。但我们认为许多课程费用可能超过4000新元。

为进一步促进技能培训并帮助新加坡工人，政府应推出无息技能未来教育贷款。工人党在2020年大选宣言中将此提案置于核心位置。初期，这些贷款可针对高增长行业中缺乏新加坡人力的课程，或其他经济重要领域的课程进行调整。

先生，我的第三点是，政府必须改善退休保障的充分性。副总理宣布的中央公积金（CPF）特别账户（SA）变动，将由盛港集选区议员蔡伟豪先生阐述。

然而，我谈论的是更广泛的退休保障充分性问题，并将其视为未来数十年的持续关注点。许多新加坡人注意到，迈向前进计划的三大核心组成部分：年度“赚取与储蓄”奖金、一次性退休储蓄奖金和一次性医疗储蓄奖金，针对1960年至1973年出生的新加坡人，均涉及公积金补充。自由与先驱世代也将获得这些补充。总计有140万新加坡人将获得公积金补充。

从工人党的角度看，先生，这些举措明确表明，公积金余额的退休充足性是一个严重且持续的问题。至2030年逐步提高雇主公积金缴纳比例的措施，也应被雇主视为确保所有工人在退休时不被落下的举措。雇主必须重新设计岗位，使老年员工若愿意，能继续工作更长时间。未来因岗位被替代而导致更多裁员的真实风险，进一步推动岗位重新设计的必要性。

近日，国土发展部长在社交媒体上庆祝建屋发展局（HDB）组屋拥有计划60周年。历史显示，组屋拥有计划最初反响平淡，直到1968年公积金法案修订，允许新加坡人使用公积金资金支付组屋首付和按揭，组屋才开始广受欢迎。

毫不夸张地说，公积金从负责新加坡人退休的法定机构，变成了建屋发展局的附属机构，目的是帮助新加坡人购房。当然，公积金政策自那时起已有诸多演变。

但显而易见，新加坡如今与独立初期大不相同。特别是年轻一代新加坡人无法指望1990年代以来的房产升值。尽管有新的按需建屋（BTO）分类系统，增加了限制并提高了补贴，组屋的可负担性仍是许多新加坡人持续关注的问题。

实质上，政府似乎承认可负担性是持续关注点。工人党在去年议会辩论建屋动议时提出此点，旨在聚焦人民行动党修订的动议。

总理在2023年国庆集会上提及臭名昭著的宏茂桥877,000新元五房BTO组屋，作为新BTO分类系统下标准、优质及加成组屋因增加纳税人补贴而应稍微便宜的例子，这并非偶然。

更多资金用于购置组屋意味着退休资金减少，尽管有降级选项。如果房价和整体通胀趋势增长快于工资，许多人将不得不推迟退休计划，因为他们今天需支付按揭，能储蓄的资金减少。

现在是仔细审视应为住房预留多少公积金资金的时候了。但如果组屋价格持续上涨，减少住房公积金预留以增强退休保障的举措可能适得其反。

政府可能不得不承诺通过进一步增加补贴，使组屋更可负担。请勿误解，直接补贴组屋购置并不降低组屋价格，只是将成本转嫁给当前纳税人。工人党将继续密切关注人民行动党在此方面的举措。如果允许组屋价格持续超出工资增长，且损害新加坡人的退休保障，我们必将追究其责任。我的同事，阿裕尼集选区议员费萨尔·马纳普将在其演讲中就住房和低收入家庭提出相关观点。

议长先生，我的第四点是，雇主需要对员工表现出更多支持。商业团体对新的本地合格薪金上限1600新元表示关切，该数额被广泛视为事实上的最低工资。

然而，如果新加坡真心拥抱前进新加坡的理念，我们就需要对经济上脆弱的工人表现出更强支持。这是未来社会契约的重要组成部分。事实上的最低工资提高，应被视为迈向包容和公平新加坡的一步。如果我们有一个共享的未来，却缺乏对最低收入工人按经济基本面支付合理工资的支持，这将极大损害新加坡形象。

当经济增长或支持措施扩展至企业时，工人也必须受益。但消费者也必须准备为商品和服务支付更高价格，不能仅由企业承担工资上涨的额外成本。

前进新加坡承诺的最强社会契约，也为我们思考工人保护提供机会，超越工资层面。新加坡对所有蓝领工人手工技能的认可不足已被广泛讨论。下一步，新加坡应立法规定遣散福利或引入裁员保险，保障这些工人。我将在人力部供应委员会辩论中对此作进一步阐述。

但部分雇主在某些方面表现良好，展现了与新加坡工人的团结。例如，配合现代新加坡劳动力需求实施灵活工作安排（FWA）。但FWA只是其中一方面。若要实现前进新加坡，必须改善职场文化，改变对技能提升和培训的态度。

在最近一项名为“新加坡人的想法、感受与行动”的益普索调查中显示，五个新加坡员工中有三个，即60%的新加坡员工表示他们为自己的雇主感到自豪。但这一比例比全球平均水平低了14至19个百分点；29%的人表示计划在两年内离开当前雇主，比全球平均水平高出9个百分点。

虽然薪酬是一个原因，但感到未被认可和缺乏职业发展是促使员工离职的另外两个因素。随着人工智能（AI）的兴起和提高生产力的需求，现在正是大幅审视人力资源政策的好时机：使其与国家重点任务和新加坡工人的实际体验相一致。阿裕尼集选区议员贾瑞尔·贾姆先生将在他的发言中更多谈及生产力提升。

作为“前进新加坡”计划的一部分，一个关于就业韧性的公民小组得出结论，许多工人直到有需要时才主动管理自己的职业生涯——这是由于缺乏升级资源的意识；或者信息过多，令人望而生畏，难以导航。

技能未来企业信用旨在鼓励雇主投资企业和职场转型。它涵盖一系列项目，包括生产力解决方案补助下的岗位重设计支持。这些举措可以叠加在员工，特别是年长员工所指出的关键人力资源职场痛点上。阿裕尼集选区议员林秀娟女士将就此主题作更多发言。

今年的预算将技能未来企业信用延长一年。与往年一样，工人党呼吁政府报告这些企业计划的成效或不足，这些计划涉及巨额资金。报告成果是问责制的基本要求。请向我们提供行业层面是否取得任何成果的信息。请告知，以便本议院及议院外的行业专家能就如何改进这些计划提出意见（如有必要）。

议长先生，我进入最后一点。在这个不确定的世界里，新加坡人需要致力于团结一致，同时保持多种族和多元文化。

副总理黄循财在预算演讲中，试图聚焦一个重要信息——许多人在和平安稳、远离冲突威胁时往往忽视了这一点。财政部长演讲中令我印象深刻的部分是对新加坡不确定前景的评估。有些措辞尤为强烈，包括，我引用：“国际前景急剧暗淡；孕育了三十年和平与稳定的后冷战时代已结束；我们现在进入了一个新的冲突与对抗时代，且无回头路；在这个新世界中，我们能期待什么？它将更暴力、更分裂、更混乱且更不可预测。”

与此同时，世界因经济置换而出现政治极化和被剥夺感上升，全球仍在努力应对共同问题，如气候变化，后港单选区议员陈振声先生将涉及此话题。

如果“前进新加坡”旨在刷新社会契约，以保持社会强大团结并为艰难前路做准备，我们所有新加坡人——无论政治立场如何——都必须成为彼此的守护者，比以往任何时候都更重要。

但这并不容易。移民与融合是潜在挑战的典型例子。早期移民几乎没有选择，或选择较少，必须融入社会。他们无法与东道国人口隔绝生活。仅仅30年前，国际电话费用高昂，难以承受。

现今移民可以轻松保持与其网络和出生国的联系。一个新加坡公民或永久居民虽身处新加坡，却可能与新加坡社会脱节。种族与社区间更好的融合必须成为新社会契约的重要特征。鉴于移民是新加坡社会的永久特征，忽视这一社会目标将是自取灭亡。

由国家和非国家行为者持续进行的信息战是所有多元文化社会面临的严峻威胁。作为一个多种族、多宗教社会，且依赖移民补充人口，我们作为一个统一民族的纽带在未来几年可能遭受严峻考验。

网络虚假信息和外国干预的现实，尤其是以民族主义或身份政治形式出现时，可能潜移默化且对新加坡极具破坏性。

即使我们寻求更多空间热情表达观点，包括种族和宗教方面，也应注意避免贬低其他群体。确实需要更多沟通，但我们永远不应忘记共同的人性。我们无人选择出生于何种种族或宗教，因此善良与同理心必须成为多元种族新加坡精神的主导特征。

作为拥有当选议员的反对党，工人党不会自我审查，但承诺负责任地提出问题。一旦社区间的不信任根深蒂固，我们将不知所措。

工人党赞同政府的立场，即新加坡绝不能出现极化。作为一个面临不可预测世界的社会，我们不应忽视这一潜在现实。我们必须通过加深对同胞的承诺，忠实代表他们及其观点，为此做好准备。

更具潜在波动性的前景也强化了新加坡武装部队（SAF）和内务部队及国民服役的重要性。我们的安全机构可能面临不仅是传统军事行动，还有非对称挑战，我们不能有丝毫懈怠。所有新加坡人必须全力支持我们的军人。

总之，议长先生，对于“前进新加坡”所追求的成果，普遍存在共识。

但对公平、包容和团结新加坡的呼吁，也必须容纳并回应公民对更大透明度和公民参与的诉求。否则，“前进新加坡”很容易沦为政治愤世嫉俗的牺牲品。

工人党多次提出如何更好地回应这些对更大透明度的呼声。这些呼声不会减弱，也不与“前进新加坡”调查的发现和期望成果相矛盾。

人民行动党与工人党之间的一些分歧在于方法和途径，我们必须同意存在分歧。但也许有些问题在最终成果上达成共识，而另一些则没有。这就是议会民主的运作方式。一个拥有争议和平衡议会体系、强有力反对派发挥作用、致力于公平包容社会的新加坡，最终使我们成为一个更好、更自信、更真实的新加坡。议长先生，工人党支持预算。

议长先生：梁荣华先生。

中午12点01分

梁荣华先生（武吉班让）：议长先生，阁下，今年的预算提出了“前进新加坡”计划设想下重塑新加坡社会契约的第一步政策举措。

我们可以在今年预算的许多方面看到“前进新加坡”的印记，包括各种新颖方法和举措，为新加坡人提供保障。有重大举措发展人才，投资中长期能力和安全，支持家庭和长者，建设更公平公正的社会。

我们在一个更加不确定、竞争激烈和波动的世界中前进。为了适应并在此环境中繁荣，我们需要不断重新评估我们的主张和规范，但更关键的是保持凝聚力和团结。

议长先生，请允许我先谈谈预算中应对眼前挑战的措施。秉承“前进新加坡”的核心理念——我们同舟共济、互相支持——今年预算继续加强帮助新加坡人应对生活成本的方案。

19亿新元的增强保障方案（AP）可能看似“老调重弹”，但这是令人欢迎的“老调重弹”，实际上远不止“老调重弹”。虽然还有其他措施和工具帮助缓解成本上涨，但没有什么比政府直接发放更多补贴和援助更有效。幸运的是，我们仍有财政能力推出如此规模的方案。

对于企业来说，虽然50%的企业税回扣和企业融资计划等措施也可能被视为“老调重弹”，但向所有至少雇佣一名本地员工的公司发放最低2000新元现金补贴显然是新亮点，如果我没记错，这是我们预算中的首次。这将为小企业提供一定缓解，帮助抵消部分增量成本。

除了保障方案，今年预算还有其他有助于新加坡家庭和企业应对成本上涨的措施，如工作收入补贴、银发支持、学前教育费用上限、渐进式工资补贴计划等。

因此，我感谢副总理兼财政部长持续为帮助新加坡人应对成本压力提供保障。

除了年度预算措施，去年九月副总理还推出了额外的预算外11亿新元生活成本支持方案。该方案还包括额外3亿新元一次性公共交通补贴，以缓解2023年票价上涨。这是在政府每年提供20亿新元补贴以保持公共交通负担得起的基础上。

我希望政府继续监控成本状况，包括关注公共交通票价；如果预算允许，考虑再次提供一次性援助以缓解票价上涨。

议长先生，现在让我谈谈预算中我最为欣喜的部分——发展人才。

人才必须成为任何政策制定和意图的核心，无论是发展经济、建设能力、加强安全，甚至为何我们要审慎理财。我们希望人民过上充实幸福的生活。生活追求的重要部分是谋生。我们工作是为了赚取收入，养家糊口，过好生活，并为应急和退休提供经济保障。

作为政府，没有什么比帮助人民获得良好且有意义的生计更重要、更值得优先考虑的了。这必须成为政府的首要关键绩效指标（KPI）。然而，随着技术快速发展和经济环境更具竞争性和颠覆性，长期就业保障将成为日益严峻且持续的挑战。我们在学校和职场获得的技能寿命缩短。一些旧职业将被淘汰，而需要新技能的新职业将出现。再加上劳动力供应方面，随着健康寿命延长，我们现在可以拥有更长的职业生涯。我们活得更长，享有更多健康年华，这得益于我们今天的生活质量。

新加坡人理解这一必要性，知道职业生涯中可能需要转型以应对变化。十年前推出的技能未来计划开启了我们终身学习的思维。2024年预算为技能未来运动提供重大推动和显著资金提升，旨在推动40岁、50岁甚至60岁的新加坡人拥抱职业韧性，保持就业竞争力。

技能未来升级计划提供多种补贴，大大降低培训的经济成本，这是中年职场人士的长期痛点。每月培训津贴相当于个人平均收入的50%，上限3000新元，持续24个月，显著缓解了工人在职业转型项目中的经济负担。

为40岁及以上新加坡人额外增拨4000新元技能未来积分，是一项可观提升，也是明确的未来方向信号。该积分现更具针对性，仅适用于能实现预期就业成果的项目。

议长先生，2024年预算的另一个显著转变是教育补贴政策的变化；40岁及以上新加坡人可在理工学院和工艺教育学院（ITE）以补贴学费攻读另一文凭。副总理称之为“再咬一口”教育补贴。我希望这项新的补贴全日制文凭课程也能培养更多专业人士、经理、行政人员和技术人员（PMET），从而减少未来对更多S准证和就业准证（EP）的需求。

议长先生，这些都是实质性举措。承诺资金只是第一步，当然也是关键推动力。真正的重任在于运营整个价值链，即工人寻求雇主需要的培训；教育者深入了解行业和企业需求，策划相关技能课程；工会和政府密切监控、促进并预判未来发展。

议长先生，我欢迎预算中提及的另一转变，具体细节将于今年晚些时候公布；即为非自愿失业者提供临时经济支持计划。这符合当前现实，我们将看到更多影响企业和就业的冲击。我很高兴我们已准备好采取行动。这正是我们所说的有效社会契约，体现了我们互相支持。议长先生，请允许我用中文表达。

（中文）：[请参阅方言发言。] 有句谚语说，人无定所，水无常形。如今技术快速发展，带我们进入职场不断变化的时代。经济运作转型直接影响职场，改变就业模式，缩短技能和知识的价值及寿命。针对这一情况，今年预算加强了应对策略，强化并推出新政策措施。

除了最高4000新元的技能未来补贴，政府还调整了教育补贴，允许中年新加坡人重返教育机构攻读专业文凭，提升就业潜力。

希望参加合格全日制工作课程的工人，还可获得最高每月3000新元的培训津贴。通过这些措施，我们可以理解政府旨在帮助新加坡人保持就业能力，拓展就业机会，拥有更好未来的意图。

学习和技能提升是一项挑战，涉及经济成本和个人时间投入。这就是政府投入大量财政资源并强化政策措施以减轻个人负担的原因。

最终，能否取得成效取决于工人是否有意愿和热情去获取技能和知识，以及雇主是否具备灵活、回报性强和长期支持的心态。

在此过程中，我们还需策划更多可应用于提升就业机会的课程。这将是一条艰难道路，但我们别无选择。我看到政府的决心，未来需要每个人和整个系统共同努力，落实这些强化的技能提升政策。

（英文）：议长先生，关于经济，我完全同意副总理的观点，我们需要继续发展经济，以提升新加坡人的整体福祉。

鉴于我们面临的土地、劳动力和碳排放等内在限制，我们下一阶段的增长必须依靠生产力和创新驱动。这并不容易，因为资源更丰富、国内经济规模更大的大国也在做同样的事情。

我们采用的战略是通过持续吸引高质量、高价值投资来克服限制，这使我们成为全球人均经济附加值最高的国家之一。

吸引此类投资帮助我们跳过风险更高、资本密集的建设阶段，使经济始终处于尖端技术前沿。因此，吸引高价值和创新的跨国企业在此设立基地和枢纽，仍是我们这样规模有限经济体的有力策略。

多亏了经济发展局（EDB）、新加坡金融管理局（MAS）和企业新加坡（ESG）等一流投资促进机构，我们能够在激烈竞争中吸引这些高质量投资。

我经常阅读EDB的年度报告，以了解我们每年吸引了多少投资。除了报告固定资产投资（FAI）承诺和每年的总营业支出（TBE）外，EDB还会报告预期创造的就业岗位和对经济的附加值。

例如，2023年，EDB吸引了127亿新元的固定资产投资，89亿新元的总营业支出，预计将创造超过2万个就业岗位，预计附加值为267亿新元。我感到欣慰的是，我们的经济投资机构从未忘记引入投资的最终动机，即创造优质就业岗位并为我们的国内生产总值（GDP）做出贡献。

先生，我们必须不断加强我们的主张；其中包括始终成为企业友好的首选目的地，拥有多元化的人才库，卓越的基础设施和连通性，可信赖的司法管辖区，强大的财政状况，当然还有有能力的政府和政治稳定。

我们的本地企业如何从跨国企业（MNE）的存在中受益？关键在于寻找方式让我们的本地企业成为跨国企业的供应商和服务商；并在其价值链中发挥作用。

加强能力转型伙伴关系旨在增加跨国企业与中小企业（SME）合作的多种模式，帮助中小企业提升实力。这可能是我们本地企业突破规模陷阱，提升为新兴区域性企业或细分领域冠军的途径。

先生，除了吸引高质量投资和发展本地企业外，我们还必须投资于我们的能力建设，打造长期竞争力。副总理在今年的预算中宣布了一系列对我们能力的重大投资；例如，研发、创新与企业2025（RIE2025）投入30亿新元，金融业发展基金20亿新元，全国宽带网络升级1亿新元。

为了增强我们的长期能源安全，政府还将注入初始50亿新元设立未来能源基金。这些都是巨额资金承诺。先生，我期待即将到来的财政部长辩论中的详细内容。

关于人工智能，我很高兴新加坡在发展人工智能能力方面领先，拥有国家人工智能战略。这一点在国际上也得到了认可。

去年12月，我恰好带家人在台湾度假。当时，台湾总统和立法委员选举活动正如火如荼。出于好奇，我参加了台北的几场竞选集会，并观看当地新闻，了解候选人关注的议题。

在台湾选举中，反对派政客用新加坡作为例子批评他们的政府没有新加坡做得好，这并不罕见。因此，在这次选举中，新加坡再次被提及。其中一例是反对派政客嘲讽他们的政府，质疑为何小小的新加坡能跻身全球人工智能研究和技术领先的前十名，而台湾却未能入围。他们哀叹台湾在人工智能竞赛中落后，这将严重影响其整体竞争力。

先生，我很高兴我们现在进入了国家人工智能战略的第二版；在本次预算中，政府承诺未来五年每年投资10亿新元。这些投资将用于与领先企业合作，在新加坡设立人工智能卓越中心，并确保获得人工智能开发所需的先进芯片。

先生，我们需要保持人工智能发展的势头；我支持副总理宣布的额外资金。

议长先生，最后一点是关于企业所得税调整，以纳入BEPS 2.0第二支柱的变化。根据BEPS第二支柱，要求对大型跨国企业实施15%的全球最低有效税率。包括瑞士和香港在内的许多司法管辖区已宣布计划于2024年和2025年实施。

BEPS 2.0将重置全球投资竞争的公平竞争环境，这就是为什么我们必须不断完善整体优惠措施，例如引入可退还投资抵免，以加强我们的竞争地位。

一个备受关注的问题是引入国内补充税对财政收入的影响。

短期内，预计将为政府带来额外收入。根据经济合作与发展组织（OECD）2024年1月发布的报告，OECD估计投资枢纽的企业所得税收入将增加约15%至40%。以我们修订后的2023财年企业税收入284亿新元为基数，这意味着额外收入约40亿至110亿新元。

2024年2月，计划于2025年实施第二支柱的香港估计其收入影响约为100亿港元，约合17亿新元。2023年8月，瑞士的估计为16亿瑞士法郎，约合24亿新元。香港和瑞士的估计似乎低于OECD的估计，后者对香港的估计最高约为100亿新元，对瑞士最高约为150亿新元。

当然，OECD警告其估计存在较大不确定性。

先生，第二支柱是税收政策的前所未有的变革，之前的经验和研究在预测政府和跨国企业的“行为反应”及其财政影响方面存在重大局限。

此外，OECD报告未考虑第一支柱的影响，而第一支柱将对新加坡产生负面财政影响。综合第一支柱和第二支柱，难以准确确定净财政影响。

更重要的是，BEPS 2.0是新加坡必须谨慎应对的关键挑战。

这也是我支持2024年预算通过可退还投资抵免增强投资促进工具包，以及对劳动力、创新和基础设施的各种投资的原因。

先生，总结来说，一个好的预算不仅取决于我们如何花钱、花多少、花在哪些领域，还取决于我们如何以可持续的方式筹集资金。保持预算平衡的纪律尤为重要，尤其是在支出趋势上升的情况下。

评论者常用预算是左倾还是右倾、偏中左还是偏中右来描述预算，但今年的预算可能没那么简单。

我认为，与其说预算偏左或偏右，不如说这是一个向前推进、不断进步的预算。我们决心推动新加坡前进；在这条前进的道路上，确保社会流动性和凝聚力，重要的是确保每个人都能实现向上的进步。先生，我支持这份预算。

议长先生：接下来是傅美霞女士发言。

中午12点20分

傅美霞女士（西海岸选区）：议长先生，2024年预算是一份以广泛支持措施为特色的预算。这些措施包括慷慨援助以应对生活成本压力，以及采取前瞻性步骤，确保新加坡和新加坡人在快速变化的经济和社会环境中继续繁荣。

先生，我全力支持今年的预算，感谢政府倾听并响应基层需求。预算中宣布了许多重要的进步举措，如为40岁及以上人士追加4000新元的技能未来信用，以提升技能；以及更好地调整政策，如减轻许多房主因税单激增而承受的物业税负担。

我们甚至看到政策创新，政府为家庭提供育儿临时住房计划券，允许他们在开放市场租赁组屋一年，以缓解家庭等待组屋交付期间对临时住房的强烈需求。

先生，我想重点谈谈预算2024在缓解成本压力、提升新加坡竞争力以及解决退休保障方面的三大重点。

首先，关于成本压力。先生，依托2023财年政府收入好于预期，个人和家庭将受益于19亿新元的保障计划中的现金、代金券和回扣组合。

企业，尤其是中小企业，也将受益于13亿新元的企业支持计划，包含一系列支持措施，包括慷慨的企业所得税50%回扣，最高限额为4万新元，适用于2024财年评估年度。

收入较低者将获得更多，但每个人都有所获益。

先生，我赞赏政府为增强个人和企业现金流所做的努力。然而，我们必须谨慎调整补贴，确保其可持续性，因为人们可能随着时间推移依赖这些补贴。未来可能面临挑战，难以让他们放弃对广泛支持的期望。

此外，为缓解居民因通胀上升而提供的慷慨直接转移支付，讽刺的是，可能会进一步增加需求，逆转通胀初现的缓和迹象。

去年，我曾提出类似担忧，认为政府补贴可能推高需求，导致价格恶性上涨。帮助人们应对成本上升是值得的政策，但必须权衡延长通胀压力的风险。毕竟，如果补贴导致通胀长期居高不下，持续发放援助将不可持续。因此，我呼吁政府密切关注这一点。

接下来，提升新加坡竞争力。议长先生，副总理黄循财宣布未来十年GDP增长目标为2%至3%。去年经济仅增长1.1%，低于前一年的3.8%。实际收入十多年来首次下降2.2%。新加坡在全球新发展时代的持续增长并非必然。

我们面临国际税收环境的挑战，全球最低税率法规即将实施，全球各国争夺高质量投资。

先生，新加坡已从贸易港发展为全球金融中心、物流枢纽及制造业基地。为实现下一阶段增长，我们需转向高附加值、创新型经济发展。

这一转变需要我们技能和能力的深刻变革，远超以往成功经验。

在技术迅速发展的时代，我们必须重点培养创新、研发、数字化和人工智能领域的技能。这些领域具有变革潜力，可推动经济发展，但需要新型产业和专业人才，精通这些前沿领域。转型的规模不可小觑。我们不仅是采用新技术，更是重塑经济结构。

因此，2024年预算合理地拨出130亿新元用于能力建设——包括提升生产力、研发创新、绿色转型和人工智能转型。

副总理黄循财宣布推出更新的激励工具箱，包含新的财政计划，如可退还投资抵免计划，并追加现有基金以进一步提升能力。这是帮助企业应对短期挑战资金的十倍。

然而，先生，许多举措的效果取决于其被采纳的程度。必须付出巨大努力促进使用，以实现各计划的预期效果。

例如，尽管技能未来计划已推出近十年，只有三成新加坡人使用过技能未来信用。利用研发补助的企业数量不足，中小企业仍难以理解众多计划及其复杂繁琐的申请流程。

先生，尽管我持续敦促政府加大刺激采纳力度——这是我将在财政部长辩论中深入探讨的话题——最终企业和员工必须抓住机会，为自己开创更光明的未来。可用的支持计划是跳板，跃进的动力在于我们自己。

踏上转型之旅犹如准备攀登未知的新山峰。这旅程迫使我们穿越陌生地形，克服攀登任何有价值高峰的固有障碍。

我们欣慰地知道，在这旅程中我们并不孤单。可用的支持计划如同工具、地图和安全装备，确保我们的攀登不仅成功，而且安全可靠。

这些资源旨在帮助我们应对变革的复杂性，在每一步提供指导、培训和支持。但最终，只有我们自己能攀登山峰；装备本身无法代劳。

接下来，退休保障。议长先生，2024年预算包含卓越举措，进一步提升退休保障，如“前进计划”、加强配对退休储蓄计划、银发援助计划增强等。但遗憾的是，关闭55岁及以上公积金特别账户的宣布引起了最多关注。

虽然我支持政府此举的理由，但特别账户的突然关闭影响了许多中产阶级长者。根据既定公积金规则，他们系统性地储蓄并信赖该计划积累退休资金。

许多人依赖公积金储蓄作为退休资金的主要来源。这一突如其来的变化扰乱了他们的退休规划。作为政策举措，如果政府能为现有55岁及以上公积金成员保留特别账户，可能更为公平。

先生，对我而言，公积金框架内最令人振奋的发展是增强退休储蓄额（ERS）提高至基本退休储蓄额的四倍，2025年达到42.6万新元。

多年来，我一直倡导提高ERS，使公积金终身年金（CPF LIFE）更好地满足中产阶级新加坡人的退休需求，特别是那些将公积金作为主要退休规划来源的人。这对公积金服务中产阶级至关重要。

维持退休生活水平所需收入的经验法则通常涉及替代退休前收入的一定比例。普遍建议退休人员需约70%至80%的退休前收入以维持生活水平。这个70%至80%的估计考虑了某些支出减少，如通勤、工作相关费用或按揭付款，同时预期医疗保健或休闲活动等支出增加。

若以当前中产阶级全职工作居民的月中位收入约5200新元计算，新的ERS预计月支付约3300新元，约为收入替代率63%，低于中产阶级建议的70%至80%。这较当前月支付2530新元显著增加，后者仅替代约49%的中位收入。

先生，推出新的ERS是缩小中产阶级退休保障差距的重要一步，这是我多年来持续呼吁的议题。

公积金终身年金不应专为富裕人士量身定制，但必须作为低收入和中产阶级长者的主要退休收入来源，确保他们在晚年拥有财务安全和安心。

最后，先生，关于财政空间和资金补充。

先生，在审视2022和2023财年的预算状况时，我想就几个方面寻求澄清。

首先，关于政府对财政预测的问责。2022财年最终财务结果与初步预测显著偏离，预计赤字20亿新元，最终却实现盈余17亿新元。

2023财年，尽管收入较预期增长7.9%，超过1040亿新元，但财政赤字修订为36亿新元，较早前预计的4亿新元赤字大幅扩大。

鉴于这些情况，我想询问政府如何预测收入和支出，以确保决策的可预测性，例如是否需要加税以实现预算平衡。

其次，2023财年和2024财年分别有243亿新元和204亿新元资金用于补充捐赠基金和信托基金。

我赞赏政府展现的财政纪律，将资金预留用于未来承诺的项目，避免未来预算和世代负担，但我想就几个方面寻求澄清。

首先，各基金的提款率。其次，政府如何决定支出应由基金和捐赠基金拨付，而非运营预算。此外，我还想了解未提取金额如何处理，以及如何优化各基金的提款以平滑支出。先生，基于此，我支持预算案。

议长先生：Poa Hazel 女士。

中午12时36分

Poa Hazel 女士（非选区议员）：议长先生，或许今年预算案中最值得注意的是，在没有宣布任何额外重大加税的情况下，向新加坡人提供了大量支持措施。这对仍在努力应对高生活成本和不确定就业环境的许多新加坡人来说，无疑是极大的安慰。

我将首先谈谈支持措施，以及我们如何采取更大胆的步骤帮助新加坡人应对不断上涨的生活成本。随后，我将讨论进步新加坡党（PSP）对预算中支持终身学习和开发新加坡人潜力的提案的看法。

先生，我们这些深入基层的人都知道，生活成本上升是新加坡人最关心的问题，我们去年11月在议会对此进行了长时间的辩论。许多新加坡人感到工资跟不上物价上涨，导致焦虑和不安全感。这种感受在工资统计数据中得到了体现。扣除通胀后，2022年实际工资仅增长0.4%，但2023年上半年则下降了4.5%。

此外，衡量通胀的消费者物价指数（CPI）并未考虑贷款还款。这意味着利率上升导致的按揭和其他贷款还款增加未被计入通胀和实际工资增长的计算中。

政府的回应是提供补贴和回扣，帮助家庭短期应对，例如保障计划。虽然这些短期支持措施值得欢迎，但PSP一贯认为，这些并非解决生活成本上升根本原因的长期方案。

诚然，价格上涨受全球因素影响，如油价、食品价格、疫情、战争或气候变化导致的供应链中断，但也存在推动价格上涨的国内因素。这些国内因素包括我们的房价、配额证（COE）价格、人口政策和政府税收。

今天，我只谈房价和政府税收，关于COE和人口政策的讨论留待他日。简言之，COE增加了我们的交通成本，人口政策影响所有商品和服务的整体需求，从而对所有价格施加压力。

生活成本上升的一个根本原因是租金上涨。

在零售业，租金约占营业成本的30%。这意味着当你走进商店购买产品时，该产品成本的30%来自商铺租金，这还未包括供应商的租金成本，这些成本已计入销售商品成本。同样，在餐饮业，租金约占营业成本的27%。因此，租金对大多数新加坡人的生活成本有重大影响。

PSP再次呼吁政府采取行动，遏制新加坡商业租金的过度上涨。首先，可以发布合理年度租金增长的指导方针，类似于国家工资理事会（NWC）发布的工资增长指导。

如果能控制租金增长率，不仅对新加坡人有利，也将惠及企业。

此外，政府是新加坡最大的土地所有者，对房地产市场具有重大影响力。如果有政治意愿，可以推动市场朝其期望方向发展。

生活成本上升的另一个根本原因是房价。对我们大多数人来说，买房是毕生最大的一笔支出。PSP提出了“可负担住房计划”，即首次购房者购买组屋时，房价不包含土地成本部分，但在出售时才支付。这将大大减轻年轻人的住房负担，使他们更容易积累退休储蓄。甚至可能让部分人有余地在职业上冒险，追求创业梦想，而不被高额按揭束缚。

政府税收构成生活成本的一部分，最明显的是商品及服务税（GST）。

在2022年预算中，副总理黄循财表示，随着人口老龄化，医疗支出增加，预计2030年将达到270亿新元。因此，需要提高GST以资助预期的医疗支出增长。如果医疗支出如预期达到270亿新元，且全部由GST资助，则GST需在2030年前再提高约3.5%，达到约12.5%。

政府是否会分享是否有进一步加税计划以资助医疗支出增长？

目前，政府通过现金补助、回扣和代金券帮助新加坡人应对GST和生活成本上涨，导致大部分人口现在定期领取政府援助。

任何社会都会有不同收入水平的人，政府向低收入家庭发放补助是正常的。但如果大部分人口需要政府援助来应对生活成本，这就不是健康的状况。我们也应警惕大部分人口习惯于接受政府援助成为常态。

提供援助应对生活成本可能是较容易的途径，但我们必须着眼于采取措施控制成本。

首先，我们要求政府重新考虑将一系列基本必需品免征GST。我们可以列出具体产品，而非广泛类别，以减少分类问题，并限制价格水平至低中收入家庭普遍消费的范围。随着GST税率上升，这一措施的必要性将更加迫切。

政府目前对土地销售收益的处理方式及组屋定价也增加了纳税人的负担。组屋必须向新加坡土地管理局（SLA）支付用于建屋的土地费用。这些土地销售收益随后被锁定在过往储备中，并由大量政府拨款支付。这些政府拨款必须由纳税人承担。换言之，税款被征收后又被锁定在储备中。

为了让组屋更负担得起，还向购屋者发放额外补助。这些补助也必须由纳税人支付。

我曾建议将土地销售收益视为租赁期内分摊的收入。令人欣慰的是，首相在本月初的公共财政辩论中承认这并非不可想象的提议。鉴于此措施可减轻新加坡人的税负，我希望政府认真考虑。

除了控制成本，应对生活成本上升的另一途径是提高工资，确保工资跟上成本上涨的步伐。实现这一目标的主要方式之一是教育和培训。

在谈教育前，我声明我拥有一家私立教育公司。

PSP支持为40岁及以上新加坡人推出的SkillsFuture升级计划，该计划包括4000新元学分、另一全日制文凭课程的补贴及全日制学员的培训津贴。我们相信全日制培训更有效提升工人就业能力。这些政策也将帮助中年工人更容易转行，进入更好或更多的就业领域。

然而，我们对临时失业者财务支持计划的细节仍未准备好感到失望。

裁员日益普遍。临时财务支持对寻求新工作的被裁员工极为有益。该计划的任何延迟实施都会对被裁员工产生实际影响。我们希望政府尽快敲定该计划。

此外，如果被裁员工在被裁几个月后决定参加全日制培训，我们希望其培训津贴金额不受失业期间影响。我们请求政府确认其培训津贴将基于其最后的工资发放。

副总理黄循财在预算演讲中宣布，确保工艺教育学院（ITE）毕业生的工资和职业前景不应远低于理工学院和大学生。他随后宣布新的ITE进阶奖，为报名文凭课程的ITE毕业生的高等教育账户提供5000新元补充；并为获得理工文凭的ITE毕业生提供1万新元公积金补充。

我们全力支持帮助ITE毕业生的初衷，但认为ITE进阶奖未能完全实现该目标。

目前，每年约有4000名ITE毕业生（约占ITE毕业生总数的28%）符合理工学院入学资格，且约有4000名ITE毕业生入读理工学院。由于大多数符合资格者已选择升读文凭课程，该奖项鼓励更多人升学的空间有限。

5000新元的教育账户补充确实减轻了ITE毕业生报读文凭课程的经济负担；但1万新元的公积金补充则效果较小，且实际上是发放给已不再是ITE毕业生，而是特定文凭持有者群体。

这引发了文凭持有者之间的公平问题。仅根据进入理工学院的途径不同，给予部分文凭持有者1万新元补助，而不给予其他人，可能引发争议。

我们认为，更好的帮助ITE毕业生方式是：第一，帮助更多ITE毕业生符合理工学院入学资格。入学要求可审视，认可相关工作经验的价值，而非仅看平均绩点（GPA）。选择参加“O”水准考试以符合理工学院资格者也应获得支持。可通过推广或扩大ITE通识教育课程，或为以私人考生身份参加考试者提供教育补助。

第二，帮助已报名文凭课程者顺利完成学业，开设桥接课程弥补ITE课程与“O”水准课程之间的差距。去年7月《今日报》引述学生表示需要数学和作文等方面的桥接课程。

上述支持措施也应扩展至那些尚未完成ITE课程即辍学，但现希望重返教育体系提升技能或学历者。

PSP希望政府考虑我们的建议，共同寻找更持久的解决方案，帮助新加坡人应对生活成本上升的挑战。

先生，进步新加坡党支持2024年预算案。

议长先生：Joan Pereira 女士。

中午12时50分

Joan Pereira 女士（丹戎巴葛）：议长先生，我感谢预算案中协助家庭应对眼前挑战并更有信心面对未来的措施。

全球紧张局势和冲突加剧了供应短缺并扰乱物流链，商品和服务价格大幅上涨，预计还将继续上涨。不幸的是，我们工人的工资难以跟上价格上涨和通胀的步伐。

面对不确定的全球经营环境、优先事项的竞争以及预算平衡的需求，我欢迎财政部决定为低收入群体和有老人及儿童的大家庭提供更多援助。

低收入和中等收入家庭会感到欣慰的是，60亿新元的GST代金券基金追加拨款将确保他们永久抵销GST支出。许多人还将获得生活费特别补助、U-Save回扣和服务及维护费（S&CC）回扣；继最近发放的500元社区发展理事会（CDC）代金券后，额外600元的代金券也令人感激。

在此，我希望政府考虑将此批或未来批次的代金券与每户人数挂钩。如果三代或四代同堂或大家庭住在同一地址，可能是出于经济限制。因此，更有理由实行基于人数的CDC代金券制度。另一方面，如果同住是为了相互照顾和支持，家庭也不应因此受到惩罚。

今天，我想借此机会呼吁为“夹心阶层”提供更多中长期支持——即必须照顾子女和年迈父母，同时为自己退休需求做准备的群体。我们必须考虑寿命延长，这意味着他们需要更长时间支持父母，同时自己也将成为老年人。家庭是社会最重要的单位，我们需要继续为这一群体提供相关支持，以保障我们的家庭和社会。

提高的家庭人均收入门槛将使更多家庭受惠于医疗和相关社会支持补贴计划，这将受到家庭的欢迎。我也赞赏银发援助计划的提升，该计划为工作期间收入较低且家庭支持较少的长者提供季度付款。我希望能为那些工作期间收入同样较低但与家人同住的长者推出类似计划，尽管他们属于中低收入阶层。此类支持计划也将减轻夹心阶层的负担。

我还想谈谈目前确实需要接送幼儿和年迈父母的家庭——他们需要汽车，但发现拥有汽车负担沉重。政府是否也会考虑调整我们的车辆配额证（COE）制度，以反映汽车使用模式的变化，包括共享汽车服务的兴起，同时继续保持汽车拥有的可负担性，满足有需要家庭的需求？

最后，我想反映关于居住在有地房产的退休人士的反馈。近年来，他们的物业税不断上涨，影响了依靠储蓄生活的这部分长者。虽然年值区间将提高，且允许通过24个月无息分期付款，但部分人仍可能面临财务困难。因此，我建议税务局（IRAS）能审查、与受影响业主讨论并就具体情况提供多种付款选项和替代方案。先生，我用中文说。

（中文）：[请参阅方言发言。]我想反映关于居住在有地房产的退休人士的反馈。近年来，他们的物业税不断上涨，影响了依靠储蓄生活的这部分长者。虽然年值区间将提高，且允许通过24个月无息分期付款，但部分人仍可能面临财务困难。因此，我建议税务局（IRAS）能审查、与受影响业主讨论并就具体情况提供多种付款选项和替代方案。

（英文）：这是一个面向未来的预算，专注于引领整个国家前进，同时不让任何人落后。先生，我在此表示支持预算案。

议长先生：Raj Joshua Thomas 先生。

中午12时57分

Raj Joshua Thomas 先生（提名议员）：先生，我感谢副总理提出的预算案，在我看来，资金投放得当，包括对新加坡人的长期投资。

我今天的发言分两部分。首先，我将谈谈新加坡的工作文化。其次，我将谈论提升蓝领工人工资。

首先，我为政府对工人的投资感到欣慰——通过加强SkillsFuture学分计划和中年技能津贴，以及为成熟工人提供另一全日制文凭课程的补贴。这将帮助确保我们的工人保持相关性和未来竞争力。

但如果工人没有正确的心态，工作文化不利，这些计划将难以见效。

包括新加坡在内的许多国家的工作文化正在发生变化。我欢迎其中一些趋势，比如灵活工作时间和居家办公，因为它们有助于创造适合老龄化人口的工作环境，并支持夫妇多生育孩子。我对其他趋势和建议则持更谨慎态度，比如非常短的工作周和断开工作联系的权利。

许多这些趋势起源于发达经济体。新加坡当然也是发达经济体，但我们与许多其他国家非常不同——其中一些国家拥有可利用的自然资源或腹地。新加坡唯一的资源是我们的人力资源，所有成功都建立在此基础上。正如已故李光耀先生所说，我引用：“你了解新加坡人。他是勤奋、刻苦、坚韧的个体；否则我们不会取得成就。”这句话当然还说他也是一个抱怨冠军。但只要他努力工作，就有权利抱怨。

因此，合乎逻辑的是，如果我们的劳动力减弱，我们的竞争力和经济吸引力也会减弱，这威胁到我们持续维持生活方式的能力。因此，在采纳这些趋势时，我们应非常谨慎，评估其对新加坡的可持续性以及将其纳入立法和政策的后果。

以澳大利亚最近颁布的断开工作联系权利立法为例。对《公平工作法》的修正允许员工在工作时间之外拒绝监控、阅读或回应雇主或第三方的联系或尝试联系，且不受处罚。让我们看看这项立法的实际影响。

首先，总会有一些员工选择放弃他们的权利，保持联系。这些人出于各种原因不想断开联系。在这些人中，我们可能会发现未来的组织领导者、未来的企业家、发明家、立志成为高级律师的年轻律师、想要多付出以取悦客户的员工、希望晋升的行政服务人员。努力工作、付出时间和精力是无可替代的。在全球化城市和超级互联的世界中，一个可联系且响应迅速的员工无疑更有价值。

第二，虽然拒绝被联系的员工不会受到惩罚，但保持可联系的员工可能会在绩效评估中获得提升。他更可能获得加薪和晋升，因为组织必须奖励那些对其更有价值且愿意多做的人。

第三，可能会产生紧张关系，因为严格行使权利的员工可能期望自己与放弃权利的员工处于同一水平，而后者则期望因付出更多工作而表现更好。

澳大利亚的立法赋予员工可诉权利断开联系。这意味着更多诉讼和劳资纠纷，而这些问题最终可能难以证明。此类立法带来更多问题和紧张，可能与其潜在好处不成比例。我希望此类立法不会提交本议院审议。

我们应谨慎选择在本议院支持的趋势和时尚，因为它们可能对劳动力的生产力和竞争力产生严重影响。不要忘记“大辞职”潮的兴衰。

有一种趋势提倡对物质成功的反感，仿佛那是一种耻辱，转而支持更轻松的工作态度。过度物质主义当然不好，但我希望这不会演变成对努力工作、抱负或追求成功的反感。我们必须面对现实，许多成功人士的动力来自物质成功，而这种追求可能促成成功企业、就业和新加坡的机会。

因此，让我们鼓励那些想努力工作、想多工作以追求梦想的人，避免在新加坡形成反对工作的文化。

相关地，在上一次会议中，我们就心理健康进行了长时间且非常重要的辩论。我很高兴王副总理表示心理健康是国家优先事项，并将扩大心理健康服务。但我对某些叙述感到担忧，这些叙述暗示心理健康与努力工作是对立且互斥的。我听到有人说：“我不会在这份工作上投入太多，因为我优先考虑心理健康。”是的，过度工作压力会导致心理健康问题。但我相信也有许多人工作非常努力，承担大量专业责任，工作时间艰难，同时心理健康良好。我想本议院许多议员都属于这一类。

因此，在解决工人心理健康的现实问题时，我们应避免支持此类叙述。

我担心新加坡工人可能变得自满，认为我们的生活方式是理所当然的。新加坡并非不可战胜。正如副总理在预算演讲中指出，我们不能自满。我们很脆弱——如果增长缓慢，如去年所见，副总理说，我们将陷入困境，无法改善集体福祉，生活水平将受影响。因此，我们必须不断努力，防范可能负面影响竞争力的趋势和观念。

但同时，努力工作以保持领先地位却不享受生活也毫无意义。我们需要实现平衡。我们不能孤立地生活得好，也不能仅仅努力工作，这不仅仅是工作效率的问题，而是努力工作并生活得好。这是我们应在新加坡人中推广的工作文化。

因此，也许我们可以让工人拥有一切，并将此作为新加坡工人的理想。我对新加坡工人的愿景是：他努力工作，尽力做好本职工作。他为自己的职业成就感到自豪，有信心具备承担未来角色和与外国人才竞争的技能。他获得足够报酬，享有良好的新加坡生活水平，包括与家人共度优质时光和追求个人兴趣。他身心健康。这是一个全面的新加坡工人形象——努力工作，生活美好。

事实上，我鼓励工人将此作为座右铭和网络标签：#workhardlivewell（努力工作，生活美好）。你无需因分享休闲活动、与家人度假或刚买到心仪物品而感到“害羞”。为什么？因为你努力工作，取得了成就，值得拥有。#workhardlivewell。

先生，以上所述，接下来我要谈的是，仍有一些工人努力工作但生活不如应有，主要因为收入不足，也有部分因工作时间长和工作条件所致。他们属于所谓的“体力职业”，即手工性质且入职门槛不高的工作。许多属于渐进工资模式（PWM）行业，如清洁、零售、餐饮、保安和废物管理。我在此声明利益关系，作为保安协会新加坡主席，该协会属于PWM行业的行业协会。

首先，先生，我认为我们需要认识到这些工作需要工人具备一定技能。我们必须承认并接受这些是技术性工作。上周，有关清洁行业强制培训中一门关于洗厕所的SkillsFuture课程在网上引发讨论。一则广泛传播的帖子评论说这些技能可以在国民服役或家里学到。我认为这忽视了重点。仅仅因为有人能在办公桌上养仙人掌，并不意味着他是树艺师或园艺师。

该课程教授工人如何以商业标准清洁厕所。涉及许多内容，从安全措施（如清洁时在厕所外放置警示牌及何时移除），到使用各种清洁设备和化学品（若使用不当可能危险）。还包括基本的保洁检查和时间管理，因为这些工人一天要管理多个洗手间的清洁。因此，我们不应嘲笑他们的工作或培训。

第二，我们应认识到这些工作体力要求高。我挑战反对者去餐厅做服务员，这并不容易。我自己做过。整个班次都要站立，来回走动于餐桌、厨房和酒吧，搬运可能很重的食物和饮料。工作还涉及公共关系，因为你要对顾客友好，可能还需进行一定的娱乐活动。这并不像某些人想象的那么简单。

第三，这些岗位存在严重人手短缺。保安行业估计任何时候短缺8,000至18,000名保安人员。大型活动如一级方程式赛车期间，需求激增，短缺问题更严重。因此，我们需要吸引更多新加坡人进入这些职业，并给予合理报酬。

第四，这些工作对新加坡的现状和未来愿景有重要贡献。新加坡以“干净、绿色、安全”著称，这些均由PWM行业管理。我们是美食天堂，致力成为购物目的地，均属PWM行业。这些行业的工人学历可能不高，但他们为新加坡奇迹贡献巨大，理应获得认可和相应回报。

我读到王副总理去年一月在IPS新加坡视角会议上的演讲时感到非常鼓舞。副总理表示，我们应接受更广义的“好工作”定义，认可技能和能力，而非过分关注学历。副总理强调，这不仅是重塑劳动力市场，更是转变对工作的认知。

我进一步欣慰地看到《前进新加坡》报告将“尊重和奖励每一份工作”列为目标之一。我们不仅要奖励这些岗位的工人，还要提升对其职业的尊重，以平衡各类工作的社会认知。报告还呼吁通过PWM进一步缩小职业间的工资差距。

本预算中也有措施通过渐进工资补贴计划支持PWM，并通过进阶奖支持工艺教育学院（ITE）毕业生。显然，政府优先推动心态转变，使新加坡所有工作都被视为好工作，缩小不同职业工人薪酬差距，我对此表示赞赏。

现有PWM着眼于缩小低薪工人与中位收入之间的差距。我呼吁政府和三方伙伴更进一步，实现奖励与尊重的双重目标。我建议将各PWM行业工人的平均工资长期目标定为与新毕业大学生的平均工资持平。

我之所以提出此建议，是因为《前进新加坡》报告虽涉及提高奖励，但对如何提升尊重度关注不多，主要依靠道德劝导。将体力职业的平均工资与学术导向新毕业生工资挂钩，能更直观地表明两类工作同样值得尊重，或能引发社会对这些工作的文化转变。

我还希望政府和三方伙伴加快PWM工资增长步伐，让低薪工人也能生活得好，享受新加坡应有的生活水平。虽然PWM已带来显著工资提升，否则不会发生，但我认为还需更进一步。

例如，2024年规定的入门级保安工资为2,650新元。以一名40岁保安为例，扣除公积金后，实得约2,120新元——这笔钱需养家糊口。我不打算重复本议院之前讨论过的最低生活工资计算，但我们应诚实问自己，2,120新元是否足够？这能否让该保安享受我之前设想的新加坡工人生活水平？坦率说，答案是否定的。

但好消息是，未来四年保安工资将快速增长。到2028年，入门级保安最低基本工资将达到3,530新元或以上；保安主管为4,130新元，高级保安主管至少4,430新元。我希望三方伙伴在2028年后谈判保安PWM时，考虑我的建议，将各级保安的平均工资与新毕业大学生工资挂钩。

虽然我的提议在新加坡可能被视为大胆，但在许多发达经济体中这是常态。我的研究显示，瑞典、瑞士、日本和澳大利亚的清洁工、保安和废物管理人员平均工资与新毕业大学生工资相差不远。事实上，废物管理人员和保安的平均工资往往高于新毕业大学生。

因此，新加坡在这些行业支付给工人的工资在可比发达经济体中显得有些异常。

最后，先生，我还希望政府加大力度说服消费者支持工资上涨，愿意为PWM行业提供的服务支付更高价格。正如王副总理在IPS会议上所说，消费者必须愿意为某些商品和服务支付更多，以提升提供者的工资。

我完全赞同副总理的观点，我引用：“我们不能一方面要求同胞提供的服务价格便宜，另一方面又抱怨他们工资太低。这完全矛盾。”

但另一个观察是，最初的几个PWM行业均属于设施管理，主要服务私人公寓和商业楼宇。这些服务的买家实际上有能力承担价格上涨，但遗憾的是，许多买家仍持有这些服务是体力服务、理应便宜的心态，因此不愿意因价值提升而涨价，仍然采取低价采购策略。

在这方面，我希望政府与相关行业协会和工会合作，更多改变买家心态。

综上所述，先生，我希望我们的工人继续保持认识到自身脆弱性的心态。我们必须付出努力以维持生活方式。相应地，努力工作的人，包括体力职业者，应获得应有回报。我希望无论职业和学历如何，我们都能共同享受新加坡的生活水平。维持新加坡竞争力和繁荣的现实是，如果我们想继续生活得好，就必须准备努力工作。努力工作的人应期待获得使其生活美好的回报和尊重。先生，我支持本预算。

议长：刘士豪先生。

下午1时16分

蔡庆伟先生（盛港选区）：议长先生，正如我在预算日当天于《新加坡国内税务局（修订）法案》演讲中所分享的，2023财年确实又是税收创纪录的一年，在过去两年国内税务局的税收大幅增长后，2022财年税收跃升约38%，达到680亿新元。

2023财年的整体运营收入较去年同期增加了133亿新元，达到1043亿新元，这也比去年预算首次公布的预计运营收入高出76亿新元。值得注意的是，这不仅仅是依赖于印花税或车辆配额溢价等波动性收入，而是基于企业所得税、个人所得税以及消费税的创纪录水平，这些税收均持续刷新历史新高。最令人印象深刻的是2023财年企业所得税增长了23%，即使在前一年已大幅增长27%的情况下，企业所得税仍将维持在约280亿新元的历史高位。这并不令人意外，因为一些大型新加坡企业如星展银行和胜科工业均传出创纪录的利润。

对2022财年数据的积极修订也意味着，2022财年不仅没有修订后的42亿新元赤字，反而实现了17亿新元的盈余。虽然2023财年的整体财政状况仍预计为赤字，但这主要是由于特别拨款的增加，尤其是最近纳入的75亿新元“前进计划基金”，如果没有这笔拨款，2023财年本应实现39亿新元的盈余。

将政府创纪录的运营收入和改善的财政状况置于2023年我们所面临的严峻经济环境中来看尤为重要。国内生产总值增长放缓至仅1.1%，而通胀成为许多新加坡人关注的焦点，这也是工人党去年底在议会提出生活成本动议的原因，旨在通过政策变革分享减轻生活成本压力的想法和可能性，其中许多是结构性的。

秉持提供建设性反馈和建议的主题，我有两项收入措施建议政府考虑，这基于我对过去几年收入和支出趋势的研究。这将是对我和同事们在过去预算辩论中提出的增加收入措施的补充，例如我之前提出的财富税问题，尽管我们可能已经提高了最高个人所得税档和物业税，但那些通过其庞大财富获得股息和资本利得收入的富裕个人，同时在新加坡租住豪华公寓，仍未被直接征税。

首先，查看2018财年至2024财年作为国内生产总值百分比的税收收入（见表3.2b），多年来，关税和消费税作为GDP的贡献比例有所下降，尽管去年烟草消费税提高且碳税纳入该类别。符合财富税精神，有空间研究对酒类按从价税征税的可能性，考虑到我们提出提高所谓“罪恶税”的建议。这不必导致日常酒精饮料税率上升，但如果世界上那些售价轻易达到数千新元一瓶的“高档”葡萄酒征收比超市售价20新元一瓶的葡萄酒更高的消费税，将更为公平。

其次，我注意到赌场税在2022年有所提高。尽管如此，过去几年博彩税作为GDP的比例保持在约0.5%的水平。鉴于博彩税自2014年以来未变，有空间考虑提高相关博彩税，这也可起到威慑作用。

接下来进入我今天演讲的主体，我将谈及结构性变革相较于一次性补贴的重要性，强调个人所得税和企业所得税结构性改进的必要性，以更好地支持个人和企业，同时保持我们的税制进步性和现代化，并触及退休保障这一紧迫且重要的话题。

从概念上讲，我认为：第一，重要的是在我们的制度中设立结构性杠杆，而非依赖一次性计划，这些计划可能是新的，也可能需要年复一年地更新，给公务员带来大量行政成本和资源消耗，同时给新加坡人带来很大不确定性；第二，重要的是将资源导向最需要帮助的人，而非向所有人发放普遍补贴，这可能导致预算措施被指为“选举预算”。

以社区发展理事会（CDC）代金券计划为例。虽然我相信所有新加坡人在生活成本危机中都感激现金补贴，但CDC代金券计划从2020年旨在帮助低收入新加坡家庭减轻生活成本，演变为所有新加坡家庭均有资格领取。发放金额多年来也有较大变化，且该计划是否永久存在仍是疑问，若是，是否所有家庭都将继续符合资格，代金券价值又将是多少。

此外，与现有的消费税代金券计划相比，新加坡人在申领CDC代金券时似乎面临许多操作上的挑战，例如租住公寓且与其他家庭共用同一地址者、住在收容所者，以及无疑属于同一家庭但家庭关系困难者。

关于个人所得税，我注意到2024课税年度引入了相当于应纳税额50%或最高200新元的税收回扣，类似于2019课税年度。然而，与其一次性回扣，我们更应提高边际居民个人所得税的低端税率，并提高首2万新元应纳税收入的免税额，以反映通胀，这是我在2022年议会质询中提出的建议。

同样，关于企业所得税，2024课税年度将向所有纳税公司，无论是否为税务居民，授予相当于应纳企业税额50%的回扣。在我2021年《所得税（修订）法案》演讲中，我建议提高企业所得税制度的进步性，以更好地支持本地中小企业。

即使其他支持企业能力建设的措施正在加强，我希望政府考虑为本地中小企业提供更大税收减免，例如提高免税限额或引入类似香港2018年推出的两级利润税率制度，特别减轻中小企业的税负。

这很重要，因为2018年预算中政府宣布对我们的免税计划实施更严格限制。例如，一家中小企业若有30万新元应纳税收入，按旧规则缴纳的企业所得税约为2.5万新元，税率约为8.4%；而按新规则，缴税额接近3.4万新元，税率约为11.2%。

将此类企业所得税改革纳入税制也将提供更大确定性，而非当前企业所得税回扣在过去十年间从20%到50%不等，回扣上限从1万新元到4万新元波动。

确保我们持续投资于本地中小企业至关重要，它们是我们经济的支柱，占所有企业的99%，提供71%的就业岗位，使新加坡在后BEPS时代保持竞争力。否则，若本地中小企业因新商业环境而将更多活动转移至其他司法管辖区，我们可能面临税基和就业水平下降。

谈及BEPS 2.0，我在过去预算辩论中也曾提及，调整我们的税制的时机终于到来。副总理黄循财也宣布引入支柱2的两个组成部分，即收入纳入规则和国内补充税。

正如我去年所问，虽然精确数字可能难以获得，财政部是否有关于实施国内补充税影响的蓝天和灰天预测范围？尤其是考虑到收入纳入规则和国内补充税将在不到一年的时间内生效，适用于2025年1月1日或之后开始的企业财年？

为使我的问题更具背景，经济合作与发展组织（OECD）今年早些时候发布的一份工作报告指出，全球最低税率“每年可增加1550亿至1920亿美元的企业所得税收入，所有司法管辖区均将受益”。此外，被归类为“投资枢纽”的参与国，包括新加坡，预计将从改革中获得最大收益，企业所得税收入将从最低14%提升至最高34%。如果这不准确，鉴于财政部有更好的估算基础，我希望副总理能在总结发言中予以纠正。

然而，副总理在预算演讲中表示，他不预期新措施会带来“净收入增长”，因为“保持竞争力需要大量支出”。如此说法无异于说任何形式的税率上调，从个人所得税、印花税到消费税，都不会带来净收入增长，因为支出需求更高。

我理解这可能与可退还投资抵免的引入有关，BEPS 2.0与可退还投资抵免的净效应在一定程度上也取决于经济发展局和企业发展局向公司授予这些抵免的慷慨程度。

我同意，实际收入增长只有时间能证明，我们期待支柱2在全球范围内的推广，但如果各国违背改革精神，那将是令人遗憾的一天。

BEPS 2.0改革旨在阻止主权税收政策的竞相压低，促进国际合作以终结避税。让我重申，OECD表示通过两支柱方案，所有经济体都将受益于额外税收——所有经济体。我希望BEPS 2.0带来的额外税收不会实质上以其他形式返还给跨国企业。

最后，让我谈谈一个我非常关心的话题——退休保障。这也是一个紧迫且需要果断行动的问题，鉴于我们社会迅速老龄化。虽然有若干改善退休保障的良好举措，如提高延迟退休金（ERS）、加强银发支持计划和医疗储蓄计划（MRSS），但我担忧55岁后关闭公积金特别账户（SA），以及缺乏帮助新加坡人可持续增长退休储蓄的长期措施。

我本身并不反对关闭特别账户，但这在确保新加坡人退休保障方面是倒退，我们需要做很多工作，真正加强今天和未来老年人的退休保障。

当强制年金计划CPF LIFE推出时，特别账户仍为公积金持有人提供灵活性，允许他们访问或“动用”退休储蓄，同时提供4%的体面利率底线。

副总理黄循财在预算演讲中说：“剩余的特别账户储蓄将转入普通账户（OA）。当然，成员可以随时自愿将普通账户储蓄转入退休账户（RA），最高至修订后的延迟退休金限额，以赚取更高利息并获得更高退休金支付。”但这真的是全部情况吗？

新加坡人知道，退休账户的资金将用于支付CPF LIFE计划的保费，意味着我们不能随意提取这些资金。确实，从55岁到例如65岁支付年龄，这些退休账户资金仍享有与特别账户相同的4%利率底线。到此为止还算不错。但许多人不知道的是，从支付开始时起，任何利息收入不会归属于公积金持有人，而是集中在CPF LIFE下的所有成员共同池中。

公积金局的一份常见问题解答明确指出，CPF LIFE保费产生的利息不包括在成员去世时支付给受益人的金额中。我理解这是年金计划的概念，旨在让成员获得终身支付。但这也意味着，尽管特别账户和退休账户的名义利率相同，两个账户实际获得的收益率却截然不同。根据新加坡人的最新平均预期寿命，退休账户储蓄的有效收益率不太可能超过原本在特别账户中的资金。

此外，每当我在议会提出公积金利率问题时，各政治官员的回应都是强调过去二十年低利率环境下，普通账户2.5%、特别账户、医疗储蓄账户和退休账户（SMRA）4%的无风险利率底线的吸引力。55岁后关闭特别账户使这些反驳理由失色。

正如副总理黄循财提醒我们的，我们正面临从极低利率向更正常化、利率长期较高且宽松货币时代结束的环境转变。正是在这一重大变化背景下，我们应审视未来的公积金利率。我们应如何让数学和复利法则为老年人的退休资金发挥作用？

我坚持本月早些时候在储备动议中所说的，即让所有新加坡人，而不仅仅是我们的储备，直接参与政府基金管理者GIC的长期回报，并设立适当的保障措施。这一点尤为重要，因为GIC的资金来源部分间接来自通过新加坡储蓄债券（SSGS债券）的公积金储蓄。

正如我所分享，基于GIC投资组合20年名义回报率6.9%和公积金普通账户2.5%的利率，按照简单的72法则，我们的公积金资金翻倍所需时间从基于GIC回报的约10年，延长至基于现行普通账户利率的29年。这对我们为退休储蓄的能力影响巨大。

我听部长Indranee Rajah解释，2014年时任副总理Tharman在议会详细说明了我们如何设定公积金利率和管理公积金收益。我查阅了相关议会记录，发现我并非第一个提出此问题的人。时任副总理Tharman的解释是回应人民行动党议员Inderjit Singh的质疑，后者也质疑我们支付给公积金普通账户的2.5%利率是否公平，考虑到新加坡人长期锁定储蓄。

事实上，回溯更早，许多人民行动党、工人党议员和非选区议员都建议让普通新加坡人获得政府投资实体如GIC的更好投资回报。人民行动党议员Lily Neo呼吁公积金局与GIC合作，或许将利率定在比GIC回报低两个百分点。非选区议员Siew Kum Hong引用一篇学术论文称：“鉴于GIC的投资回报高于实际计入公积金成员的回报，公积金成员承担了一种反复出现的、高度累退的、隐性的公积金财富税。”人民行动党议员Ong Kian Min和Sim Boon Ann呼吁政府与公积金成员分享公积金盈余。Ong议员甚至说：“我无法理解政府为何说不负责我的退休保障，但我必须将退休储蓄借给政府投资，且任何收益都不属于我。”工人党议员Sylvia Lim也呼吁政府在管理风险的同时，采取更多措施提升公积金回报，特别是在2002年经济审查委员会建议通过私人养老金计划后。

这些都是前辈们的智慧之言，二十年后仍深深触动我。若当时采纳这些建议，今天有多少新加坡人能达到退休储蓄目标，而非如今的四成或五成？

如果政府仍坚持不愿或无法让新加坡人分享GIC的基金管理专业知识和回报，那么我们至少应紧急实施终身退休投资计划（LIRS），这是我过去三年每年都重复呼吁的，以更好支持新加坡人的退休需求。

让我们记住，八年前的2016年，当时的人力部长林瑞生先生代表政府接受了公积金咨询小组报告第二部分中的建议，其中包括引入LIRS作为额外的投资计划。引用当时林部长的话：“这些额外的选项将有助于解决一些新加坡人关于退休生活成本上升的担忧，以及那些必须承担一定投资风险者对更高预期投资回报的渴望。”

我们今天的一位议员，Saktiandi Supaat先生，也是公积金咨询小组的一员，主席陈楚传教授明确指出了公积金投资计划（CPFIS）的局限性，并恰当地表达了“咨询小组认为有必要提供一个额外的投资途径，以更简单的方式帮助这些公积金成员获得比公积金利率更高的预期回报，而不是通过CPFIS。”

我最大的疑问是，政府何时才能最终准备好推出这一计划？政府是否仍然准备这样做？我希望政府意识到，拖延越久，新加坡人的退休储蓄机会成本和实际成本就越高。

最后，议长先生，我感谢政府在又一个创纪录的高营业收入基础上，为新加坡人和新加坡企业提供一次性福利和补贴，这些收入比去年高出130亿新元。然而，我们必须在系统中建立结构性杠杆，而不是依赖一次性计划，我已建议对个人和企业所得税制度进行改革以说明这一点。最后，我们都认同加强新加坡人退休保障的紧迫性，因此让我们不要将新加坡人排除在吸引人、可持续且实用的退休资金增值方案之外。

议长先生：Darryl David先生。

下午1时34分

Darryl David先生（宏茂桥）：议长先生，阁下，2024年预算是在全球重大不确定性背景下制定的。新加坡仍然容易受到我们无法控制和影响的宏观力量的影响。虽然我们对全球发展保持谨慎关注，但我很高兴今年的预算体现了政府对“前进新加坡”运动的承诺，针对新加坡人关注的领域推出了具体且有针对性的支持。

阁下，我将重点谈三个主要方面：（一）政府如何完善针对55岁以下新加坡人的额外买家印花税（ABSD）计划；（二）技能未来和继续教育与培训（CET）；（三）教育部（MOE）如何加强个人学习设备（PLD）计划，覆盖更多学生，特别是小学学生。

首先，支持“年轻长者”并完善ABSD。我特别高兴政府在不确定和成本上升时期，为长者提供额外支持，涵盖养老、医疗和退休。这向包括我这样的年轻长者在内的长者保证，政府将在他们的银发岁月中提供社会安全网，尤其是在他们面临健康恶化和收入减少的双重挑战时。

许多新加坡人渴望拥有私人房产，因为在某种程度上，这是一项具有高潜在回报的投资，可以在他们的晚年释放价值。我很高兴政府现在允许55岁以上的单身长者在缩小居住规模时申请第二套私人房产的ABSD退款。我在2023年7月就此话题提出过议会质询，感谢政府对此政策的回应。

这将使单身长者在晚年更灵活地释放其初期较大或更有价值房产的价值，而无需承担ABSD的财务负担，之前的政策会显著减少他们的退休储蓄。

我认为这是一个重要的政策变革，假设单身新加坡人不太可能拥有已婚长者有子女的经济支持水平。允许他们申请ABSD退款将帮助他们更好地满足退休需求。

同样，我想询问政府是否考虑将相同的ABSD退款计划扩展到较年轻的单身新加坡人，如果他们购买较小的第二套私人房产居住，并在购入第二套房产六个月内出售第一套房产。我相信这项政策将为年轻单身新加坡人在住房选择上提供更多灵活性，尤其是在需要释放私人房产价值以应对突发财务需求时。

针对年轻单身新加坡人的退款政策可以比针对长者的更严格，以防止滥用和牟利。例如，年轻单身新加坡人必须持有第一套房产达到一定年限，方可享受第二套较小房产的ABSD退款，且此类退款可能仅限于一生中申请一次或最多两次。

接下来我将谈谈技能未来和继续教育培训（CET）。除了支持长者的养老、医疗和退休需求外，我很高兴看到政府也加大了对中年新加坡人的关注，推出了技能未来升级计划。特别是，我欢迎4000新元的技能未来信用（中年）补充和中年增强补贴，用于另一项公费全日制文凭课程。

阁下，随着技能寿命迅速缩短，确保新加坡人的技能能够跟上快速变化的行业需求至关重要。曾在淡马锡理工学院工作多年，我相信我们的理工学院和高等教育机构（IHL）有能力设计和开发帮助中年新加坡人提升技能的继续教育课程。

不过，鉴于行业需求变化迅速，我们理工学院和高等教育机构的教育者可能未完全掌握最新的行业知识和见解，难以完全满足行业需求。目前，理工学院和高等教育机构提供的与行业合作开发、共同授课和共同认证的课程非常少。

我呼吁教育部考虑如何激励理工学院和高等教育机构与行业更紧密合作，开展共同认证的就业前培训（PET）和继续教育培训课程。共同授课和共同认证的继续教育培训对中年新加坡人尤为重要，能让他们掌握最新知识，积极影响职业发展。毕竟，参加与领先行业合作伙伴共同认证的课程，向雇主传递了员工从行业顶尖学到知识的强烈信号，而不仅仅是理工学院的教职员工。

同样，我强烈建议理工学院与行业合作伙伴共同创建新的文凭课程，以利用中年增强补贴。与其让中年新加坡人加入已有的就业前培训学生的文凭课程，不如为他们设计专门的行业导向课程，采用不同的教学方法、教学理念和学习成果。

我们必须认识到，成人学习者与青少年或年轻成人的学习需求和学习方式截然不同。将成人学习者放在同一文凭课程中，难以帮助他们获得职业转型或晋升所需的技能，因为两类学习者的行业经验和认知水平差异很大。类似于硕士课程和本科课程在教学方法和风格上的差异，中年新加坡人的文凭课程也必须有不同的设计和教学方式。

我还呼吁政府将中年增强补贴扩展到兼职文凭课程，而不仅限于全日制课程。我相信这将鼓励更多中年新加坡人参加此类课程，因为他们可以在全职工作的同时进行技能提升和再培训。

阁下，我最后谈谈为小学生提供个人学习设备（PLD）。近四年前的2020年6月，我曾发表演讲，敦促教育部考虑向所有新加坡学生，特别是小学生，提供个人学习设备。虽然教育部承诺到2021年底为所有中学生提供PLD，以配合国家电子学习平台学生学习空间（SLS）使用，但教育部现在是否也会考虑为小学生提供PLD？

鉴于过去四年教育科技环境的显著变化，我认为现在是教育部考虑为小学生提供PLD的合适时机。

随着中学PLD采购框架的建立，现在只需将相同的采购框架和财政支持计划扩展到小学生即可。

重申我之前提出的一些观点：为所有学习阶段的学生拥有PLD，是实现新加坡拥抱智能学习雄心的大胆且宏伟的举措。此设备将使各级学生能够随时随地学习，是未来的教科书，所有形式的教育和作业提交都可在统一平台完成。

在早期引入PLD所有权，有助于引导我们的年轻学生养成自主电子学习的观念，鼓励他们从小就掌控自己的学习进度和表现。这无疑将在他们长大后产生连锁反应，尤其当电子学习和随时随地持续学习成为他们的第二天性时。

议长先生，今年的预算延续了以往预算的轨迹，政府为特定群体提供有针对性的支持，帮助他们应对我们所面临的不确定环境。虽然预算很大一部分集中于通过社区发展理事会券、服务与维护费（S&CC）、U-Save和所得税回扣等形式提供短期生活成本支持，但预算也着眼未来，为长者和中年新加坡人提供支持。

随着新加坡预计到2030年成为超级老龄社会，尊严养老成为许多新加坡人最关心的问题之一。我很高兴政府通过“前进新加坡”运动及其推出的相关政策，积极采取措施及早应对这一问题。

我希望政府能加快推出长者支持计划的步伐，并考虑如何更好地满足这批为新加坡早期发展做出巨大贡献的新加坡人的需求。除了增加医疗储蓄账户（Medisave）和通过银发支持计划提供直接财政支持外，我也希望政府能致力于建设强健的本地生态系统，让我们的长者能够有尊严地养老。至此，阁下，我坚定支持本预算案，结束发言。

议长先生：Henry Kwek先生。

下午1时44分

Kwek Hian Chuan Henry先生（芽笼巴鲁）：议长先生，阁下，我支持本预算。今天，我想谈两件事：如何帮助我们的人民在工作中茁壮成长；以及如何支持我们的长者有目的、有尊严地养老。我还将简要谈谈生活成本。

我们多年来在议会讨论失业支持。根据我与芽笼巴鲁居民的对话，这尚未成为他们的首要关注点。作为背景，我的居民中有四成住在私人住宅区。为什么？因为居民相信政府会在困难时支持他们，比如在新冠疫情期间。我还想指出，主要保险公司确实销售失业保险，但投保率不高。

但从概念上讲，我相信新加坡人，包括我自己，如果设计得当，是愿意接受的，因为世界和就业市场变化迅速。两周前，OpenAI以其文本生成视频能力“Sora”震惊世界。Sora能够根据文本提示生成逼真的一分钟视频，视频中的一切都遵循物理定律！想象一下！确保动画中的每个互动都遵守物理规律。这让一些资深好莱坞制片人预测，三到五年内，生成式人工智能可以完成大部分小屏幕电视剧制作。

潜力巨大。但全球包括新加坡的创意专业人士将面临什么？这一故事可在许多行业、许多国家复制。

我们需要做好准备。我们希望我们的人民在这波变革中领先。大多数人同意这一核心理念，但也有许多疑问。谁来支付？我们是否购买保险？可以选择退出吗？如果政府支付，我们都要缴纳多少税？会被滥用吗？个人责任怎么办？

为解决这些疑虑，我们应明确想要什么、不想要什么。当然，我们希望人民在变革面前充满信心。我们必须聚焦核心问题，即大多数人在失业时面临的意外现金流挑战。我们希望这种支持不同于贫困线以下的援助。

目前，我们只在新加坡人耗尽财富和家庭支持后提供援助。但未来，当新加坡人失业时，我们希望他们能专注于再培训和技能提升，给予他们一定的财务安心。失业支持不应仅在储蓄耗尽后才提供。

那么，我们不想要什么？我们不希望出现滥用或逃避个人责任的情况。我们不希望人民做出不明智的职业再培训决策。

结合我居民的意见，我提出一个多层次的失业支持方案，平衡三大社会支持支柱：一是强烈的个人责任感；二是通过保险实现高效风险分摊；三是由政府提供足够支持，且主要由税收资助。

首先谈谈通过保险实现高效风险分摊。我希望我们能看到一个基本而非奢华的失业补助，持续数月，设有终身上限，由失业保险资助，并希望能通过公积金支付保险费。

部分居民也希望有选择退出的自由。当然，我们必须谨慎考虑。如果保费负担得起，加入保险会更容易说服人们。

第二，我们必须保持强烈的个人责任感。由于生活成本差异大，我们应给予人民选择权，管理重大现金流中断时的生活方式。为此，我们可提供以下选项：在有限时间内完全或部分冻结住房贷款及大部分医疗、保险费、税费，帮助缓解现金流；提前发放政府转移支付，如消费税回扣，让他们比其他新加坡人更早获得补贴；允许已有健康公积金余额的新加坡人以公积金抵押贷款。政府还可与理财顾问协会合作，为受影响者提供免费理财咨询。

第三，提供足够的政府支持，主要由税收资助。我希望政府能承担部分保险费用，启动计划。如果某些行业或大型企业大规模裁员，我希望政府能增加月度援助，或延长支付期限，因为当大量人员离开一个行业时，并非人人能迅速转入另一个行业。

简言之，在实施失业支持时，新加坡必须找到自己的前进道路。我们必须确保个人责任、风险共担和政府支持相辅相成，而非相互削弱。

为确保支持，我也希望政府在推出前积极咨询沉默的大多数，谨慎推进，从小规模项目开始，随着时间推移进行评估，因为如果通过增税来资助该计划，纳税人可能会感到疲劳。

现在转谈技能未来。公众普遍支持技能未来的加强。新加坡人非常感激政府为成人提供的每月全日制返校支持。这是本议会成员，包括我本人，多年来一直倡导的。这填补了我们提升和再培训人民技能的关键空白。当然，政府也必须尽最大努力确保大多数行业的技能培训相关且有用。

现在，让我转到第二个话题，关爱我们的长者。我谨代表人民行动党长者组，感谢政府为长者提供了一个A+级的预算，并采纳了许多人民行动党长者组议员的建议。

我也很欣慰政府在我多年来所关注的问题上采取了果断行动：长者的公积金缴费率、让我们的社区更适合长者居住以及鼓励居家护理服务。现在，我们必须迅速落实这些服务，因为我们正面临银发浪潮。此外，我希望政府能考虑以下几点。

首先，快速扩大“Age Well SG”居家护理试点项目。这个想法很简单。我希望政府不仅支持外劳配额，还能在组屋区预留空间，让专业护理人员能舒适地安置在那里，快速响应我们的长者需求，同时避免过高的交通成本。

第二，即使我们提升活跃老龄中心（AACs）的水平，我也希望政府能考虑资助长者常聚集的可信节点的相关服务，比如宗教场所：清真寺、教堂和庙宇。

第三，确保我国长者相关服务生态系统始终关注服务私人住宅区的居民。我们的私人住宅区长者虽然经济条件较好，但仍有护理和情感支持的需求。通过他们，我们也能预见未来新加坡长者的需求。

在结束发言前，我想简要谈谈生活成本。

首先，我希望政府在下一份预算中提供更多生活成本补贴，而不仅仅是这次预算，特别是帮助我们的长者和家庭，包括那些资产丰富但现金紧张的退休人员，尤其是居住在私人住宅区的退休者。

我也希望政府能积极寻找供应端的解决方案和改进措施，以降低营商成本，从而降低生活成本。让我给议员们举几个例子。

一、为缓解人力短缺，我们能否允许企业以合理的征费雇佣更多外劳，作为交换，企业需创造更多灵活的工作安排机会，这将惠及长者、居家妈妈和护理人员？我们能否增加专门建造的宿舍数量，同时允许更多现场宿舍，以确保外劳住宿成本可控？

此外，一旦我们与柔佛实施特别经济区，能否改善人力密集型运营和产业与移民设施的连通性，以便我们能利用更多来自柔佛的人力，日常往返工作？

我们能否进一步激活亲企业小组，识别那些耗费私营部门时间和金钱的繁文缛节，从而减少与政府交易的成本？

最后，我希望政府和议会同仁在通过新法律、法规或要求加强执法时，能考虑生活成本的影响。对许多从事商业的人来说，我们本能地知道更高的质量或服务水平通常意味着更高的成本。许多政府也是如此。

执法公平也需要成本。让我以即将实施的租赁公平框架为例。

是的，法律更精确，但也更复杂。未来，大多数房东将需要律师来起草合同，而不是像现在这样由代理和房东自行处理。未来，每次测量区域发生变化，房东都需聘请测量师。这些都会让房东至少多花几千元。这意味着什么？是的，违规房东更难损害租户利益，但所有消费者都必须承担因租金上涨带来的更高生活成本。

最后，我希望我们能在议会内进行真正的对话，探讨我们辩论的问题和提出的解决方案如何导致生活成本上升、税负加重或政府效率降低。我希望大家在呼吁更多规则、额外研究和议会质询时能更为审慎，尤其当这只是为了在悲剧后表达道德愤慨或向某些更为激烈的选民群体展示美德时。

我完全理解我们在议会发声是为了表达人民的观点。但让我们记住，当我们堆积过多法规和执法时，社会必须承担的真实代价是生活成本的上升，这由沉默的大多数承担。

事实上，我希望未来我们在议会谈论法律时，能明确说明对社会、企业和人民施加的监管和执法成本。基于此，我强烈支持本预算。

议长：梁文韬先生。

下午1时56分

梁文韬先生（非选区议员）：议长先生，2024年预算是一个大预算，因为政府在2023年取得了丰厚的收入。2023年的营运收入比原先估计多出80亿新元，这主要得益于2022年宣布的税收增加、高通胀和高房价。这80亿的超额收入，加上2024年235亿的新加坡投资回报净贡献（NIRC），使得预算中有超过300亿的新元盈余资源可供分配。

因此，政府能够创纪录地拨出超过300亿新元的资本转移，用于补充现有的捐赠基金和信托基金，并设立一些新的基金。正因如此，2024年预算将惠及几乎每一位新加坡人。

然而，捐赠基金和信托基金中的资金将用于未来多年的社会支出，今年只会花费少量资金。人民行动党在三周前的公共财政动议中已解释了捐赠基金和信托基金的运作机制，以及为何对这些基金的资本转移不应视为当年支出。

因此，2024年预算在当年即时支出方面有所不足。虽然我们欢迎19亿新元的保障计划，以及通过调整物业年值区间有效降低2022年宣布的自住住宅物业税增加，但这些支持对于现金紧张的新加坡人应对当前生活成本危机来说远远不够。

政府还决定关闭55岁以上公积金成员的特别账户。这将影响许多新加坡人的退休计划，他们将无法同时享受更高的公积金利率和灵活提取公积金的便利。政府能否告诉我们目前支付给这些特别账户的利息是多少，以及关闭后将节省多少利息支出？

另一方面，我们高兴地注意到，2024年预算已解决了人民行动党在本议院经常提出的一些问题。

首先，政府将为符合条件的家庭提供为期一年的开放市场父母临时住房计划（PPHS）券，支持他们在等待建屋发展局（BTO）组屋期间租赁组屋外的住房。这将极大帮助希望组建家庭的年轻新加坡人，人民行动党对此表示强烈支持。

自2021年预算以来，我们指出，等待BTO组屋的漫长时间是拉低新加坡总生育率的主要因素之一。由于无法快速增加BTO供应，人民行动党一直敦促政府增加租赁组屋数量并改善租赁组屋质量，使年轻新加坡夫妇在等待BTO期间有住所可住。

虽然我们支持PPHS（开放市场）券，但担心该计划可能对不符合PPHS资格的其他新加坡租户产生负面影响。我们敦促政府进一步推动租赁组屋成为未来可行的住房选择。在预算辩论期间，我将解释为何人民行动党的“千禧公寓计划”比PPHS提供券更优越、更全面。

第二，全职工人的本地合格薪金（LQS）将从今年起由1400新元提高至1600新元。我们认可这一LQS的提升，视其为向人民行动党提出的最低生活工资概念迈进的一步。

人民行动党长期倡导为所有新加坡工人设立每月2200新元的最低生活工资，相当于每月1800新元的实得工资。虽然我们支持LQS的提升，但也关注其对中小企业的负面影响，这些企业需要新加坡员工以便雇佣外劳。我们希望政府推出配套措施，尽量减少LQS提升对在高成本环境中运营的中小企业的影响。

第三，将推出新的技能未来升级计划，为中年职业工人提供4000新元的培训额度。我的同事Poa Hazel女士已表示支持。政府现在将技能未来培训项目与更好的就业成果挂钩，这是好事。人民行动党长期认为，技能未来项目每年耗费约十亿新元纳税人资金，但对提升新加坡工人的就业能力贡献甚微。

仍需做更多工作，确保新加坡人获得更多优质高薪工作。为此，我们建议提升技能发展基金，吸引雇主参与，确保工人所接受的培训与提升其当前岗位生产力相关。

议长先生，2024年预算延续了政府传统的“发放补贴”方式。该方式特点是存在约60个支持计划和服务，每个针对特定群体提供短期补贴。然而，针对一个特定社会经济问题，受益人往往需申请多个计划，这常常使受益人感到困惑，这是可以理解的。

例如，在2022年预算中，人力部长举例说明一位年收入27570新元的65岁低收入园林工人。虽然这个数字与人民行动党提出的最低生活工资相当，但这笔收入并非来自单一来源，而是由雇主支付的17400新元基本工资和政府通过七个不同计划支付的10170新元组成，分别是特别就业补贴、年度渐进工资模型奖金、工作补贴、工作特别支付、社区健康援助计划（CHAS）补贴、关怀支持包和U-Save及消费税券。因此，七个计划共同实现了确保该工人有更多收入应对生活成本的社会经济目标。

此外，这种系统可能导致低收入工人自尊心下降，因为他们的基本工资仍然很低，且这些计划缺乏激励他们自我提升的机制。

发放补贴方式还伴随高行政成本，因为有需要的新加坡人通常需要外部帮助才能理清资格规则，申请特定支持。例如，向一位新加坡人发放福利时，社会服务处（SSO）、人民协会、银发世代办公室及许多私人慈善团体往往同时介入。

超过半数的60个计划还需申请。许多有需要的新加坡人已在挣扎，可能没有时间或精力关注自己符合哪些计划资格，即使这些计划能帮助他们。他们也缺乏足够的英语能力理解这些规则。

因此，尽管政府出发点良好，发放补贴方式的复杂性意味着许多有需要的新加坡人可能无法享受众多计划的福利。有些人可能也无法及时获得所需帮助，尤其在紧急情况下更为令人担忧。

人民行动党强烈支持为新加坡人提供更多支持，但纳税人的资金必须激励新加坡人追求更高目标，而非滋生对补贴的依赖。

已故李光耀先生领导下的人民行动党一直避免滋生依赖。相比之下，现今的人民行动党政府依赖一套补贴、折扣和补充的拼凑方案，使低收入新加坡人越来越依赖，而非推动系统性经济改革，如减少房地产市场的寻租行为、加强劳工保护或引入最低生活工资。这套系统是否将新加坡人拖入社会陷阱，而非提供让他们反弹的社会弹簧？

这或许是为何自2011年起人民行动党政府大幅增加社会支出，但新加坡人的财务福祉并未相应改善的原因。

人民行动党政府发放补贴系统的主要弱点是未能赋能个人。

赋能的目标是给予个人主动改善自身生活的手段。人民行动党认为，这始于为个人提供最低水平的支持，然后通过可达成的目标激励他们。

一旦个人达到这些目标，他或她将有动力追求更多。这一过程需要“永久计划”方式，而非发放补贴方式。

人民行动党自2021年首次预算辩论以来一直倡导这一永久计划方式，但政府完全忽视了我的提议。我将重复三项我多次推荐的建议。

首先，我建议在组屋可负担住房计划（AHS）中推迟土地成本计入组屋定价。我们认为，AHS将开启许多潜在积极的社会经济成果。首先，它将立即减轻新加坡人的生活成本压力，使他们在退休时无需降级组屋即可拥有足够的公积金储蓄。最重要的是，这种住房和退休的安心感将惠及所有未来的新加坡人。

有了AHS，我们无需通过匹配退休储蓄计划和偶尔补充公积金账户等方案来增强退休保障。所有这些方案的资源可以整合到一个永久计划，即AHS。

第二，我们建议设立最低生活工资，为每位工作的新加坡人提供永久的最低支持水平。正如人民行动党在2020年宣言中所述，任何诚实工作的人都应有尊严地生活。

最低生活工资是我们应建立的社会标准，不完全与工人生产力挂钩。因此，我们提议政府共同资助最低生活工资。共同资助可来自之前提到的多项补贴计划。

在确保约2200新元的最低毛工资后，我们建议政府设立永久的渐进工资计划，激励所有新加坡工人不断提升技能，争取更高的毛工资。

第三，我们敦促政府设立由政府资助的国家健康保险计划，而非让新加坡人自行支付医疗保险和护理保险保费。为减少道德风险，新加坡人需从医疗储蓄账户自付部分医疗费用。政府可每年通过“更健康新加坡”奖金补充医疗储蓄账户。对于践行健康生活的新加坡人，该奖金将成为可转入退休账户以增加退休收入的医疗储蓄余额。

人民行动党设想，大多数新加坡人将涵盖在少数几个永久计划下，财政部长无需在每年预算中向数百万新加坡人发放补贴。

我们的社会福利和保障结构也可简化整合，聚焦于一小部分仍需超出永久计划帮助的有需要新加坡人，确保他们能迅速获得所需援助。

议长：梁文韬先生，您还有一分钟。

梁文韬先生：议长先生，我已阐述了人民行动党政府的“发放补贴”方式与人民行动党的“永久计划”方式。后者赋能新加坡人，在需要时提供确定的帮助，并通过激励鼓励他们追求更高目标。

人民行动党估计，转向永久计划方式不会显著增加财政资源消耗——因为政府已实施60多个计划，并锁定了数百亿新元于捐赠和信托基金中。

人民行动党相信，我们可以做更多工作来改善公民福祉，应对未来挑战，如气候变化，并支持值得的人道主义事业。

作为世界上最大的主权财富基金之一的拥有者，新加坡人理应拥有能够带来更好生活和更安全未来的更优政策。我们必须意识到，我们有能力和责任为自己、新加坡乃至世界做更多。

议长先生：我们支持预算案，希望这是朝着正确方向迈出的一步。为了国家，为了人民。

议长先生：仅供您参考，我给了您额外的30秒。

梁文韬先生：谢谢您，议长先生。

议长先生：请大家遵守分配给每个人的时间。接下来是萨克提安迪·苏帕特先生。

下午2时17分

萨克提安迪·苏帕特先生（碧山-大巴窑选区）：议长先生，2024年预算案是公平且进步的“前进新加坡”预算，延续近年来预算的总体主题——进一步改善社会经济平等，同时不抑制经济增长。

这一目标说起来容易，但要找到正确的平衡点却很棘手。在追求平等与增长的过程中存在相互权衡。同时，确保没有人被遗忘也非常重要。

虽然我听到并读到一些反对意见，但我选区居民的普遍反馈是，预算发放慷慨，他们能看到政府正试图从社会中的富裕群体向新加坡的低收入和中等收入群体转移更多资源。但信息很明确。借用两年前副总理黄循财的话说，“那些拥有较少的人，将获得更多”。

然而，我也意识到我们的预算限制，更重要的是，我们需要关注未来的可持续性问题——尤其是我们的收入以及未来的支出计划。

我将就三个选定领域谈谈我们在经济和社会领域提升平等的举措，这些领域相互强化。第一，提升交通福利，支持中产及中上阶层。第二，保护弱势群体。第三，关于我们维持经济增长的双管齐下策略——吸引投资和人才到新加坡；以及促进本地企业发展。

议长先生，请允许我用马来语发言。

（马来语）：[请参阅方言发言。]今年，政府继续努力使新加坡成为更公平的社会。就像往年一样，成功者将为较弱势和能力较低者多做贡献。副总理黄循财宣布的针对年轻工艺教育学院毕业生通过工艺教育学院进阶奖和面向40岁及以上新加坡人的SkillsFuture提升计划攻读文凭资格的措施，受到欢迎。对学前教育费用的支持以及为符合条件的租住组屋的家庭提供一年的育儿临时住房计划券也非常重要且受欢迎。

然而，日常开支中一个尚未得到针对性关注的重要方面是交通和医疗费用。我的发言将重点关注交通成本。新加坡私人车辆的拥有和维护成本被认为是世界上最高之一。即使是公共交通，票价在2023年9月每程上涨了10至11分，未来几年也可能出现类似涨幅。然而，与其他主要城市相比，我们的交通成本仍相当低，政府提供支持以减少票价上涨对通勤者的影响，并确保我们的基础设施和交通网络保持现代化。

请问2023年12月宣布的公共交通券（PTV）是否能够帮助受益者抵消2023年的票价上涨100%？更重要的是，我建议政府考虑将公共交通的定向支持范围扩大，超出人均家庭收入（PCHI）1600新元或以下的人群。未来我们能否将PTV作为预算转移的一部分，比如社区发展理事会（CDC）券，帮助更多新加坡人？

公共交通援助更可能惠及低收入和中等收入群体，而高收入群体通常较少使用公交和地铁。然而，如果此类援助能鼓励高收入者使用公共交通而非私人交通，这仍将有助于我们的可持续交通目标。我在大巴窑有一位居民，需要公共交通券帮助他去参加工作面试以及前往较远的工作地点。有些中等收入者被裁员，正在找工作，但需要临时交通费用援助。因此，我希望政府能推出交通费用援助，形式为针对被裁员且正在找工作的人员的临时财政支持计划。

（英语）：我们也必须支持中上收入群体，而不仅仅是低收入群体。他们同样面临成本上涨，但可能获得的福利不及低收入和中等收入群体。

2024年预算中也向中上收入群体提供的措施之一是SkillsFuture的增强。如果我们希望持续技能提升成为社会契约的关键支柱，这一点是正确的。

然而，中上收入群体利用这些针对40岁以上追求文凭、学位或认证的具体增强措施的可能性有多大？我们是否有按收入十分位划分的SkillsFuture学分使用数据？这些趋势告诉我们什么？我们是否会调整方法，确保技能提升成为全社会的运动？

我们还必须确保SkillsFuture等计划不被滥用。部分原因是我们不希望不需要帮助的人利用这些项目牟利，转移本应帮助有需要者的资源。令人震惊的是，2017年4月至10月间，一个犯罪集团欺诈性地骗取了近4000万新元的补助。虽然涉案主要人员均被判处13至17年监禁，我们今天是否仍在采取措施追回仍然损失的2100万新元？

我也欢迎对业主自住住宅物业税率的年值（AV）区间进行调整。2022年初物业税上调时，市场租金飙升的幅度尚不可预见。城市重建局（URA）私人住宅租金指数从2022年第一季度到2023年第四季度上涨了35.3%。因此，更多中上收入的业主看到其物业的年值和物业税账单增加。

对于业主自住住宅，这些业主并未直接受益于租金上涨，因为他们没有出租物业。结果，他们变得更贫困，因为必须支付更高档次的物业税。鉴于新加坡市场租金的波动性，是否会更频繁和定期审查物业税结构？更根本的是，是否到了停止将业主自住住宅物业税与年值挂钩的时机，而年值又是基于市场租金水平？

第二，我们追求社会经济平等显然必须包括保护弱势群体。我将重点谈两个弱势群体。

首先是我们的长者，包括现在和未来的长者。感谢副总理黄循财持续关注新加坡人的退休保障——尤其是在我去年几乎整篇预算演讲以及2022年预算演讲中都专注于此话题之后。政府支持提高长者的公积金缴存率，提高基本退休保障（ERS）以及增强支持计划，如银发支持计划和配对退休储蓄计划（MRSS），将帮助长者积累退休资金，体面地退休和养老。

关于取消55岁以上人士的特别账户，我理解此举将消除一种“规避”手段——即较富裕的公积金成员能够在特别账户和退休账户中保留超过其ERS的金额，并对该金额获得4%的较高利息。请问，在今年之前，有多少百分比的公积金成员的特别账户加退休账户余额超过其ERS？

但现在特别账户将被关闭，超过ERS的资金将被转回只获得2.5%利息的普通账户。我们注意到了这一点。政府是否愿意重新考虑普通账户的利率机制？

一个建议是，除了目前参考的三大本地银行外，纳入一些符合条件的全功能银行。这可能会改变利率水平，更能反映新加坡的融资状况。另一个建议是考虑银行提供的促销利率，而不仅仅是挂牌利率。虽然消费者可能需要满足某些条件才能享受促销利率，但这不应成为拒绝公积金成员获得更高普通账户回报的理由——尤其考虑到公积金局获得投资资金的规模和确定性。

政府当然可以随后对利率应用一定的负信用利差或轻微折扣，以反映将资金存入公积金的风险低于银行风险。但我的总体观点是，鉴于近期及未来全球利率条件的显著变化或潜在快速变化，长期以来的计算机制可能已经过时，不再适合当前环境。

对于非自愿失业者，我原则上支持副总理黄循财宣布的临时财政支持计划。但我们需要更多细节，以审查该计划是否能实施而不削弱我们的工作伦理，并设计措施减轻资助非生产性行为的道德风险。政府预计何时公布这些细节，何时实施该计划？副总理和财政部能否分享该计划的长期资金来源？

我热切期待更多信息，因为这确实是我们人民行动党政府在原则上的重大转变，旨在帮助新加坡工人。我欣慰地看到政府不会回避“屠杀”某些“神圣的牛”，如果认为符合新加坡和新加坡人的利益。若情况需要，回撤也无可厚非。

谈到因意外失业导致的收入波动，我想再次提出我的建议，给予新加坡人选择按当年收入即付即扣方式缴纳个人所得税的选项。与按前一年收入征税相比，这种制度能帮助纳税人更好地管理现金流，使税款支付与当期收入相匹配。

议长先生，接下来我谈谈吸引投资和人才。我们推动更大平等不能以牺牲增长为代价。为了帮助新加坡人以可持续方式应对成本上涨，我们必须专注于增加他们的机会和工资，而非依赖一次性分配。

因此，我演讲的第二部分转向维持经济增长的双管齐下策略：吸引投资和人才到新加坡；以及促进本地企业发展。

作为资源匮乏的国家，我们的经济奇迹建立在吸引企业在此建立基地或部分运营，即使它们可能服务海外市场或在国外开展大量业务。这些外来企业和投资创造就业机会，也为新加坡人和新加坡公司带来下游或合作机会。

我很高兴听到加强半导体和金融产业竞争优势的举措，但为何没有提及我们的转口贸易和转运枢纽，以及具体的防御或扩大领先优势的措施？可能会在财政预算辩论中讨论。

但我注意到，樟宜机场的货运量较2022年下降了6%，而仁川机场等其他机场在客运量方面正在缩小与樟宜的差距。另一方面，我们的海港在2023年船舶到港总吨位创历史新高，超过30亿总吨。我将在财政预算辩论中提出相关质询，期待听到交通部长关于维护和提升我们作为国际航空和航运枢纽地位的计划。

《税基侵蚀和利润转移》（BEPS）2.0第二支柱的实施也将降低吸引力，因为不同司法管辖区将设立有效的企业所得税底线。那么，经济发展局（EDB）和其他机构为吸引外国公司提供的哪些财政激励措施能在全球税基侵蚀规则下继续提供？

副总理宣布的新可退还投资抵免，根据目前可得信息，将符合全球反税基侵蚀规则中合格可退还税收抵免的要求。企业可获得每个合格支出类别（包括资本支出、人力和培训费用、货运和物流费用）最高50%的支持。这将有助于应对新加坡相对较高的土地、人力和运输成本。

鉴于项目的具体支持率将与预期带来的经济或脱碳成果相称，如果最终发现项目成果远未达到预期，会怎样？是否会有回溯期，允许追回那些能很好推销项目但实施能力不足的企业的支持资金？

更根本的是，我们是否已确定衡量和验证脱碳成果的体系？距我们在本议院辩论“低碳社会”动议已逾两年，我认为本地区尚无任何碳测量标准实现普遍或广泛使用。国家气候变化秘书处（NCCS）、Gold Standard和Verra正在制定的操作手册，是否已有其他国家初步支持迹象？

为了吸引企业和投资，我们还必须保持作为宜居城市对外国人才的吸引力。假设我们无所不知且无须向他国学习，未免太狭隘。这也是为何其他国家采取重大举措吸引外国人才。

以英国为例。2022年5月，英国推出高潜力人才（HPI）签证，允许全球排名前50大学毕业的年轻人携家属赴英两年，进行“探索、工作、学习和创新”。随后，英国政府宣布1.18亿英镑技能计划，包括为人工智能研究人员设立新签证，吸引其职业早期赴英，以及提供补助帮助AI工作者承担搬迁费用。

自2022年8月推出海外网络与专长（ONE）通行证以来，它在吸引全球顶尖人才来新加坡生活和工作方面表现如何？在激烈的全球人才竞争中，与通过更便捷的签证途径、搬迁补助及其他福利吸引人才相比，效果如何？

众所周知，我们也是全球生活成本最高的城市之一。除了租金飙升问题，外国外派人员还无法享受新加坡政府提供的大量医疗补贴和公用事业支持。因此，我们对这些高收入外派人员的税收征收存在上限，过高税负可能导致他们迁往他国，造成税基、资产和专业知识流失。我们对外派人员的税收政策与伦敦、法兰克福、纽约或迪拜等人才中心相比如何？

最后，议长先生，关于促进本地企业发展，我怀疑本议院许多同事对此会有更多发言，但我关注点较窄。作为未来五年10亿新元发展人工智能计算、人才和产业计划的一部分，近期是否会有针对采用基于AI解决方案或从事AI相关研究的新加坡企业的补助？继2023年12月发布国家人工智能战略2.0后，具体下一步措施是什么？

我们不能忘记，人工智能与数据密不可分。我们是否会将促进AI的举措扩展到以数据为中心的活动，尽管它们可能不是以AI为中心？例如，大规模数据处理或可持续数据收集与处理的研究将是实现AI目标的关键推动力。那么，我们对数据行业正在做什么，计划做什么？

议长先生，正如我在多次演讲中提及，我们正处于新常态。当前环境结合了高通胀、高利率，且可能持续较长时间，世界日益不确定，频繁遭受冲击。这还未考虑新冠疫情，现今看来更像是一场噩梦，而非经历了两三年的现实。

但通过“前进新加坡”行动，我们知道新加坡人想要走向何方。帮助非自愿失业的求职者更强劲地反弹，支持家庭和长者，赋能并提升有需要的人群，本预算紧密契合新加坡人建设更平等社会的愿望，同时不牺牲支撑我们安全的经济增长。议长先生，我支持2024年预算案。

议长先生：黄伟中先生。

下午2时35分

黄伟中先生（裕廊）：议长先生，我们如何评价生命的价值？在新加坡，1960年代出生的人预期寿命为64岁。1980年代和1990年代，这一数字提升至70至75岁。如今，我们的预期寿命达到84岁。

过去60年里，新加坡的预期寿命增加了20年，增长了31%。我们如何评价一年的健康寿命？如何评价额外的20年？新加坡持续加大对医疗保健的投入，从2011年的人均789新元增至如今的人均2,674新元，过去10年增长了338%。

这如何成为可能？这些持续的投资用于提升医疗人员的能力和基础设施建设，这是一个复杂且长期的承诺。这些能力需要基础设施、设备、培训和教育的多方面投资汇聚。必须有健全且可持续的医疗政策，配合卓越文化和创新精神，推动医学研究和技术的前沿发展。这对我们所有人意味着什么？

新加坡有五家医院跻身全球前150名，新加坡中央医院位列前十。这是令人瞩目的成就。想象一下，每当我们的祖父母或父母需要医疗护理、手术或紧急治疗时，可以安心，因为有一支高度胜任且积极的医疗团队，他们是世界顶尖，竭尽全力提供世界级的护理。眼科方面，新加坡国家眼科中心排名世界第三，新加坡眼科研究所排名世界第五。

如今，新加坡人继续健康老龄化，身体状况比以往更好。我们还能做得更多，成果显著。2010年，新加坡有700名百岁老人，2020年超过1,500人，数量翻倍以上。

如今，大多数五岁儿童预计能活到100岁。到2050年，活到100岁将成为新生儿的常态。问题再次出现：我们如何评价生命？你会做什么来获得额外一年的健康寿命，额外20年的健康寿命，以完成生命中的重要事情？

如果你有额外的一元钱，你会如何使用？下一元呢？再下一元呢？每一分边际和增量资金，你会如何花费、管理和投资？我们如何让增量资金帮助我们活得更长、更好、更健康、更有意义？

2022年，东盟的外国直接投资（FDI）达到2240亿美元的高点。新加坡占其中三分之二，达到1410亿美元。我重复：占东盟所有FDI的三分之二。

新加坡在全球吸引FDI排名第八，在亚太地区排名第一。那么，什么是FDI？它指的是一个国家的公司或个人在另一国家进行投资并拥有商业利益。这为新加坡带来了多少优势和财富？

2022年，新加坡的FDI占名义GDP的31.7%。这对新加坡尤为重要，因为它显示了前瞻性的经济轨迹。FDI创造优质就业，促进并鼓励技术转移，推动基础设施发展，提升出口能力。

新加坡今天的经济成就建立在数十年的领导力、奖金和集体团队合作之上。这需要经济和社会因素的汇聚，平衡以实现所有人的可持续未来。

我们赚取那一元增量资金绝非偶然。这非常重要。因为我们必须理解作为一个国家，要处于强势地位所需的困难和集体努力。

投资环境，我们的基础设施连接性和协调性如何？我们的劳动力有多熟练和灵活？我们的法律框架、技术和创新、国际协议如何？我们的市场和贸易有多开放？

我们的公民有多雄心勃勃和充满活力？还有同样重要的社会因素：我们的社会和政治稳定、医疗系统、教育和生活质量。所有这些因素吸引公司和个人在新加坡投资时间和资源。新加坡之所以持续有吸引力，是因为我们数十年来所做的努力。未来50年必须如此，未来100年也必须如此。

我们如何评价我们的未来和未来世代？一个国家的寿命是158年，而一个帝国约为250年。这是历史数据，我们正处于第59年，接近第60年。

在我们所处的这片土地上，过去700年经历了动荡。从13世纪开始，从巴厘巴板、室利佛逝帝国到满者伯夷，再到马来亚，然后是英国、日本，再回到英国、马来西亚，最后是新加坡——这一切都发生在过去700年。

我们必须记住作为一个民族国家的脆弱性。历史充满了值得学习和重新学习的教训。古代威尼斯共和国、热那亚共和国、迦太基、斯巴达、拜占庭——政治分裂和外部压力侵蚀了国家权力和汉萨同盟。

我们有多坚定，能够在百年或两百年后依然是一个主权独立的国家，逆转所有概率和统计，超越帝国和国家的平均寿命？

有人估计我们的储备略低于2万亿新元。为了让大家有个概念，假设我们的估计准确，我们的储备价值低于苹果公司，低于微软，低于谷歌，最近英伟达的市值甚至超过了我们。所以，当你下次购买苹果、微软、谷歌产品或英伟达显卡时，请记住它们的市值高于我们整个国家储备。

我们的储备价值低于我提到的这些公司。值得我们反思如何规划储蓄、投资和分配资源以应对未来。我们很幸运拥有能够支持今天预算的储备。这是因为我们开国和历代先辈的谨慎和价值观。正是这种数十年如一日的行为，使我们能够照顾所有新加坡人，让大家拥有更长更好的生活。

我们如何评价孩子们的生命？“拯救儿童”组织评选新加坡为最佳成长地。我们为孩子和未来世代付出最好的。2013年，新加坡为每名小学生投入8,550新元。2020年，政府投资增至13,350新元。

人人都能接受优质教育。我们之所以能时不时就教育问题展开讨论，是因为我们打好了基础。记住，20至30年前的我们资源和知识远不及今天。虽然不完美，但我们在进步和调整。

我们推行终身学习，培养适应力和自学能力，以应对技术进步的浪潮，增强技能和能力的韧性。过去，工作更线性，变化节奏缓慢。我们多次重组，保障一代又一代人的就业，建立彼此的成功。

如今，新加坡劳动力在管理、职业和技术技能方面位居世界前列。根据INSEAD年度全球人才竞争力指数，新加坡在全球知识和技能（包括管理和沟通能力）排名第一，职业和技术技能排名第三，涵盖134个国家。

今年，工艺教育学院（ITE）庆祝成立32周年，持续壮大。我们不会说自己做得很好，积累了足够能力，可以减少对教育系统的投资。我们不会说排名太高，可以稍微放松，因为这很危险。

一个城市国家能否在对未来——对未来世代的承诺上稍微降低标准？

不能。

不能，因为作为新加坡人，我们内心深处知道保持相关性需要什么，知道如何照顾未来世代。

我们如何评价生命？更重要的是，我们如何珍惜、尊重生命，成为生命的良好管理者？

加沙拥有世界上最年轻的人口之一。40%的人口年龄在14岁及以下。2020年中位年龄仅为18岁。65岁及以上人口不到3%。乌克兰男性预期寿命从战争前的67岁降至57岁，女性从76岁降至70岁。

这不仅仅是战争和冲突的问题。暴力水平高的国家预期寿命比和平国家低，估计差距约为14年——在最暴力和最和平国家之间。这不仅与冲突有关，还涉及凶杀、暴力、生活质量、教育等多种因素。我们正在构建版本1和版本2，就像互联网浏览器和应用程序的演进一样，逐步改进。我们必须这样做，为新加坡打造更好的版本。

我们不能期望所有事情都完美，但我们努力。我们每天都更努力地提升能力，创造更好的生活。这就是建设——为未来建设。今天的能力是由过去几代人打造的。我们为今天和未来世代建设——更长寿、更健康、更有意义、更充实、更包容的生活。

就像我们的闪亮典范——新加坡航空和新加坡樟宜机场。这不是偶然的成就，也不是星象巧合。它需要努力——所有新加坡人的集体努力。

所以，让我们共同建设更美好的明天。议长先生，我支持预算案。

议长先生：陈武明博士。

下午2时49分

陈武明博士（裕廊）：议长先生，我支持预算案，也支持我紧接着发言的裕廊集选区同事黄伟中先生的演讲。

前几天，我遇见一个年轻的金文泰家庭——爸爸妈妈和他们几个月大的小女儿。我们谈论世界变得更加危险、不确定，充满挑战——一个危险的世界。一个大国欺凌小国，有时甚至入侵——入侵和占领的世界。一个小国和小社区可能被围困，水电供应被切断，食物和药品被封锁的世界。一个气候变化加速、海平面上升的世界，这意味着50至100年后，一些岛屿将被淹没；一些岛国可能在本世纪末不复存在。

我们谈话时，这个金文泰家庭和我意识到，他们的小女儿及其子孙将知道我们这一代是否做出了正确选择。眼前的选择需要丰富的想象力和决心。

11年前，我在《今日报》上写过，我们需要在不可思议的事情发生前想象它——不仅是昨天挑战的更大版本，而是以前不存在的新挑战。今天，我将谈论其中三个挑战。我们这一代需要新思维、新方法来应对：人工智能（AI）；新加坡的能源安全；以及维系新加坡社会的凝聚力。

关于人工智能。不到两周前，就在副总理兼财政部长黄循财发表2024年预算陈述前，世界另一端有一项宣布。一个已经改变世界的科技公司——OpenAI，曾推出ChatGPT，不久前宣布了一个新的AI平台，名为Sora。Sora允许你输入文本提示，生成的视频与好莱坞或小型工作室制作的视频无异。

就在一年前，2023年4月总统致辞辩论期间，我在议会谈及AI时代及其快速变化——像ChatGPT、GPT-4和Midjourney V5这类软件不到一年便进入市场。

能与你对话、帮你写文章的AI是ChatGPT。能参加美国高中高级课程考试并超越许多人的AI是GPT-4。能创造逼真照片级别虚构事件图像的AI是Midjourney V5。

一年前，我谈到随着计算能力提升，从每秒生成一张虚构图像到每秒30张，你将从AI生成照片迈向AI生成视频。2023年4月时，我预计这项技术还需两三年才会实现。结果发生得比我想象的更快。不到10个月，OpenAI就宣布了Sora平台生成AI视频。

这就是今天的世界——技术变革迅速，挑战无处不在，意外成为常态。我们无法回避这些变化。没有国家、没有经济体能躲避AI带来的变革。即使一个国家试图阻止AI进入，其竞争对手也会采用。因此，我们必须接受现实，照顾、支持、赋能并提升我们的人民。

这就是为什么预算中为40岁及以上新加坡人提供攻读全日制文凭的新补贴如此重要。因为它认识到，在快速变化的世界里，你20岁时学到的知识，到了40岁可能已被新世界取代。它认可这种变化，支持中年及年长工作者。

中年工作者与年轻人一起学习新技能——中年人和18、19、20岁以上的年轻人共同学习，这也将改变我们高等教育机构的教育体验。年长者带来生活经验、生活技能和智慧，同时与年轻学生一起学习新技能。学生们通过相互合作，彼此提升。他们将改变课堂，同时促进新老工作者建立新友谊、新网络和新机会。

关于能源安全。

新加坡面临的另一重大挑战是能源。我们的电力供应不仅仅是为了家中照明，也不仅仅是为了工作场所和医院的运转。它还维持着我们的供水。

我们的能源供应使得NEWater厂能够耗能净化水质，使水重新变得新鲜可饮用。我们的能源供应使海水淡化厂能够逆盐度梯度生产淡水，去除海水中的盐分。我们的能源供应和能源安全支撑着我们的水安全。我们都知道，如果我们的水供应受到质疑，对新加坡意味着什么。因此，我们必须同样重视能源安全。

两年前，在2022年预算辩论中，我谈到为何需要多元化能源来源；为何95%依赖天然气发电对未来时代来说不够；为何95%存在集中风险？我还谈到为何不能仅依赖从海外通过电缆进口低碳电力——因为在充满各种危险的复杂世界中，电缆可能断裂，可能发生技术故障，世界任何地方都可能发生意外。展望未来，我们必须考虑新的低碳技术，如氢能，甚至下一代核能技术。

我呼吁政府领先市场，特别是在氢能领域，发挥新加坡作为氢能枢纽的潜力。展望未来，在氢能枢纽可能有限的市场中，先行者、后行者或迟到者的地位至关重要。这对我们新加坡意义重大。

因此，今年预算中的未来能源基金——初始注资50亿新元，是一项重要且果断的举措。它将资金投入实际行动，使新加坡能够迅速行动，抓住能源领域的机会，尤其是新低碳技术，这些技术未来将帮助我们保障能源供应，进而保障下一代的水安全。

拥有更强大的低碳能源供应也将助力新加坡实现我们的人工智能（AI）抱负。如今，数据中心虽然耗能巨大，但对人工智能至关重要。商业领域的云计算可以将数据中心设在海外。但在一个主要经济体有时关系紧张的世界里；在一个有时出现去风险化或脱钩的世界里，在新加坡本土拥有更多数据中心和计算能力是合理的。拥有低碳能源——更绿色的能源未来——更安全的能源供应，对实现人工智能抱负同样关键。

关于社会凝聚力，议长先生，如果我们作为新加坡人民某种程度上变得分裂、支离破碎或分崩离析，那么无论财政实力多强大，无论政策方案多完善，都无法持续或实施。我以前说过，如果我们分裂，我们在世界上将不值一提。

世界上存在着深刻的力量，推动人们分裂，这些力量改变社会，因为数字化、数字世界越发普及，意味着人们自然面对面交流的机会减少。几乎每个人手机上的社交媒体算法和应用程序，很多算法会向你推送你之前看过的内容，带你听更多你之前听过的东西，导致回音室效应，进而有时导致社会极化。

此外，境外也会有捣乱者试图破坏我们的团结、凝聚力和社会和谐。在当今世界——我们已经看到许多远离新加坡的案例，也有一些较近的案例——冲突的第一波冲击可能不是动武，而是破坏社会团结和信任的行动。看看其他国家，某些势力如何试图极化和分裂社会。在人工智能时代，这种挑战将更加严峻。

当深度伪造技术能够制造从未发生过的事件视频时，会发生什么？当你看到议会任何一方的公众人物的深度伪造视频，说着他们从未说过的话，做着他们从未做过的事，会怎样？

如果出现不同社区人士争吵甚至打斗的深度伪造视频，这种从未发生过但可能被广泛传播、破坏社会和谐与团结的视频，会带来什么后果？

当深度伪造变得与现实极为相似，以至于人们即使面对可靠来源的信息也不再相信自己所见所闻，会怎样？

当人们无法分辨真假、事实与谬误时，这对社会、对全球民主制度有重大影响。

在任何人都能获得制造深度伪造所需计算能力的世界里，没有简单的解决方案。

但新加坡足够小，我们有机会抗争。新加坡足够小，我们可以让人民更紧密地团结起来，增加面对面交流，深化人际关系。我们能做到这一点，而地理范围更广大的国家难以做到。新加坡协调能力强，我们拥有国家能力和政府机构协同合作的能力，这是许多国家难以做到的。我们在疫情期间见证了这一点，这对我们面临的未来挑战至关重要。

因此，我们必须不断增强这种团结感，使得在不同观点、不同背景、不同性格的人群中，每个人都视彼此为同胞、同胞兄弟姐妹，共同追求新加坡梦，共同认同新加坡的理念。

这意味着政府在城市设计和社会政策上必须积极推动，鼓励人们在日常生活中面对面交流。所有这些都有助于维护社会信任、凝聚力和团结，即使在人工智能和即将到来的深度伪造浪潮中。

因此，当一个新的组屋发展项目建成时，如果没有传统的组屋底层空地，且设计形状使邻居及其子女难以自然相遇、自然玩耍，无论是上班、上学还是回家途中，我们都需要问：与旧有的组屋底层空地设计相比，我们是否不可避免地削弱了社会储备？是否存在不增加财政负担的设计方法，使人们更有可能自然地相遇、联系、和睦相处？

当一个新镇建设邻里中心时，我们的规划者是否倾向于尽早引入更多小贩中心、咖啡店，尽快激活这些设施？

当我们设计教育政策和教育体系时，是否鼓励年轻一代除了母语外，还学习另一新加坡社区的语言？这不仅是为了考试科目，也不仅是因为东南亚经济机会，更是为了增进理解，深化我们作为新加坡人的身份认同？

这些问题不仅要在这些政策中提出，更应贯穿政府未来的所有政策。因此，我建议政府设立“新加坡团结办公室”（SG Togetherness Office，简称SGTO）。我知道这听起来像是更多的字母缩写，但SG团结办公室可以作为总理办公室战略组（PMOSG）的一部分，后者以协调的全政府方式处理重大议题，如气候变化。

SG团结办公室可以设立跨部委指导委员会，由内阁高级成员担任主席，如协调部长或副总理，利用其部门经验和联系推动议程。办公室应设有秘书处，由一支公务员团队组成，积极评估政府各项政策和计划对社会团结的净影响。

加强社会团结和社会凝聚力、强化和保护我们的社会储备的理念，必须以我们对财政底线和新加坡财政储备的同等纪律、审慎和关注来对待。因为正如财政储备一样，我们的社会储备需要几代人积累，需要大量努力维护，但在危机来临时极为重要。未来世界将面临诸多挑战。

议长先生，2016年我在本院的首次发言中，八年多前，我说过，我引用：“……想象这样一个完美风暴：全球经济长期低迷，种族、语言、宗教、社会阶层、不平等和文化的分裂。国家共识破裂，政治分裂。同时还要面对重大危机——国内恐怖袭击、疫情，或是两个老朋友要求我们在他们之间选边站的地区冲突。”

先生，我们无法选择下一场危机何时来临，也无法选择危机的性质。但我们可以选择如何加深团结，如何今天做好准备。我们可以选择如何加强和深化社会团结，强化新加坡的社会储备，使得在充满挑战的世界里，无论发生什么，没有任何力量或任何人能够击倒新加坡。我支持本预算案。[掌声]

议长先生：李显龙先生。

下午3时09分

李显龙先生（提名议员）：议长先生，作为历史学学生及现任亚洲文明博物馆主席，我深受博物馆藏品启发，这些藏品揭示了过去文明的遗产。罗纳德·赖特的《进步简史》和阿诺德·汤因比的《历史研究》等著作强调了历史教给我们的重要教训，即不受控制的进步风险曾导致文明崩溃。

理解文明为何崩溃是复杂的，没有普遍认可的单一原因。然而，已有若干关键因素被确定为导致文明衰落的原因。

第一个因素是气候变化和环境恶化。这些因素在包括阿纳萨齐人、玛雅文明和罗马帝国等古代社会的衰落中起了关键作用。第二个因素是不平等。它导致社会动荡，侵蚀社会凝聚力，削弱社会有效应对社会、生态和经济问题的能力。第三个因素是复杂性。随着社会为解决新问题而变得更复杂，复杂性的成本可能超过其收益，最终导致崩溃。

在2024年预算案背景下，这些历史教训强调了平衡发展的重要性。仅仅追求增长是不够的，我们必须确保增长是可持续的、包容的，且能经受时间考验。

这就是为何预算重点推进企业和工人能力建设、未来建设和社会关怀如此关键。对绿色创新、可再生能源投资和建设能抵御气候变化挑战的韧性基础设施的承诺，确保我们今天的进步不会以牺牲后代利益为代价。

首先谈谈推进企业和工人能力。企业支持计划，包括50%的企业所得税减免和最低2000元现金回馈，表明政府认真支持中小企业应对成本挑战。

通过永久提高中小企业营运资金贷款额度至50万元，提供有针对性的支持。为中年工人提供的SkillsFuture补贴、SkillsFuture提升计划和SkillsFuture企业信用延长，是提升新加坡劳动力长期技能储备的积极举措。

其次，未来建设。向金融业发展基金追加20亿元，以及新的可退还投资税额，将使新加坡在金融科技和绿色金融等新领域建立能力，吸引高价值和实质性经济活动投资。

我特别喜欢加强的能力转型伙伴关系（PACT）。PACT将支持企业在能力培训、国际化和企业风险投资方面合作。与大型企业的合作将帮助中小企业成长，成为行业领导者，为未来提供更多优质就业岗位。

第三，关怀社会。加强的保障计划将为中低收入家庭提供急需的援助。改善幼儿园和特殊教育学校的负担能力，增强退休支持计划，推出新的失业支持计划和ITE进阶奖，将促进社会流动性，创造一个人人能贡献、人人有归属感的新加坡。

议长先生，地球上许多沙漠和丛林中的伟大遗迹，是进步陷阱的纪念碑，是文明因自身成功而覆灭的墓碑。然而，崩溃并非绝对，历史显示社会韧性可能延缓或防止崩溃。全球证据表明，“经济多样性”——一个国家出口的范围和复杂性——与其人口技能水平相关，表明更有技能的人口更能应对新兴危机。

新加坡商界认识到集体努力推进“前进新加坡”愿景和加强社会韧性的重要性。

让我简要介绍新加坡企业联合总会（SBF）所做的工作。作为SBF理事，我亲眼见证2019年SBF发起了一项由企业主导的倡议，提出六项建议，支持雇佣老年人、弱势群体和面临就业风险者。

这项可持续就业倡议汇聚了50多位企业领袖、行业协会代表、政府、高等院校、非政府组织和基金会，展现了全国范围内提升弱势工人的努力。如今，SBF管理渐进工资标志认证计划，并与餐饮专业人士协会、新加坡时装理事会、新加坡餐馆协会和新加坡环境管理协会等行业协会合作，鼓励企业加入这一运动。我自豪地分享，已有近4500家公司获得认证。

2022年，SBF成立了商业领导力发展行动联盟（AfA），旨在为新加坡人才培养全球领导力。该联盟汇聚200多位企业领袖、人力资源专家和年轻专业人士，发布了针对个人、企业和政府的建议报告，推动下一代领导者培养。

本月，SBF内的人力资本行动委员会被委托落实这些建议，确保报告见解得到有效执行。

最后，行业协会现已提供100多个职业转换计划，获得新加坡人力部支持，涵盖建筑、海事与离岸工程、电子和制造业，以及国际化和可持续发展等专业领域。

为了实现未来十年2%至3%的年增长率，我们的经济和企业必须持续关注生产力、创新和劳动力增长，同时保持竞争力的经营成本。我有四项总体建议，议长先生，我用中文表达。

（中文发言）：[请参阅中文发言稿。]政府通过大力投资SkillsFuture提升生产力，旨在培养技能型劳动力。与此同时，针对制造业2030愿景，急需更多本地制造人才。我们的第一项建议是，培训应超越入门主题，涵盖高级技术领域和行业特定模块，确保满足工人、企业和经济的实际需求。

为进一步提升就业能力和培养技能劳动力，应更加重视职场培训。应将工作场所资格认定为高等院校的延伸，使学习更具实践性和应用导向。SkillsFuture成功不仅需雇主负责，工人也必须具备正确态度，自愿提升技能。此举将使工人获得超越基础和通用技能的深层行业技能，提升长期就业能力。

下一项建议聚焦推动中小企业在人工智能和可持续发展新领域的创新。

2024年预算中为国家人工智能战略2.0拨款10亿元，为未来能源基金拨款50亿元，彰显政府推动新兴行业发展的努力。最近推出的ESG/IMDA人工智能沙盒，计划吸引300家中小企业参与，确保中小企业保持创新前沿。

为进一步支持中小企业采用这些技术，政府应考虑实施分级补助模式。该模式允许企业在不受现金流限制的情况下，超越基础“即插即用”解决方案，进行创新。

此外，必须为中小企业提供技术访问之外的支持，特别是在制定治理框架和人工智能负责任使用的伦理指南方面。

为支持中小企业的可持续发展努力，需提供更多援助和教育。我们敦促政府与行业协会合作，创建和完善可持续发展项目。提供咨询、实施和培训补助，帮助中小企业有效管理和报告排放，符合行业标准。

第三项建议是持续呼吁负责任的劳动力增长，以支撑新加坡的增长目标。根据新加坡2030愿景和更新的产业转型地图，我们计划在制造业创造8400个岗位，物流业2000个，环境服务业1600个，等等。去年本地劳动力减少了1800人。

鉴于人口老龄化和持续低生育率，企业继续对本地劳动力进行再培训和技能提升，我们可以与政府紧密合作，识别并开发未充分利用的人力资源。通过利用较小的劳动力群体，如希望转回传统经济岗位的零工经济工作者、愿意重返职场的女性和老年工人，以及可能被激励从事相关兼职或获得可计入学分的实际工作经验的学生，我们可以共同扩大劳动力，支持经济增长目标。

然而，实现我们的增长目标需要本地和外籍劳动力的协调一致。商界持续倡导通过有控制的外劳增长，针对特定行业和职位，战略性地增加劳动力，以应对本地人才或劳动力参与度不足的情况。这种有针对性的补充对于推动产业转型和确保新加坡的长期经济繁荣至关重要。

（英文原文）：议长先生，阁下，在我演讲开始时，我强调过，社会可能因自身复杂性而陷入困境。

我最后的第四项建议是，政府应与商界密切合作，与各政府机构和工会共同努力，旨在减少官僚复杂性，加快效率，共同打造有利于提升企业竞争力的环境。

我想以提及两个我之前未曾提及的导致文明崩溃的额外因素作为结尾。

首先是外部冲击，常用“末日四骑士”——战争、自然灾害、饥荒和瘟疫——来象征。其次是随机性，或者说纯粹的坏运气。

新加坡今天的有利地位，得益于我们丰厚的储备，使我们具备独特能力来缓解这些外部冲击和随机性带来的不确定影响。

观察2024年预算案，我对其审慎和平衡的性质感到安心，它深思熟虑地避免过度消耗我们的储备，而是增强了我们保障新加坡人未来韧性和繁荣的能力。

议长先生，阁下，我们有独特优势，可以从过去社会的废墟中学习。社会韧性可以防止崩溃，而2024年预算案正是朝着这一方向迈出的一步。

让我们继续从过去汲取灵感——一个从泥滩和沼泽中诞生的国家，如今成为闪耀的大都会。让我们共同鼓起勇气，确保新加坡不会仅仅是昙花一现，不会成为一个始于轰鸣而终于低语的国家。让我们共同自信地创造一个可持续进步和包容繁荣的灯塔，惠及子孙后代。议长先生，阁下，我支持预算案。

议长：秩序。我提议现在休息。我将暂停会议，下午3时45分继续主持。

会议因此暂停

下午3时25分至3时45分。

会议于下午3时45分恢复。

[副议长（Christopher de Souza先生）主持]

年度预算案辩论

[(程序文本)辩论继续。(程序文本)]

副议长：Wan Rizal博士。

下午3时45分

Wan Rizal博士（Jalan Besar选区）：副议长先生，我支持该动议。今天，我将不谈心理健康，而是聚焦于预算如何为建设一个有韧性和包容性的社会奠定基础，重点是教育和终身学习，作为社会流动的载体。

这些不仅是政策领域，更是推动国家前进的生命线，确保每位新加坡人——无论其人生起点如何——都能在逆境中茁壮成长。在我看来，教育超越传统学习，它是赋予青年能力和灵活性，以应对我们只能想象的未来复杂性。终身学习是我们对每位工作者的承诺，确保他们的技能保持相关，能够在不断演变的经济中保持竞争力和韧性。

在追求社会流动的过程中，我们重申对每位公民的承诺：他们的梦想、抱负和努力——而非出生环境——将决定他们的未来。

通过SkillsFuture的提升推动终身学习。在这个不断变化和颠覆的时代，通过战略性投资技能发展和生产力提升来保障就业能力，是首要任务。鉴于此，2024年预算推出了SkillsFuture升级计划，对我而言，这是一个旨在为劳动力未来做好准备的远见举措。SkillsFuture学分的大幅增加凸显了持续培训和技能提升在应对当代就业市场复杂性中的重要性。受益者之一是Thomas Tan先生，他目前在一家饮料公司工作，最近完成了商业分析证书课程。听说学分充值后，他渴望重返校园，完成更多模块以获得文凭。但令他最兴奋的，不仅是获得文凭，更是学习可应用于工作的全新技能。2024年预算支持新加坡人追求另一项受补贴的全日制文凭课程，并提供中年职业培训津贴，以进一步兑现这一承诺。

我回忆起自己曾决定请两年假全职学习的经历。当时我已婚，且即将迎来第一胎——那年出生——我不得不动用储蓄并谨慎花费。更有压力的是，社会存在一种偏见：他怎么能去学习，给家庭带来负担？

因此，我很高兴——我很高兴这次预算设立了最长24个月的津贴，这代表了对中年专业人士的实质投资。我也相信，这项津贴和两年全日制学习对心理健康有积极影响。尤其是对那些感到倦怠、想转行的人来说，重返校园往往能让他们焕然一新，准备好分享新想法并应用于新工作。

尽管有这些提升，个人和企业仍有顾虑。个人需要指导，了解哪些课程适合自己，哪些能助其未来发展。企业则希望确保员工所受培训能惠及公司，进而促进生产力和创新。为解决这些问题，需要多方面方法。我们应继续通过咨询小组和反馈机制，与各行业领导和企业密切合作，进一步完善SkillsFuture课程以满足新兴需求。

我们还可以加强职业咨询服务，帮助个人选择最适合其职业发展的课程。或许还需转向我所称的“结果导向培训模式”，以就业率、职业晋升和薪资增长等实质成果衡量培训项目成效，确保课程为参与者带来真正价值。

最后，我建议继续探索创新方式，进一步提升课程和项目的灵活性与可及性，以满足多样化学习者需求，包括兼职、在线或模块化选项，便于平衡培训、工作和家庭责任。解决这些问题将显著提升终身学习参与度和雇主认可度。

接下来，我想谈谈ITE进阶奖，阁下。ITE进阶奖的推出标志着新加坡教育和劳动力发展领域的重要里程碑。这不仅仅是财政激励，更是对传统上与技能教育相关的污名的有力声明，重申其在经济中的价值和不可或缺性。

副议长先生，我在议会多次提及工资差距扩大问题。工资差距不仅反映经济差异，也反映对不同教育和技能类型的价值评估。ITE毕业生的起薪中位数有所提升，显示积极势头，但与大学或其他高等学府毕业生相比，差距仍显著。

长期以来，获得学位被视为成功的唯一途径，忽视了技术人才的巨大贡献。ITE进阶奖挑战这一过时观念，为ITE毕业生创造更稳健的职业路径，确保他们的职业发展不受不公平限制。

随着新加坡经济多元化和专业化，对先进制造、信息技术和医疗保健等领域技术人才的需求日益增长。凭借实践培训和行业相关技能，ITE毕业生具备满足这些需求的良好条件。认可这些价值对缩小工资差距、确保经济拥有所需技能劳动力至关重要。

因此，我欢迎ITE进阶奖，这是朝正确方向迈出的一步。但其成功依赖于所有利益相关者共同努力，拥抱并落实这些变革。迄今为止，我许多理工学院的学生来自ITE，他们询问该奖是否适用于他们。我告诉他们我会在议会提问。这显示了该举措激发的兴趣和积极反响。

受益者之一是Adil先生，他是兼职ITE学生，目前在一家披萨店担任经理。得知此消息后，他迅速查询可选课程，认为这是学习自动化新技能的良机，充满干劲。

确保ITE毕业生拥有公平的职业晋升机会和合理报酬，标志着社会价值观向更包容的技能多样性认可转变。这种范式转变不仅需要政策调整，更需雇主、教育者及社会整体心态的集体改变。为此，ITE不应再被视为“终点”，实际上，我们应将其重新命名为“进化”，反映学生个人和职业发展的演变过程及社区心态的转变。我相信每个人都有自己的优势，每个人都有成功之路，这反过来有助于我们的心理健康。

阁下，我曾多次强调学前教育的重要性，为每个孩子提供坚实基础。在我的首次演讲中，我强调早期儿童教育作为终身学习基石和社会流动载体的重要作用不可低估。鉴于其基础性，今年预算大幅加强对学前教育的支持，确保来自各社会经济背景的儿童都能获得高质量的早期学习体验。通过降低政府支持的幼儿园费用和增加低收入家庭补贴，预算旨在让优质早教更易获得且负担得起。

尽管有这些积极举措，仍存在一些担忧。例如，如何保证教育质量？我们如何维持高标准？同时，也有人关心教师留任和培训，确保有足够且优质的教师。

但我一直关注的是学前教育的入学率及出勤率。因此，为解决这些问题，充分实现增加支持的益处，我提出以下建议。

首先，当然是加强质量保障机制。我们需要在幼儿园建立更健全的质量保障机制，依据标准化基准。同时，我们也需加强对教师的支持——通过全面项目和专业发展机会。最后，也是我一直强调的——推行学前教育义务制。原因很简单，我们希望推动观念转变，只有让其足够严肃，才能让人们认真对待。阁下，请允许我用马来语表达。

（马来语）：[请参阅方言演讲。]在当今动态的经济环境中，终身学习已成为社会流动以及个人和技能提升的跳板。

通过拥抱终身学习并不断掌握新技能，尤其是在技术、绿色能源和生物医药等增长领域，个人能够应对快速变化的就业市场挑战，抓住新机遇。我承认，鼓励个人继续教育颇具挑战，因为他们担心年龄偏大或忙于照顾家庭。

因此，今年预算对终身学习倡议的支持，是鼓励社会各阶层，包括我们社区，持续成长并适应当前及未来劳动力需求的积极举措。通过加强和扩展SkillsFuture计划，今年预算为个人提供多条路径，获取和更新与当前行业趋势相关的技能和专业知识。

2024年预算中的举措包括针对40岁及以上人士的SkillsFuture学分充值，为该年龄群体提供学习新技能或进一步发展现有技能的动力。

例如，服务业员工可以选择学习信息技术，以提升数字能力。

其次，中年职业再培训计划，针对希望转行或提升特定技能的个人。例如，制造业员工可参加绿色经济项目管理课程，从而抓住这一快速增长行业的就业机会。

第三，全日制文凭课程补贴。该举措为有志深造但经济有限者提供机会。例如，助理幼儿教师可利用此补贴获得幼儿教育文凭，增强专业资格，拓展职业机会。

为了促进终身学习，作为社会，我们需倡导重视和推广终身学习的文化。这要求我们支持那些勇于再次学习的人，他们在进入新领域时需坚定和耐心。

我希望我们的社区能利用这些预算举措，积极参与终身学习。

这不仅是自我提升，更是回馈社会、家庭和国家。借助今年预算提供的机会，我们可以共同建设一个更光明、更包容的未来。

（英文）：总之，今年预算中提出的举措代表了一种连贯且全面的方法，旨在打造一个未来，让每位新加坡人无论起点如何，都能茁壮成长并为国家繁荣作出有意义贡献。

从早期儿童教育的基础性意义，到通过SkillsFuture提升终身学习的变革潜力，再到ITE进阶奖提供的公平机会，这些措施紧密相连，共同目标是建设一个有韧性、包容且面向未来的新加坡。副议长先生，我支持该动议。

副议长：Dennis Tan先生。

下午4时01分

Dennis Tan Lip Fong先生（后港选区）：副议长先生，今天的预算辩论演讲中，我首先想谈谈支持长者的相关问题，随后是对残疾成年人的支持问题，最后，像去年预算辩论一样，我将继续谈论绿色转型问题。

副议长先生，副总理兼财政部长黄循财在预算演讲中提到，预防性护理对长者尤为重要，孤独对长者伤害极大。他们需要保持活跃和社交联系。因此，政府将拨出35亿新元启动未来十年的“Age Well SG”计划。该计划包含多个组成部分，其中之一是扩大活跃老龄中心（AAC）网络，提供更广泛的项目。

副议长先生，一如既往，细节决定成败，我期待听取负责部长关于AAC变革和计划的更多细节，但与此同时，我有几点评论和问题。

首先，我想问卫生部（MOH）目前AAC的人员配备和招聘情况如何？MOH将如何协助AAC招聘和维持额外人员，以应对更大规模AAC的人员需求？政府是否有针对AAC 2.0每个中心的人员配备指导方针，当然会考虑到不同集群规模的差异？AAC由员工和志愿者组成，员工人数因中心而异，志愿者也是AAC不可或缺的一部分。但志愿者不一定能完全替代AAC专业人员的角色、专业知识和职业素养。

接下来，对于那些不愿意参与其老年活动中心（AAC）活动或不希望与其AAC保持联系的老年人群体，我想了解Age Well SG在外展和保持联系方面可能有哪些计划？这将符合解决孤独感和满足老年人社交需求的目标，正如副总理黄循财所提到的。

我特别关心那些独居、孤僻且与家人或邻居关系不密切的老年人。除了增加更多或更多样化的活动外，我们还需要研究采取何种方法，能够更好地使AAC与这部分群体保持定期联系，至少在需要时提供支持。

还应进行研究，看看AAC如何吸引更多男性参与。

副总理黄循财在他的讲话中还提到，将对我们的住宅区进行银发升级，通过诸如治疗花园、无障碍坡道以及更适合老年人的家居设施（如更宽的厕所入口和淋浴座椅）等便利设施，使老年人能够更独立、更安全地生活在社区中。我期待政府提供更多细节，包括这些设施将如何在居民家中及公共空间中提供。

副总理黄循财还提到，将改善老年人的出行和安全基础设施，如增加有遮蔽的连廊、配备老年友好设施的公交站点，以及更安全、更适合行人的道路。我对此表示欢迎。就在2022年8月，时任交通部长在回应国会质询时表示，没有计划扩大陆路交通管理局（LTA）现有的有遮蔽连廊计划，该计划覆盖主要交通枢纽（如地铁、轻轨站和公交换乘站）400米半径范围内。我希望现在能重新考虑有遮蔽连廊的策略，特别是在LTA管理的土地或其他国有土地上。LTA应考虑至少将使用频繁的公交站与附近的住宅区连接起来。例如，与市镇理事会合作，将这些使用频繁的公交站与组屋区内最近的有遮蔽人行道连接起来。

仍然关于老年人，预算将向所有1973年及以前出生的新加坡公民发放750新元的医疗储蓄奖金，如果他们属于Majulah一代且住所的年值不超过25,000新元，则奖金翻倍为1,500新元。

对于患有多种慢性疾病且需频繁就医的老年人来说，只要年度医疗储蓄提款限额仍为每年700新元，这种医疗储蓄补充并不会有太大帮助。政府能否考虑提高多重慢性病老年人的医疗储蓄提款限额，以便这些老年人，尤其是退休且不工作或无法工作的老年人，在支付账单时减少自掏腰包？我知道医疗储蓄提款限额在2021年1月已调整。现在是否适合将限额提高，至少跟上通胀水平？

鉴于银发支持计划的季度金额将提高20%，政府是否考虑将医疗储蓄提款限额也相应提高，例如将普通限额从500新元提高到600新元，将慢性病限额从700新元提高到840新元，并且对患有多种疾病者按个案进一步延长限额？议长先生，请用中文。

（中文）: [请参阅方言发言。] 副总理兼财政部长黄循财在预算中强调，政府将加强对老年人的支持。我希望相关部长能分享更多细节。

副总理黄循财提到，将翻新和提升邻里中的老年友好设施，使老年人能够更独立、更安全地生活在社区中。这包括扩展有遮蔽的人行道和配备老年友好设施的公交站点。2022年8月，时任交通部长表示，陆路交通管理局（LTA）没有计划扩大现有的有遮蔽人行道。目前，LTA的有遮蔽人行道覆盖范围仅限于地铁站和公交换乘站400米范围内。我希望政府能重新考虑这一策略，特别是在LTA管理或国有土地上。例如，LTA可以考虑与市镇理事会合作，将组屋邻里通过有遮蔽人行道与繁忙的公交站连接起来。

此外，预算还包括向符合条件的新加坡公民发放一次性医疗储蓄奖金。金额根据年龄和个人住所的年值确定，范围从700新元到1,500新元不等。

对于患有多种慢性疾病且需要频繁门诊护理的老年人，尤其是退休或无法工作的老年人，如果年度提款限额仍为700新元，这笔补充可能帮助不大。提款限额最后一次调整是在2021年。在物价上涨的情况下，政府是否考虑提高医疗储蓄提款限额，以减少退休人员的现金支出？

银发支持计划将提高20%。政府是否也考虑将医疗储蓄提款限额提高同样的20%？

（英文）：接下来我将谈谈对残疾成年人的支持问题。

我欢迎副总理黄循财宣布将为残疾成年人提供更多支持。他表示将扩大庇护工场和日间活动中心的空间，让他们接受技能培训，并启动更多赋能服务中心，为残疾人士及其照顾者提供社区支持。我相信，作为社会，我们可以且应该为残疾成年人，特别是有严重特殊需求的成年人及其照顾者，做更多事情。

本月初，我提交了一项国会质询，询问社会及家庭发展部（MSF）是否考虑增加为自闭症成年人士设立的日间活动中心和住宿设施数量。马萨哥斯部长回复称，目前有八个日间活动中心为自闭症谱系障碍成年人士服务，注册客户超过300人，约有80人等待入学。他还表示，MSF资助的四个成人残疾之家为自闭症谱系障碍成年人士服务，这些住宿设施约有50名自闭症居民，容量约100人，约有20人等待入学。

议长先生，我认为确实有必要增加我们的日间活动中心和住宿设施。我认为我们真的应该增加资源，为残疾成年人提供持续培训，包括但不限于特殊需求成年人，如中度至重度自闭症患者，超出特殊教育学校（SPED）的学习时间。在我看来，这有多重潜在好处。我们应继续思考如何改善长期的特殊教育后教育或培训，提供进一步的教育和技能培训（如果可能的话）。

应进行更多研究，以扩大这些成年人可接受的工作培训范围及其在社会中可从事的工作种类。这将提升他们的生活质量，促进更好地融入社会。同时，参加日间活动中心而非呆在家中，参与结构化的项目、活动和与他人的互动，将提升这些成年人的心理健康。

我也非常关心年长的照顾者及其特殊需求的成年子女，担心当他们健康状况恶化时，子女的照顾问题如何解决。即使这些父母还有其他非特殊需求的子女，是否合适期望他们在父母去世后接手照顾兄弟姐妹？我们是否应提供足够的住宿设施，为这些成年人提供更有结构的照顾和发展？我们是否也可以考虑让这些住宿设施允许部分特殊需求成年人周末回家，平衡住宿照顾与家庭照顾，同时为家庭成员提供适当的喘息机会？

马萨哥斯部长还表示，鉴于对自闭症的认识提高及诊断标准更明确，MSF一直与相关部门合作，制定更好支持自闭症成年人及其家庭的计划，MSF将在未来几个月分享更多细节。确实，我希望MSF能在社区发展委员会会议（COS）期间分享这些细节，包括最近进行的任何研究。

去年11月，我提交了一项国会质询，询问部长，社会及家庭发展部是否记录目前照顾智障成年人的年长照顾者人数，以及是否考虑制定和实施早期识别和支持计划。高级国务部长陈杰辉在回复中提到，MSF并不直接追踪照顾智障成年人的年长照顾者人数。

2023年12月，有新闻报道我所在后港区的一名特殊需求成年居民，在其年迈父亲去世后，带着父亲的遗体在家中逗留五天，同时继续参加日托中心的日间活动。虽然我非常感谢相关部门和利益相关者迅速协助并安排了对该男子的照顾，但此事件再次强调我们需要考虑制定和实施早期识别和支持计划，帮助照顾特殊需求成年人的年长照顾者。

该计划可采用多机构合作方式，涉及我们的老年活动中心、残疾成年人日托中心、医疗服务提供者，甚至是律师等服务提供者（例如办理持久授权书时与家庭成员接触），以及综合护理局（AIC）和社会及家庭发展部等利益相关机构，使各方能够相互触发，提供必要的检查或支持。应研究如何由一个或多个利益相关者适当维持对年长照顾者及特殊需求成年人的联系和支持。

去年，我在预算辩论发言中提到，我们应努力使老年活动中心满足老年人的不同需求，无论是社交、医疗，还是更专业领域如心理健康或残疾老年人。即使涉及其他组织或子单位，这些中心仍应作为转介中心。事实上，扩展后的老年活动中心也可以担任残疾成年人年长照顾者的协调或联络角色。

议长先生，接下来让我谈谈绿色转型的持续努力。去年，我在预算辩论中提到，随着新加坡实现脱碳，我们需要一份详细的再培训路线图。我询问是否有足够的可负担时间和费用的可持续发展相关课程，供企业和员工参加。今天的发言中，我将继续谈论所提供教育的质量。

议长先生，能力建设是发展的核心理念。在气候变化和可持续发展背景下，提升技能已成为确保公平转型和不让任何工人落后的必要条件。

自2015年技能未来计划启动以来，新加坡一直在大力投资终身学习和技能提升。政府支出已转向成人教育和培训，以加速国家的绿色转型。高等教育机构（IHLs）是这一转变的支柱，提供了大量课程，旨在提升现有劳动力在环境、社会及治理（ESG）以及碳服务和交易等领域的能力和技能。

然而，培养人才管道还必须包括对小学、中学和高等教育的投资。我很高兴听到新加坡国立大学（NUS）推出了气候变化与可持续发展理学硕士（MSc）课程。NUS还开设了可持续发展数据科学硕士课程，培养能够将知识和技能与可持续发展问题理解相结合的数据科学家。南洋理工大学（NTU）设有亚洲环境学院，提供环境与地球系统科学、公共政策专业，甚至可选修可持续发展第二专业。这些都是新加坡积极发展的例子。

但为了确保毕业生能够满足时代需求，所有此类课程必须经过充分的政策和行业验证。例如，高等教育机构应（如果尚未做到）内化技能未来报告，评估这些领域的技能需求，并评估其可教授的本科生和研究生技能组合。我们还应鼓励课程提供者确保所有课程充分关注新加坡，使学生真正理解如何实现新加坡的绿色转型及其面临的挑战。

知识提供者是否拥有合适的人才来教授和传授这些知识和技能？我们如何确保这一点？需要某种形式的影响评估，以跟踪终身学习者的进展、理解和应用情况。

其次，高等教育机构的知识和内容提供者也需要获得足够支持，以完成提供劳动力所需知识和技能的重要工作。大学的招聘实践需要反映对社会贡献的重视，而不仅仅是传统的出版物和影响因子。如果新加坡要在绿色转型中取得成功，就需要更多强调招聘具有解决复杂可持续发展挑战实际经验的专家。

新加坡在帮助建设区域和国际能力方面的需求也在增长。总体而言，新加坡专家的需求日益增长，需要他们随时准备传授宝贵知识。为此，我们需要更多具备正确知识、技能和态度的新加坡人挺身而出，帮助培养本地、区域和国际的可持续发展人才。确实，我们需要积极扩大教育者队伍。

气候变化要求全社会各部门紧急行动。在我们专注于提升工人技能和能力建设的同时，也不能忽视对教育者的支持和培训。我们需要快速扩大可持续发展教育者队伍，以跟上2030年和2050年的目标，避免落后。

议长先生，最后，我期待对我提出的关切给予答复。

议长先生：黄丽萍女士。

下午4时19分

黄丽萍女士（惹兰勿刹选区）：议长先生，2024年预算是一项精心策划的努力，旨在应对影响我们公民和企业的即时挑战和长期问题。虽然它并非完美无缺，但确实体现了我们政府倾听和理解基层现实的承诺。

我非常感谢我的居民、基层活动家、志愿者以及中央区社区发展理事会（CDC）议员和合作伙伴与我分享他们对2024年预算的见解。他们中的许多人对预算中为个人、家庭、老年人、企业以及学前和特殊教育学校的家庭提供的全面福利表示赞赏。预算的积极方面得到了广泛认可和赞赏。

在我的发言中，我希望聚焦三个关注点：第一，需审视2024年预算举措的预期成果是否能够实现；第二，社会发展成本不断上升的可持续性；第三，需培育更强健的合作生态系统，使预算主题“共建共享未来”成为切实现实。

首先，关于确保预期成果实现的必要性。让我举一个我非常关心的例子。我赞赏政府对新加坡劳动力中两个目标群体的大胆且可能具有变革性的投资：一是30岁以下的ITE毕业生；二是中年新加坡人。

然而，细节决定成败。例如，虽然为30岁以下的ITE毕业生提供了有吸引力的财政激励以继续攻读文凭课程，但仍有几个问题未解答。我不清楚有多少人符合这些针对性文凭课程的资格，潜在的放弃工作机会成本是否会阻碍他们，以及他们是否会获得足够的职业指导，以确保与其优势和就业市场需求相符？

同样的问题也适用于针对40岁及以上新加坡人的中年再培训计划。这一群体同样需要被鼓励参与再培训计划，以提升未来的就业能力。

因此，我敦促对目标群体——工艺教育学院（ITE）毕业生和中年转业的新加坡人——的反应进行仔细研究，以进一步提高政府这项潜在改变游戏规则的投资成功的机会。政府可以考虑采取更积极的措施，专门接触低技能的零工经济工人，例如，以及其他因技术（包括人工智能）而面临行业或工作被淘汰风险的人群。

对我们年轻的工艺教育学院毕业生和中年转业新加坡人的投资并不是唯一需要仔细审视并在必要时调整的项目。一些举措，如对所有人的企业所得税和个人所得税减免、幼儿园和特殊教育学校（SPED）的费用降低，是政府关怀和同情的直接体现。然而，这些措施可能并非所有新加坡人都需要或认可。应考虑为那些不需要的人提供将其福利重新分配到一个公共资金池的选项，以帮助更需要的人群。就像未使用的社区发展理事会（CDC）代金券被引导至具有公共机构（IPC）资格的慈善机构一样。

因此，我敦促政府采取积极的缓解策略，确保2024年预算中善意举措的有效执行和成功。

接下来，我想谈谈国家开支上升的令人担忧的趋势，特别是在被归类为“社会发展成本”的方面。超过50%的预算总拨款用于社会发展。获得最大份额的是卫生，约占17%，约190亿新元；教育占13%，约150亿新元；国家发展占8.1%，约90亿新元。这些对社会发展的投资反映了政府的优先事项和改善所有新加坡人生活质量的承诺。

然而，在增加这些关键领域的支出时，我们也必须考虑创新方式来维持这项投资。我们的新加坡社会由于各种原因不习惯于较高的个人和企业所得税。这与澳大利亚和北欧国家不同，后者通过高税率的税收制度资助高水平的公民福利。

因此，人民行动党政府采用的一种创新方式是利用国家投资回报贡献（NIRC）来资助开支，在过去七个财政年度（从2018财年至今）的预算中，这种依赖日益增加。这种资金模式的可持续性尚待观察。必须不断寻找支付不断增加开支的方法。我与一些人交谈时，他们呼吁将更多资源引导至政府投资公司（GIC）和淡马锡控股（Temasek Holdings）进行投资，以扩大NIRC的基础。这两家投资机构多年来提供了不错的中长期回报。还有人呼吁更多的公私人民伙伴关系，以实现更具创新性和灵活性的融资。

无论如何，对当前资金模式可持续性的担忧不应被低估或忽视——这是我的第二点。

最后，需要培育一个更强健、更有凝聚力的伙伴关系生态系统，使预算主题“共建共享未来”成为切实现实。副总理黄循财通过“前进新加坡”（Forward Singapore）和2024年预算发出的“共建共享未来”的号召，是对社会各界的重要行动呼吁。新加坡已经在社区医院（包括临终关怀）、特殊教育和其他社会服务领域与合作伙伴合作。

我提到尊敬的议员Dennis Tan对残疾成年人的关切。我想分享的是，我们每个人都有角色。例如，在我的甘榜格南选区，我们过去两年与人民协会（PA）基层组织和CaringSG合作，试点了一个名为“紫心”（Purple Hearts）的特殊需求家庭网络。该网络由20多名志愿者组成，由一些基层领袖和我带领。我们定期访问、结交朋友，了解这些200个家庭的需求，并将需求转介给不同机构，其中一些是政府机构，一些是非政府组织。近两年来，我很高兴与Dennis Tan议员及其他有兴趣的议员分享，至少让他们在自己的选区推动类似项目。

新加坡在这一领域已经与许多合作伙伴合作。但让我提出一些建议，政府如何更好地领导，确保共建共享未来，特别是在我积极参与志愿服务的非营利慈善部门。我要声明，这个部门充满爱心，但相当分散。

首先，政府可以在促进这一生态系统方面发挥关键且更有帮助的作用，确保更明智的决策和更有影响力的成果。近年来，已投入大量资源用于合作伙伴的治理，这当然至关重要——审计、治理等。

然而，捐赠者和受助者都需要更深入地了解整体格局——识别关键的基本服务、事业、受益群体、主要缺口和期望，以及明确政府在这些缺口中的参与程度和其他人如何有效贡献。例如，新加坡的主要捐赠者，如义安公司（Ngee Ann Kongsi）和各类基金会，可以获得更好的支持，以可持续地投资于关键领域。

第二，支持后台功能。任何有效社会服务生态系统的后台都依赖其运营能力。目前，许多社会服务机构和慈善组织因治理、采购、风险管理和内部控制支持结构分散而面临挑战。这并非他们的错；只是他们资源有限，不是政府，无法承担一位议员所称的“官僚复杂性”的成本。

因此，这些慈善机构和合作伙伴在资源有限的情况下，往往难以建立符合政府运营和审计标准的系统。因此，改善这些领域的支持至关重要。例如，使具有公共机构资格（IPC）的组织能够访问政府采购网络，如GeBiz或需求聚合供应商；这可以显著减轻慈善机构的运营负担。例如，邀请由陈振声部长发起的“为善公共服务运动”中的资深公务员与关键行业领导者坐下来，帮助制定合理标准并安装成本效益高的后台功能——这是实现共享未来的一个途径。

接下来，支持非营利慈善部门的人力需求，政府可以通过对致力于非营利合作伙伴的劳动力保持敏感和支持，发挥关键作用。例如，我刚访问的多佛临终关怀中心（Dover Hospice）面临的人力挑战，尽管医护人员经验丰富，但面临任期限制；合作的养老院、护理院、住宿院舍等也面临员工流失，员工转向公共部门等其他行业，因后者提供更具吸引力的联系计划或薪酬方案。所有这些都强调了政府需要建立一个更支持和敏感的框架，与合作伙伴共同努力。

第四，分层配对和税收减免。政府应实施分层配对捐赠，并为对关键资源不足的社会部门的捐款提供更具吸引力的税收减免。应仔细识别关键和新兴需求，并给予更多支持。这些包括医疗保健、终身教育、成人护理设施（Dennis Tan议员也提到过，我在议会内外多次提出）以及对残疾人士及其家庭，尤其是成年残疾人士的支持，还包括支持促进弱势群体（如神经多样化者、残疾人和低学历新加坡人）就业的社会企业。虽然我赞赏现在对海外捐款提供税收减免，但我敦促优先考虑本地投资，并给予比海外捐款更具吸引力的税收激励。

第五，赋能社会企业。慈善机构作为政府的合作伙伴，不应仅依赖捐款和补助，而应被鼓励“授人以渔”，实现长期自给自足。社会企业通过商业解决方案在应对社会挑战中发挥关键作用。但社会企业是最难经营的企业之一，必须同时实现财务和社会效益底线。通过优先考虑社会企业的采购流程、提供设立援助以及更多税收减免和补助，可以放大其影响力，特别是那些由慈善机构运营的社会企业。资金流入慈善机构，而非个人口袋。因此，这种方式不仅促进社会创新，还能以有意义的方式促进经济发展。支持社会企业的公共采购政策可以创造更具包容性的经济，推动社会价值创造。

先生，我提出了五种方式，政府可以在社会发展领域与利益相关者共建共享未来的愿景中表现得更敏感和受欢迎。我期待政府对我分享的这五项内容进行深入探讨，以便我们共同建设共享未来。当然，我也期待政府在本预算季节给予审慎回应。

总之，先生，2024年预算不仅仅是一个财政计划。它是一个富有同情心、包容性和韧性的社会蓝图。有些出色的项目应进一步审查，以确保其善意目标得以实现。社会发展成本无论在金额还是比例上都在上升。只有拥有充满活力的生态系统，每个人才能发挥最佳作用，实现“前进新加坡”和2024年预算的精神。

2024年预算呼吁我们每一个人——政府、政府官员、企业领袖、慈善家、社会服务机构、公民、居民，所有人——为共享未来贡献力量。尽管我提出了意见，我仍强烈支持该预算。

副议长先生：叶汉荣议员。

下午4时34分

叶汉荣议员（耀祖康选区）：副议长先生，闭上眼睛，想象一下阿妈，一位银发小贩，当她看到食材成本上涨威胁到她的生计时，笑容逐渐消失。再想象一下阿里先生，由于通胀，他在必需的杂货和药物之间挣扎选择。这些并非孤立的故事，而是相当数量的新加坡人——无论年轻还是年长——每天面临生活成本上涨压力的真实写照。我在耀祖康的居民见面会上遇到过一些这样的居民。

虽然2024年预算的优先事项值得肯定，但负担能力危机投下了长长的阴影，不仅威胁到我们老年人的财务安全，也威胁到我们多元社会的根基。让我们在负担能力成为所有新加坡人机会和福祉的障碍之前采取行动。我们可以做更多工作，使新加坡成为一个负担得起的居住地，特别是在交通、住房、公积金和社会支持计划方面。

首先，副议长先生，我们需要确保新加坡人拥有负担得起且可及的交通。虽然我们的公共交通网络持续扩展，但汽车拥有权仍是许多新加坡人生活的重要方面。拥有年幼子女的家庭、老年人、行动不便者和有特殊需求的人通常依赖私家车进行日常通勤。

尽管我们的公共交通系统效率世界一流，但大多数时段仍然拥挤。高峰期情况更为严重，弱势乘客的座位有限。虽然私家车租赁（PHV）提供了替代选择，但其费用和等待时间都在上升，更不用说高峰时段的附加费。春节等节日期间出现的30分钟等待时间引发了对其可靠性的担忧。当然，这可以理解，因为PHV司机也有家庭，也会参与节日庆祝。但这也意味着PHV网络存在一定的市场失灵，可能需要一些干预。

飙升的配额证书（COE）价格威胁将汽车拥有权推向普通新加坡人难以承受的地步。这不是豪车问题，而是家庭用车问题。最近议会关于此问题的辩论显示了解决负担能力问题的紧迫性。

正在进行的点对点出行审查令人鼓舞。我敦促政府认真考虑为PHV设立单独的COE类别。我已多次在议会提出此问题。该问题核心在于将PHV和个人买家置于同一COE池的公平性和影响。首先，需求模式显著不同。PHV公司通常拥有更强的财务资源，能更积极竞标，最终将成本转嫁给乘客。其次，对于PHV来说，汽车本质上是商业工具。公司可能优先考虑更高的竞标价，而个人买家购买私车则是个人用途，且知道未来可以收回成本。因此，设立单独类别可解决企业与个人买家之间的不平衡，确保系统更公平合理。

第二，议长先生，我们需要保护老年人免受看似不公平的物业税上涨影响。虽然最近调整了估值（AV）区间和物业回扣，这是积极的步骤，但其延迟实施对退休老人构成紧迫关切。政府能否提前实施这些变更？

此外，许多退休人员“资产丰富但现金短缺”。他们几十年前购置了私人房产，并长期居住。物业税的急剧上涨可能对这些缺乏收入以吸收成本的退休人员造成毁灭性打击。我们需要一个更公平的系统来保护老年人。他们没有充足的现金流来承担与估值上升相关的物业税大幅增加。我认识的一位退休人员告诉我，她的物业税几乎增加了三倍。也许政府应为没有收入且拥有唯一自住物业的退休人员提供更多援助。对于拥有第二套、第三套物业的人，当然应征收更多税。政府目前的做法实际上是在要求那些住在自己家中、无法支付物业税的退休人员出售房屋，离开他们熟悉的环境。这将给老年人带来压力，影响心理健康，甚至可能导致痴呆症提前发作。

我们还需要实施一个更公平的物业税系统，考虑居民的独特情况，尤其是自住物业。我们能否鼓励银行和金融机构推广反向抵押贷款？将房屋租赁部分货币化，但允许在房屋最终继承时偿还。这可能创造市场，促进价格发现和竞争。

我们还需要更清晰地了解计算房屋估值时考虑的相关物理属性。税务局（IRAS）如何评估位于高价值地区但多年未装修的私人和组屋？此外，政府能否考虑引入物业税年度涨幅上限，例如最高50%？

第三，副议长先生，我们需要更清晰的沟通和针对性的公积金（CPF）变更支持。虽然关闭特别账户（SA）并将资金转入退休账户（RA）简化了系统，并可能提供更高利率，但我希望澄清那1%无法将SA储蓄转入RA的成员情况。部长能否详细说明哪些人属于此例外？从普通账户（OA）转入RA是否自愿？成员将如何获知此选项、其利弊，并在需要时获得协助？

此外，SA即将关闭引发许多居民，尤其是已达到全额退休金的50多岁居民的担忧和困惑。许多居民表示，由于此变更，他们不得不重新规划退休。基于SA较高利率多年的财务规划被打乱，调整时间有限。RA的有限提款选项引发了对紧急资金访问的担忧，而SA则更灵活。相反，资金留在OA意味着利息较低，影响老年人的长期财务安全。我敦促部长关注这些居民的担忧，探索减少SA关闭对55岁及以上成员影响的方法，特别是在提款灵活性方面。

此外，虽然我认可提高紧急退休金（ERS）以让成员受益于RA高利率的举措，但我强调需要关注难以达到基本退休金（BRS）的低收入者。部长能否详细说明帮助他们增加退休储蓄的具体措施？

最后，副议长先生，我们需要完善基本计划的经济状况审查程序，以确保包容性。虽然银发支持计划（Silver Support Scheme，SSS）旨在帮助那些工作期间收入较低、退休后收入减少的长者，但以住房类型来决定银发支持的发放，可能会不公平地影响那些与家人共住的长者。我建议取消这一标准。住在较大组屋的长者可能面临其他经济限制。他们可能与许多家庭成员同住，且没有选择缩小居住面积或变现房屋的选项。因此，将住房类型等同于财富可能并不合理。

同样地，针对医院账单和补贴，目前基于住房和家庭收入的经济状况审查，可能无法准确反映所有长者的真实经济状况。随着晚婚和单身趋势的增加，许多年轻新加坡人住在父母家中，努力实现经济独立或等待购买组屋。基于这些情况拒绝补贴，进一步不利于年轻新加坡人，并影响他们的婚姻和家庭规划决策。这也使长者因担心给子女带来负担而不愿寻求必要的医疗服务。因此，我们需要考虑取消住房类型作为标准，完善经济状况审查程序，以更全面地考虑个人和家庭收入。

总之，副议长先生，让我们睁开眼睛。让我们把新加坡看作一棵古老而宏伟的大树，深深扎根于我们的价值观和传统，为所有寻求庇护的人提供遮蔽和养分。正如我们珍惜和关爱长者一样，我们也必须确保他们免受不确定性和困苦的风暴侵袭。他们培育了这棵树，现在是他们享受它应有庇护的时候了。显然，我们需要采取行动，解决新加坡人面临的负担能力挑战。

我在发言中提出了若干建议。

首先，在交通方面，我们必须确保无障碍和负担能力，特别是对家庭和弱势群体如长者。我们需要探索为私人租车（PHV）设立独立的车辆拥车证（COE）类别。

其次，关于住房，必须建立更公平的物业税制度，考虑居民的独特情况。量身定制的政策和限制增幅可以减轻长者和房主的负担。

第三，在公积金（CPF）方面，提高政策变更的认知度和针对性支持至关重要，帮助长者增加退休储蓄，尤其是那些难以达到基本退休额的低收入者。

最后，在社会支持方面，完善银发支持和医疗补贴等基本计划的经济状况审查程序，确保全面考虑个人和家庭收入。

我敦促政府优先考虑这些措施，确保所有人，尤其是我们的长者，都能负担得起生活。让我们不要等到不断上涨的成本成为新加坡各年龄层居民难以逾越的障碍。通过共同努力，我们可以建设一个更具包容性和公平性的社会，让每个人都能茁壮成长，无论其处境如何。让我们携手使新加坡成为一个真正负担得起的居住地，一个人人都能追逐梦想而不被经济困难所困扰的国家。我支持预算案。

副议长：陈雪玲女士。

下午4时45分

陈雪玲（东海岸）：副议长先生，一个国家的命运历经岁月，要么兴起，要么衰落，要么停滞。我们很幸运，新加坡在巨大困难面前依然表现出色。2024年预算作为“前进新加坡”运动的一部分，旨在保持向上的发展轨迹。但即使我们发展经济，不变的事实是资源永远有限，而需求无限。

我们的需求随着每一代人增长，他们对更光明、更进步未来的期望意味着我们必须不断适应和进化。我们需要采取有意识的行动，最大限度地利用每一分钱，确保继续满足公民日益增长的期望，并以全面的方式扩大经济。因此，加强关键领域，防止不必要的资源浪费，同时确保我们的财富和社会平等在社会不同群体间保持同步，是必要的。

在2024年预算声明中，有四个方面令我印象深刻。首先，我同意我们的经济需要保持健康的增长速度，但不能不计代价。

我赞赏政府为经济未来规划方向，确定未来十年或二十年后支撑这个小红点的产业和就业岗位。然而，我们必须小心，不被潜在的、看不见的结构性和社会成本蒙蔽。我们必须以全面和审慎的方式规划这些经济活动，最重要的是，作为政府整体努力的一部分，确保考虑每项计划的各个维度。

例如，在追求新的高价值活动如研发时，我们不应忽视加强基础工程能力，或继续鼓励我们的高附加值制造业基础。疫情显示，全球供应链核心部分的过度依赖存在弊端。

将部分工作外包海外不仅影响我们的蓝领劳动力，也可能使新加坡失去将创新有效转化为市场产品的能力。从长远看，这限制了新加坡作为创新部署“一站式”服务中心的能力。

通过新推出的SkillsFuture Level-Up计划，精心规划终身学习和职业转型路径，将帮助我们的劳动力在新的经济增长领域提供产品和服务。然而，我们必须继续支持工艺和部分蓝领领域的能力发展，确保拥有全面的劳动力推动经济计划。

我对新的工艺教育学院（ITE）进阶奖感到高兴，该奖项支持学生在更实用和动手领域提升技能。我希望类似计划能继续支持和提升我们的劳动力，在推动新加坡增长基础的关键技能上达到精通。

明确地说，我完全支持未来的经济重点，如为数字和绿色转型做准备，持续提升价值链，并寻找我们能在全球竞争中脱颖而出的细分领域。

但在推动创新前沿的同时——这至关重要——想象新加坡经济未来的能力，为所有劳动力群体带来希望和可能性，这将保持我们的经济活力。

第二，我很高兴我们将为支持向清洁能源转型的关键基础设施建设拨款，通过未来能源基金实现。这些支出对于确保新加坡作为全球气候行动的积极参与者，并可能成为其他国家向清洁能源转型的典范，至关重要。

然而，这些基础设施建设成本高昂；鉴于能源格局不确定，存在被搁置的风险。审慎分配这些资金必须超越资本评估。政府领导人需对投资风险做出明智判断，考虑维护这些基础设施在规定寿命内的高额经常性成本和维护方式，以防止现在和未来的浪费。

同理，我们在开发任何基础设施项目时应遵循这一理念，确保每一分钱都用得其所。例如，许多有顶棚的连廊为市民提供便利，尤其在炎热和雨天时带来舒适。然而，一些连廊建在客流量不大的区域，使用率低。

为了夜间使用保持明亮，所需的照明也增加了电网负荷，而这些区域已有路灯照明。确保这些结构安全，尤其是跨路的连廊，建设和维护成本高昂。我们是否考虑过如何减少维护这些资产数十年的高额经常性开支？是否有可能调整这些连廊的用途，服务更广泛的社区，或采用其他创新且更廉价的遮蔽方式？这些决策确实需要一定的判断力。

鉴于资源有限，且未来可能缺少外劳满足日常需求，公共工程法规是否会发展，允许公民志愿贡献专业知识或技术设计？

第三，我欢迎帮助应对即时生活成本和增强援助计划（AP）的举措。根据2022年《世界经济展望》，我们的GDP人均约为9.11万新元，位列全球前三。

作为一个年轻国家，收入中位数相对较高，有些人难以理解我们中间存在低收入工人、夹心中产阶级以及可能无足够财力支持退休的长者或退休人员。面对可能不利于经济的全球逆风和人口老龄化，我对这部分公民的未来感到担忧，尤其是其带来的不确定性。国家繁荣的同时，我们必须正视财富和社会平等是否在社会不同群体间同步发展。

过去一年，必需品和服务价格上涨，社区发展理事会（CDC）和U-Save代金券的发放在一定程度上帮助许多新加坡人缓解了不断上升的成本负担。虽然这些计划能即时应对当前的通胀挑战，但长期实施同样给政府带来财政压力。需要持续跟踪这些方案的影响，并定期与方案或政策的初衷进行对标。

随着新加坡持续投资于新的高价值经济增长领域，并支持劳动力升级以承担更高价值的工作，我希望新加坡人的实际工资能持续增长。我并不反对为有需要且无法自助的特定群体提供财政支持，或真正需要援助的人伸出援手。

我想问政府，是否计划将部分支持计划，如CDC代金券和援助计划，设为永久性？我们打算如何为此筹资？人人都喜欢“免费钱”，但重要的是，我们始终优先考虑可能需要更多帮助的同胞，并作为一个国家家庭继续支持他们。

这引出了最后一个方面，即以有针对性的方式帮助需要更多支持的人。我对增加对特殊需要人士家庭的支持感到非常鼓舞。

我相信包容性是我们社会结构的重要支柱，我们应继续努力，动员更多新加坡人支持并最大程度地将特殊需要人士融入社区。降低特殊教育（SPED）学校的月费，增加对特殊需要人士就业和融入的支持，是正确的方向。

照顾特殊需要者不仅是经济成本问题，也对整个家庭造成影响，因为他们的生活方式完全改变，从关注负担能力转向如何最好地帮助特殊需要者生活。

最近一位居民向我求助，涉及其女儿申请交通优惠卡的问题。未获批准的原因是残疾定义和评估标准。事实上，她女儿自幼被诊断为不同程度的残疾。现年20岁的她状况未见改善，面临社会挑战和缺乏就业机会。她父母关心的，不仅是交通优惠卡的价值（低于消费税券或CDC代金券），更关心的是女儿余生可选择的机会取决于他人愿意提供的支持，而支持决策依赖于规则手册，这些规则往往缺乏理解和同情。

我想知道我们作为社区还能做些什么来支持这些人。我欣慰地看到越来越多商业设施预留空间并调整运营程序，使环境更欢迎特殊需要人士。

例如滨海湾花园计划为自闭症人士设立安静时段和包容性儿童游乐场。其他企业如Frasers Property及其租户成为首批“包容冠军”。此类社区及商业主导的努力对最终将特殊需要人士的包容性融入新加坡人日常生活至关重要。

我希望政府扩大对这些自发努力的支持，无论是在商业还是社区领域，帮助特殊需要人士。

副议长，最后总结，我对新加坡未来增长持乐观态度，尽管全球面临逆风。2024年预算展示了我们如何塑造经济以迎接新需求，同时确保劳动力更好地适应未来就业。

政府为国家规划的同时，我也呼吁新加坡人积极参与我们的前进道路。这个国家只能从我们的集体智慧、努力和成功意愿中受益。成功不仅仅是成为最好的定义，更是让我们感到自豪和安慰，因为我们的成功包括社会中需要帮助和脆弱的人。基于此，先生，我支持预算案。

副议长：陈洁仪女士。

下午4时57分

陈洁仪（东海岸）：副议长，2024年预算内容丰富。它应对了即时的生活成本挑战，为家庭和长者提供支持，支持个人和企业为未来增长和就业做好准备。引入措施以吸引优质投资，投资新经济领域，以及大规模推动经济脱碳，值得欢迎，但也需要大量资金。

我们的支出需求持续增长。问题是，我们能否继续承担如此巨额资金。副总理黄循财指出，我们的中期财政状况紧张，但保证只要支出增长保持在预计范围内，我们应有足够收入维持预算平衡。

因此，我希望我们能继续在具体举措上共享成果。我的发言将聚焦四个方面：更好的增长；就业和机会；医疗保健和长者护理；以及物业税调整。

鉴于持续的地缘政治局势、经济增长放缓和实际收入下降，新加坡人和企业在应对通胀、更高生活成本和经营成本方面面临挑战。为援助计划和企业支持方案宣布的现金支持和补助，将帮助家庭和企业应对当前成本和通胀压力。

但我们确实需要关注增长和优质增长。这对提升新加坡人的生活质量和企业繁荣至关重要。这一点去年在樟宜实美区的预算对话中一位居民表达得很恰当。

当我们讨论支持生活成本压力的预算措施时，他提醒我们，虽然需要支持措施，但我们也必须“扩大蛋糕”。如果不增长，长期来看我们将更糟，因为我们依赖的是一个不断缩小的蛋糕，依靠的东西会越来越少。这是严峻的现实，也是及时的提醒。

我们不能一味重复过去。全球不确定性、技术和气候变化驱动的结构性转变，要求我们做出根本性转变和创新，实现良好且可持续的增长。新加坡需要继续保持作为企业投资高质量项目的有吸引力的枢纽，因为这带来尖端能力、知识和技术，更重要的是创造优质就业。

引入可退还投资税额、对人工智能的投资、升级全国宽带网络，以及进一步推动2025年研究、创新与企业计划（RIE2025），是2024年预算为保持新加坡竞争力和吸引企业投资的重要举措。

[议长在主席台]

但要实现增长的全部潜力，我们的企业，包括中小企业，必须具备参与增长的能力。拥有强大的本地企业也将提升新加坡对投资的吸引力，因为寻求投资的企业需要有强大的合作伙伴基础。我们的本地企业必须转型以保持相关性，这一点至关重要。我们必须认识到，这些变化不会轻松实现，因为它们需要采用新的经营方式、利用技术、培养新技能以及采用节能解决方案。预算中的措施和增强将支持本地企业的转型努力。但最终取决于本地企业是否愿意承诺并投资于转型，同时继续经营现有业务。

当我在跨国企业工作时，我亲眼见证了跨国企业与本地企业，尤其是中小企业之间协作的协同效应和益处。中小企业可以借助跨国企业的技术专长、专业知识、财务实力和市场渠道实现升级。许多跨国企业都有发展本地企业的计划，因为他们理解与本地企业合作并建立强大网络的重要性，以提供本地市场洞察、挖掘本地市场潜力并弥补不足。这对跨国企业和本地企业都是双赢。因此，本地企业必须进行必要的投资以实现转型，准备好成为跨国企业价值链中的关键合作伙伴。

能力转型伙伴计划及副总理黄循财在预算中宣布的增强措施将促进跨国企业与本地企业之间的合作。但本地企业只有具备能力才能实现这一点。

现在让我谈谈同样重要的一点。为了实现增长，企业需要人才，需要具备相关技能和知识的人来承担工作。结构性变革正在影响企业，进而影响就业岗位。

在我于2022年提出的关于老年人就业能力的休会动议中，我分享了人民行动党老年人小组为更好理解工作和老年人就业能力所做的研究成果。

我的一项建议是需要对支持学习和组织工作的方式进行结构性干预。随着人们寿命延长且健康状况改善，我们持续学习、保持生产力，并希望随着年龄增长继续工作。

但我们的人生阶段发展并非线性。正如我们允许年轻人在正规教育中有不同路径，我强调需要重新思考如何为在职人员构建学习结构，以实现持续学习和工作。个人和雇主都知道持续学习的价值。挑战在于机会成本和投入大量时间。由此形成了人才缺口和技能相关性问题，影响企业和个人。我曾建议每隔几年允许几个月的与工作相关的学习时间，这样我们才能真正培养技能。

预算中宣布的SkillsFuture提升计划意义重大。它将支持所有40岁及以上的新加坡中年职业人士，提供4000新元的SkillsFuture学分，用于选定行业的课程，这些行业有良好的招聘机会；补贴理工学院、工艺教育学院和艺术院校的全日制文凭课程，并提供最高每月3000新元、最长24个月的培训津贴，终身有效。这些措施旨在抵消学习期间的收入损失，也表明政府认识到结构性就业变化的影响，认识到中年职业人士需要适当支持，主动提升技能，以应对就业变化，做好准备迎接新的优质工作机会。

SkillsFuture提升计划确实是支持中年职业人士的结构性变革。它将缓解再培训成本，我相信这将鼓励个人承诺并主动掌控自己的技能提升和职业发展。这需要心态转变，以及雇主、教育机构和家庭的支持，帮助再培训、工作和过渡管理。所有利益相关者，包括中年职业人士，都需要调整，因为多年后重返正规教育可能令人望而生畏。还有其他考虑因素，比如寻找和选择适合的课程以提升就业能力和获得更好工作，以及非全日制课程学习者如何兼顾工作和学习。但归根结底，为使SkillsFuture对工人有意义，再培训必须与企业需求相符，确保最终获得更好的工作。

如果我们成功实现SkillsFuture提升计划所倡导的再培训转变，我希望学习能像正规教育中的年轻人一样，成为职场工人的系统性行为。

现在让我谈谈医疗保健和老年护理。

面对家庭成本压力和医疗费用上升，我欢迎政府修订按月人均家庭收入（PHCI）作为医疗和相关社会支持补贴的资产测试标准。正如所述，修订后，超过一百万人将受益于更高的补贴。

我想澄清卫生部和社会及家庭发展部长期居住和非居住护理的修订门槛和补贴。提供的细节未提及评估价值（AV）。评估价值不再作为标准了吗？对于没有PHCI的退休人员，是否会使用评估价值作为资产测试标准来确定资格？如果评估价值稍高于门槛，他们是否将无法获得任何补贴？

我在去年的预算辩论中呼吁审查和完善老年人长期居住和非居住护理的资产测试标准。如果评估价值仍作为确定资格的资产测试标准，冒着重复啰嗦的风险，我请求政府审视如何支持新加坡家庭照顾老年人，就像去年预算宣布支持所有新加坡家庭照顾幼儿一样，无需资产测试。

我并非要求取消资产测试，而是希望完善评估价值在确定资格中的使用方式。老年护理服务费用不菲。无补贴情况下，日托服务每月费用在945至1430新元之间。痴呆症护理服务每月费用在1260至1575新元之间。对于同时照顾幼儿和老人的家庭，这些开支相当可观。对退休人员影响更大。

最后，我感谢副总理认识到2024年业主自住住宅物业税因评估价值大幅上涨而带来的挑战，并调整了业主自住物业税的评估价值区间。这意味着如果评估价值保持不变，业主在2025年及以后年度将缴纳更少的物业税。

正如CBRE研究所分享的，评估价值区间调整将最大程度惠及低端和中端物业，物业税减少约20%-30%。该调整将帮助业主，尤其是可能经济状况不佳的退休人员。加上24个月无息分期付款计划，将帮助无法一次性支付物业税的退休人员。

2024年预算是全面的预算。它为我们共同建设未来奠定了新基础和构建块。实现预算中提出的大胆目标需要政府、企业、个人和社区共同积极参与，发挥各自作用。议长先生，我支持预算。

议长：贾拉德·贾姆先生。

下午5时08分

贾拉德·贾姆·彦松（阿裕尼）先生：议长先生，新加坡工人渴望获得良好收入，参与有意义的工作，不仅提升自己家庭，也提升社区、国家乃至世界。

工作的一个不可避免的现实是竞争。

新加坡一直拥有非常竞争的文化。这在许多方面对我们有利，从学生在学校的优异表现，到我们在全球排名中的努力，以及从反腐败感知到商业友好度等各方面。然而，竞争也有阴暗面。

新加坡人并不指望政府保护他们免受全球竞争影响。但我们厌恶不公平竞争，即那些不遵守规则或本地规范的人却仍然领先。例如，当新加坡工人看到同事因经理偏好与其文化背景相同的人而被录用和晋升，而非基于能力或努力时，这会在他们心中产生深刻的不和谐感。

为什么？因为新加坡人从小被教育相信功绩主义是我们社会的指导原则。我们希望新加坡奖励基于能力和努力的工人和专业人士，而非关系或部落忠诚。

然而，尽管我们努力塑造理想的新加坡，我们只是大海中的一滴水。我们必须教导我们的孩子和学生面对现实世界，而非理想世界。他们必须在家庭和学校中被教导在有贡献时发声，而非默默无闻。他们必须被鼓励争取应得的权益，而非无条件接受他人决定。他们必须愿意与来自不同文化和国籍的人广泛交流，理解他们的动机。

新加坡常被视为卓越之国。用本地话说，我们做事“swee swee”（一丝不苟）。交给新加坡人任务，当他们说完成时，我们可以信赖其质量。我们绝不能让这种卓越文化滑落。这是我们在日益竞争激烈的世界中的优势。

近年来，生成式人工智能和自动驾驶汽车的推出使人工智能和机器人技术进入主流视野。这些技术可通过提升任务和流程的速度、准确性和效率，为新加坡提高生产力提供路径。

有许多关于人工智能对生产力可衡量影响的研究。例如，波士顿咨询集团与哈佛大学联合研究发现，使用GPT-4的顾问完成的商业任务比未使用人工智能的对照组多12%，速度快25%，质量高40%。

这些都是新加坡可以利用的绝佳机会。政府可以推动人工智能和机器人技术的更广泛应用，不仅面向科学家和企业，也面向普通公民的通用用途。

2023年11月，我曾询问政府是否计划发展本土人工智能基础模型能力，包括建立国家基础模型研究院。

2024年2月，我提出建立国家人工智能医疗基础模型的建议，该模型可用于预测和干预多种疾病。我愿在此重申这些呼吁。

这些不仅是国家级举措，也可能成为更大区域科学合作的前奏。新加坡需要合适的机构和机会，以吸引和留住最优秀的人才，包括有才华的新加坡学生、科学家和企业家。

我对这些新技术可能导致的失业风险毫不抱幻想。这就是为什么2024年1月，我询问政府如何主动再培训最易受人工智能影响的工人。我们需要干预措施，保护公民免受人工智能引发的失业风险。我们最好成为自身变革的设计师，而非任由技术带来负面改变。

我们可能会倾向于采用旧有方案，投入资金培训项目，鼓励工人参加课程。但这种方法可能无法成功提升整个劳动力在新兴技术中的技能。

我们还必须拥抱默会学习，即通过实际操作人工智能和机器人来学习。默会学习是通过实践学习。使用人工智能工具或机器人应像使用网页浏览器搜索答案或操作电视遥控器一样简单和普及。机器人应更广泛部署于环境中，让公众每天都能看到和使用。

让每位新加坡人亲身实践人工智能和机器人，将更好确保这些技术的收益惠及所有人，包括体力工人和知识工作者、公务员和企业家、跨国公司和中小企业。

SkillsFuture也必须支持默会学习。2024年2月，在我关于全球人工智能领导力的休会动议中，我呼吁用SkillsFuture学分补贴前沿人工智能工具的订阅费用。

人工智能工具提升工人生产力，我们应给予更多机会让民众使用。我们必须努力让新加坡社会各阶层都能接触到最先进的人工智能模型和机器人。只有作为先行者尝试，并愿意接受和从失败中学习，我们才能获得和保留无师自通的宝贵知识。

副总理黄循财在预算陈述中正确指出，我们正处于武装冲突、对抗和恐怖主义时代，大国优先考虑国家安全而非国际合作，解决全球问题的意愿减弱。这是严峻现实。我们必须在新世界秩序的现实中工作，旧秩序可能短期内难以回归。

副总理黄表示，我们将追求更好的工作和更好的增长。他承诺提升各职业的工资水平。特别是，他指出工艺教育学院毕业生的工资和职业前景不应远远落后于理工学院和大学毕业生。我完全支持这一点。我希望技术工人的工资能更接近知识工作者，因为他们为经济和社会带来的价值。我将在人力部预算委员会辩论中进一步阐述。

SkillsFuture提升计划注入额外4000新元学分，令人欢迎。副总理黄表示，这些学分将用于选定的培训项目，这些项目具有更好的就业前景，包括兼职和全日制文凭及本科课程。此外，40岁及以上工人将有机会以补贴价攻读另一全日制文凭。

请问部长，政府如何得出这些文凭和学位课程具有更好就业前景的结论？是否有实证数据支持？如果有，更好就业结果是因为毕业生获得了更高技能，还是因为本地雇主仍然重视学历而非技能和经验？

事实上，公认最有效的获得就业技能方式之一是通过在职培训（OJT）和学徒制。因此，我建议政府对在职培训和学徒制项目给予与文凭和学位课程同等的补贴。

副总理黄在预算陈述中简要提及政府将通过失业临时财政支持计划，更多支持因失业而受影响者。他表示政府将在今年晚些时候制定细节。先生，该计划几乎在去年8月国庆集会上宣布，何时能落实？

更重要的是，该计划的财政可持续性如何？是否包含保险成分，如工人党提出的裁员保险计划，确保经济繁荣时期雇主和雇员缴纳的保费可在经济低迷、裁员增加时使用？

议长先生，社会包容必须成为我们所有经济政策的核心。我很高兴看到特殊教育（SPED）学校的最高月费将降至90新元，所有中心的费用上限也降低。然而，新加坡应朝着特殊教育学校与主流学校费用平等的方向迈进。虽然我理解两类学校的教育成本不同，但学费应相同。

先生，主流小学学费仅为每月13新元，那么特殊教育学校学费也应为13新元，而非目前平均120新元。即使降至90新元，虽值得肯定，但仍不公平。尤其考虑到特殊需求儿童家长在教育之外的其他方面承担更高费用。特殊教育学校的额外成本应由社会分担，以促进更具包容性和公平的社会。

校车费用仍是残障群体的重大关切。截至2024年1月1日，教育部已将主流学校校车运营商的价格上限提高了13%。但我们知道，特殊教育学校学生的校车费用涨幅更大，因为能满足其复杂需求的运营商较少。

我知道并且感谢有各种校车补贴援助计划，比如教育部的经济援助计划（FAS）和交通补贴计划（ETS）。虽然我理解保持校车运营商可持续发展的必要性，但生活成本危机的负面影响使得校车交通费用成为许多残疾学生家长的额外负担。许多学生严重依赖校车往返于家、学校和社会服务机构，参加诸如婴幼儿早期介入计划（EIPIC）、托儿所、庇护工场和特殊学生照顾中心等项目。

通常，这还涉及额外费用。例如，EIPIC是半天的课程，因此学生还需要从学校被送到该项目地点，造成交通费用的双重负担。

因此，我呼吁政府提高FAS和ETS的每月家庭收入上限，特别是针对有特殊需要成员的家庭。此外，可以提供更多补贴以应对校车票价的通胀。这将确保更多家庭能够获得并受益于这些补贴，以应对不断上涨的生活成本。

总之，议长先生，在我们穿越快速变化的全球和技术环境时，我们的政策必须体现对公平、精英主义和创新的坚定承诺。通过培育一个倡导公平竞争、利用人工智能和机器人技术变革力量，并将每个新加坡人的福祉和进步置于核心的生态系统——我们能够确保一个强健且繁荣的未来。

让我们继续致力于建设一个机会均等、卓越文化和尊重每个人贡献价值的社会，为未来几代新加坡人的发展塑造道路。议长先生，我支持该动议。

议长：蔡凯德先生。

下午5时21分

蔡凯德先生（提名议员）：议长先生，感谢您给予我机会分享对今年预算案——“共建我们的共享未来”的看法。

我认为其中隐含的关键词是“建设”、“共享未来”和“一起”。

在听了王瑞杰副总理于2月16日的预算演讲，并随后多次重读他的讲话并反思后，我感到非常感激，尽管我们将面临不确定性，但我们作为一个民族，已做好准备共同面对这些挑战。

2024年预算案既解决了当前问题，也继续构建我们的未来社会契约。2024年预算案启动了约400亿新元的新社会契约支出。2024年预算案继续鼓励和支持必要的经济增长，尽管增速放缓。

我们的预算通常吸引金融和商业界的关注。但我希望更多新加坡人能抽时间完整阅读2024年预算案。我希望即使金融和商业界从财政角度评估和辩论预算，他们也能在向更广泛的群体传达其核心内容方面发挥作用。

可能我们更广泛人口对预算细节参与有限的一个原因，是历史上对政府的隐性信任。然而，在这个信息误导的时代，每个新加坡人越来越需要理解事实和现实。如果我们要成为共同建设共享未来的一部分，就必须超越诸如政府发放补贴等简单陈述。

议长先生，我想从三个主题或标题提出我的观察。

首先，忠诚且负责任地管理小事，因此被托付更大责任。其次，持续关心人民福祉。最后，认识并欣赏我们的成功，并将其分享于国内外。

我们最近关于储备和政府过去几十年审慎财政管理的辩论中谈了很多。但我们需要理解，我们是从一个假设较小的初始资金开始积累储备，并在几十年间显著增长。就我们自身经济而言，我们从一个充满挑战的基础起步，如今已成功吸引大量国际投资，并发展出强大的本地商业部门。

2024年预算案承认当前挑战，因此在多个领域为个人和企业提供支持。

本地商业部门的增长将自然发生，也将来自新举措。我们需要确保中小企业持续繁荣。我们需要鼓励创业精神保持活力和相关性。

创新创业可以通过有意支持新兴社会企业家实现。也许预算案中一些新的或增强的资金，包括研发领域，可以分配给适合的社会创业项目，这些项目不仅追求商业回报，也实现社会影响和社会目标。

2024年预算案关注社区中更需要帮助和脆弱群体的福利。由于国内经济和全球经济的结构性转变，一些工人将面临非自愿失业。

支持可能有助于传达——他们并非孤军奋战，政府和社区都准备提供帮助。我也希望并请求，我们引入的支持方式是全面的。我鼓励不幸受影响的个人积极规划未来，保持积极态度。

一些人可能因身体或精神障碍而非自愿失业。现有渠道可帮助这部分群体，但可能仍有部分人被遗漏。政府在制定支持框架时，是否会审视如何帮助除裁员或冗余外的所有非自愿失业者？

我们的社会部门必须继续留住人才并吸引新人才，以准备支持当前和未来需求。随着我们定义新社会契约下的成功，我希望会有更多人视该部门为有意义的职业。

我们的青年和长者需要多样化的针对性支持和干预。预算案已概述支持长者改善退休保障等方面。在这方面，雇主需要加大力度，为希望继续工作的长者提供机会。我们许多大型本地企业表现良好。此类企业是否会继续发挥带头作用，促进长者的有意义参与和就业？

令人担忧的是，青少年中毒品使用呈上升趋势。虽然执法似乎是自然反应，但我们是否已识别出需要解决的系统性问题？最近有机会听取内政部的汇报，我感到欣慰的是，帮助早期毒品滥用者康复的努力有所加强，希望我们能持续支持这一工作。

还有心理健康下降和青少年自杀率上升的问题。同样，我们需要探讨可能需要解决的系统性问题。

第三，议长先生，我们是经济和物质成功的受益者。我们也是世界上最安全、最稳定的国家之一。许多人会形容我们是一个真正被祝福的国家。

拟议的帮助愿意帮助他人的人计划，是建设一个有凝聚力和慷慨社会的切实步骤。它使社区成员能够共同为我们的共享未来贡献力量。与新加坡社区基金会、社会及家庭发展部和社区 Chest 的合作是一个极好的起点。目标是通过协作项目和举措提升社区中低收入成员的生活水平。

拟议的海外人道援助税收扣除计划是积极举措，我们寻求将我们的福祉分享至海外。我想指出，作为一个国家，多年来我们在没有税收扣除的情况下已慷慨响应各种呼吁。政府正迈出支持人道援助行动的步伐，这应能提升我们对不幸事件的响应水平。

上周，我有机会参加由国家志愿者与慈善中心（NVPC）主办的“善城峰会”。一位主旨演讲者谈到了水资源问题以及许多欠发达地区持续面临的清洁水挑战。引用的统计数据显示，大约7亿人，即约十分之一的人口，无法获得清洁水。许多社区可能终其一生几乎无法获得清洁水。

我们驻缅甸大使馆帮助社区获得清洁水。Lien Aid在柬埔寨发起了清洁水解决方案，我有机会访问并学习。我还在新加坡国际基金会青年社会企业家活动中遇见了Wateroam团队，当时他们处于创业初期。Wateroam由三名新加坡国立大学本科生于2014年创立。

当时Hyflux仍在运营，我曾推广其便携式过滤系统用于农村社区。

谈到水资源解决方案，我们还需认可Jack Sim博士的早期努力——他创立了自己的WTO。为议员们说明，这里的WTO指的是世界厕所组织。Jack Sim博士在推广清洁水和适当卫生方面做了大量工作。

议长先生，我们目前拥有由新加坡人开发的令人惊叹的水资源解决方案。Lien Aid服务于四个亚洲国家。Wateroam的产品和解决方案已覆盖44个国家。由于各国获得清洁水的途径不同，全球还需做更多工作以解决这一问题并开发持久解决方案。

因此，我建议在我们计划试点海外人道援助税收扣除计划时，也考虑启动类似计划，成为积极提供和扩大全球清洁水解决方案的关键参与者。是否可以为新加坡的慈善机构和社会企业家提供同样的税收扣除，以便他们筹集资金扩大为目前几乎无法获得清洁水的社区提供解决方案？

解决全球水资源挑战将改变社区，解决健康问题，提高经济水平，改善教育机会。新加坡可以发挥关键作用——汇聚现有和新兴供应商，制定协调计划，作为公共、私营和民间部门的合作伙伴，共同解决这一全球挑战。

议长先生，尽管我们取得了显著成就，但我们不能自满。未来仍有挑战——有些我们可以预见，有些则可能突然出现，如近期的新冠疫情。然而，正如王瑞杰副总理所言，我们过去几十年已克服挑战，且常常变得更强。

我们正着手建立一个将塑造未来几代人的新社会契约。2024年预算案继续支持我们共同的旅程。我们必须保持团结，建立集体韧性。议长先生，我支持2024年预算案。

议长：颜添宝先生。

下午5时34分

颜添宝先生（宏茂桥）：议长先生，我感谢预算案中各种代金券、补贴和回扣，帮助中低收入家庭应对不断上涨的生活成本。根据我居民的反馈，这确实是令人欢迎的消息。有了这些支持资源应对眼前挑战，我们的家庭应能更好地利用长期项目进行升级和技能提升，从而继续胜任好工作，赚取更高收入。

过去有人呼吁动用我们的储备，以便发放更多补贴和援助。议会最近对此进行了辩论。我借此机会表达我与许多议员的共识，即我们应谨慎使用储备，为子孙后代继续储蓄，因为他们是我们的孩子和孙辈。议长先生，我用普通话说。

（普通话）：[请参阅方言发言。]我们的父母甚至我们自己，都会给孩子最好的食物。即使是我们自己喜欢的食物，我们也会告诉孩子我们不饿，或者不喜欢这食物，但这并非事实。所有父母都想给孩子和孙辈最好的，留最好的给他们。我们的年轻一代和未来一代是我们的孩子和孙辈，因此我们有责任给他们最好的，照顾他们。

关于储备的全面披露，出于国家利益，政府需要防范那些心怀不轨、试图从我们这里谋取利益的人。闽南话有句俗语，“会不会做，试了才知道”。事实上，过去曾有不止一次恶意攻击我们货币的企图，但最终都失败了。这是因为我们有强大的储备来威慑他人攻击。

（英语）：先生，正如总理所说，我们的储备是宝贵资源，必须保护。我们必须在满足当前需求和应对未来紧急情况之间取得微妙平衡。

目前，让我们以此平衡为基础，寻找提高生产力和扩大经济蛋糕的方法，以便为我们这一代的需求提供资金，并为下一代留下一些余力，正如我们的前辈为我们所做的那样。

先生，我们仍面临未来疫情和不确定性的威胁。乌克兰战争、加沙冲突及红海安全威胁扰乱供应链。无形的网络安全威胁已将威胁维度从陆地和海洋扩展至空中。

乌克兰战争的教训为战争提供了新的视角和定义。显然，我们使用的技术也可能被用来对付我们自己。

因此，我们需要继续投资研发并支持创新。应鼓励新加坡的家族办公室分配资源支持新加坡的研发和创新项目，包括吸引顶尖人才和科学家与我们的研究人员合作。

这些项目可能包括加强我们的食品和能源安全。我支持研究最新且更安全的核技术，如小型模块化反应堆，在近海部署，作为我们能源需求的额外绿色能源解决方案。事实上，就在我进来之前，我看到有国家已成功从国际水域平台发射卫星。因此，我们可以考虑陆上及近海水域的方案，以满足我们的能源需求。

接下来，关于年长员工的就业。我支持人力部决定继续按计划将55至65岁年长员工的公积金缴纳率提高1.5个百分点。这将帮助我们的工作长者积累更多公积金储蓄以备退休。

有人认为50岁以上人士找工作更具挑战。根据人力部2023年新加坡劳动力报告，50岁及以上专业人士的失业率为2.6%，与40至49岁及30岁以下群体相当。非专业人士失业率为2.7%，是所有年龄段中最低的。

因此，我呼吁为希望继续工作的年长人士提供更多求职支持和岗位匹配，尤其是被裁员者。过去两年被裁员工的年龄分布、求职时长及目前仍失业人数，政府是否掌握相关数据？50至55岁、55至60岁及60岁以上被裁员工在六个月内找到工作的成功率分别是多少？

虽然我很高兴所有40岁及以上新加坡人将获得4000新元的技能未来积分，用于指定培训，但我希望政府不仅确保这些培训提升就业能力。政府是否考虑与雇主（包括公共服务部门）合作，将完成相关培训且符合岗位要求者安置到工作岗位？是否考虑为雇主提供激励，鼓励他们聘用长者？政府能否提供更多细节，说明如何帮助积极求职的工人，以及采取哪些措施检测和减少招聘中的年龄歧视？

最后，关于组屋——一个我非常关心的话题。虽然令人鼓舞的是，预计在2023年至2025年间将完成约10万个公共和私人住房单位，但是否可以做更多工作以缩短年轻已婚夫妇等待组屋的时间？公共租赁住房计划（PPHS）下的补贴租赁住房以及为符合条件的家庭提供的一年期PPHS（开放市场）券以支持他们在开放市场租赁组屋，都是极好的计划。然而，这些组屋只是临时住所。搬家是生活中最具压力的事件之一，难怪一些夫妇选择推迟生育，直到他们搬进自己的组屋。生育时间推迟，夫妇往往最终生育的孩子较少。

因此，我呼吁政府审视其长期组屋政策，考虑提前建造更多组屋——一定数量的组屋——以便缩短夫妇，尤其是年轻家庭的等待时间至一年或一年半以内。借此，我想以支持预算为结尾。

议长先生：Ang Wei Neng先生。

下午5时43分

Ang Wei Neng先生（西海岸）：议长先生，我支持本预算案。

我们对预算中支持新加坡企业的措施感到满意，特别是13亿新元的企业支持计划以提升能力。当我与许多企业领导交流时，关键关切总是围绕人力资源。鉴于我们的低出生率，很难招聘足够的新加坡人来支持不断增长的经济。此外，许多企业领导表示，许多体力劳动岗位和非空调环境的工作不受新加坡人青睐。公司告诉我们，他们有时不得不雇佣外籍劳工。然而，严格的外劳配额和不断提高的S准证续签最低薪金要求对中小企业来说是痛点。

政府鼓励中小企业投资技术，特别是在人工智能和绿色倡议领域，这是值得称赞的。对一些中小企业来说，生存至关重要。我想建议政府在三个方面协助我们占新加坡劳动力71%的中小企业。在此之前，我声明本人为Strides Premier的首席执行官，该公司租赁车辆并提供车辆服务，包括消防车、救护车和油罐车等专用车辆的维护。

首先，关于人力资源：一些新加坡人因零售业需要在办公时间外及周末工作而回避该行业。我们希望新加坡人有更多时间约会、结婚、生育、陪伴家人或照顾亲人。因此，零售业补充外劳人力非常必要。

同样，在无空调环境下，新加坡人也不愿意工作。鉴于这些因素，我呼吁人力部（MOM）在未来三年内不要维持或收紧不受新加坡人欢迎行业的外劳配额和外劳征费，尤其是在全球经济极不确定的时期。事实上，许多中小企业希望人力部增加大多数新加坡人不愿从事岗位的外劳配额。

此外，我选区南洋的许多创业者抱怨他们在续签S准证时不得不大幅提高技术外劳的薪酬。例如，一名在炎热潮湿车间工作的汽车保险理赔专员，其薪资从约3400新元涨至4200新元，涨幅近24%。大多数新加坡人即使晋升，一年内也难以获得15%的薪资增长。

外劳薪资的大幅增长不仅增加了中小企业成本，也在新加坡同事间造成不和谐。因此，我希望人力部能考虑对S准证持有者的最低薪资调整采取更温和的措施。

第二，关于政府项目，许多政府部门已将采购职能集中化，值得称赞。家庭团队科技局（HTX）是一个好例子，警察部队、新加坡民防部队（SCDF）、监狱局和中央禁毒局的采购需求被集中管理，以实现更好的协同和透明度。

许多公务员在制定招标规格时勤勉保护政府利益。例如，一些政府招标合同规定，只有在昂贵物品、工具、专用车辆全部交付后才付款，或项目完成后才支付大额款项，不提供预付款或进度款。

虽然此做法保护政府免收劣质产品或减少项目未完成风险，但对中小企业非常困难。没有预付款或进度款增加了中小企业的融资成本。在当前高利率环境下，中小企业竞标此类政府项目将面临挑战。没有预付款或进度款的项目招标通常有利于资金雄厚的大公司，尤其是跨国公司。因此，我敦促政府审视此类做法，为中小企业创造公平竞争环境。

第三，关于土地利用：感谢交通部，我们现在拥有更多地铁线路。西部居民，包括南洋居民，对即将到来的裕廊区域线感到兴奋。裕廊区域线不是地下线，将沿用类似南北线和东西线的大部分高架轨道。现有地铁线路高架桥下的空间利用率不高，与日本等国不同。目前我们看到部分高架桥下空间被用作自行车道。但这些高架桥靠近地铁站，土地宝贵，我们希望政府允许私人部门使用高架桥下空间，特别是为中小企业提供重要服务，如托儿和养老服务，方便居民。

议长先生，接下来我想谈谈社区发展理事会（CDC）券的话题。我之前在议会多次提及此话题。许多居民，包括南洋居民，对2024年预算宣布的每户新加坡家庭额外600元CDC券感到满意。我之前提到，CDC券是帮助新加坡人缓解通胀影响的更好方式，主要体现在两个方面。首先，CDC券必须在新加坡消费，主要惠及社区商铺。社区商铺从CDC券中获益良多。与消费税券发放现金不同，CDC券不能在海外使用，尤其是过关消费。此外，CDC券还有乘数效应，媒体报道广泛。唯一缺点是CDC券按户发放，不论家庭人数。

因此，我建议财政部考虑为每三名居住在组屋的注册新加坡人，将CDC券金额翻倍。对于不需要CDC券的家庭，他们可以选择捐赠给更需要的人，或不使用，让政府将资源重新分配到更紧迫的需求。

最后，我希望卫生部和社会及家庭发展部考虑将通胀或消费者物价指数（CPI）纳入确定各类政府财政援助计划收入标准的公式中。CPI部分可类似能源市场管理局用于确定电价的价格指数，以及公共交通理事会在票价调整公式中使用的价格指数。

该价格指数至关重要，因为过去三年通胀高企，未来几年可能仍将维持高位。事实上，2023年新加坡人的实际收入下降了2.2%，尽管名义收入有所增加。这对低收入新加坡人是双重打击。名义收入增加时，许多新加坡人不再符合财政援助资格，因为政府很少调整收入标准。与此同时，这些低收入家庭因实际收入下降，在高通胀环境下需要更多财政援助。

我了解到卫生部和社会及家庭发展部承诺定期审查蓝色CHAS卡和财政援助的收入标准。过去几年经验显示，“定期”意味着每隔几年一次。在疫情前低通胀时期，这尚可接受。但在当前高通胀环境下，每隔几年审查一次对低薪新加坡人非常不利。

因此，我呼吁卫生部和社会及家庭发展部将价格指数纳入收入标准，以便为低收入家庭提供财政援助。简言之，定期审查应每年甚至每季度进行，而非几年一次。议长先生，尽管如此，我支持本预算案。

议长先生：Ng Ling Ling女士。

下午5时55分

Ng Ling Ling女士（宏茂桥）：议长先生，我欢迎2024年预算案中的综合方案，重点是未来十年共同建设我们作为一个充满活力、包容、公平、繁荣、韧性和团结的国家。

去年，我在预算辩论中提出三方面，呼吁政府加大力度：一是支持在职成年人；二是关爱长者；三是支持年轻夫妇和家庭。今年预算，我将继续聚焦这三类占我芽笼路选区大多数居民的群体的考虑和支持。

在芽笼路选区，最大群体年龄介于20至60岁之间。他们大多是工作成年人，可能刚开始第一份工作，或尽可能维持就业直至晚年，希望能舒适自信地退休。因此，预算中宣布的可能影响他们职业轨迹和机会的方案对他们意义重大。

我很高兴听到政府推出新的技能未来升级计划，更好支持中年职业人士。这包括五月发放4000元的技能未来额外学分，鼓励更多中年职工更新技能，提升职业发展。

然而，我担心迄今为止通过技能未来计划尝试提升技能或考虑转行的个人参与率较低。根据技能未来新加坡（SSG）去年发布的数据，所有年龄段中，有七成新加坡人自2015年计划启动以来尚未使用技能未来学分。

我从一些居民了解到，尽管技能未来学分慷慨，参加认可课程的时间是他们使用学分的主要障碍。因此，我想问政府如何进一步支持雇主，让有意提升技能的员工获得更多培训假和时间，尤其是利用新学分攻读另一文凭课程。

另一个考虑是有意利用额外学分保持就业能力的新加坡人的年龄。让我分享一位居民李先生的故事，他64岁，正在找工作。李先生曾在新加坡理工学院获得机械工程文凭，多年前还获得制造技术高级文凭。他曾为工艺教育学院（ITE）学生教授课程。

李先生身体健康，希望继续工作，但因年龄问题找工作困难。我与人力部合作进行推荐，协助他求职。他的案例凸显了除技能提升外，我们需要对年长职工的职业延续采取更包容、灵活的方式。对于李先生这样的案例，如果他投入时间攻读另一文凭，技能未来升级计划能在多大程度上帮助他找工作？这是我60多岁居民中一些人的心声，他们渴望终身学习，健康状况良好时愿意工作至60多岁甚至70多岁。

接下来，我谈谈另一群重要的新加坡人——50多岁的年轻长者。在家访和基层活动中，许多年轻长者表示欢迎政府推出的“前进计划”，以更好保障他们的退休需求。其中包括每年最高1000元的“赚取与储蓄奖金”，帮助年轻长者积累更多退休储蓄。

然而，其中一部分人是全职照顾80多岁甚至90多岁体弱父母的家庭照顾者。他们告诉我，“前进计划”对他们也会有帮助，但家庭照顾并未被视为正式就业。

政府是否愿意调整“前进计划”中“赚取与储蓄奖金”的部分标准，例如确认家庭成员确实需要全职照顾及照顾时长，将这群年轻长者照顾者纳入受益范围？他们同样关心自身财务需求，希望能享受该计划。

我也欢迎政府将增强退休金从基本退休金的三倍提高至四倍，让更多55岁及以上成员将更多公积金储蓄用于退休时获得更高公积金回报。然而，我想提出一个关注点：我在接待会中遇到一些55岁及以上的单身长者，他们尚未解决住房问题。

2023年最新人口趋势显示，2012年至2022年间，25至49岁各男女群体中单身比例上升。这意味着越来越多接近55岁的单身人士。

在接待会中，我遇到一些55岁及以上单身长者，他们终于通过抽签获得了自己的组屋两房灵活单位，期待退休时拥有自己的家，但他们不知道当年满55岁时转入退休账户的普通账户和特别账户资金，不能用于支付购房款，超出组屋贷款部分。

他们对无法撤回转入退休账户的额外资金感到失望。尽管他们尝试向公积金局申请提取退休账户资金购房，但公积金局需确保退休账户资金维持以支持退休需求，申诉渠道有限。

虽然增强退休计划对寻求更高公积金退休回报者有帮助，我敦促公积金局更清晰地说明转入退休账户的政策，并与组屋发展局合作，提醒尚未解决住房需求者注意转入退休账户的金额。

最后，我想谈谈年轻夫妇和家庭的愿望，以及如何更好支持他们实现购房和组建家庭的梦想。我很高兴政府在本预算中推出了为期一年的父母临时住房计划（PPHS）（开放市场）券，支持符合条件的家庭在开放市场租赁组屋。

我在接待会中遇到许多居民寻求帮助购买组屋以组建家庭。他们通常是尚未成功抽中新组屋（无论是建屋发展局组屋还是余屋销售）的年轻夫妇，但希望尽快有家可归或即将迎来新生儿。

事实上，申请新组屋抽签的求助请求通常占我接待会向建屋发展局的主要诉求，尤其是在建屋发展局推出新组屋期间。政府是否考虑将新的PPHS（开放市场）券延伸至那些持续申请但尚未成功抽中新组屋的夫妇，尤其是期待首胎的夫妇？

最后，我也认为需要做更多工作，缓解因新加坡高生活成本而对生育的恐惧。根据2023年由亚洲新闻台和YouGov进行的调查，52%35岁以下受访者表示，新加坡养育孩子的负担能力是他们不愿尽快生育的主要原因。

随着2024年预算着眼于支持我们生命各阶段的家庭，我希望政府能考虑更加重视实施全面策略，例如为年轻夫妇创建一个社会支持生态系统，指导他们进行财务规划和财务管理，以减轻他们在新加坡养育子女时的经济焦虑。

议长先生，展望建设一个共享的未来，我们必须继续适应和发展对人民多样化需求的支持。从努力追求职业发展的在职成年人，到安享晚年的长者，再到梦想更光明未来的年轻家庭，我们的政策必须继续包容、灵活且具有前瞻性，为下一个十年做好准备。

让我们继续携手维护包容性、韧性和团结的价值观，确保每位公民，无论年龄或生命阶段，都能期待一个繁荣的未来，为今天的挑战和明天的机遇做好准备。议长先生，我支持2024年预算案。

议长先生：穆拉里·皮莱先生。

下午6时05分

穆拉里·皮莱先生（武吉巴督）：议长先生，阁下，2023年4月21日，在本院就总统致辞的辩论中，副总理兼财政部长黄循财先生与反对党领袖普里坦·辛格先生达成了一项重要的跨党派共识。

他们双方都同意，新加坡没有民粹主义的立足之地。副总理黄循财这样表述：“本院两方，我们支持一个日益成熟的民主，一个严肃的政府和一个严肃的反对党。但我们坚决反对民粹主义和政治机会主义在本院和新加坡扎根。”

这是一个值得称赞的两党时刻，也承认了在民粹主义扎根的国家，社会变得分裂，人民极化，人民与政府之间的信任减弱。新加坡不应效仿。

然而，这项共识假设我们知道什么是民粹主义。但我们真的知道吗？大多数学者和评论员一致认为，民粹主义的核心特征围绕着“人民”与“精英”之间的分裂。

卡斯·穆德指出：“它是一种薄弱中心的意识形态，认为社会最终被分为两个同质且对立的阵营，‘纯洁的人民’对抗‘腐败的精英’；民粹主义政治家主张他们代表‘全体人民’，而精英代表‘特殊利益’，无论事实真相如何。”

议题的框架通常是对抗性的、敌对的和情绪化的。这种民粹主义——一旦我们识破其作秀和姿态——其实并不难拒绝。它只是政治舞台上的机会主义。这就是我所称的“弱民粹主义”。

但民粹主义还有两个进一步的要素。首先，识破作秀言辞并认清机会主义的真面目并不总是容易。其次，民粹主义不仅仅是言辞——它还渗透到具体政策行动中，采取我称之为“愚人金”承诺的特定方式。

行动中的民粹主义以轻松赚钱、软性妥协、零权衡的承诺来麻痹人民。这两个要素——言辞与行动——构成了我所称的“强民粹主义”。尽管议会达成了共识，但仍无法保证这种民粹主义不会在新加坡扎根。

从结构上讲，我们始终脆弱。因为像所有现代民主国家一样，我们实行代议制政府，少数人——即当选者——代表多数人民，拥有执政授权。对这种代表性的怀疑将永远存在。

我们已见过多个例子，人民的恐惧，尤其是在危机期间，被鼓吹激进变革的民粹主义政治家利用。我举两个例子：一个来自右翼，一个来自左翼。

2023年11月，在荷兰，极右翼政党自由党煽动伊斯兰恐惧症和反移民情绪，承诺去伊斯兰化国家，取得巨大选举胜利，遥遥领先。该党有望参与联合政府。若成真，不难想象这将对国家跨种族和宗教的凝聚力产生影响。

让我指出这里的具体民粹杠杆——利用宗教和本土主义分裂和极化国家。

1998年，已故委内瑞拉左翼领袖乌戈·查韦斯凭借承诺利用委内瑞拉丰富的石油财富减少贫困和不平等而上台。任总统期间，他推出免费或高度补贴商品的项目。2013年他在任内去世，但其政策继续推行。最终，尽管是产油国，经济萎缩并出现恶性通货膨胀。

同样，让我指出具体的民粹杠杆——利用扭曲价格的政策为人民提供短期表面利益，代价是国家长期经济健康。

这两种行为对我来说都是强民粹主义。根据我的研究，许多作者，尤其是西蒙·托米教授，观察到近年来世界正面临民粹主义起义。政治机会主义者在众多国家赢得大量选民支持，表明识别民粹主义真相并非易事。

因此，作为一个国家，我们需要培养识别并坚决拒绝这种阴险且诱人的分裂政治形式的能力。如果不这样做，作为一个小国，我们将面临严重后果。

就在上周，我了解到我们首任外交部长已故拉贾拉纳姆先生于1971年10月在联合国大会上的一次演讲。他大意是，小国需要保持自身秩序，才能在世界上占有一席之地。换言之，小国需要确保长期保持社会凝聚力及政治和经济稳定。

其含义明确。与大国不同，小国如新加坡，一旦成为民粹主义带来的分裂政治的受害者，将成为易被侵蚀的对象，不再被邻近大国认真对待。一旦如此，小国将无法在国际舞台上保护和促进国家利益。换句话说，我们将遭遇国内外的“双重打击”。

因此，我们拒绝强民粹主义的承诺，必须伴随教育全体新加坡人识别并指出民粹主义的责任。

这引出我的第二个警示：愚人金与轻松选择。

拒绝强民粹主义意味着承担一项特定责任，即做出艰难选择，通过政治和实际解决方案对新加坡人民负责，解决国家的社会紧迫问题。

这种“艰难选择”方法与民粹主义政策方法的关键区别有两点。首先，应避免民粹主义常伴随的戏剧化表现。我必须说，我支持对政治领导人提出的政策建议和表现进行更严格审查，无论是执政党还是反对党。但我反对的是那种胸脯拍打、挥舞军刀的政治化问题，这阻碍了真正的分析性讨论。没有“噪音”，对实质问题的参与会更好。

最终，将清晰显示各方同意与不同意的事项。这是我们应追求的。我认为这一提炼过程至关重要，否则表演性政治可能在本院根深蒂固。

其次，我认为细节很重要。我国发展已达到一个阶段，大多数问题的解决方案复杂且有时微妙平衡。民粹主义政治家在倡导政策变革时通常缺乏细节。

我们两党政治家需要做功课，了解背景事实，理解现状如何形成，突出政策建议中固有的权衡，分清事实与虚构，然后论证为何应作出某种平衡。

我还要补充一点。执政政治领导人应避免仅仅将政策贴上“民粹主义”标签，尽管这些政策可能获得广大公民支持，而他们真正想做的是让政策听起来不合理、不理性。这是弗朗西斯·福山提出的观点，我也赞同。

领导人有责任超越标签，指出他们关切的政策具体方面。我尊重地认为，这种负责任的争论和提炼思想与建议的过程，将成为防止强民粹主义在新加坡出现的堡垒。

通过这一过程，我们将更好地对人民负责。人民了解政治家在哪些方面达成共识，在哪些方面存在分歧，将更有能力通过投票选择他们希望的未来。

让我通过上次议会关于国家储备的辩论来强调这一点。

在辩论开场时，非选区议员梁文韬先生指出了他所谓的“社会弊病”，包括生活成本、社会不平等、心理健康和总生育率下降。反对党领袖在动议辩论中补充了医疗费用和代际公平。两位议员都主张放缓储备增长，以便更多资金用于这些领域。

我个人不认为这些人类状况是疾病或“弊病”，而是当届政府的紧迫任务，是我们应用最佳智慧和最大资源的道德方向。这些社会紧迫问题不可否认，但不能仅靠空叹或挥霍开支解决。我们的责任是以我上述方式负责，通过严肃的政治承诺，投入时间、精力和资源制定并解释政策。

重要的是，我们需要了解艰难选择的参数，拒绝“愚人金”方法。

为解释拒绝更多动用储备收入的艰难选择，政府表示储备提供了大量“被动收入”用于年度预算开支，鉴于我们独特的脆弱性，我们需要增长储备，以确保有能力应对未来可能出现的挑战。这些观点在我尊敬的朋友黄顺兴先生今天早些时候的发言中表达得非常好。

暂且不谈动用储备资金，我认为两位议员所提的观点中有两点能获得本院两党共识。

第一，他们指出的社会紧迫问题是合理的。这些问题需要本院和政府关注。事实上，作为一名后座议员，我在选区为选民所做的许多工作都涉及这些问题。

第二，作为负责任的议员，两党都会拒绝仅为花钱而花钱。这体现了财政审慎。因此，要提出增加开支的理由，至少需采取以下步骤。

第一，审查政府现有针对该紧迫问题的项目。第二，计算政府在这些项目上的承诺或支出。第三，对项目进行绩效评估或审查。最后，阐述增加开支的理由，必须包括应对政府关于储备当前提供的“被动收入”的观点，并为未来提供足够的保障。

此时，我想回应反对党领袖早前发言中提出的政府应提供更多信息以作出更好预算决策的观点。

恕我直言，这是转移视线。已有足够信息。事实上，在上次会议中，尊敬的总理给我们上了一堂大师课。议员们可能记得，他让我们拿出信封背面，跟着他算账。他预测储备回报率约为4%；他说如果预算开支为2%，那么储备增长为2%，大致与GDP持平。因此，我们大致知道国家投资储备委员会（NIRC）的规模保持稳定，贡献约五分之一的收入。

我们也知道运营收入和支出在大约正负4%的范围内波动。当然，某些情况下，如市场状况，预测可能受影响。例如，物业税因估值上升而增加，这就是市场作用。

对于此类情况，我们只能做出最佳预测，并随时调整。但这些将作为制定更多开支政策建议的输入，确保其支持性和财政审慎。

反对党领袖提到2024年2月19日《海峡时报》上的一篇文章，指出一些经济学家也认为政府信息披露不足。

值得注意的是，正如他所说，大多数经济学家赞扬预算。一位经济学家询问了预先资助政府项目的使用情况，例如先驱一代计划，建议对此计划应更透明。但现实是，每年都会向议会提交经独立审计的财务报表。所有议员都可提问，预算委员会也会审查，拨款亦受审计署监督。

另一位经济学家认为应披露过去储备金额。众所周知，政府对此持有良心上的反对意见。但最重要的是，如我之前所说，NIRC金额可估算，这对预算规划至关重要。

基于这些原因，我认为本院任何人都没有真正障碍，全面阐述为何应为特定政策紧迫问题投入更多资金或资源。

我现在以生活成本紧迫问题为例，说明我建议的框架运作。

2022年10月，政府推出支持方案，帮助新加坡家庭应对物价上涨。该方案资金总额为15亿新元，已为公众所知。

副总理黄循财宣布，该方案旨在完全覆盖低收入家庭生活成本的上涨，并覆盖中等收入家庭生活成本上涨的一半以上。

尊敬的议员若希望政府在应对生活成本问题上投入更多，可提出理由，认为中等收入家庭50%的覆盖率不足，应提高至60%、70%甚至100%。

他们应阐述此举如何符合新加坡人和新加坡整体利益。这样就明确了从储备或其他来源筹集资金支持该政策建议的具体金额及理由。

若政治官员不同意该建议，明智之举不是简单地贴上民粹主义标签，而是正面回应，解释为何现有开支水平足够且应维持，考虑不仅是具体问题，还有大局。通过此过程，我们将清楚了解双方同意与分歧点及各自理由。新加坡人将更好地理解辩论及政策建议实施或拒绝的影响。

当然，尊敬的议员们可将其计划纳入竞选活动，即使政府可能拒绝。这是他们的特权。但他们必须首先有这些计划。若没有，只是向新加坡人承诺一块选举日后消失的金子。

我认为这是一种健康的政治，双方将向人民陈述各自立场。最终，由新加坡人通过投票判断和决定。这是防止民粹主义在我们政治中抬头的方式，也是保持对人民高度负责的方式。

议长先生：穆拉里先生，您还有一分钟。

穆拉利·皮莱先生：非常好，先生。如果是这样，我就简单说一句，社会的紧迫任务摆在我们面前。我们都知道这一点，指出这些并不是什么大发现。如果我们真的要说我们有一个严肃的政府和一个严肃的反对派，正如副总理黄循财所鼓励的那样，重点必须放在为这些紧迫任务提出解决方案，并理性阐述为什么这些解决方案能为我们的人民创造更好的结果，同时保持财政审慎。通过民主的认可，让我们支持那些我们作为当选议员认为最有利于新加坡人民现在和未来的方案，从而以最强烈的形式拒绝民粹主义。我支持预算案。[掌声。]

议长：普里塔姆·辛格先生。

下午6时25分

普里塔姆·辛格先生：谢谢议长，也感谢穆拉利·皮莱先生的发言。

我一直在仔细跟随他所提出的观点。我认为穆拉利·皮莱先生的总体论调，你不会真正反对。但关于民粹主义，我觉得我有必要具体说明一些细节。

他提到了我演讲中引用的2月19日《海峡时报》的一篇文章。我在演讲中指出的是，那篇文章显示了议会外的新加坡人，在“前进新加坡”运动的背景下，也在关注财政可持续性、财政平衡、政府如何筹集收入及其支出政策。

在这方面，我的观点是，我们提出了一个建议，以平滑这场对话，改善这场对话，以造福所有新加坡人。

我理解他后来谈到了我们提出的一些建议，人民行动党对此有良心上的反对。我想在这里我需要他澄清一下。如果存在良心上的反对，那么民粹主义的论点又如何？反对派提出这些观点是否错误？

我第二个澄清是，再举一个例子。在这场辩论中，人民行动党议员谈到了提前建造组屋。议员希望从任何反对派成员甚至他自己党内的成员那里听到什么样的数字来支持这一论点？对此有些明确会很有帮助。

目前，我先提出这两个澄清。

议长：穆拉利·皮莱先生。

穆拉利·皮莱先生：议长先生，感谢反对派领袖给我机会澄清我发言中的某些方面。

让我先谈谈良心反对的问题。我想澄清的是，我演讲中提到的是我们不公开披露储备的全部价值。这就是我提到良心反对的背景。并且这是在引用反对派领袖提到的那篇文章中一位经济学家的观点。那位经济学家说，我们应该知道全部金额，这样我们才能知道支出是高还是低。

提到良心反对，实际上是政府在关于国家储备动议中提出的论点，我相信反对派领袖对此很熟悉。但更重要的是，我指出的是，就预算而言，如果能计算出国家投资回报贡献（NIRC），我还提到了总理的专题讲座，关于储备如何增长以及NIRC贡献相对稳定的事实。

至于提到那篇文章的目的，我接受反对派领袖的观点。我理解这实际上是为了对“前进新加坡”运动提供进一步反馈，我欢迎这些反馈。

最后，我的朋友提到的是关于建屋发展项目。如果我们按照我建议的分析框架，关键是反对派议员，比如说，主张建造比政府提议更多的组屋，那么首先需要做的是确定该项目，明确并查明为建造某个数量的组屋具体花费或承诺了多少资金，然后在同一过程中明确表明他支持建造多少组屋，为什么这很重要，然后通过参考预算中其他方面的支出分配来处理财政问题。

我认为通过这种框架的阐述，会产生一个值得称赞的结果，那就是新加坡议会外的民众会知道这是一个被提议的方案，方案是认真的，因为有事实和数据支持，然后你可以将政府的立场与该议员的立场进行对比。

议长：普里塔姆·辛格先生。

普里塔姆·辛格先生：对穆拉利·皮莱先生的澄清做一个简短回应。以组屋建造为例，这是人民行动党议员在辩论中提出的例子，那么这个例子实际上不符合穆拉利·皮莱先生提出的框架。同样，当对方其他议员说我们想引入一个计划，比如“关怀补贴”，或者他们提到——虽然没人说生活成本危机，但我今天听到人民行动党议员说是“负担能力危机”。我假设在穆拉利先生的框架中，这种分析也必须遵循。仅作澄清。

议长：皮莱先生。

穆拉利·皮莱先生：感谢反对派领袖指出并询问我提出的框架是否适用于两党议员。简短回答是肯定的。这是对所有议员的劝勉，不仅仅是反对派领袖，实际上是两党议员。任何人如果想提出涉及额外支出的建议，都需要遵循这个分析框架，我认为这样才能明确最终是否符合新加坡和新加坡人的最佳利益，是否应推进额外支出。

议长：普里塔姆·辛格先生。

普里塔姆·辛格先生：最后一个澄清。稍微再追问一下。如果政府承诺在本十年末前为“前进新加坡”计划投入400亿新元，这些是否也应该提前披露？

议长：穆拉利·皮莱先生。

穆拉利·皮莱先生：议长先生，我乐于接受反对派领袖的追问。我基本上会从原则上回答，虽然他可以听取人民行动党同事的建议，我也可以引用反对派议员提出的建议。我仍记得设立议会预算办公室的例子，这是在议会中提出的建议，当时并没有明确了解设立办公室及其运营需要多少资金。

所以，我宁愿我们不要模糊我提出的观点。让我们坚持原则，重点是确保民粹主义的丑恶头颅不会在我们的政治中抬头。幸运的是，这是一个跨党派的观点，我希望双方都能有机会反思我在议会中的发言。

议长：詹姆斯·林副教授。你有对皮莱先生的澄清吗？

詹姆斯·杰罗姆·林副教授（盛港）：谢谢议长，感谢给我机会澄清穆拉利·皮莱议员提出的几点。我想指出两点。

首先，我尊重地不同意他声称既然李总理提供了所有必要信息，基于这些简易计算，我们就理所当然接受他的计算结果。

让我明确一点，我无意挑战这位剑桥第一名数学高手的数学能力。但我认为他引入了许多关于储备预期回报和GDP增长的假设，确实还有关于政府如何计算初级盈余与国际货币基金组织建议之间差异的假设。

所以，我的问题是：如果议员接受这些假设不一定是显而易见的，那么在辩论中质疑这些假设是否合理？

第二点基于此，我想问议员是否认为政府会仅基于反对派目前能获得的公开信息来制定公共政策，还是政府实际上需要更多未公开的信息？

议长：穆拉利·皮莱先生。

穆拉利·皮莱先生：谢谢议长先生。关于林副教授提出的第一个问题，即假设的合理性，这个问题已经被广泛讨论。让我说的是，就预算而言，关键是国家投资回报贡献（NIRC）的比例。即使我们暂且不考虑增长假设，事实是预算中反映的NIRC相对稳定，现在每花费一元，就有20分来自NIRC。因此，从任何提出增加支出的人角度看，这些事实很重要。

我承认对面我的朋友可能对所需信息的程度有不同看法。但我要说的是，我们可以同意不同意，我谨慎地说，这其实是一个烟幕弹。因为计算收入所需的所有信息都在，包括NIRC、运营收入和支出，这些大致在一个定义的变动范围内。因此，基于这些原因，我认为我们并不处于劣势。

至于第二点，我愿意纠正，如果林副教授能澄清他的问题意图，我会尽力回答。

议长：林副教授。

詹姆斯·杰罗姆·林副教授：是的，我的澄清很简单。政府常规制定政策。我的问题是，议员是否认为政府会愿意仅基于所有公开信息来制定政策，还是认为政府只有在拥有额外专有信息时才能制定政策？

议长：皮莱先生。

穆拉利·皮莱先生：谢谢，先生。我认为这个问题的前提是错误的，即政府在公开信息方面受限。关键是，政府公布运营收入，公布拟议的运营支出，当然还有宪法要求确保预算平衡。基于此背景，我们可以分析提案是否符合新加坡和新加坡人现在及未来的期望和需求。所以，我认为这是一个错误的前提，因此我不会回答这个问题。

议长：林副教授。希望这是最后一个澄清。

詹姆斯·杰罗姆·林副教授：非常感谢，议长。我会很简短。穆拉利议员多次提到这是烟幕弹，我们拥有所有必要信息，因为NIRC份额稳定。我的问题很简单，他是否认为这种稳定份额与预期回报或GDP增长的假设无关？

议长：皮莱先生。

穆拉利·皮莱先生：议长先生，关于稳定性问题，这是一个经验事实，已在预算声明中列出。关于贡献，当然有一定的预测，是基于某个框架做出的。因此，除非框架中内置的假设有问题，否则这不是凭空捏造的数字。

议长：我们继续。黄华汉先生。

下午6时40分

黄华汉先生（提名议员）：议长，谢谢您允许我参与这场辩论。

先生们，2024年预算案由副总理黄循财呈报，是一个可持续且面向未来的预算。同时，它也旨在应对当前的生活成本压力。我们能够采取中长期视角，同时预计有8亿新元的小幅盈余，反映了我们优越的财政状况。对此我深表感谢。

2024年预算案也是关于共同建设我们的共享未来。它关乎刷新我们的社会契约。如果这些词听起来很熟悉，不仅是因为我们今天已经多次听到它们，更因为它们是用来描述“前进新加坡”运动的同样词汇。换句话说，2024年预算案是将“前进新加坡”——我们国家未来愿景——付诸实践的第一步。

“前进新加坡”提到“包容性”是必须维护的共同价值。词汇“包容”或“包容性”在议会中也被多次使用。当一个词被频繁使用时，它有失去意义的风险。我们上一次停下来思考“包容”真正含义是什么，是何时？

在此背景下，我今天想把发言献给谈论新加坡残疾人士的包容或社会参与。社会参与的核心是指个人积极参与社会各方面。

今天，我将涵盖五个领域，从教育、交通、体育、住房到就业。为准备这次发言，我认为最好直接听取年轻残疾人士的声音。我想了解他们如何通过独特的视角和生活经历看待新加坡。基于坚定的信念，理解这些将引导我们制定更包容、更有效的政策。因此，我通过为期数周的在线调查，收集了136名年龄在15至35岁的残疾人士的经验和想法。感谢那些认真参与的人，感谢你们包容我这未经打磨的反馈收集尝试，以及你们宝贵的见解。今天我将分享你们的一些想法和期望。

对残疾人士来说，社会参与不仅对他们个人福祉至关重要，也有助于培养归属感和社会包容感。社会参与包括与他人有意义的互动、进入共享的公共空间和服务，以及参与丰富且充实的活动。真正的融合丰富了社会结构，培养了同理心、多样性和相互尊重的文化。因此，教育应作为社会包容的基础，这并不令人惊讶。教育，尤其是在年轻时，赋予残疾人士成功所需的知识、技能和机会。

例如，“过渡支持融合计划”（TRANSIT）是积极将有行为困难的学生融入主流环境的好方法。为了确保顺利过渡并促进真正包容的社会，也必须解决有特殊教育背景的残疾人士所面临的社会挑战。

据教育部数据显示，过去三年中，18%的自闭症特殊教育学校学生通过小学离校考试后继续在主流中学就读。另有18名自闭症特殊教育学校学生在中途被评估适合后转入主流学校。我调查的自闭症人士中，有31%表示在学校活动中很少与非残疾学生互动。校外，35%表示很少与非残疾同龄人互动，15%则没有此类互动。

下午6时45分

两大常见原因是之前遭受过辱骂或欺凌，以及对被接受的担忧。面对这种情况，我们必须问自己，我们能做些什么来减少这些看似普遍的负面经历。一个可能的途径是弥合认知差距。学校环境是主流学生与残疾同龄人进行有意义互动的绝佳场所。它打破了社会障碍，减少了日后生活中的尴尬。

有人建议将关于残疾的认知课程纳入学校课程。我们甚至可以更进一步，在体育课中自然地融入这类课程。我上学时，常常被默认托付保管同学们的手机，这是我年轻时被赋予的荣誉和责任。

不过，这个角色让我处于边缘位置。我清楚记得一个例外，是小学时第一次被我们最喜欢的体育和班主任老师邀请参加“毒球”游戏。这是我与同学们在轻松环境中建立联系的难得机会，我很享受那些时刻。

为了促进对他人的认知和接纳，玩耍时间是最佳时机。

我们如何能做更多这样的事情，而不是依赖少数优秀教师的自发行为？教育部能否研究如何在主流学校制度化更多包容性的体育课程？

体育常被视为强大的社会平衡器；这是一个极好的机会，利用体育将包容性融入早期教育的结构中。先生，残疾人士（PwDs）能够自由参与共享空间，也取决于我们确保全面无障碍和无缝公共交通的承诺。在新加坡严格的汽车拥有政策下，这一点尤为重要。残疾人士确实欣赏我们公共交通网络中的无障碍设施。

有人与我分享过的包括：公交车和地铁中的轮椅区，设计良好的地铁站，以及显示公交到站时间的MyTransport.SG应用程序。作为一名地铁常客，我也认同这些积极的观察。

与世界上许多其他城市相比，我们很幸运拥有一个对轮椅使用者总体较为友好的地铁系统。然而，这方面仍有改进空间。

在我的调查中，63%的肢体残疾者表示他们每周使用公共交通的天数不超过两天。该群体中有42%的人在高峰期很少或完全避免使用公共交通。使用公共交通时遇到的困难包括：地铁站台与列车之间的缝隙，公交车上滑溜的地板导致轮椅即使锁定轮子也会滑动，以及唯一无障碍通道的意外关闭。

其他残疾人士在乘坐公共交通时也面临不同类型的问题。一位残疾人士分享说，即使他们显眼地展示了写有医疗状况详情的黄色卡片，地铁上也没人主动让座。另一位也表达了对隐形残疾缺乏接受的担忧——这位人士因手术导致神经性疼痛，有时需要坐下以减轻疼痛。

我了解到交通部（MOT）通过陆路交通管理局（LTA）一直在这方面努力，推出了优先车厢试点和隐形医疗状况卡等项目。硬件解决方案如缝隙填充器，虽然不能完全解决站台与列车地板的高度差，但有助于缩小缝隙并提升安全性。

鉴于对不明显疾病的认知和接受仍然不足，交通部能否研究进一步提升隐形医疗状况卡的可见度和理解度？

之前我简要提到了教育环境中的体育。在更广泛的背景下，体育和娱乐在促进残疾人士的身心健康和社会融合中发挥着重要作用。特殊奥林匹克运动会和残奥会等比赛，为残疾人士提供了在全球舞台展示才华和能力的机会。这些赛事不仅赋予残疾人士追求热情和成长的力量，也挑战了关于残疾的刻板印象和限制性看法。

我们的国家运动员在区域和世界级比赛中高举新加坡国旗，是各自领域的精英选手。但那些以娱乐方式参与体育的人呢？由于缺乏包容性项目或设施、医疗状况或这些因素的组合，许多残疾人士在参与体育和娱乐活动方面仍面临挑战。

文化、社区及青年部（MCCY）在确保更多体育设施无障碍和包容方面取得了进展。例如，我了解到SportSG计划在2026年前使所有27个ActiveSG健身房实现包容性。此外，SportSG正在开发包容性的ActiveSG健身房入门项目，鼓励残疾人士使用健身房，这是一个很好的举措。

有趣的是，根据我的调查，67%的肢体残疾者未使用过任何免费ActiveSG积分。自闭症者为59%，感官障碍者为58%。周末时，我在ActiveSG体育中心进行常规游泳锻炼——这是我多年来坚持的习惯。和往常一样，我没有看到其他轮椅使用者。尽管设施配备了无障碍坡道和厕所。

因此，除了改善基础设施，我们还必须努力帮助更多残疾人士感到有能力且安全地在共享空间锻炼和参与体育运动。提升残疾人士体育参与度是我们应努力的方向，我将在文化、社区及青年部的供应委员会辩论中对此作更多阐述。

接下来谈谈住房，住房是新加坡梦的基石。对残疾人士来说亦然。我调查的81%残疾人士表示希望未来购买自己的房子。然而，48%的肢体残疾者将购房可能性评为1到3分（满分10分），自闭症者为34%。和新加坡所有人一样，住房成本也是他们的共同关切。我们必须做更多工作促进残疾人士的住房拥有权。残疾人士购房面临重大经济障碍，因为他们一生中有额外开支和/或缺乏稳定就业。我们应致力于弥合这一差距。

有人向我建议为残疾人士提供补贴租赁计划。

由于独立生活对一些人来说可能令人生畏，为什么不降低入门门槛——让残疾人士及其家庭以经济可承受的方式切实体验可能性，同时努力实现购房目标？

获得良好住房有助于培养社区归属感和对国家的认同感。我们必须探索创新方案，赋能残疾人士，针对他们不同的独立程度量身定制。我也将在国家发展部（MND）的供应委员会辩论中提出包容性住房政策的话题。

最后谈谈就业。

有意义的就业对任何成年人实现经济独立至关重要，也增强成就感。然而，残疾人士通往有意义就业的道路常被挑战和障碍阻碍，限制了他们的潜力和机会。一位残疾人士分享说，面试时面试官认为他们无法工作，尽管他们有多年不同的工作经验。

另一位分享了其极低的收入水平。许多残疾人士也从事兼职工作，往往非自愿。根据人力部（MOM）数据，残疾专业人士（PMETs）与非残疾者之间的中位薪酬差距为13%。残疾人士兼职与全职就业比例约为1比4。残疾人士在就业方面常遇到的主要障碍包括歧视、缺乏合理便利和培训及职业发展机会有限。

我理解政府接受三方委员会的最终建议，初期即将出台的《工作场所公平法案》（WFL）不包含合理便利条款，但这一决定引发重大疑问。

理解政府确保残疾人士获得必要合理便利以参与劳动力市场的策略变得至关重要。我们必须解决如何防止合理便利被个别雇主主观决定，避免偏见。

在工作场所，残疾人士的福祉也不容忽视。我调查中39%的人表示经常或总是在工作场所感到孤独。一些残疾人士希望得到同事更多支持，对另一些人来说，仅仅被邀请共进午餐就很重要。

我们在工作上花费大量时间。每个人多一点关注和努力，就能为周围人带来积极变化。

在2024年预算中，技能未来（SkillsFuture）被定位为新加坡社会契约的关键支柱。换言之，它是新加坡的社会平衡器。为确保其真正发挥作用，我们必须确保所有新加坡人群体，包括残疾人士，都能获得技能未来的机会。

根据残疾人协会（DPA）新加坡收集的反馈，残疾人士在获取技能未来系统时仍面临重大障碍，包括课程材料无无障碍格式，培训提供者不愿提供合理便利等。

我了解到技能未来新加坡与启能学院及残疾组织如DPA合作，帮助培训提供者提供合理便利，但实施并非强制。启能学院也为残疾人士特别策划课程作为替代。

尽管出于良好意图，这些课程的范围远不及技能未来系统内广泛的课程。这不仅限制了残疾人士的机会，导致他们进一步落后，也有可能使他们与更广泛社会进一步隔离。

鉴于此，我强烈敦促政府在2024年预算中深化对包容性的承诺，确保技能未来对所有用户均可及。正确利用技能未来，不仅能提升残疾人士的职业机会和专业发展，还能促进更大的社会融合，强化我们的社会结构。

先生，请允许我结束发言。

在准备这次发言时，我想起美国作家马克斯·埃尔曼（Max Ehrmann）的话：“你是宇宙的孩子，与你身边的树木和星辰一样有权利存在。”

议长先生，包容不仅仅是无障碍或便利的事；不仅仅是让人保住工作、谋生。不是——它关乎茁壮成长。关乎确保每个人，无论能力或残疾，都有机会充分参与社区，享受生活，追求理想。

社会必须赋予每位新加坡人勇气去梦想。

通过打破障碍，挑战刻板印象，在各领域营造包容环境，我们可以创造一个所有人——包括残疾人士——都能成为更大整体一部分并有意义贡献的社会。

让我们携手共建一个更包容的新加坡，让每个人都有机会发挥最大潜能。让我们让“前进新加坡”成为所有人的现实。

先生，我支持这项预算。

英文原文

SPRS Hansard 原始记录 · 抓取日期：2026-05-02

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16 February 2024] [1st Allotted Day], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.

11.33 am

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, it is not mere coincidence that the slogan of Forward Singapore is "Building Our Shared Future", while that of Budget 2024 is the substantially similar "Building Our Shared Future Together". The Government intends for Budget 2024 to be a step towards Forward Singapore.

The Forward Singapore exercise has three major goals for the decade and the next. Singapore must: first, have a strong and growing economy; second, develop a fairer society; and third, deepen our sense of unity. In doing so, the shared future that was distilled from various engagement sessions with the public was a Singapore that will be vibrant, fair, resilient, inclusive, thriving and united.

Sir, it would be fair to say that these are broad strokes that capture the Singapore that all of us seek. In the way it fleshes out the direction of the Government, Budget 2024 is not objectionable, and so the Workers' Party (WP) supports the Budget.

The real challenge to the People's Action Party (PAP), however, is for it to be open, and the extent to which it is prepared to accommodate the diverse views of Singaporeans on how to journey towards the destination envisaged by Forward Singapore. No doubt, PAP has asked for diverse views by demanding that the Opposition come up with alternative proposals, although one suspects they do so rhetorically. WP has responded sincerely and we have not been short of proposals that have ultimately been accepted by the Government in some shape or form, albeit after initial and sometimes significant resistance.

Indeed, this year's Budget includes WP proposals; the announcement by the Finance Minister of a temporary financial support scheme for our workers is a case in point. While the details may differ, the philosophy of supporting our involuntarily unemployed is one which WP championed.

The same can be said for the WP proposals for anti-discrimination legislation to better protect our workers. Unlike PAP, WP clearly stated these proposals in our election manifesto, and our Members of Parliament (MPs) have systematically and repeatedly raised these points along with others in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, let me now put forward five points which form the basis of my response to the Budget.

First, the Government needs to be more forthcoming with information so that Singaporeans can participate more actively in policy discussion. Second, there is a growing mismatch in Singapore between aspirations and reality, which must be addressed. Third, the Government must improve retirement adequacy. Fourth, employers need to show more support for employees. And fifth, we must work towards further strengthening unity among Singaporeans in this uncertain world.

My first point is that the Government needs to be more transparent and forthcoming with information so that there can be meaningful participation by Singaporeans in the most critical matters affecting us. This is a recurring theme in my speeches, but I am by no means the only Singaporean to hold this view.

The Straits Times carried an article dated 19 February 2024 titled, "Economists applaud 2024 Budget but some worry about sustainability." The economists quoted were concerned about the combination of large cash handouts with the lack of information about the sources of Singapore's fiscal strength. In the report, one former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) called on the Government to provide more information on how it funds its expenditures.

Another economist noted that Singapore is unique and does not follow standards set by global bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with regard to the difference between revenues and expenditures in the management of the fiscal balance. Yet another economist was quoted as saying, "As a society, we now have some very important choices to make and, unless we are well-informed, we will not be able to make those choices well." Sir, the latter point was about the Reserves, a subject which we debated earlier this month and where WP set out its five points of principle.

On 20 February, an opinion piece in The Straits Times was titled, "It's getting harder to project future Government revenue". The author noted that it would become more difficult to achieve Budget marksmanship as there could be variations of 17% to 27% in specific tax collections. His view was that gone are the days when Budget marksmanship of 2% was normal.

Two Budgets ago, I asked what the total estimated amount collected by the carbon tax would be. The Government did not tell us, even though the preliminary numbers would not have been difficult to estimate and probably had already been tabulated by the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, in 2016, the Government announced a $4.5 billion industry transformation roadmap. No proactive update on how monies were spent on these programmes was provided until Parliamentary questions were put to the Government. Surely the Government can do better here.

I have spoken about the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Sharing regime, or BEPS, for some years now. The Finance Minister has laid out two possibilities that could affect us: one, of more corporate income tax being collected; and another of some multinational enterprises (MNEs) leaving Singapore. Both could happen at the same time, if recent media reports are anything to go by: one, predicting the move of more MNE headquarters to Singapore from Hong Kong; and another reporting on the move of Electrolux's regional headquarters from Singapore to Bangkok.

In view of the implementation of Pillar 2, what are the estimated collections in either an optimistic scenario or a conservative scenario?

At the first Budget debate of this term, WP called for the setting up of a Parliamentary Budget office, which was rejected by PAP as an idea that would only benefit the Opposition. In the spirit of Forward Singapore and in view of a greater need to track the effectiveness of Government policies and their expenditure outcomes, such institutions should be a feature of our democracy and the Singapore that the Forward Singapore report demands.

One economist quoted in the 19 February The Straits Times article said that Singaporeans outside this House desire to analyse and understand to a deeper degree what the Government is doing. These examples I shared put into relief the types of differences we can expect between the political Opposition in this House and non-politician Singaporeans outside of it on the one hand, and the PAP Government on the other. Such calls for information cannot be set aside as red herrings. If the Government was doing well on this score, we would not have private sector economists making the arguments and the points they do.

These calls represent a desire to shape a political environment that is fit for Singapore's purposes. Singaporeans need to know how much there is to spend and where the money comes from. These are basic requirements for having rational discussions on fiscal matters and for realistic alternative visions to emerge. In any democratic society, the Government must facilitate such discussions and it should do so proactively by declassifying more information if necessary. Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member Ms He Ting Ru will speak on the themes of deliberative democracy, transparency and accountability in her speech.

Coming back to the financing of Forward Singapore's goals, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that $5 billion of this Budget has been set aside for Forward Singapore policy moves, with around $40 billion to be used by the end of the decade. Will the Government spell out these initiatives in view of the commitment made in the Budget Statement, since some thought appears to have been applied to how much it will take to fund Forward Singapore plans?

Sir, PAP must tell us how the Government will deploy the $40 billion for Forward Singapore policies so that Singaporeans can understand what PAP believes the social compact of tomorrow requires. Just as PAP calls on WP to lay out its alternatives, surely PAP must lay out its proposals, too.

Mr Speaker, my second point is that there is a growing mismatch between the aspirations of Singaporeans and the reality facing them. Steps must be taken to address this. A reference in the Forward Singapore report to the 5Cs of decades past was scrutinised by some in the media. The 5Cs captured the aspiration to have cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club membership. The Forward Singapore report calls on Singaporeans to move beyond the 5Cs towards wider definitions of success. Surely, that is an admission, perhaps unintended, that a fair number of the 5Cs are unattainable for most Singaporeans today.

But I would go further. The reality is that things are very difficult for not a small number of Singaporeans, regardless of what definition of success one deploys. A Business Times article from late 2023 reported the findings of an OCBC financial wellness survey. Fewer Singaporeans can comfortably spend on things beyond the basics. And more do not have sufficient emergency funds or savings to meet their families' needs. Just 40% of Singaporeans can afford to spend beyond the basics most of the time, down 8% from 2022; and 23% can only afford the basics; while 79% of Singaporeans either do not have a retirement plan or are not on track with their retirement plans. This was a rise from 71% in 2022.

If the sentiments captured in this survey are anything to go by, there is a likelihood that the social compact may be precarious and uneven, particularly if the middle of society feels insecure about their financial future. To address this possibility, the structural moves to invest more in the future, particularly through SkillsFuture, are important and critical, even as the temporary cost of living support with the Budget are acknowledged and welcomed.

The WP foresees a need for even greater investments in our human capital in future, especially in view of how rapidly the workplace landscape is changing and with more well-paying jobs requiring high-order skillsets, a point that will be further expanded by Sengkang GRC Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

The $4,000 SkillsFuture credit, which is ringfenced for selected programmes with better employability outcomes, can be used for part-time diploma, post-diploma and undergraduate courses as well as PWM-specific courses. The WP sees the deployment of SkillsFuture credits towards economically productive courses with employment outcomes as an important policy initiative of this Budget. But we believe that many of the courses are likely to cost more than $4,000.

To further facilitate skills training and help Singaporean workers, the Government should introduce an interest-free SkillsFuture education loan. The WP put this proposal front and centre in our General Election 2020 manifesto. To start with, these loans can be calibrated towards courses, in either high-growth industries that lack Singaporean manpower or in other economically important areas.

Sir, my third point, is that the Government must improve retirement adequacy. The changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Special Account (SA), announced by Deputy Prime Minister, will be addressed by Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua.

However, I speak of retirement adequacy more broadly and as an ongoing concern for the decades to come. It did not escape many Singaporeans, that all three core components of the Majulah Package: the annual earn and save bonus, the one-time retirement savings bonus and the one-time MediSave bonus, for Singaporeans born between 1960 and 1973, involved CPF top-ups. The Merdeka and Pioneer Generations will also get them. In total, 1.4 million Singaporeans will see CPF top-ups.

From the vantage point of the WP, Sir, these moves make it clear that sufficiency of CPF balances for retirement is a serious and ongoing concern. The moves to raise employer's CPF contributions through to the year 2030, must also be seen by employers in this light – of ensuring that all the workers are not left behind when retirement beckons. Employers will have to redesign jobs, so that seniors can continue to work for far longer if they wish to. The real risk of more redundancies in the years to come, arising from job displacement, adds impetus to the need for job redesign.

Recently, in a social media post, the Minister for National Development celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Home Ownership Scheme. History shows that the reception to the HDB Home Ownership Scheme, per se, was initially lukewarm. The popularity of HDB flats exploded only when the CPF Act was amended in 1968, allowing Singaporeans to use their CPF funds for down payments and mortgage instalments of HDB flats.

It would not be hyperbole to say: that the CPF changed from a statutory board in charge of Singaporeans' retirement to a subsidiary of the HDB, with the aim of helping Singaporeans purchase property. Of course, many aspects of CPF policy have evolved since then.

But what is clear, is that Singapore is in a far different place compared to where it was in the early years of Independence. Specifically, younger Singaporeans cannot expect the same home equity appreciation that Singapore experienced from the 1990s. Today, HDB affordability continues to remain an ongoing concern in the minds of many Singaporeans, in spite of the new Build-To-Order (BTO) classification system – which adds new restriction and increases subsidies for new flats.

In substance, the Government appears to acknowledge the point that affordability is an ongoing concern. A point made by the WP in our speeches during the Housing Motion that was debated in Parliament last year, when we sought to bring focus to the People's Action Party's (PAP's) amended Motion.

It was not coincidental that the Prime Minister in his 2023 National Day Rally, referred to the now infamous $877,000 five-room BTO flat in Ang Mo Kio as an example of a BTO flat that should become slightly less expensive under the new Standard, Prime and Plus BTO classification system – thanks to added taxpayer subsidies.

More money set aside for HDB flat purchase means less funds available for retirement, notwithstanding options to downgrade. If property prices and general inflationary trends rise faster than wages, plans for retirement will have to start later for many – since they would have less to set aside for their nest egg, with mortgages to serve today.

It is time to closely examine how much CPF money should be set aside for housing. But if HDB prices continue to escalate, any move to reduce the CPF funds that can be set aside for housing, in favour of retirement adequacy, may backfire.

The Government may then have to commit itself to making HDB flats even more affordable by increasing subsidies further. Make no mistake, direct subsidies for HDB flat purchases do not make HDB flats cheaper. They merely transfer the cost to current taxpayers. The WP will continue to closely monitor PAP's moves on this point. We will be sure to hold it to account, if it allows HDB flats to continue to rise in price beyond wage growth and if it allows the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans to be compromised. My colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Mr Faisal Manap, will make some related points covering housing and low-income households in his speech.

Mr Speaker, my fourth point, is that employers need to show more support for employees. Business groups have expressed concerns about the new Local Qualifying Salary cap of $1,600, which is widely considered as the de facto minimum wage.

However, if Singapore really wishes to embrace the philosophy of Forward Singapore, then we need to show stronger support for our financially vulnerable workers. This is such an important ingredient of the future social compact. Increases of the de facto minimum wage, should be seen as a step towards an inclusive and fair Singapore. If we have a shared future, where there is a lack of support for paying our lowest-paid workers in step with economic fundamentals, that would reflect very poorly on Singapore.

When the economy grows or when support measures are extended to companies, workers must also benefit. But consumers too, must be prepared to pay more for goods and services and it cannot solely be left to businesses to absorb the additional cost of wages.

The strongest social compact promised by Forward Singapore, also offers an opportunity to think about protections for our workers beyond wages. Much has been said about the lack of recognition in Singapore for all blue-collar workers who use their hands to perform skilled work. As the next step, Singapore should legislate retrenchment benefits or introduce redundancy insurance for these workers. I will speak more about this in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for the Ministry of Manpower.

But there are areas where some employers have done well and displayed solidarity with the Singaporean worker. For example, by implementing Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) in concert with the demands of a more modern Singaporean workforce. But FWAs are just one area. We must also improve workplace culture and change attitudes towards skills upgrading and training, if Forward Singapore is to become a reality.

In a recent Ipsos survey titled "What Singapore thinks, feels and does", it was revealed that three in five Singapore employees – or 60% of Singapore employees – said that they were proud to work for their employer. But this was some 14 to 19 points below the global average; 29% said that they plan to leave their current employer in under two years – nine points more than the global norm.

While pay is one reason, feeling unrecognised and a lack of career progression, are the two additional factors that drive employees to leave. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to improve productivity, this is as good a time as any to significantly review HR policies: to align them with national imperatives and the lived experience of Singapore workers. Member for Aljunied GRC Mr Gerald Giam, will speak more about productivity improvements in his speech.

A citizens panel on employment resilience concluded, as part of Forward Singapore, noted that many workers did not proactively manage their careers until a need arose – due to a lack of awareness of resources for upgrading; or to there being too much information that is too daunting to navigate.

The SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit aims to encourage employers to invest and enterprise, and workplace transformation. It covers an array of programmes, including support for job redesign under the Productivity Solutions Grant. These initiatives can be superimposed on the key HR workplace pain points identified by employees – particularly older workers. Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim will speak more on this subject.

This year's Budget sees the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit extended for another year. As in previous years, the WP calls on the Government to report on the success, or otherwise, of these enterprise schemes that cause huge amounts of money. Reporting on outcomes is a fundamental requirement for accountability. Please give us information on what outcomes, if any, have been achieved on an industry-wide level. Please let us know so that this House and industry experts outside this House can give inputs on how these schemes can be improved, if necessary.

Sir, I move to my final point. In this uncertain world, Singaporeans need to be committed to being united even as we must remain multiracial and multicultural.

The Budget speech By Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, sought to put into focus an important message that many of us overlook as we remain peaceful and far removed from the prospect of conflict. The segment of the Finance Minister's speech that stood out for me was the assessment of the uncertain outlook for Singapore. Some language was particularly strong. These include, and I quote: the international outlook has darkened dramatically; the post-Cold War era that fostered three decades of peace and stability is over; we are now in a new era of conflict and confrontation and there is no turning back; what can we expect in this new world? It will be more violent, it will be more fragmented, it will be messier and more unpredictable.

At the same time as the world is seeing rising political polarisation and disenfranchisement, due to economic displacement, the world continues to struggle with common global problems, such as climate change, a subject Hougang Single Member Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan will touch on.

If Forward Singapore seeks to refresh the social compact to keep our society strong and united and to prepare for a difficult road ahead, all of us in Singaporeans – regardless of our political persuasion – will have to be our siblings' keeper. More so than ever before.

But this will not be easy. Immigration and integration are good examples of where potential challenges lie. Earlier generations of immigrants had little choice, or less choice, but to integrate. They could not live hermetically sealed off from their host population. Only 30 years ago, it was prohibitively costly to make an international phone call.

Current immigrants can easily stay connected to their networks and countries of birth. One can be a new Singaporean or PR physically present in Singapore, but removed from Singapore society. Better integration between the races and communities must be an important feature of the new social compact. We ignore this social objective at our peril, given how immigration is a permanent feature of Singapore's society.

The prospect of constant information operations undertaken by state and non-state actors, is an acute threat facing all multicultural societies. As a multiracial and multi-religious society that relies on immigration to top-up the population, our bonds as one united people may be severely tested in the years to come.

The reality of online misinformation of foreign interference, particularly if framed in nationalistic terms, or in the form of identity politics, can be insidious and highly damaging to Singapore.

Even as we seek more space to passionately advocate our views, including those on race and religion, we should be mindful lest we denigrate another group. More communication is certainly needed, but we should never forget our common humanity. None of us chose to be born into our race or religion, so kindness and empathy must be a dominant feature of the multiracial Singapore spirit.

As an opposition party with elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in Parliament, the Workers' Party will not self-censure but commit ourselves to bring up matters responsibly. Once mistrust between communities take root, we will not know what hit us.

The WP agrees with the posture taken by the Government, that polarisation must not happen in Singapore. And as a society facing an unpredictable world, we should not dismiss this potential reality. We must gird ourselves against this prospect by deepening our commitment to fellow Singaporeans and representing them and their views faithfully.

A potentially more volatile outlook also reinforces the importance of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team and the importance of National Service. Our security agencies may be tested or challenged in ways that may not just be kinetic, but asymmetric, and we cannot afford to fall short. All Singaporeans must give our men and women in uniform our full support.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there is broad agreement on the outcomes sought by Forward Singapore.

But the call for a fair, inclusive and united Singapore must also accommodate and respond to citizen demands for greater transparency and civic participation. Otherwise, Forward Singapore could easily fall victim to political cynicism.

The WP has, on numerous occasions, proposed how these calls for greater transparency can be better addressed. Such calls will not grow softer and they are not inconsistent with the findings and the desired outcomes of the Forward Singapore exercise.

Some of the differences between the PAP and the WP are of methods and approaches, and we must agree to disagree. But there may be a few issues where there is consensus on the final outcomes, and yet, others where there is none. This is how a parliamentary democracy works. A Singapore with a contested and balanced Parliamentary system, with a robust opposition presence playing its role in making for a fair and inclusive society, and ultimately, what it does is that it makes us a better, more confident and an authentic Singapore. Sir, the WP supports the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

12.01 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang) : Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget sets out the first instalment of policy moves to remake Singapore's social compact, as envisioned by the Forward Singapore exercise.

We can see the imprints of Forward Singapore in many aspects of this year's Budget, including the various fresh approaches and moves to provide assurance to Singaporeans. There are major initiatives to develop our people, to invest in medium- and longer-term capabilities and security, to support families and seniors, and to build a fairer and more equitable society.

We are moving forward amidst a more uncertain, more contested and more volatile world. To adapt and thrive under this environment, we need to keep on reassessing our propositions and norms, but also, critically, to stay cohesive and united.

Sir, let me start with the Budget measures to tackle the immediate challenges. And in keeping with one of Forward Singapore key thrust that we are in this together and that we have got each other's back, this Budget continues to enhance the packages to help Singaporeans cope with the cost of living.

The $1.9 billion enhanced Assurance Package (AP) may come across as "more of the same", but this is a much welcomed "more of the same", where it is actually more than "more of the same". Even though there are other measures and tools to help mitigate rising costs; nothing beats having more direct payouts and assistance from the Government. And fortunately, we continued to have the fiscal capacity to dish out such upsized packages.

For the businesses, while the 50% corporate tax rebate and the Enterprise Financing Scheme, among others, may also come across as more of the same, the minimum cash payouts of $2,000 to all companies that employed at least one local employee is clearly a new feature and, if I remember correctly, first of its kind in our Budgets. It will go some way to provide relief to the small enterprises and helping to mitigate some of the incremental costs.

In addition to the AP, there are also other helpful features in this year's Budget that help Singaporean households and businesses cope with rising costs, such as the Workfare Income Supplement, the Silver Support, the preschool fee caps, the Progressive Wage Credits Scheme and so on.

So, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister for his continuing assurances to help Singaporeans to manage the cost pressures.

Besides the annual Budget measures, in September last year, the Deputy Prime Minister also came up with an additional off-budget $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package. In that package, there was also an additional one-off public transport subsidies of $300 million to moderate the fare increase in 2023. And this is over and above the $2 billion annual subsidy that the Government provides to keep public transport affordable.

I hope that that the Government would continue to monitor the costs situation, including keeping an eye on the public transport fare; and to consider another one-off assistance to moderate the fare increase if the Budget position permits.

Sir, let me now speak on the part of the Budget that I am most delighted with – that is developing our people.

Our people must be at the centre of any policy formulation and intent; whether it is to grow the economy, to build capabilities, to strengthen our securities and even why we manage our finances prudently. We want our people to live a full and happy life. A major part of our life's pursuit is livelihoods. We work to earn income to provide for our families and ourselves; to live good lives and to have the financial means for contingencies and retirement.

As a Government, nothing can be more of a priority and worthy than to help provide good and fulfilling livelihoods to our people. That must be the foremost key performance indicator (KPI) for the Government. However, with the rapid technological advancements and a more competitive and disruptive economic environment, long-term job security will be an increasing and ongoing challenge. The skills set that we acquire in schools and in the workplace now has a shortened shelf life. Some old jobs will become obsolete, while new jobs that require new skills will be created. And coupled with that, on the labour supply side, with an increasing healthy life span, we can now have a longer career runway. We are living longer and we have more healthier years in our life; thanks to the quality of life that we enjoy today.

Singaporeans understand this imperative and know that there may a time in their career where they need to do a pivot, in response to the changing landscape. The introduction of SkillsFuture 10 years ago opened up our mindset about continuous learning throughout life. Budget 2024 provides a major boost and a significant funding upsize to the SkillsFuture movement; with the aim to nudge Singaporeans in their forties, fifties and even sixties to embrace career resilience and to stay up to speed on their employability.

The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, with various subsidies, can greatly help to reduce the economic costs for training, a perennial pain point for the working mid-careers. The monthly training allowance, equivalent to 50% of one's average income, capped at $3,000 and over 24 months, helps to significantly buffer the economic costs for workers when they embark on career transition programmes.

The $4,000 top-up of the SkillsFuture Credit for Singaporeans aged 40 and above is a sizeable uplift and a clear signaling in the way forward. It is now more targeted in scope; and would only apply to programmes that can achieve the desired employability outcomes.

Sir, another notable shift in Budget 2024 is the change in our education subsidy policy; where Singaporeans aged 40 and above can pursue another diploma at our polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) at subsidised fees. The Deputy Prime Minister called it "another bite" of the education subsidies. I hope this new subsidised back-to-school full-time diploma programmes can also help produce more professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs); and hence, reduce the future need for more S Passes and Employment Passes (EPs).

Sir, these are substantial moves. Committing the funding is just first step and, of course, a critical enabler. The real heavy lifting is in operationalising the entire value chain, where workers seek training that the employers sought; the educators being deeply plugged into the needs of industries and businesses and curate the skills proramme that matters; and the work unions and Government closely monitoring, facilitating and anticipating the next few bounds ahead.

Sir, I welcome another shift that was mentioned in the Budget, with details to be provided later this year; and that is the temporary financial support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed. This is in keeping with the current reality, where we will see more disruptions that will impact businesses and jobs. I am glad that we are now ready to move on this. It is very much part of what we meant a functioning, social compact and that we have got each other's back. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] There is a saying that people have no fixed position and water has no constant form. The rapid development of technology today has led us into an era of constant change in the workplace. The transformation of economic operations has directly impacted the workplace, changing the employment model and shortening the value and lifespan of skills and knowledge. In response to this situation, this year's Budget has also strengthened a response strategy, enhancing and introducing new policy measures.

In addition to the enhanced SkillsFuture subsidies of up to $4,000, the Government has also adjusted education subsidies, allowing middle-aged Singaporeans to re-enter educational institutions to pursue professional diplomas and enhance their employment potential.

Workers who wish to attend qualified full-time work courses, can also receive training allowances of up to $3,000 per month. From these measures, we can understand the Government's intention to enable Singaporeans to maintain employability, expand employment opportunities and have a better future.

Learning and upskilling is a challenging endeavour, with economic cost and personal time commitment. This is why the Government is investing significant financial resources and strengthening policy measures to alleviate this burden on the individual.

Ultimately, whether we can achieve results depends on whether workers have that willingness and passion to seek skills and knowledge, and whether employers have a flexible, rewarding and long-term mindset to support this.

In this process, we also need to curate more courses that can be applied to enhance employment opportunities. This will be a very difficult road, but we have no choice. I can see the Government's determination, and in the future, it will require everyone and the entire system to work together to implement these enhanced upskilling policies.

(In English) : Sir, on the economy, I fully agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we need to continue growing the economy, so that we can improve the collective well-being of Singaporeans.

And given the inherent constraints stacked against us, such land, labour and carbon, our next phase of growth has to be productivity and innovation driven. It is not going to be easy, as bigger countries that are better resourced and with the scale of domestic economy are also doing the same.

The strategy that we have adopted to overcome our limitations and which has placed us among the top economic value-add country per capita in the world, is by continuously attracting high quality and high value investments to Singapore.

Attracting such investments help us leapfrog the riskier and the capital-intensive build-up phase; and enable our economy to always stay at the frontiers of cutting-edge technology. Hence, anchoring high value and innovative MNEs to base and hub here continues to be a compelling strategy for an economy like ours with minimal scale.

And thanks to our best-in-class investment attracting agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG), we have been able to attract these high-quality investments, despite the intense competition.

I often read the annual reports of EDB, to get a sense of how much investments we are attracting each year. Besides reporting the fixed asset investment (FAI) commitments and the total business expenditure per annum (TBE), EDB would also report the jobs expected to be created and the value added to the economy.

For example, in 2023, the EDB attracted FAI of $12.7 billion, TBE of $8.9 billion and these are expected to create more than 20,000 jobs with a projected value-add of $26.7 billion. I am heartened that our economic investment agencies never lose sight on the ultimate motivation on why we bring in investments, which is to create good jobs and to contribute to our gross domestic product (GDP).

Sir, we have to keep strengthening our propositions; among others, to always be a business-friendly destination of choice, having a diverse talent pool, excellent infrastructure and connectivity, trusted jurisdictions, strong financial standing and, of course, an able Government and political stability.

How could our local enterprises benefit from the presence of MNEs? The key is in finding ways for our local firms to be the suppliers and servicers of the MNEs; and playing a part in their value chain.

The enhanced Partnership for Capability Transformation aims to increase the range of modalities for MNEs and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to collaborate and to help the SMEs up the game. This could be the pathway for our local enterprises to break out of the size trap, level up to be the emerging regionals or niche champions.

Sir, besides attracting high quality investments and developing our local enterprises, we have also got to invest in our capabilities and build longer-term competitiveness. The Deputy Prime Minister announced a series of significant investment into our capabilities in this year's Budget; for example, the $3 billion in Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025), $2 billion in the Financial Sector Development Fund, $100 million to upgrade our Nationwide Broadband Network.

To enhance our longer-term energy security, the Government will also inject an initial $5 billion to set up the Future Energy Fund. These are massive funding commitments. Sir, I look forward to the details in the upcoming COS debate.

On AI, I am glad that Singapore has a head-ups in developing AI capabilities with our National AI strategy. It has not gone unnoticed internationally.

Last December, I happened to be in Taiwan for the holidays, with my family. At that time, the Taiwanese Presidential and the Legislative election campaign were in full swing. And out of curiosity, I popped into a couple of election rallies in Taipei and watched the local news there, to hear what are the issues that the candidates were talking about.

It is not uncommon in Taiwanese elections, to hear opposition politicians there using Singapore as an example to criticise their government for not doing as well as Singapore. So, in this election there, it was again not surprising that Singapore got a few mentions. One of them was where the opposition politicians ridiculed their government on why tiny Singapore can be listed as the top 10 countries in the world, leading in AI research and technology; and Taiwan is not there. They lamented that Taiwan is losing out in this AI race and will severely impact its overall competitiveness.

Sir, I am pleased that we are now into version 2 of our National AI Strategy; and in this Budget, the Government has committed to invest $1 billion per year for the next five years. The investments will be used to work with leading companies to set up AI Centres of Excellences in Singapore as well as secure the much needed advanced chips for AI development.

Sir, we need to keep up with the momentum in our AI development; and I support the additional funding announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my final point is with regards to the adjustments to the corporate income tax; to incorporate the BEPS 2.0 Pillar 2 changes. Under Pillar 2 of BEPS, a global minimum effective tax of 15% is required to be applied to large MNEs. Many jurisdictions including Switzerland and Hong Kong has announced their plans to implement it in 2024 and 2025.

BEPS 2.0 will reset the level playing field for global competition for investment and that is why it is critical that we keep improving our overall offerings such as introducing the Refundable Investment Credit to strengthen our competitive position.

One issue of considerable interest is the revenue impact from introduction of Domestic Top-Up Tax.

In the near term, it is expected to provide additional revenues to the Government. In an OECD report released in January 2024, OECD provided estimates that imply a revenue gain of around 15% to 40% in corporate income tax for investment hubs. Using our revised FY2023 corporate tax revenue base of $28.4 billion, this would mean an additional $4 billion to $11 billion of revenue.

In February 2024, Hong Kong which will introduce Pillar 2 in 2025 has estimated its own revenue impact to be around HKD 10 billion, or S$1.7 billion. There was another estimate by Switzerland in August 2023 which estimate the impact for Switerland as CHF 1.6 billion, or S$2.4 billion. Both the Hong Kong and Swiss estimates seem to be point to a lower revenue impact than what the OECD estimates would imply, which is up to about S$10 billion for Hong Kong, up to about S$15 billion for Switzerland.

Of course, OECD has cautioned that there is a wide range of uncertainty in their estimates.

Sir, Pillar 2 is an unprecedented change in tax policy and there are significant limitations in the extent to which previous experience and studies can inform on the "behavioural reactions" by governments and MNEs and therefore the revenue impact.

Furthermore, the OECD report does not factor in the impact of Pillar 1, which will have a negative revenue impact for Singapore. When both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are taken together, it would be difficult to pin down on the net revenue impact.

The more important point is BEPS 2.0 is a key challenge for Singapore which we must navigate carefully.

And which is I why, I support the Budget 2024 measures to enhance our investment promotion toolkit through the Refundable Investment Credit; as well as the various investments in our workforce, in innovation and in infrastructure.

Sir, to conclude, a good Budget is not defined by just about how we spend, how big we spend, how many more areas we spend but also how we fund our expenditures on a sustainable basis. This discipline about a balanced Budget is of critical importance especially where the trajectory of our spending is heading higher.

Often, commentators would like to use characterisations such whether the Budget is left-leaning or right-leaning or centre-left or centre-right to describe a Budget. But it may not be that straightforward for this year’s Budget.

Rather than to characterise the budget as being more left or right-leaning, I would say this is a budget that is forward moving and upward progressing. We have every determination to move Singapore forward; and in this forward journey ahead to ensure that there will be upward social mobility and cohesion and importantly upward progress for everyone. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Ms Foo Mee Har.

12.20 pm

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast) : Mr Speaker, Budget 2024 is a budget notable for its wide-ranging support measures. These include generous assistance to meet cost-of-living pressures to taking forward-looking steps to ensure Singapore and Singaporeans continue to thrive in a fast-changing economic and social environment.

Sir, I wholeheartedly support this year’s Budget and I thank the Government for listening and being responsive to needs on the ground. There are significant progressive moves announced in this Budget, such as the SkillsFuture Credit top up of $4,000 for those 40 years and above to level up; as well as moves to better calibrate policy such as easing of property tax burden for many home owners who saw their tax bills spike.

We even see policy innovation where the Government provides Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Vouchers for families to rent an HDB flat in the open market for one year, to supplement the strong demand for temporary housing whilst families wait for their BTO completion.

Sir, I would like to focus my speech on three key areas where Budget 2024 helps with cost pressures, sharpens Singapore’s competitiveness as well as addresses retirement adequacy.

First, on cost pressures. Sir, riding on the better-than-expected Government revenue in Financial Year (FY) 2023, individuals and families stand to benefit from a mix of cash, vouchers and rebates under the $1.9 billion boost to the Assurance Package.

Companies, especially SMEs, also stand to benefit from the $1.3 billion Enterprise Support Package with a slew of support measures, including the generous corporate income tax rebate of 50%, capped at $40,000 in the year of assessment FY2024.

Those with less will receive more, but there is something for everyone.

Sir, I applaud the Government for their concerted attempt to shore up individual and company cash flows. However, we must be very careful to calibrate handouts to ensure that these are sustainable, as people may grow to rely on them over time. It may become a challenge to wean them off expectations of such broad-based support in the future.

Also, the generous direct transfers to cushion residents from elevated inflation may, ironically, add to further demand and reverse early signs of moderation on inflation.

Last year, I had raised similar concerns about Government handouts increasing demand and creating a vicious escalation in prices. Helping people cope with rising costs is a worthy policy but it must be balanced against the risk of prolonging inflationary pressures. After all, it would be unsustainable to dole out assistance to fight inflation if such help ends up keeping inflation higher for longer. So, I call on the Government to keep a close eye on this.

Next, sharpening Singapore’s competitiveness. Mr Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced an ambitious target of two to 3% GDP over the next decade. The economy grew by only 1.1% last year, down from 3.8% growth the previous year. Real income declined 2.2% for the first time in over 10 years. Singapore’s continued growth in the new era of global development is not guaranteed.

We face challenges in an international tax environment where global minimum tax regulations are upon us, and where countries around the world are fighting for high-quality investments.

Sir, Singapore has evolved from a trading port to a global finance hub, logistics, and also for manufacturing. In order to succeed in our next phase of growth, we need to pivot towards high-value, innovative economic development.

This shift necessitates a profound change in our skills and capabilities, far beyond what has brought us success in the past.

In an era dominated by rapid technological advancements, our focus must pivot towards nurturing skills in innovation, research and development (R&D), digitalisation and AI. These fields have transformative potential to boost our economy, but require a new breed of industries and professionals who are adept in these cutting-edge domains. The magnitude of this transition cannot be understated. We are not simply adopting new technologies; we are required to reshape our economic fabric.

So, Budget 2024 rightly earmarked a substantial sum of $13 billion towards capability development – these include boosting productivity, research and innovation, green transition and AI transformation.

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced the launch of a refreshed incentive toolbox with new fiscal schemes, such the new Refundable Investment Credit scheme and top-up of existing funds to further advance capabilities. This is 10 times the amount set aside to help companies cope with near-term challenges.

However, Sir, many of the initiatives will only be effective to the extent they are taken up. Significant effort must be directed to boost usage in order to achieve the intended outcomes of the respective schemes.

For example, even though SkillsFuture has been launched for close to 10 years, only three in 10 Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture credits. The number of companies tapping into R&D grants is insufficient, and SMEs still struggle to decipher the multitude of schemes and the complexity and onerous application process.

Sir, even as I persist in urging the Government to intensify its efforts to stimulate adoption – a topic I will delve into during my COS speeches – it is ultimately incumbent upon companies and workers to seize these opportunities and to forge a brighter future for themselves. The support schemes available to us is a springboard, but the impetus to leap forward lies within us.

Embarking on a journey of transformation is akin to preparing to scale new and uncharted mountains. This journey compels us to traverse unfamiliar terrain and to overcome obstacles that are inherent in scaling any worthy peak.

We are comforted by the knowledge that, in this journey, we are not alone. The support schemes available are akin to tools, maps and safety gear, provided to ensure that our climb, our ascent is not only successful but also safe and secure.

These resources are designed to assist us in navigating the complexities of change, offering guidance, training and support at every step. But, ultimately, it is only we who scale the mountain; the gear alone cannot do it for us.

Next, retirement adequacy. Mr Speaker, Budget 2024 contains excellent initiatives to further boost retirement adequacy, such as the Majulah Package, enhanced support for Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, Silver Support Scheme Enhancement and others. But, unfortunately, the announcement to close the CPF SA for those aged 55 and older attracted the most attention.

Whilst I support the rationale behind the Government's move, the sudden closure of SA accounts affects many middle-income seniors. Based on established CPF rules, they have systematically saved and trusted this scheme to build up their retirement nest-eggs.

Many rely on CPF savings as a key source to fund their retirement. This sudden unexpected change disrupts their retirement planning. As a policy move, it may be fairer if the Government could grandfather the SA scheme for existing 55 and older CPF members.

Sir, the most exciting development within the CPF framework for me is the increase of the Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS) to four times of the Basic Retirement Sum, reaching $426,000 in 2025.

Over the years, I have advocated for a higher ERS, enabling CPF LIFE to better cater to the retirement needs of middle-income Singaporeans, especially for those considering CPF as their primary source for retirement planning. This is really important that the CPF serves middle-income Singaporeans.

The rule of thumb for the income level required to maintain a similar lifestyle in retirement typically involves replacing a certain percentage of your pre-retirement income. It is commonly suggested that retirees will need approximately 70% to 80% of their pre-retirement income to sustain their lifestyle. This estimate of 70% to 80% as what they need in retirement, assumes the decrease in certain expenses, such as commuting, work-related expenses or mortgage payments, while anticipating an increase in others like healthcare or leisure activities.

If we consider the current median monthly income of about $5,200 for full-time working residents in the middle-income group, the estimated monthly payout under the new ERS would be approximately $3,300. This represents a 63% replacement income versus the 70% to 80% recommended for middle-income earners. This is a significant increase from the current monthly payout of $2,530, which only replaces about 49% of our median wage earner's income.

Sir, the introduction of the new ERS is a significant step toward closing the retirement adequacy gap for the middle-income earners, an issue I have persistently lobbied for over many years.

While CPF LIFE should not be tailored to meet the needs of the affluent, it must and it must serve as a primary source of retirement income for our low- and middle-income seniors, ensuring they have financial security and peace of mind in their golden age.

Finally, Sir, fiscal space and top up funds.

Sir, in examining the budgetary position for FY2022 and FY2023, I would like to seek clarification on several fronts.

Firstly, with regard to the Government's accountability on fiscal marksmanship. The final financial outcome for FY2022 diverged notably from the initial projections, going from an anticipated deficit of $2 billion into a surplus of $1.7 billion.

For FY2023, despite a revenue increase exceeding expectations by 7.9% and surpassing $104 billion, the fiscal deficit for this year is, in fact, revised to $3.6 billion deficit. This represents a significant widening from the earlier projection of $0.4 billion deficit.

In the light of these developments, I would like to ask how the Government projects revenue and expenditure to ensure a level of predictability that informs crucial decisions, such as the need to raise taxes to balance the budget.

Secondly, a significant amount of funds totalling $24.3 billion for FY2023 and $20.4 billion for FY2024 are allocated towards topping up endowment and trust funds.

While I appreciate the fiscal discipline demonstrated by setting aside funds that are committed for future programmes that we promise the people without burdening future budgets and generations, I want to seek clarification on several aspects.

Firstly, the rate of drawdown of the various funds. Secondly, how the Government determines whether expenditures should be funded from funds and endowments, as opposed to operating budget. Additionally, I am interested in understanding how undrawn amounts are treated and how drawdowns are optimised across funds to smoothen out expenditures. Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Ms Hazel Poa.

12.36 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the most noteworthy thing about this year's Budget Statement was the amount of support measures provided to Singaporeans without any additional major tax increases announced. This will come as a great relief to many Singaporeans who are still struggling to cope with the high costs of living and an uncertain job environment.

I will first address the support measures and how we can take bolder steps to support Singaporeans in coping with the rising cost of living. I will then discuss Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) views on the proposals in the Budget to support lifelong learning and develop the full potential of Singaporeans.

Sir, those of us who walk the ground will know that the rising cost of living is the number one concern for Singaporeans and we have debated this issue at length in this House last November. Many Singaporeans are feeling that their wages are unable to keep up with rising prices, leading to feelings of anxiety and insecurity. This feeling is borne out in the wage statistics. After taking into account inflation, real wages rose by only 0.4% in 2022, but fell by 4.5% in the first half of 2023.

Furthermore, the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, which measures inflation, does not take into account loan repayments. This means that the higher interest rates which resulted in higher mortgage payments and other loan payments are not taken into account in the calculation of inflation and real wage growth.

The Government's response has been to provide subsidies and rebates that help households in the short term, for instance, the Assurance Package. While these short-term support measures are welcome, PSP has always maintained that these are not long-term solutions that address the root causes of the rising cost of living.

While it is true that rising prices are subject to global forces like oil prices, food prices, disruption to supply chains due to pandemics, wars or climate change, there are also domestic factors driving prices. These domestic factors include our property prices, Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, population policy and Government taxes.

Today, I will only talk about property prices and Government taxes and leave the discussion on COE and population policy to another day. Suffice to say that COE increases our transportation costs and population policy affects the overall demand for all goods and services, thus putting pressure on all prices.

One root cause of the rising cost of living is rising rents.

In the retail sector, rent constitutes about 30% of the business costs. This means that when you walk into a shop to buy a product, 30% of the cost of that product is due to the shop's rental and this has not yet taken into account the suppliers' rental costs which had been built into the cost of goods sold. Similarly, in the food and beverage (F&B) sector, rent forms about 27% of business cost. Rent therefore has a big impact on the cost of living of most Singaporeans.

PSP once again calls on the Government to take action to moderate excessive commercial rent increases in Singapore. For a start, guidelines on reasonable annual rent increases can be issued, similar to how the National Wage Council (NWC) issues guidelines on wage increases.

If the rate of rent increases can be moderated, it will not only be beneficial for Singaporeans but it will benefit businesses as well.

In addition, Government is the largest landowner in Singapore and yields significant influence over the property market. If it has the political will, it can push outcome in the direction it wants.

Another root cause of rising cost of living is home prices. For most of us, buying a house is the single largest expenditure of our lifetime. PSP has proposed the Affordable Home Scheme in which HDB flat prices do not include the land cost component for home buyers upon first purchase, but deferred if and when they sell their flats. This will greatly ease the burden of housing costs on young people and allow them to more easily build up their retirement savings. It might even provide some with the leeway to take risks with their careers and pursue any entrepreneurial dreams without being shackled by large mortgage payments.

Government taxes form part of the cost of living, with the most obvious being the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

In Budget 2022, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said that healthcare expenditure is increasing due to the ageing population and is expected to hit $27 billion in 2030. GST therefore needed to be raised to fund the expected increase in healthcare expenditure. If healthcare expenditure hits $27 billion as expected and the increase is fully funded by GST, then GST would have to be raised by another 3.5% approximately by 2030, to reach about 12.5%.

Will the Government share whether there are any further plans to raise taxes to fund the increase in healthcare expenditure?

Currently, the Government helps Singaporeans cope with GST increases and cost of living increases by giving cash grants, rebates and vouchers, resulting in a situation whereby the bulk of the population are now in regular receipt of Government handouts.

In any society, there will always be people with different income levels and it is normal for Government to give grants to the lower-income families. But if the bulk of the population need Government handouts to cope with cost of living, then that cannot be a healthy situation. We should also be circumspect about the fact that the bulk of the population is getting used to the idea that it is a norm to receive Government handouts.

It may be the easier route to provide handouts to cope with the cost of living, but we must focus on taking steps to keep costs in check.

For a start, we ask the Government to reconsider exempting a list of basic necessities from GST. We can list specific products rather than broad categories to minimise classification issues and limit price levels to those generally consumed by lower- and middle-income families. The need for this measure will become more pressing as GST rate increases.

The way that the Government currently treats land sales proceeds and prices HDB flats is also adding to taxpayers' burden. HDB must pay Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for the land used to build HDB flats. These land sales proceeds are then locked away in past reserves and are paid for by large Government grants. These Government grants must be paid by taxpayers. So, in effect, taxes are being collected to be locked away in the reserves.

Further grants are given to HDB flat buyers in order to make flats more affordable. These grants must also be paid by taxpayers.

I have previously proposed that land sales proceeds be treated as revenue divided over the duration of the lease. It is heartening to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is not an unthinkable proposition during the Public Finances debate earlier this month. As this measure can relieve the tax burden on Singaporeans, I hope the Government will consider it seriously.

Apart from containing costs, another way to cope with rising cost of living is through raising wages and ensuring that they keep pace with the rising cost. One major way of doing so is through education and training.

Before I talk about education, I wish to declare that I own a private education company.

PSP supports the introduction of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, which consists of a $4,000 credit, subsidies for another full-time diploma and training allowance for full-time trainees. We believe that full-time training will be more effective in enhancing the employability of our workers. These policies will also enable our middle-aged workers to switch careers more easily and move into areas with better or more job opportunities.

We are, however, disappointed that details of the temporary financial support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed are still not ready.

Retrenchments are becoming increasingly common. Temporary financial support would be greatly beneficial to retrenched workers seeking a new job. Any delay in the implementation of this scheme has real consequences on the retrenched employees. We hope the Government can finalise the scheme as soon as possible.

In addition, if a retrenched worker decides to enter full-time training a few months after they were retrenched, we hope that the size of their training allowance will not be impacted by their period of unemployment. We seek the Government's confirmation that their training allowance would be based on their last drawn pay when they were employed.

In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced his intention to ensure that the wages and career prospects of our ITE graduates should not be too far below their polytechnic- and university-going peers. He then announced a new ITE Progression Award, which provides a $5,000 top-up to the Post-Secondary Education Accounts of ITE graduates who enrol in a diploma programme; and a $10,000 CPF top-up for ITE graduates when they attain polytechnic diplomas.

We whole-heartedly support the intention of helping our ITE graduates, but feel that the ITE Progression Award does not quite fully meet that objective.

Today, about 4,000 ITE graduates – or about 28% of the annual ITE graduating cohort – qualify for polytechnics each year and about 4,000 ITE graduates enrol in the polytechnics each year. Since most of those who qualified already chose to progress into diploma courses, the Award has limited scope to encourage more to do so.

The $5,000 top-up to the education accounts does help to ease the financial burden of ITE graduates enrolling for diploma courses; but the $10,000 CPF top-up less so and, furthermore, is actually going to a group who are no longer just ITE graduates, but a specific group of diploma holders.

An issue of parity amongst diploma holders arises here. Giving $10,000 to some diploma holders, but not others, based solely on the route they took to enter polytechnics can get controversial.

We are of the view that a better way to help ITE graduates would be: one, help more ITE graduates qualify for polytechnics. Entry requirements can be reviewed to recognise the value of relevant work experience rather than just grade point average (GPA). Those who decide to take the "O" levels in order to qualify for polytechnics should also be supported. This can be done through promoting or expanding the ITE General Education course; or providing education grants to those doing so as private candidates.

Two, help those who enrolled in diploma courses successfully complete their programme by conducting bridging courses to cover the gaps between ITE programmes and "O" level programmes. A TODAY article in July last year, cited students who expressed the need for such courses in areas, like mathematics and essay writing.

The above support measures should also be extended to those who had dropped out of school even before completing ITE, but now wishes to return to the education system to upskill or upgrade themselves.

PSP hopes that the Government will consider our suggestions so that together, we can find a more permanent solution to the challenges faced by Singaporeans in coping with the rising cost of living.

Sir, the Progress Singapore Party supports Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker : Ms Joan Pereira.

12.50 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the measures in the Budget to assist our households so that they can tackle immediate challenges and face the future with more assurance.

With global tensions and conflicts exacerbating shortages of supplies and disrupting logistic chains, prices of goods and services have risen substantially and are expected to increase further. Unfortunately, it is challenging for our workers' wages to keep up with the pace of price increases and inflation.

In the face of an uncertain global operating environment, competing priorities and the need to balance our budget, I welcome the Ministry's decision to provide greater assistance for the lower-income group and bigger households with elderly and children.

Lower- and middle-income households would be heartened that the $6 billion top-up to the GST Voucher Fund will secure the permanent defrayment of GST expenses for them. Many will receive further support from the Cost-of-Living Special Payment, the U-Save rebates and Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates; the additional $600 in Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers coming on the heels of the $500 recently disbursed, are appreciated.

On this note, I would like the Government to consider pegging this or future batches of vouchers to the number of persons per household. If three or four generations or an extended family live at one address, it could be due to financial limitations. Hence, all the more reason for a headcount-based CDC Voucher system. On the other hand, if the reason to stay together is to facilitate mutual care and support, the household should similarly not be penalised for this.

Today, I would like to take the opportunity to appeal for more middle- and long-term support for the sandwich generation – whom I would refer to as the group that has to provide for the care and expenses of children and elderly parents, while having to prepare for their own retirement needs. We have to factor in longer lifespans, which mean that they have to support their parents over a longer period even as they themselves become senior citizens. As family is the most important unit of society, we need to continue providing the relevant support needed by this group in order to safeguard our families and our society.

The raised per capita household income thresholds for healthcare and associated social support subsidy schemes, will be greatly welcomed by our families as more will be able to benefit from subsidies. I also appreciate the increase in the Silver Support Scheme, which provides quarterly payments to seniors who had low incomes during their working years and have less family support. I hope a similar scheme can be introduced for elderly with similarly low incomes during their working years but who are living with their family members, albeit in the lower- and middle-income brackets. Such a support programme will also help to alleviate the burden on the sandwich generation.

I would also like to speak about our families with genuine needs to ferry young children and elderly parents at this stage in their lives – who need cars but find car ownership difficult to afford. Would the Government also consider recalibrating our vehicle COE system to take into account the changing car usage patterns, including the rise in car-sharing services and yet continue to keep car ownership affordable for families who need it?

Finally, I would like to surface feedback regarding retirees living in landed properties. In recent years, their property taxes have been increasing, which affects this group of senior citizens living off their savings. While the annual value bands will be raised and they will be allowed to pay via a 24-month instalment plan without interest, some of them may still face financial issues. Hence, I would like to propose for an arrangement where IRAS will review, discuss with and advise affected landowners the various payment options and alternative solutions appropriate to their specific cases. Sir, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] I would like to surface feedback regarding retirees living in landed properties. In recent years, their property taxes have been increasing, which affects this group of senior citizens living off their savings. While the annual value bands will be raised and they will be allowed to pay via a 24-month instalment plan without interest, some of them may still face financial issues. Hence, I would like to propose for an arrangement where IRAS may review, discuss with and advise affected landowners the various payment options and alternative solutions appropriate to their specific cases.

( In English ): This is a forward-looking Budget that is focused on steering the whole nation ahead while not leaving anyone behind. Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

12.57 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member) : Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his Budget that, in my view, puts money in the right places, including investing in Singaporeans in the long term.

My speech today is in two parts. First, I will speak about the culture of work in Singapore. Second, I will speak about uplifting the wages of workers in the professions of the hands.

Let me begin by saying that I am heartened by the investments the Government is making in our workers – through the enhancements to the SkillsFuture Credit scheme and the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Allowance as well as the subsidy for mature workers to take another full-time diploma. This will help to ensure that our workers are able to keep themselves relevant and future-ready.

But these schemes will not bear fruit if our workers do not have the correct mindset and our culture of work is not conducive.

The culture of work in many countries, including in Singapore, is changing. I welcome some of these trends, like flexible working hours and working from home, as they can help to create work environments that are conducive to an ageing population and supportive of couples having more children. I am more cautious of other trends and suggestions – like a very short workweek and a right to disconnect from work.

Many of these trends originate and emanate from developed economies. Singapore is, of course, also a developed economy, but we are very different from many of these other countries – some of which have natural resources or hinterlands that they can tap on. Singapore's sole resource is our human resource, upon which all our success has been built. As the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "You know the Singaporean. He is a hardworking, industrious, rugged individual; or we would not have made the grade." The quote, of course, continues to say that he is also a champion grumbler. But that it is fine if he has worked hard, then he has earned the right to grumble.

Therefore it falls to reason that if our workforce weakens, our competitiveness and attractiveness as an economy weakens and this threatens our continued ability to sustain our way of life. As such, we should be very careful when we look adopting some of these trends and we should determine their sustainability for Singapore and the consequences of implementing them in legislation and in policy.

Take for example, the right to disconnect legislation recently enacted in Australia. Amendments made to the Fair Work Act will allow workers to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact from their employer or a third-party outside of their working hours, without penalty. Let us look at the practical effect of this legislation.

First, there will always be some workers who decide to forego their rights and to remain connected. These are people who simply do not want to disconnect for various reasons. And among these people, we may be likely to find the future leaders of organisations, future entrepreneurs, inventors, young lawyers who aspire to become senior counsel, workers who want to go the extra mile to delight their customers, administrative service officers who want to get their promotions. There is simply no alternative to hard work, putting in the hours, putting in the steps. And being in a global city in a super-connected world, a contactable and responsive worker is invariably a more valuable worker.

Second, while the worker that refuses to be contacted would not be penalised, the worker that remains contactable may get a boost in his performance evaluation. He may be more likely to get the increment and the promotion because an organisation must reward those that are more valuable to it and that are more willing to do more than they have to.

Third, there may be tensions that arise because the worker who exercises his rights strictly may have expected that he would have had spots as the worker who forewent his rights, who would in turn expects that he does better precisely because he had put in more work than is expected.

The legislation in Australia gives the worker an actionable right to disconnect. So, this means more litigation, more labour discord on something that may ultimately not be easy to prove. Such legislation creates more questions, more tension that could be disproportionate to any good that could conceivably come out of it. I hope that such legislation does not come before this House.

We should be careful as to what trends and fads we decide to champion in this House. They may have severe consequences on the productivity and competitiveness of our workforce. Let us not forget how the Great Resignation came and went as fair as doomed.

There is a trend promoting an aversion towards material success, as if it was some form of scarlet letter, in favour of a more relaxed attitude to work. Being overly materialistic is, of course, not a good thing. But I hope that this does not trickle down to become an aversion to hard work, ambition or the pursuit of success because we have to face it that many successful people are motivated by material success, and that that pursuit of it may lead to the creation of successful companies and jobs and opportunities for Singapore.

So, let us encourage those who want to work hard and who want to work more, in pursuit of whatever their dreams are and let us avoid a culture against work from forming in Singapore.

On a related note, at the last Sitting, we had a lengthy and very important debate on mental health. I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister Wong has stated that mental health is a national priority and that there will be an expansion of mental health services. I am, however, troubled with some narratives that suggest that mental health and hard work are on polar opposites and that they are mutually exclusive. I have heard people say things like: "I'm not going to put too much effort into this job because I am prioritising my mental health". Yes, excessive work stress can lead to mental health issues. But I am sure that there are also many people who work very hard, who take on a lot on themselves professionally, who have difficult working hours – and who also have good mental health. I imagine that there are many Members in this House who would fall into this category.

We should therefore avoid giving paid to such narratives even as we tackle very real mental health concerns amongst our workers.

I am concerned that the Singapore worker may be becoming complacent in believing that our way of life is a given. Singapore is not invincible. In fact, as Deputy Prime Minister pointed out in his Budget speech, we cannot afford to become complacent. We are vulnerable – if we have slow growth similar to what we saw in the previous year, Deputy Prime Minister said, we would be in trouble, and we would not be able to improve our collective well-being, and our standard of living would be affected. So, we must constantly work at it and we must guard against trends and ideas that can negatively affect our competitiveness.

But at the same time, there is no point working hard to maintain the lead and then not enjoying it ourselves. So, we need to achieve that balance. We cannot just live well in vacuo. We should not just work hard. And it is not about working well either. It is about working hard and living well. This is the work culture we should seek to promote amongst Singaporeans.

So, perhaps we can aim for our workers to have it all – and to put that forward as the ideal for our Singapore workers. My vision of a Singapore worker is someone who works hard and tries to do his best at his job. He is proud of his professional achievements and confident that he has the skills to take on future roles and to compete with foreign talent. He is compensated adequately to have a good Singapore standard of living, including spending quality time with his family and pursuing his personal interests. He is physically and mentally healthy. This is a vision of a holistic Singapore worker – one who does his best to work hard and is able to live well.

In fact, I would like to encourage our workers to use this as a mantra and a hashtag online: #workhardlivewell. You do not have to fell "pai seh" posting about your leisurely pursuits or holidays with your family, or just having gotten or bought something nice for yourself. Why? Because you worked hard, you achieved it, and you deserve it. #workhardlivewell.

Sir, all this having been said, and moving on to my next point, there are yet workers amongst us who work hard but who do not live as well as they should, primarily because they do not earn enough, and also for some, because of longer working hours and working conditions. They are in what may be called the professions of the hands, that is, jobs that are manual in nature and that do not have a high academic criterion for entry. Many of these are in Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors like cleaning, retail, F&B, security and waste management. I declare at this juncture, Sir, my interest as the President of Security Association Singapore, a trade association in a PWM sector.

In the first instance, Sir, I think that we need to recognise that these jobs require that workers have certain skills. We must recognise and accept that these are skilled jobs. Last week, there was some online chatter about a SkillsFuture course on washing toilets, which is part of the mandatory training for workers in the cleaning industry. A post that was widely circulated commented that these skills could be learnt during National Service or at home. I think this misses the point. Just because one can grow a cactus on their office table does not make them an arborist or horticulturalist.

This course teaches workers on how to clean toilets on a commercial basis. And there are many things that go into it, from safety elements like putting up a sign outside the toilet while it is being washed and when to remove it, to the use of various types of cleaning equipment, and chemicals, some of which may be dangerous if not used properly. It goes into basic custodial checking and time management because these workers have to manage the cleanliness of several washrooms in a day. So, let us not ridicule the work that people do or the training that they undergo.

The second thing that we should recognise is that these are jobs that are physically demanding. I would challenge naysayers to wait tables at a restaurant. It is not easy. I have done it myself. You are on your feet throughout your shift, walking from tables to kitchen or to the bar, carrying food and drink that can be heavy. There is a public relations element to the job because you should be pleasant with patrons and there may be some amount of entertaining that you may have to do as well. It is not as simple as some may make it out to be.

Third, there are significant shortages in the manpower supply for these jobs. In the security industry there is an estimated shortage of between eight and 18,000 officers at any one time. The shortages become worse when there is a surge of demand for security officers during major events, like the Formula One (F1) Race. We therefore need to be able to attract more Singaporeans to enter these professions and to pay them well.

Fourth, these jobs are important jobs that have integral contribution to what Singapore is and what Singapore aspires to be. If we look at the trademark physical attributes that Singapore is famous for – clean, green and safe. All of these are managed by PWM sectors. We are a food paradise. We want to be a shopping destination. All PWM sectors. The workers in these sectors may not hold very high academic qualifications but they are doing their part in the Singapore miracle and it is not a small part, and they need to be recognised and rewarded accordingly.

I was very encouraged when I read Deputy Prime Minister Wong's speech at the IPS Singapore Perspectives Conference in January last year. Amongst other things, the Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies, instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said it is not just about re-shaping the labour market, but also about shifting perceptions about work.

I was further encouraged to see the Forward Singapore report include "respecting and rewarding every job" as one the objectives we would seek to achieve. It is important that we not only reward workers in these jobs, but that we also build respect for their professions, so that we can equalise how all jobs are viewed. The report also called for a further reduction of wage gaps across professions including through the PWMs.

In this Budget, there are also measures to bolster the PWMs through the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme as well as to support Institute of Education (ITE) graduates through the Progression Award. It is quite clearly a Government priority, which I applaud, to achieve a mindset change so that all jobs in Singapore are viewed as good jobs, and that the gap in the compensation for workers of different professions is made smaller.

The current PWMs look at closing the gap between lower-wage workers and the median income. I would like to call on the Government and the tripartite partners to go further so that we can achieve both the twin aims of reward and respectability. I ask that they consider setting as a long-term objective that the average wage of workers in each PWM sector rise to be on par with the average wage of fresh university graduates.

I make this suggestion because although the Forward Singapore report addresses the matter of increasing rewards, it does not touch much on how to improve respectability, aside from encouraging it through some form of moral-suasion. Pegging average wages of professions of the hands with that of academically-inclined fresh graduates could provide a more tangible indication that both these categories of jobs are equally worthy of respect and hopefully, trigger a cultural shift in how our society views these jobs.

I would also like to ask the Government and the tripartite partners to also accelerate the PWM wage increases so that our lower-wage workers can also live well and enjoy the fullness of the standard of living that Singapore should provide for its citizens. While the PWMs have achieved very significant wage increases that would have not occurred but for the PWMs, my view is that they need to go further.

We can look at, for example, the prescribed entry-level security officer wage in 2024, which is $2,650. For, say, a 40-year old officer, after deductions for CPF, he would take home about $2,120 – a sum that would go into supporting his family and himself. I am not going to go into the various calculations, that have been aired in this House before, of what is a minimum living wage in Singapore. But let us just be honest with ourselves and ask ourselves if $2,120 a month is this sufficient. Will such a wage entitle that security officer to live the life of a Singapore worker that I envisioned earlier? Will he enjoy the good Singapore standard of living? If we are honest with ourselves, I think we know that it would not be sufficient.

But the silver lining is that security officers will in fact see fairly rapid wage increases over the next four years. By 2028, an entry-level security officer will earn a minimum basic wage of $3,530 or more; security supervisors will earn $4,130 and senior security supervisors at least $4,430. I hope that the tripartite partners negotiating the security PWM beyond 2028 will consider my suggestion to peg the average wage of security officers across all the ranks with the average wage of fresh university graduates.

While my proposal may be seen as bold in the Singapore context, it is in fact a norm in many advanced economies. My research reveals that the average wages of cleaners, security officers and waste management personnel are not far from the average wage of a fresh university graduate in Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and Australia. In fact, the average wages of waste management personnel and security officers, in particular, tended to be higher than that of fresh university graduates.

So, it does appear that Singapore is somewhat of an anomaly amongst comparable advanced economies in the wages we pay our workers in these sectors.

Finally, Sir, I would also like to ask the Government to make further effort to persuade consumers to support wage increases by being prepared to pay more for the services that the PWM sectors provide. As Deputy Prime Minister Wong said at the IPS Conference, consumers must be willing to pay more for certain goods and services to uplift the wages of those who provide them.

I am on all fours with Deputy Prime Minister's observation that, and I quote, "We cannot demand for services delivered by our fellow citizens to be priced cheaply and in the same breath lament that their wages are too low. It is completely inconsistent."

But another observation is that the initial few PWM sectors were all in the facilities management sector and were servicing mainly private condominiums and commercial buildings. The buyers of these services actually can afford the increases in prices, but unfortunately, many of these buyers still retain the mentality that these services are manual services and therefore ought to be cheap. They have therefore been reluctant to increase prices in recognition of value and have largely continued to adopt a cheap-sourcing approach.

In this regard, I hope the Government will do more, in partnership with the respective trade associations and trade unions, to change buyers' mindsets.

Hence, Sir, to summarise. I hope that our workers will continue to have a mindset that is cognizant of our innate vulnerability. We have to put in effort in order to maintain our way of life. The corollary is that those who are working hard, including in professions of the hands, are able to get their just rewards. I hope that we will collectively be able to enjoy the Singapore standard of living, regardless of our professions and educational background. The reality of maintaining Singapore’s competitiveness and our prosperity is that, if we want to continue to live well, we must be prepared to work hard. And those who work hard should expect that they will get the rewards and respect that enable them to live well. Sir, I support the Budget .

Mr Speaker : Mr Louis Chua.

1.16 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang) : Mr Speaker, as I have shared in my Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill speech on Budget Day itself, FY2023 did turn out to be another year of record tax collections, after significant increases in IRAS’ tax collections over the last two years, a jump of around 38% to $68 billion in FY2022.

Overall operating revenues increased by $13.3 billion in FY2023 compared to a year ago to $104.3 billion, and this is also $7.6 billion higher than projected operating revenues first revealed in Budget 2023 last year. What is noteworthy is that this is not solely on the back of volatile revenues such as stamp duties or vehicle quota premiums, but on the back of record levels of corporate income tax, personal income tax and of course, GST revenues, all of which continued to break new record highs. What was most impressive was the 23% jump in corporate income taxes in FY2023, even after a sharp jump of 27% the year before, with corporate income taxes set to be sustained at record high levels of around $28 billion. This was not surprising, given news of record profits from some of the larger Singapore corporates, from DBS Bank to Sembcorp Industries.

Positive revisions to FY2022 data also meant that instead of a revised deficit of $4.2 billion, FY2022 saw a surplus of $1.7 billion instead. While the overall fiscal position for FY2023 is still projected to be in deficit, this was largely due to an increase in special transfers, chief of which is the recent inclusion of the $7.5 billion Majulah Package Fund, without which FY2023 would have seen a $3.9 billion surplus instead.

It is important to put into context the record operating revenues and improved fiscal position of the Government against the challenging economic environment that we faced in 2023. GDP growth slowed to a mere 1.1%, while inflation was a source of consternation for many Singaporeans, which was what led the WP to raise the cost-of-living Motion in Parliament late last year, to share ideas and possibilities of reducing cost of living pressures by way of policy change, many of which are structural.

In line with the theme of providing constructive feedback and ideas, I have two revenue measures for the Government to look into, after studying the revenue and expenditure trends over the past years. This would be in addition to revenue raising moves that my colleagues and I have shared in past Budget debates, such as the issue of wealth taxes which I have raised previously, where even though we may have raised the highest personal income tax bracket and property taxes, the likes of wealthy individuals earning dividends and capital gains income from their vast wealth while renting luxury apartments in Singapore will still not be taxed directly.

Firstly, looking at revenue collections as a percentage of GDP from FY2018 to FY2024 in Table 3.2b, over the years, customs and excise taxes is one of few categories which has seen a decrease in contribution as percentage of GDP over the years, despite higher tobacco excise duties from last year and the inclusion of carbon taxes in this category. In line with the spirit of wealth taxes, there is room to study the potential to have liquors being taxed on an ad valorem basis, in light of our suggestion of raising so-called “sin taxes”. This need not result in any increase in duties on everyday alcoholic beverages, but it would be much more equitable if the so-called “atas” wines of the world, which easily cost thousands of dollars a bottle, incur a higher excise duty compared to the $20 a bottle wine found in the supermarket.

Second, I note that casino taxes were raised in 2022. In spite of this, betting taxes as a percentage of GDP have been flat in past years at around 0.5%. Given that gambling duties have been unchanged since 2014, there is room to look into raising the relevant gambling duties, which could also serve a deterrent function.

Moving on to the main body of my speech today, I will touch on the importance of structural changes compared to one-off handouts, where I will highlight the need for structural improvements to personal income taxes and corporate income taxes to better support individuals and businesses while keeping our tax system progressive and up to date, and also touch on the urgent and important topic of retirement adequacy.

Conceptually, I believe that: one, it is important to put in place structural levers in our system as opposed to relying on one-off schemes, which may either be new or have to be refreshed year after year, incurring a lot of administrative costs and resources to operate on the part of the Civil Service, and creating much uncertainty on the part of Singaporeans; two, it is also important to direct our resources to those who need them the most, rather than broad-based handouts to everyone, which could lead to allegations of Budget measures being part of an "Election Budget."

Take the CDC Voucher scheme, for example. While I am sure all Singaporeans appreciate cash handouts amid the cost-of-living crisis, the CDC Voucher scheme evolved from one aimed at helping Singaporean lower-income households defray their cost of living in 2020 to one where all Singaporean households are eligible. The amounts given have also varied quite significantly over the years, and it remains a question whether the scheme will be a permanent one, or if so, whether all households will continue to qualify and just how much are the vouchers going to be worth.

Moreover, as opposed to the existing GST Voucher scheme, there appears to be many operational challenges faced by Singaporeans when trying to claim the CDC Vouchers, such as those who are renting their flats and sharing the same address with other households, those living in shelters and also those who no doubt may belong to the same household but are facing difficult familial relationships.

On personal income taxes, I note a tax rebate worth 50% of tax payable, or up to $200 was introduced in YA2024, similar to YA2019. However, instead of a one-off rebate, we are better off raising the bottom-end of marginal resident personal income tax rates and increasing the tax-free threshold for the first $20,000 of chargeable income to reflect inflation over time. This was what I raised in a Parliamentary Question back in 2022.

Similarly, on corporate income tax (CIT), a CIT rebate of 50% of the corporate tax payable will be granted to all taxpaying companies, whether tax resident or not, for YA 2024. In my speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2021, I suggested raising the level of progressivity in our corporate income tax regime to better support our local SMEs.

Even as other support for companies to build capabilities is being strengthened, I hope the Government would consider providing greater tax relief to our SMEs, such as by raising the tax exemption limits or by introducing schemes similar to the two-tiered profits tax rate regime in Hong Kong, which they introduced in 2018 to relieve the tax burden for SMEs in particular.

This is important given that in Budget 2018, the Government announced tighter restrictions around our tax exemption schemes. For an SME making $300,000 in chargeable income for example, total corporate income tax paid before any rebates would be close to $34,000 or an effective tax rate of 11.2%, compared to around $25,000 or an effective tax rate of 8.4% based on prior rules.

Having such corporate income tax reforms built into the tax regime would also provide for greater certainty, as opposed to the current CIT rebates which significantly vary year after year from 20% to 50% in terms of the rebate, to a cap of $10,000 to $40,000 in the last decade from YA2013 to YA2024.

It is critical to ensure that we continually re-invest in our local SMEs, the backbone of our economy representing 99% of all enterprises here and responsible for the jobs of 71% of employees, to enable Singapore to stay competitive in a post-BEPS world. Otherwise, we could well see a reduction in our tax base and employment levels, should our local SMEs shift more of their activities to other jurisdictions in response to the new business environment.

Touching on the topic of BEPS2.0, which I have also spoken about in past Budget debates, the time for introducing adjustments to our tax system is finally before us. Deputy Prime Minister Wong has also announced the introduction of two components of Pillar 2, the Income Inclusion Rule and the Domestic Top-up Tax.

As I have asked last year, while precise numbers may not be feasible, does MOF not have a range of blue sky and grey sky projections as to the impact of the implementation of a domestic top-up tax? Especially when we are looking at the Income Inclusion Rule and the Domestic Top-up Tax taking effect in less than a year’s time, for businesses’ financial years starting on or after 1 January 2025?

To put into context my question, the OECD has published a working paper earlier this year, which finds that the global minimum tax “can raise between US$155 to US$192 billion of additional CIT revenues per year, with revenue gains accruing to all jurisdiction groups”. Moreover, estimated participating countries categorised as “investment hubs,” which includes Singapore, would have the largest expected gains from the reforms, with corporate income tax revenues rising from 14% minimum to up to 34%. If this is factually incorrect, given that the MOF will have a better basis to make its own estimates, then I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can correct this in his round-up speech.

Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister shared in his Budget speech that he does not expect the new moves to generate “net revenue gains,” due to the “significant spending required to stay competitive.” To say so is just akin to saying any forms of tax rate increases, from personal income tax, stamp duties to the GST, is not going to generate net revenue gains due to higher spending needs.

I understand that this could be due to the introduction of Refundable Investment Credits and the net effect of BEPS 2.0 and the Refundable Investment Credit is to an extent also dependent on just how generous the EDB and ESG are in awarding these Refundable Investment Credits to companies.

I agree that only time can tell when it comes to the actual revenue gains, as we await the roll-out of Pillar 2 globally, but it would be a sad day if countries go against the spirit of the reforms in the first place.

The BEPS 2.0 reforms were introduced to stop the race to the bottom when it comes to sovereign tax policies, and to facilitate international collaboration to end tax avoidance. Let me repeat that the OECD has shared that with the two-pillar solution, all economies will benefit from extra tax revenues – all economies. I hope the additional tax revenues from BEPS 2.0 will not simply be in substance returned to MNEs through other forms.

Finally, let me touch on a topic which is close to my heart – and that is retirement adequacy. It is also a pressing issue which requires urgent and decisive action, given our rapidly ageing society. While there are several good moves to improve retirement adequacy, like raising the ERS and enhancing the Silver Support Scheme and MRSS, I am concerned about the closing of the CPF SA after the age of 55, and the lack of longer-term measures to help Singaporeans grow our retirement nest egg sustainably.

In itself, I do not have qualms about the closing of the SA. However, this is a step backwards when it comes to ensuring the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, and much needs to be done to truly strengthen retirement adequacy for the seniors today and tomorrow.

When the compulsory annuity scheme CPF LIFE was introduced, the SA continued to provide flexibility to CPF holders to access or “touch” their retirement savings, while providing a decent interest rate floor of 4%.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong said in his Budget speech, “The remaining SA savings will be transferred to the Ordinary Account (OA). Of course, members can voluntarily transfer their OA savings to the Retirement Account (RA) at any time, up to the revised ERS, to earn higher interest and to receive higher retirement payouts.” Is this the full picture, though?

Singaporeans will know that funds in the RA will be used to pay the premiums for their CPF LIFE plan, meaning to say we can no longer withdraw the funds as we wish. It is also true that from the age of 55 to, say, the payout age of 65, these RA funds continue to earn the same interest rate floor of 4% as with the SA. So far, so good. But unbeknownst to many, from the moment payouts commence, any interest earned will not accrue to the CPF holder, but it is pooled together under CPF LIFE for all members.

An FAQ by the CPF Board says it best, that interest earned on CPF LIFE premium is not included as part of the amount paid to beneficiaries when one passes away. I understand that this is the concept behind annuity schemes to enable members to get lifetime payouts. But it also means that even though the stated interest rate of the SA and the RA is identical, the actual yield that is earned by the two accounts could not be more different. And that based on the latest average life expectancy of Singaporeans, it is unlikely that the effective yield for RA savings will exceed that of funds that would have been in the CPF SA.

Moreover, whenever I raise the issue of CPF interest rates in Parliament, the response by various political officeholders has been to stress the attractiveness of prevailing risk-free interest rate floors of 2.5% for the OA and 4% for the Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts (SMRA) over the past two decades of protracted low interest rate environment. The closure of the SA from age 55 takes the shine out of such counter-arguments, in my view.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wong reminded us, we are facing a change in environment from very low interest rates to a more normalised period where interest rates will be higher for longer and the era of easy money is over. It is in the context of this sea change that we should look at CPF interest rates going forward. How then should we allow the laws of mathematics and compounding to work for our seniors’ retirement funds?

I continue to stick by what I spoke about in the Reserves Motion earlier this month, and that is to enable all Singaporeans, not just our reserves, to directly participate in the long-term returns from the Government's fund manager, GIC, with adequate safeguards in place. This is especially pertinent when we consider the source of funds for the GIC in the first place, a part of which is indirectly derived from CPF savings via the Singapore Savings Bonds (SSGS bonds).

As I have shared, based on the 20-year nominal returns of the GIC portfolio of 6.9% and the CPF-OA rate of 2.5%, based on a simple rule of 72, the number of years it takes for our CPF monies to double goes from about 10 years based on GIC’s returns, to 29 years based on the prevailing OA rate. The effects on our ability to save for our own retirement is tremendous.

I listened to Minister Indranee Rajah's explanation that in 2014, then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman explained in Parliament at great length how we set our CPF interest rates and manage CPF proceeds. I went to do a bit of research on this into the Hansard and realised I was far from being the first to bring this up. Then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's explanation was in response to PAP Member of Parliament Mr Inderjit Singh, who also questioned whether our 2.5% interest rate paid out to the CPF OA is fair compensation for Singaporeans who have left their savings locked up for so long.

In fact, if I go back further in time, many MPs from the PAP, WP, NMPs, have all suggested allowing regular Singaporeans access to better investment returns from the Government's investment entities like the GIC. PAP MP, Dr Lily Neo, called on the CPF Board to work with GIC, and perhaps peg the interest rates at two percentage points below GIC's returns. NMP Mr Siew Kum Hong quoted an academic paper which stated that: "To the extent that the GIC's return on investments has been higher than the return actually credited to CPF members, a recurrent, highly regressive, largely implicit tax on the CPF wealth has been borne by CPF members." PAP MPs Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Sim Boon Ann called on the Government to share with CPF members surpluses it makes on CPF monies. And Mr Ong even said, "I cannot understand how the Government can say it will not be responsible for providing for my retirement, but I must lend the Government my retirement savings for investments and any gains earned on my money is not my money." Finally, Ms Sylvia Lim from the WP also called on the Government to do more to boost CPF returns while managing the risks, especially after the 2002 Economic Review Committee's recommendations to do so via private pension plans.

These are all words of wisdom by those who came before me, and two decades on, continue to resonate so deeply with me. How many more Singaporeans today could have met their retirement sums, compared to the four in 10, five in 10 today, had we implemented these suggestions back then?

If for some reason the Government is still adamant that we are unwilling or unable to allow Singaporeans to share in the fund management expertise and returns of the GIC, then the least we can do is to urgently implement the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LIRS), something which I have been repeating in each of the last three years so that we can better support Singaporeans' retirement needs.

Let us remember that eight years ago, in 2016, then Minister for Manpower Mr Lim Swee Say, had then on behalf of the Government, accepted the recommendations within part two of the CPF Advisory Panel's report, which included the introduction of the LIRS as an additional investment scheme. To quote then Minister Lim: "These additional options will help address the concerns some Singaporeans may have with regard to the rising cost of living in retirement and the desire for higher expected investment returns for those who had to take on some investment risk."

One of our fellow MPs today, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, was a part of the CPF Advisory Panel too, where Chairman Prof Tan Chor Chuan articulated the limitations of the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) and put it so aptly, that "the Panel believes that there is a need to provide an additional investment avenue that can better help such CPF members earn higher expected returns than the CPF interest rates in a simpler way than CPFIS."

The big question I have is, when will the Government finally be ready to roll this out? Is it still prepared to do so? I hope the Government is cognisant that the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Government providing for one off goodies and handouts to Singaporeans and Singapore companies, on the back of yet another record high operating revenues, which were $13 billion higher compared to a year ago. However, it is important that we put in place structural levers in our system as opposed to relying on one-off schemes and I have suggested changes to our personal and corporate income tax systems to illustrate this point. And finally, we are all aligned with the urgent need to strengthen Singaporeans' retirement adequacy, so let us not shut Singaporeans out of attractive, sustainable and practical solutions to boost our retirement funds.

Mr Speaker : Mr Darryl David.

1.34 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio) : Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a budget that is set against major global uncertainties. Singapore continues to remain vulnerable to macro forces that are beyond our control and influence. While we continue to keep an eye on global developments with trepidation, I am glad that this year’s Budget has reflected the Government’s commitment to the Forward Singapore movement by introducing specific and targeted support to areas of concerns highlighted by Singaporeans.

Sir, I will be focusing my speech on three main areas: (a) how the Government could refine the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) scheme for Singaporeans below 55; (b) SkillsFuture and Continuing Education and Training (CET); and (c) how the Ministry of Education (MOE) could enhance the personal learning device (PLD) scheme to cover more students, specifically those in primary school.

First, supporting “young seniors” and enhancing ABSD. I am particularly glad that the Government is providing additional support to seniors on ageing, healthcare and retirement during such times of uncertainty and rising cost. This is an assurance to seniors, including young seniors like myself, that the Government will provide older Singaporeans a social safety net during their silver years, particularly when senior Singaporeans are facing the twin challenges of ailing health and reduced incomes.

Many Singaporeans aspire to own a private property because in some ways, it is an investment with high potential returns that could be unlocked during their silver years. I am glad that the Government now allows senior single Singaporeans above the age of 55 years old to claim for a refund of the ABSD on a second private property when they are downsizing. I had asked a Parliamentary Question on this topic in July 2023 and I am grateful to the Government for responding with this policy change.

This would give senior single Singaporeans more flexibility to unlock the value of their initial larger properties, or more valuable properties during the later years of their lives, without having to bear the financial burden of ABSD, which under the previous policy would have reduced their retirement nest egg by a significant amount.

I believe that this this is an important policy change, assuming that single Singaporeans are unlikely to have the same level of economic support that married senior Singaporeans with children would have. Allowing a refund on their ABSD would help them to better meet their retirement needs.

In the same vein, I would like to ask if the Government would consider extending the same ABSD refund scheme to younger single Singaporeans who are buying a smaller second private property to stay in, if they sell their first property within six months of acquiring their second private property. I believe this policy will give younger single Singaporeans more flexibility in their housing options if they wish to unlock the value of their private properties, especially to meet unexpected financial needs.

The refund policy for younger single Singaporean could be scoped more tightly than that for senior single Singaporeans to prevent abuse and profiteering. For example, the younger single Singaporeans must hold their first property for a specific number of years before they are entitled to the ABSD refund on their second smaller property and, perhaps, such refunds can only be claimed once or a maximum of twice in their lifetime.

My next topic will focus on SkillsFuture and continuous education training (CET). Apart from supporting senior Singaporeans with their ageing, healthcare and retirement needs, I am heartened to learn that the Government is also putting increased emphasis on our middle-aged Singaporeans with the SkillsFuture Level-up Programme. In particular, I welcome the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up and the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy for another publicly funded full-time diploma programme.

Sir, with the shelf life of skills declining rapidly, it is paramount that the skills that Singaporeans have can keep up with rapidly evolving industry needs. Having once spent many years working in Temasek Polytechnic, I am confident that our polytechnics and IHLs are equipped to design and develop CET courses that can help upskill our mid-career Singaporeans.

That said, with industry needs evolving at such a rapid pace, our educators at the polytechnics and IHLs might not be fully equipped with the latest industry knowhows and insights to design and conduct courses that meet industry demand entirely. At present, there are very few courses offered at polytechnics and IHLs that are co-developed, co-taught and co-certified with industry partners.

I would like to urge MOE to consider how we can incentivise our polytechnics and IHLs to work more closely with the industries to conduct co-certified Pre-employment Training (PET) and CET courses. Co-taught and co-certified CETs are especially important for mid-career Singaporeans in equipping them with the latest knowledge that can positively impact their career. After all, having attended a co-certified programme with a leading industry player sends a strong signal to employers that their employees have learned from the best in the industry, not just from the staff at the polytechnics.

On the same note, I strongly urge our polytechnics to co-create new diploma courses with industry partners to take advantage of the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy. Rather than have mid-career Singaporeans join an existing diploma programme with PET students, specific industry-oriented programmes with different teaching methods, pedagogies and learning outcomes should be created for them.

It is important for us to recognise that adult learners have very different learning needs and learning styles from teenagers or younger adults. Putting adult learners on the same diploma programmes is unlikely to help them to acquire the skills needed for a career switch or career step-up, since both groups of learners have very different levels of industry experience and cognition. Similar to how the teaching methods and teaching styles must differ between in a Masters programme and an undergraduate programme, for example, the diploma programme for mid-career Singaporeans must be designed and taught differently as well.

I would also urge the Government to extend the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy to part-time diploma courses as well, not just full-time ones. I believe this would encourage more mid-career Singaporeans to take up such courses since they can still be employed full-time while undergoing upskilling and retraining.

Sir, my final area will focus on Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) for primary school students. Almost four years ago, in June 2020, I made a speech that urged MOE to consider extending the provision of PLDs to all students in Singapore, particularly those in primary school. While MOE committed to providing PLDs to all secondary students by end-2021 to be used in tandem with the national e-learning platform Student-Learning-Space (SLS), would MOE now not also consider providing PLDs to children in primary schools as well?

I think it is timely for MOE to consider providing PLDs to our students in the primary schools given how the education technology landscape has changed significantly in the past four years.

With the procurement framework of PLDs for secondary schools in place, it is now a matter of extending the same procurement framework and financial support schemes to students in our primary schools as well.

To reiterate some of the arguments that I have previously made: the ownership of PLDs for all levels of learners in Singapore is a bold and ambitious step in realising Singapore’s ambition to embrace smart learning. Such a device will enable students from across all levels of education to learn everywhere and anywhere and is the textbook of the future where all forms of education and submissions can be made on a single unified platform.

Introducing the ownership of PLDs at an early age would help induct our students, our younger students, to the notion of self-directed e-learning, encouraging them to take ownership of their own learning pace and performance at a younger age. This undoubtedly, will have a knock-on effect when they are older, especially when e-learning and continuous learning on-the-go become second nature to them.

Mr Speaker, this year’s Budget has continued the trajectory of the previous Budgets, with the Government providing targeted support to assist specific groups of Singaporeans, especially to navigate this uncertain space, this uncertain world that we are facing. While a significant portion of the Budget is focused on providing near term support to cope with the cost of living in the form of CDC Vouchers, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC), U-Save and income tax rebates, the Budget is also forward looking in providing support for seniors and mid-career Singaporeans.

With Singapore due to become a super-aged society by 2030, ageing in dignity is one of the foremost concerns for many Singaporeans. I am heartened to know that the Government is taking active steps to address this concern early through the Forward Singapore movement and the following policies that it is rolling out.

I hope the Government can accelerate the pace in which support programmes for seniors are being rolled out and to consider how to better cater to the needs of this group of Singaporeans who have contributed tremendously in early years to Singapore. Beyond providing top-ups to Medisave and direct financial support through the Silver Support Scheme, I also hope that the Government can also work towards building robust localised ecosystems that allow our seniors to age with dignity. With that, Sir, I end my speech in firm support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Mr Henry Kwek.

1.44 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget. Today, I would like to speak about two things: how to help our people thrive in their jobs; and how to support our seniors to age with purpose and dignity. I will also speak briefly about the cost of living.

We spoke about unemployment support in this House for years. Based on my conversations with my residents in Kebun Baru, it is not yet a top-of-mind concern for them. To give some context, four in 10 of my residents live in private estate homes. Why? Because the residents trust that the Government will support them if things get tough, as during COVID-19. I also want to point out that major insurance companies do sell unemployment insurance, but the take-up is not high.

But conceptually, I believe Singaporeans, including myself, are open it to if it is properly designed, as the world and the job market are changing at breathtaking speed. Two weeks ago, OpenAI stunned the world with their text-to-video capability, Sora. Sora was able to generate life-like one-minute videos from text prompting, where everything in the video obeyed the law of physics! Imagine that! Being able to ensure that every interaction in the animation abides by physics. This has some veteran Hollywood producers suggesting that in three to five years, generative AI can do the bulk of small screen television series production.

Great possibilities. But what happens to creative professionals globally, including in Singapore? The same story can be replicated across many industries, many countries.

We need to be prepared. We want our people to lead in this new wave of change. Most people do agree with the central idea, but yet, there are also many questions. Who will pay for it? Do we buy an insurance. Can we opt out? If the Government pays for it, how much tax do we all have to pay? Will they get abused? What will happen to personal responsibility?

To address this concern, we should be clear on what we want and what we do not want. Of course, we want our people to be confident in the face of change. We must focus on the central issue, which is an unanticipated cash flow challenge that most people face when they lose their jobs. We want this kind of support to be different from those who fall below the poverty thresholds.

Right now, we support Singaporeans only when they have exhausted their wealth and their familial support. But moving forward, when Singaporeans lose their jobs, we want them to focus on reskilling and upskilling by providing them with some financial peace of mind. Unemployment support should not only come when their savings have been wiped out.

Now, what we do not want? We do not want abuses or the shirking of personal responsibility. We do not want our people to make uninformed career reskilling decisions.

Factoring in the views of my residents, I propose a multi-tier approach towards unemployment support that balances three critical pillars of social support: one, a strong sense of personal responsibility; two, efficient risk-pooling through insurance; three, sufficient Government support, which is largely, let us not forget, largely funded by our taxes.

Let me first speak on efficient risk-pooling through insurance. I hope we can see a basic and not gold-plated unemployment payout for several months with an upper limit on one's lifetime, funded by unemployment insurance and, hopefully, we can pay for this insurance through the CPF.

Some of my residents also want the freedom to opt out. Of course, we have to think through this carefully. It will be easier to persuade people to join in in this insurance if the premium is affordable.

Two, we must preserve a strong sense of personal responsibility. As the cost of living differs widely, we should give our people a choice in how to manage their lifestyle in the event of a major cash flow disruption. To do so, we can offer them these options: fully or partially freezing housing loans and majority of healthcare, insurance premiums, taxes and fees, for a limited time to help with their cash flow, providing Government transfers, such as GST rebates ahead of schedule, that means, they can take their subsidies and transfers ahead of other Singaporeans and allowing them to borrow against their own CPF monies for those Singaporeans with healthy CPF balances already. The Government can also work with financial advisory associations to provide affected people with free financial advisory.

The third point is to provide sufficient Government support which is largely funded by tax. I hope the Government can offset some of the cost of the insurance and get things started. If there are specific industries or large companies that are going through a major downsizing, I hope the Government can step up to top up the monthly assistance, perhaps through a larger or longer payout, because when there is a large number of people exiting one industry, not everybody can quickly move into another industry.

In short, in implementing unemployment support, Singapore, we, must find our own way forward. We must do so by ensuring personal responsibility, risk pooling among our people, and Government support complement and not undermine one another.

To ensure support, I also hope we can actively consult the silent majority before rolling this out and move carefully, start with a modest programme and review that over time, because if we are to fund this programme through a further tax increase, there might be some fatigue amongst our taxpayers.

Let me switch now to Skillsfuture. There is broad support amongst people for the enhancement of Skillsfuture. Singaporeans are deeply appreciative of the monthly support for adult Singaporeans to go back to school full-time. This is something that Members of this House, including myself, have advocated over the years. It fills a critical gap in our efforts to upskill and reskill our people. Of course, our Government must also do our level best to ensure that the skills training in most industries is relevant and useful.

Now, let me move to my second topic, caring for our seniors. On behalf of PAP Seniors Group, I would like to thank the Government for delivering an A-plus Budget for seniors and for taking onboard many of the suggestions from PAP SG MPs.

I am also heartened that the Government is moving decisively on issues that I have spoken about over the years: seniors' CPF contribution rates, making our estates more senior-friendly and encouraging home-care services. Now, we must quickly implement these services as we are facing a silver tsunami. In addition, I hope the Government can consider the following.

First, quickly scaling up Age Well SG's caregiving home-care sandbox. The idea is straightforward. I hope the Government can support not just foreign manpower quota but also set aside spaces in HDB estates, so that the professional caregivers can be sited there comfortably, respond to our seniors quickly, without incurring too much transportation cost.

Second, even as we level up our Active Ageing Centres (AACs), I hope the Government can consider funding senior-related services in trusted nodes where our seniors gather, such as places of worship: mosques, churches and temples.

Third, to ensure that our nation's ecosystem of senior-related services always has a focus on serving our private estate residents as well. Our private estate seniors have caregiving and emotional support needs, even though they are better off financially. But through them, we can also get a preview of the needs of future Singaporean seniors.

Before I end my speech, I would like to speak briefly about cost of living.

First of all, I hope to see the Government provide more cost-of-living offsets in the next Budget, not just in this, especially to help our seniors and families, including those who are asset-rich and cash-poor, especially retirees living in the private estates.

I also hope that the Government can actively identify supply-side solutions and fixes, which can bring down the cost of doing business and, therefore, the cost of living. Let me give Members a few examples.

One, to reduce the manpower shortage, can we allow our companies to hire more foreigners, at a reasonable levy, in exchange for them creating even more flexible work arrangement opportunities, which will benefit our seniors, stay-at-home mums and caregivers? Can we increase the number of purpose-built dormitories and, in the meantime, allow for more onsite dormitories to ensure that our foreign manpower housing cost is manageable?

Also, once we implement the special economic zone with Johor, can we improve the connectivity of our more manpower-intensive operations and industries with our immigration facilities, so we can tap on more manpower from Johor to come over to work and go back to Johor daily?

Can we further re-energise our pro-enterprise panel to identify areas of red tape that cost the private sector time and money, so that we can reduce the cost of transacting with the Government?

Lastly, I hope the Government and my fellow Members in the Chambers can think through the cost-of-living implications when we pass new laws, regulations or ask for more enforcements. For many of us in business, we instinctively know that a higher quality or service level usually means higher cost. It is true for many governments, too.

Enforcement fairness costs money, too. Let me give an example using the upcoming rental fairness framework.

Yes, the law is more precise but it is also more complicated. Moving forward, most landlords will need lawyers to do contracting rather than let agents and landlords handle the drafting of lease as it is now. Moving forward, every time there is a change in the areas being surveyed, the landlords will need to hire a surveyor. These will cost landlords at least a few thousand dollars. What does it mean? Yes, it is harder for errant landlords to disadvantage the tenants, but all consumers will have to pay for the higher cost-of-living associated with higher rents.

Finally, I hope we can have a real conversation within our Chamber on how the issues we debate on and the solutions we propose have contributed to the higher cost of living, higher taxation or lower Government efficiency. I hope we can all be more measured when we call for more rules, additional studies and Parliamentary Questions, if it is only because we want to be seen conveying moral outrage after a tragedy or to signal virtue to a more particularly vocal part of our electorate.

I am fully aware that we speak up in Parliament to voice the views of our people. But let us remember that there is a real cost to society, through higher cost of living that the silent majority must bear when we pile on excessive regulations and enforcement.

In fact, I hope that when we speak about laws in Parliament in the future, we can speak clearly of the regulatory and enforcement cost imposed on society, businesses and our people. With that, I stand in strong support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Mr Leong Mun Wai.

1.56 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a big Budget because the Government had a bumper year in 2023. Operating revenue in 2023 was larger than the original estimate by $8 billion because of the tax increases announced in 2022, high inflation and high property prices. This $8 billion excess revenue, together with the $23.5 billion Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) for 2024, contributed to surplus Budget resources of more than $30 billion to be allocated in this Budget.

As a result, the Government was able to make a record capital transfer of more than $30 billion to top up existing endowment and trust funds and create some new ones. Because of this, Budget 2024 will give some benefits to almost every Singaporean.

However, the monies in the endowment and trust funds will fund social spending over many years into the future and only a small amount will be spent this year. PSP has explained the workings of the endowment and trust funds during the Public Finance Motion three weeks ago and why capital transfers to these funds should not be considered as current-year spending.

Hence, Budget 2024 falls short on immediate spending in the current year. While we welcome the $1.9 billion Assurance Package and the effective reduction of the owner-occupier residential property tax increase announced in 2022 by the revision of the annual value bands of the properties, these supports are hardly enough for cash-strapped Singaporeans to cope with the current cost of living crisis.

The Government has also decided to close the SA for CPF members above 55 years old. This will impact the retirement plans of many Singaporeans who can no longer enjoy a higher CPF interest rate and withdrawal flexibility of their CPF funds at the same time. Can the Government tell us how much interest it is paying these SAs currently and how much will it save in interest payments?

On the other hand, we are pleased to note that Budget 2024 has addressed some of the issues that have been regularly raised by PSP in this House.

Firstly, the Government will now provide a Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) (Open Market) Voucher for one year, to support eligible families in renting HDB flats on the open market while waiting for their BTO flats. This will be a great help to young Singaporeans looking to form their own families and PSP strongly supports it.

Since Budget 2021, we have pointed out that the long waiting times to get a BTO flat is among one of the major factors pulling down our total fertility rate. As it is not possible to ramp up the BTO supply fast enough, PSP has always urged the Government to increase the number of rental flats and improve the quality of rental flats to enable young Singaporean couples to get a place to stay while waiting for their BTO flats.

While we support the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher, we are concerned that this scheme may negatively impact other groups of Singaporean tenants who are not eligible for PPHS. We urge the Government to go further to establish rental flats as a viable housing option going forward. During the COS debates, I will explain why the PSP’s Millennial Apartments Scheme is a superior and more all-rounded policy compared to providing vouchers under PPHS.

Secondly, the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) for full-time workers will be raised from $1,400 to $1,600 from this year. We recognise this increase in LQS as a step closer to the Minimum Living Wage concept that PSP has proposed.

PSP has long advocated for a Minimum Living Wage of $2,200 per month for all Singaporean workers, which translates into a take-home pay of $1,800 per month. While we support the increase in the LQS, we are mindful of its negative impact on SMEs which need Singaporean headcount in order to employ foreign workers. We hope the Government will introduce complementary measures to minimise the impact of the LQS increase on the business viability of our SMEs, which are operating in a rising high-cost environment.

Thirdly, a new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will be introduced to support mid-career workers with a $4,000 credit. My colleague, Ms Hazel Poa has already affirmed our support for it. It is good that the Government has now tied SkillsFuture training programmes to better employability outcomes. PSP has long argued that the SkillsFuture programme, which costs about a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money a year, has contributed little to the employability of Singaporean workers.

Much more still needs to be done to ensure Singaporeans have a larger share of good well-paying jobs. To that end, we would also suggest a level-up for the Skills Development Fund so as to co-opt employers into the process, thereby ensuring that the training undertaken by workers are relevant to raising productivity in their current jobs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 has continued with the traditional "handout approach" by the Government. The handout approach is characterised by the existence of around 60 support schemes and services, each offering short-term handouts for a targeted segment of Singaporeans. It is not uncommon, however, that multiple schemes are applied to solve one particular socio-economic problem for one recipient, which often, and very understandably so, makes it very confusing to the recipient.

For example, during Budget 2022, the Minister for Manpower presented an example of a low-income 65-year-old landscape worker who enjoyed a total income of $27,570 a year. While this figure works out to be about the same as the Minimum Living Wage that PSP has proposed, the total income was not paid from one source, but consisted of a base income of $17,400, presumably paid by the employer, and $10,170 paid by the government through seven different schemes, namely the Special Employment Credit, the Annual Progressive Wage Model Bonus, the Workfare Income Supplement, the Workfare Special Payment, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies, the Care and Support Package and the U-Save and GST Vouchers. Hence, seven schemes were applied to achieve the one socio-economic objective of ensuring that the worker had more to cope with the cost of living.

Furthermore, such a system may contribute to lower self-esteem among lower-income workers because their basic pay is still very low and there are little incentives in the schemes to motivate them to improve themselves.

The handout approach also comes with a high administrative cost because needy Singaporeans usually need external help to navigate through the maze of eligibility rules to qualify for a particular support. For example, to deliver welfare benefits to a Singaporean, very often the Social Service Office (SSO), the People’s Association, the Silver Generation Office and many other private charity groups are involved at the same time.

Slightly more than half of the 60 schemes also require applications. Many needy Singaporeans are already struggling. They may not have the time or energy to pay attention to what schemes they qualify for, even if these schemes can help them. They also lack the English language proficiency to understand these rules.

Hence, despite the good intentions of the Government, the complexity of the handout approach means that many needy Singaporeans may not enjoy the benefits of the many schemes. Some of them may also not get the help they need fast enough, and this can be especially troubling when urgent help is required.

PSP is a strong advocate for more support for Singaporeans, but the taxpayer’s money spent must motivate Singaporeans to strive for higher goals and not breed dependency in handouts.

The PAP under the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew always sought to avoid breeding dependency. In contrast, the PAP Government of today is relying on a patchwork scheme of vouchers, rebates and top-ups that lower-income Singaporeans are increasingly dependent on, instead of pursuing systemic economic reforms such as reducing rent-seeking in the property market, strengthening labour protections, or introducing a Minimum Living Wage. Is this system dragging Singaporeans into a social trap rather than providing a social trampoline that allows Singaporeans to bounce back?

This may be the reason why although the PAP Government has increased social spending very significantly since about 2011, it did not seem to have improved the financial well-being of Singaporeans proportionately.

The main weakness of the handout system developed by the PAP Government, is that it does not empower the individual.

The objective of empowerment is to give the individual the means to take initiative to better his or her own life. PSP believes this begins with providing the individual with a minimum level of support and then incentivising him or her with attainable goals.

Once the individual has reached these goals, he or she will be motivated to strive for more. This whole process requires a "permanent scheme" approach and not a handout approach.

PSP’s permanent scheme approach will streamline and consolidate the Government’s 60 over schemes into a few permanent, national schemes which are easy to understand, provides a minimum level of support and an incentive mechanism for Singaporeans to work towards bettering themselves.

I have been advocating this permanent scheme approach since my first Budget debate in 2021, but my proposals were completely ignored by this Government. I shall repeat three of those that I have recommended repeatedly.

First and foremost, I have recommended the deferment of land cost from HDB flat pricing under the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS). In our opinion, the AHS will be the beginning to many potentially positive socio-economic outcomes. For a start, it will immediately reduce the cost-of-living pressures on Singaporeans and allow them to have enough CPF savings without downgrading their HDB flats when they reach retirement. Most importantly, this peace of mind for housing and retirement will also apply to all future generations of Singaporeans.

With the AHS, we will not need to enhance the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans through schemes like the Matched Retirement Saving Scheme and the occasional top-up of CPF accounts. The resources in all these schemes can be consolidated into one permanent scheme namely the AHS.

Secondly, we have recommended the Minimum Living Wage which provides a minimum level of support to every working Singaporean permanently. As PSP have said in our manifesto 2020, anyone who puts in an honest day’s work should have enough to live with dignity.

The Minimum Living Wage is a social standard that we should establish that is not completely linked to the productivity of the worker. Thus, we have proposed the Minimum Living Wage to be co-funded by the Government. The co-funding can come from many handout schemes as mentioned before.

After ensuring a minimum gross monthly wage of about $2,200, we would like to recommend the Government to put in a permanent Progressive Wage Scheme to incentivise all Singaporean workers to continuously upskill towards higher gross monthly wages.

Thirdly, we have urged the Government to set up a National Health Insurance Scheme funded by it rather than having Singaporeans pay for their MediShield and CareShield premiums. To minimise moral hazards, Singaporeans will have to co-pay healthcare expenses from their Medisave accounts. The Government can supplement the Medisave accounts with a Healthier SG bonus every year. For Singaporeans who practise healthy living, this bonus will become excess MediSave balances which can be transferred to their Retirement Account to boost their retirement income.

PSP envisages that with the majority of Singaporeans covered under a few permanent schemes, the Minister for Finance will not need to distribute handouts to millions of Singaporeans during every annual Budget.

Our social welfare and security structure can also be streamlined and consolidated to focus on a much smaller group of needy Singaporeans. This is especially important as it ensures that this smaller group, who still need further help beyond that provided under the permanent schemes, receive the assistance they need expeditiously.

Mr Speaker : Mr Leong, you have a minute left.

Mr Leong Mun Wai : Mr Speaker, Sir, I have presented the "handout" approach of the PAP Government versus PSP's "permanent scheme" approach. The latter empowers Singaporeans with the certainty of help when they need it and encourages them to strive for higher goals with incentives.

PSP estimated that the shift to the permanent scheme approach will not consume significantly more fiscal resources – because the Government already has more than 60 schemes in place and has locked away tens of billions of dollars in endowment and trust funds.

PSP believes that we can do a lot more to improve the well-being of our citizens, work to combat future challenges, such as climate change and, provide support to worthy humanitarian causes abroad.

As owners of one of the largest sovereign wealth in the world, Singaporeans deserve better policies that can lead to better lives and a more secure future. We must be aware that we have the ability and responsibility to do more for ourselves, for Singapore and also for the world.

Sir, we support the Budget in hope that it is a step in the right direction. For country, for people.

Mr Speaker : Just for your information, I gave you an extra 30 seconds.

Mr Leong Mun Wai : Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker : Kindly keep to the time that is allocated to everyone. Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.17 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh) : Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a fair and progressive, Forward SG budget and continues the same overarching theme in the Budgets of recent years – to further improve socioeconomic equality but without stunting economic growth.

This ambition is easy to state but it is tricky to strike the right balance. There are mutual trade-offs in pursuing equality and growth together. It is also important to ensure that no one slips through the cracks.

While I have heard and read some opposing viewpoints, the general feedback from my residents is that the Budget payouts are generous and they can see that the Government is trying to transfer more from the well-to-do in our society to give to the lower- and middle-income segments in Singapore. But the message is clear. To paraphrase Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong from two Budgets ago, "those who have less, get more".

However, I am also aware of our budget constraints and, most importantly, we need to be aware of our sustainability issues going forward – especially in terms of our revenues and how we intend to spend going forward.

I will speak on three selected areas on our move to enhance equality in our economy and social space, which reinforces each other. First, enhancing transport welfare and supporting the middle and upper-middle group. Second, protection of vulnerable segments. Third, on our two-pronged approach to sustain our economic growth – attracting investments and talent to Singapore; and boosting our local enterprises.

Mr Speaker, in Malay please.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] This year, the Government continues its efforts to make Singapore a more equitable society. Just like the previous years, those who are successful will contribute a little more for the less well-off and less able. Deputy Prime Minister Wong's announcement for young ITE graduates to pursue diploma qualifications through the ITE Progression Award and the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, is something that is welcomed. Support for preschool expenses and a one-year Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Voucher for eligible families who rent a HDB flat in the open market are also significant and welcomed.

However, one important aspect of daily expenses that has not received the targeted attention is transportation and health costs. I will focus on the cost of transportation in my speech. The cost of owning and maintaining private vehicles in Singapore is recognised as one of the highest in the world. Even for public transport, fares have risen by 10 cents to 11 cents per trip in September 2023 and similar increases can be expected in the coming years. However, our transportation cost is still quite low compared to other major cities, with the Government providing support to reduce the impact of fare increases on commuters and ensuring that our infrastructure and transport network remain up to date.

May I ask whether the Public Transport Voucher (PTV) that was announced in December 2023 would be able to help their recipients offset 100% of the fare increase in 2023? More importantly, may I suggest that the Government consider extending targeted support for public transport, beyond those whose per capita household income (PCHI) is $1,600 or less? Can we further extend PTV as part of our budget transfers, such as CDC vouchers, in the future to help more Singaporeans?

Public transport assistance is more likely to benefit the lower and middle income groups, compared to the higher-income groups who generally use less of our buses and trains. However, if such assistance will encourage higher-income individuals to use public transport rather than private transport, that will still help us in our sustainable transport objectives. I have a resident at Toa Payoh who needs help in terms of public transport vouchers to go for job interviews and also to work in a location that is far away. There are some middle-income earners who were retrenched and are now looking for work but need temporary assistance in terms of transportation cost. So, I hope that the Government will introduce transport cost assistance in the form of a temporary financial support scheme for those who are retrenched and are now looking for jobs, for example.

( In English ): We must also support the upper-middle income group, not just the low income. They are also experiencing the same rising costs but may not be getting as much in benefits compared to the lower- and middle-income groups.

One of the things in Budget 2024 that is also made available to the upper-middle income group, is the SkillsFuture enhancements. That must be correct, if we want continuous skills upgrading to be a key pillar in our social compact.

However, how likely will the upper-middle income group utilise the specific enhancements, in which are targeted at pursuing a diploma, degree or certification after age 40? Do we have data on the utilisation of SkillsFuture credits by income deciles? What do those trends tell us and will we be refining our approach to ensure that upskilling becomes a whole-of-society movement?

We must also ensure that schemes like SkillsFuture is not abused. Among other reasons, we do not want to allow those who are not in need to exploit and profit off these programmes, diverting away the help that should have gone to those who need it. It is scary to think that a criminal syndicate fraudulently made away with almost $40 million in grants between April and October 2017. While the more involved participants have each been sentenced to 13 to 17 years' imprisonment, are we still doing anything today to recover the $21 million that is still lost?

I also welcome the revision of the Annual Value (AV) bands of the owner-occupied residential property tax rates. When this property tax was raised in early 2022, it was not foreseeable that market rents would soar to the extent it did. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Rental Index for private residential properties, saw a 35.3% surge from Q1 2022 to Q4 2023. As a result, more of our upper-middle income homeowners saw the AV of their properties and their property tax bill increase.

For owner-occupied residential properties, these homeowners would not have directly benefited from the bullish market rents since they are not renting their properties out. They were thus left poorer as a result as they had to pay property tax up to a higher bracket. Would there be more frequent and periodic reviews of our property tax structure, considering the volatility of market rents in Singapore? More fundamentally, is it time to stop pegging property tax for owner-occupied residential properties to AVs which are, in turn, pegged to market rent levels?

Second, our quest for socioeconomic equality must obviously include the protection of vulnerable segments. I will just focus on two such groups of vulnerable individuals.

First, our seniors, present and future. I thank Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong for the continued emphasis on the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans – especially after I dedicated almost the whole of my Budget speech last year to the topic as well as my 2022 Budget speech too. Among other things, the Government-supported increase in our seniors' CPF contribution rates, the raising of the ERS and the enhancement of support schemes, like Silver Support and Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS), which will boost the nest eggs of our seniors to retire and age with dignity.

In relation to the removal of the Special Account for those above age 55, I understand that such a move will get rid of a "shielding" hack – where wealthier CPF members are able to keep an amount that is more than their ERS in their Special and Retirement Accounts and earn the higher 4% interest on the whole of that amount. May I ask, prior to this year, how many percent of CPF members had balances in their Special plus Retirement Accounts that were more than their ERS?

But now that the Special Account will be closed, any excess funds above the ERS will be deposited back into the OA that only earns an interest rate of 2.5%. We note that. Would the Government be willing to reconsider relooking at the OA interest rate mechanism?

One suggestion would be to include some of the qualifying full banks, in addition to the three major local banks that are now being referenced. That may potentially shift the needle and is more reflective of funding conditions in Singapore. Another suggestion is to take into consideration the promotional interest rates that are offered by the banks instead of just the board rates. While it is true that a consumer might have to meet certain conditions to qualify for the promotional interest rates, that may not be a good reason to deny CPF members higher return on their OAs – especially given the cumulative size and certainty of the funds that the CPF Board is given to invest.

The Government can, of course, subsequently apply some negative credit spread or a slight discount to the interest rate – to reflect the lower risk of putting money in the CPF, as compared to bank risk. But my general point is that given the significant change or potential rapid changes in the global interest rate conditions recently and going forward, the longstanding calculation mechanism may be quite stale and no longer fit for current conditions.

For those who are unemployed – not by choice – I am supportive in principle of the temporary financial support scheme that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had announced for the involuntarily unemployed. However, we will need more details to scrutinise if the scheme can be implemented without eroding our work ethic and design ways to mitigate the moral hazard of financing unproductivity. When does the Government expect these details to be announced and when do we expect the scheme to be implemented? Can Deputy Prime Minister and MOF share a bit more on how this scheme will be funded over time?

I await more information on this eagerly, as it is truly a big shift in principle by our PAP Government to help our Singaporean workers. I am heartened that this Government will not shy away from slaughtering "sacred cows", if it considers it to be in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. There is no shame in walking back if the circumstances so require.

While on the note of income volatility from unexpected unemployment, I would like to resuscitate my proposal again and again to give Singaporeans the option of assessing personal income tax on a current-year, pay-as-you-earn basis. As opposed to a preceding-year basis, this system can help taxpayers better manage their cash flow by matching tax payments with contemporaneous income.

Mr Speaker, in my next segment of attracting investments and talent. Our push for greater equality cannot come at the expense of our growth. To help Singaporeans cope with rising costs in a sustainable manner, we must focus on growing their opportunities and wages instead of relying on one-off distributions.

So, part two of my speech – therefore – turns to our two-pronged approach to sustain our economic growth: attracting investments and talent to Singapore; and boosting our local enterprises.

As a resource-scarce nation, our economic miracle has been built on attracting businesses to build up a base or some part of its operations here, even if it may service foreign markets or conduct substantial operations abroad. These inbound businesses and investments create employment opportunities and also downstream or partnership opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies.

So, I am glad to hear the moves to enhance our competitive advantage in the semiconductor and finance industries, but why is there no mention of our entrepot trade and transshipment hub and specific initiatives to defend or stretch our lead? Possibly, it could be discussed in the COS.

But I note that Changi Airport's cargo flows dipped 6% compared with 2022, while other airports, like Incheon, are closing the gap to Changi, in terms of passenger flows. On the other hand, our seaport reached an all-time high in arriving ship traffic, recording over three billion annual gross tons in vessel arrivals in 2023. I will be filing related cuts during the COS debates and I look forward to hearing the Transport Minister's plans to preserve and enhance our status as an international aviation and shipping hub.

The implementation of Pillar 2 of BEPS 2.0 will also cause some loss of attractiveness as an effective corporate income tax floor is put in place across different jurisdictions. So, which of the financial incentives offered by the EDB and other agencies to draw foreign companies can we continue to offer under the global base erosion rules?

The new Refundable Investment Credit, based on the presently available information and announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, will be consistent with the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules for Qualified Refundable Tax Credits. Companies will be able to receive up to 50% of support of each qualifying expenditure category, including capital expenditure, manpower and training costs, freight and logistics costs. This would help with the relatively higher land, manpower and transport costs in Singapore.

As the specific support rates for a project will be commensurate with the economic or decarbonisation outcomes that the project is expected to bring, what will happen if it eventually transpires that the project outcomes were never close to what was expected? Will there be a lookback period where support can be clawed back from those who can pitch and market a project much better than they can implement them?

More fundamentally, have we landed on a system of measuring and verifying decarbonisation outcomes? More than two years after we debated the "Low Carbon Society" Motion in this House, I do not think that any carbon measurement standard has achieved ubiquitous or common usage in this part of the world yet. Is there any preliminary indication of support from other countries for the playbook that is currently being developed by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS), Gold Standard and Verra?

To attract businesses and investments, we must also maintain our attractiveness as a liveable city for foreign talent. It would be too parochial to assume that we know everything and have nothing to learn from others. That is why other countries have been taking some big steps to woo foreign talent to their shores.

Take the United Kingdom (UK), for example. In May 2022, it launched a High Potential Individual (HPI) visa which allows a young person who graduated from a global top 50 university to go to the UK with their family for two years to just "explore, work, study and invent". Thereafter, the UK government announced a £118 million skills package that includes a new visa scheme for AI researchers to be brought to the UK at the early stages of their career, as well as grants to help AI workers meet the costs of relocating to the UK.

How has our Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass fared in attracting top global talent to live and work in Singapore since it was launched in August 2022? How does it compare, given the heated global competition, to woo talent through a mix of easier visa routes, relocation grants and other benefits?

It is well-known that we are also one of the most expensive cities in the world for expatriates. Besides the issue of soaring rents, foreign expatriates also do not enjoy the substantial healthcare subsidies and utilities support from the Singapore Government. Hence, there is a limit to how much we can tax these higher-income expatriates before they flee to a different country and we lose their tax base, their assets and their expertise. How does our taxation of expatriates compare to other talent hubs, such as London, Frankfurt, New York or Dubai?

Finally, Mr Speaker, in boosting our local enterprises, I suspect a number of my colleagues in this Chamber will have more to say about this, but I just have a narrower focus. As part of our $1 billion effort to develop AI computation, talent and industry in the next five years, will there be grants for Singapore companies adopting AI-based solutions or engaging in AI-related research in the near future? What are the concrete next steps following the publication of our National AI Strategy 2.0 in December 2023?

We cannot forget that AI goes hand in hand with data. Would we extend our AI-catalysing initiatives to activities that are data-centric, even though they might not be AI-centric? For example, research into large volume data processing or sustainable data collection and processing would be key enablers of our AI objectives. So, what are we doing and what are we planning to do for our data sector?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have alluded to in many of my previous speeches, we are in a new normal. The circumstances that we see today combine high inflation, high interest rates and possibly for longer, in an increasingly uncertain world featuring frequent shocks. This is not even considering COVID-19, which, today, seems more like a bad dream than a lived two-to-three-year experience.

But through the Forward Singapore exercise, we know where Singaporeans want to head. Help involuntarily unemployed jobseekers bounce back stronger, supporting families and seniors, empowering and uplifting those in need, this Budget hews closely to Singaporeans' aspirations to build a more equal society while not compromising on the economic growth that underpins our security. Sir, I support Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker : Mr Shawn Huang.

2.35 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong) : Mr Speaker, how do we value life? In Singapore, in the 1960s, those born then had a life expectancy of 64 years. In the 1980s and 1990s, it improved to 70 to 75 years. Today, we have a life expectancy of 84 years.

Over the last 60 years, our life expectancy in Singapore has increased by 20 years, a 31% increase. How do we value a year of good health? How do we value 20 additional years? Singapore has continued to invest more into healthcare, to take care of Singaporeans, from $789 per capita in 2011, to $2,674 per capita today, a 338% increase over the last 10 years.

How is this made possible? These consistent investments in building up capabilities of our healthcare workers, of our infrastructure, it is a complex and long-term commitment. These capabilities require a confluence of investments in infrastructure, equipment, training and education. There must be sound and sustainable healthcare policies, coupled with a culture of excellence and a spirit of innovation, pushing the edge and frontier of medical research and technology. What does it mean for all of us?

Five of Singapore's hospitals are in the top 150 in the world, with Singapore General Hospital being the top 10. A remarkable achievement. So, imagine, whenever our grandparents or parents are in need of medical care, a surgery or emergency medical treatment, have comfort that there is a team of highly competent and motivated healthcare workers who are one of the best in the world doing their best to deliver world-class care. For ophthalmology, Singapore National Eye Centre is ranked third in the world, and Singapore Eye Research Institute is ranked fifth in the world.

Today, Singaporeans continue to age well and are healthier than before. More can be done and the results are clear. In 2010, there were 700 centenarians and, in 2020, there are more than 1,500, more than double.

Today, most of our five-year-olds can expect to live up to the age of 100. And by 2050, living up to 100 will become a norm for our newborns. The question then again is: how do we value life? What would you do to have an additional year of good health, an additional 20 years of good health to do the important things in life?

If you have an extra dollar, where will you place it? How about the next dollar? And the next? Every marginal and incremental dollar, how would you spend, manage and invest it? How do we get the incremental dollar to live longer, better, healthier and more meaningful lives?

In 2022, ASEAN's foreign direct investments (FDI) have reached a high of $224 billion. Singapore comprised two-thirds of that, at $141 billion. I repeat: two-thirds of all the FDIs in ASEAN.

Singapore ranks eighth globally for inward FDIs and first in the Asia-Pacific. So, what are FDIs? It refers to investments made by a company or individual from one country, investing and having business interests in another. And how much advantage and wealth does that generate for Singapore?

In 2022, Singapore's FDI equals to 31.7% of Singapore's nominal GDP. That is particularly important for Singapore, as it displays the forward-looking economic trajectory. FDI creates quality employment, facilitates and encourages technology transfer. It spurs infrastructure development and increases our export capacities.

Singapore's economic achievement today is built over decades, with leadership, bonus and collective teamwork. This requires a confluence of economic and social factors, balance for sustainable future for all.

It is not by sheer luck that we could earn that one incremental dollar. It matters deeply. It matters because we must understand the difficulty and the amount of collective effort, as a nation, to be in a position of strength.

The investment climate, how connected and coherent is our infrastructure? How skilled and nimble is our workforce? Our legal frameworks, technology and innovation, our international agreements? How accessible are our market and trade?

How ambitious and energetic are our citizens? There are also social factors that are equally important: our social and political stability, our healthcare systems, education and quality of life. All these factors are what attract companies and individuals to invest time and resources here in Singapore. It remains attractive because of what we have been doing for decades. It must be so for the next 50 years and it must be so for the next hundred years.

How do we value our future and our future generations? The lifespan of a country is 158 years, whilst an empire is about 250 years. This is historic data, and we are at our 59th year mark and approaching our 60th.

On this land that we stand and live upon for the last 700 years, it has been tumultuous. From the 13th century, starting with history from Palembang, the Srivijaya empire to Majapahit, to Melaya then to the British, then to the Japanese, back to the British, Malaysia and then Singapore – all these in the last 700 years.

And we must remember our vulnerabilities as a nation-state. History is replete with lessons to be learnt and relearnt. The ancient Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, Carthage, Sparta, the Byzantines – where political fragmentation and external pressures eroded state powers and the Hanseatic league .

How determined are we, that after a hundred or 200 years, that we are still a sovereign and independent state, against all odds and statistics, to surpass beyond the average lifespan of empires and countries?

Some estimate that our Reserves are just below $2 trillion. To put things in perspective, assuming that our estimation is accurate, our Reserves are worth less than Apple. It is worth less than Microsoft. It is worth less than Google and, more recently, Nvidia decided to be more valuable than us. So, when you make your next purchase of an Apple product, Microsoft or Google, or the next graphics card with Nvidia, remember that their market capitalisation is higher than our entire national Reserves.

Our Reserves are worth less than the companies that I have mentioned. It is worth reflecting on how we plan to save, invest and allocate our resources for the future. We are fortunate to have the Reserves that can power a Budget that we have today. It is made possible because of the prudence and the value of our founding and past generations. It is this consistent act over numerous decades that enabled us to take care of all Singaporeans, for all to lead a longer and better life.

How do we value the lives of our children? Save the Children ranked Singapore the best place to grow up. We give our very best to our children and our future generations. In 2013, Singapore spent and invested $8,550 for every primary school student. In 2020, the Government invested $13,350.

Everyone has access to quality education. We have the basis to debate about education every now and then because we have gotten the basics right. Remember that we are of that generation 20 to 30 years ago where we had much less resources and knowledge. It is not perfect, but we progress and make relevant.

We embark on lifelong learning, instil adaptability and self-learning to ride the tides of changing technological advancements and build resilience to our relevance of skills and competencies. In the past, work was more linear and the pace of change was gradual. We saw how we restructured again and again, securing one generation after the other and building on one another's success.

Today Singapore's workforce stands amongst the most proficient in terms of management, vocation and technical skills. According to INSEAD's annual Global Talent Competitiveness Index, Singapore ranked number one in global knowledge and skills, which included management and communication abilities; and third in vocational and technical skills. And this is out of 134 countries.

This year ITE celebrates its 32nd anniversary and it continues to build strength to strength. We do not say that we are doing well, that we have accumulated enough capabilities and that we can invest less in our education system. We do not say that we are too high in our rankings and that we can afford to drop a little, because this is insidious.

Is there space for a city state to be a bit lower in our commitment to the future – to our future generations?

We cannot.

We cannot because as Singaporeans deep within our core, we know what it takes to be relevant and we know what it takes to take care of our future generations.

How do we value life? More importantly, how do we cherish it, respect it and be good stewards of the life given to us?

Gaza has one of the youngest populations in the world. Forty percent of Gaza's population is 14 years and below. The median age is just 18 in 2020. Those age 65 years and above are less than 3% of the population. In Ukraine, the male life expectancy has decreased from 67 years before the war to 57 years after, or right now. For women, it has declined from 76 to 70 years.

And it is not just about war and conflict alone. Countries with high levels of violence experience lower levels of life expectancy more than peaceful ones, estimating a gap of around 14 years – between the least and the most violent countries. It is not just conflict related, but also many other factors – homicide, violence, quality of life, education and all. We are building version 1 and version 2, just like how internet browsers and applications evolved, with progressive and improving versions. We must do so and build better versions ourselves and for Singapore.

We cannot expect to be perfect in all we do. But we try. And we try harder, in delivering better capabilities for better life every day. It is called building – building for the future. Today's capabilities were built by past generations. And as we build for today and for future generations – a life that is longer, healthier, more meaningful, more fulfilling and inclusive for all.

Just like our shining examples – Singapore Airlines and Singapore Changi Airport. It is not an achievement of probability. It was not a rare occasion marked by a cosmic alignment of constellations. It requires effort – collective effort from all Singaporeans.

So, let us all build together for a better tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Dr Tan Wu Meng.

2.49 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong) : Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget and may I also stand in support of the speech by my immediately preceding Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC) colleague, Mr Shawn Huang.

Just the other day, I met a young Clementi family – daddy and mummy with their little girl, just a few months' old. We talked about how the world has become more dangerous; more uncertain; full of challenges – a dangerous world. A world where big countries bully small countries and sometimes invade them – invasion and occupation. A world where small nations and small communities can come under siege, have their water supply cut off; electricity supply cut off; food and access to medicine blocked. A world where climate change is accelerating, where sea levels are rising and that means a world where some islands in 50 to 100 years' time, will be underwater; a world where some island-nations may not exist by the end of this century.

And as we were talking – this Clementi family and I – we realised that their little girl and her children and her grandchildren will know whether our generation today made the right choices. And the choices before us will require much imagination and resolve.

Eleven years ago, in the TODAY newspaper, I wrote about how we need to imagine the unthinkable before it happens – not just bigger versions of yesterday's challenges, but new challenges which did not exist before. Today I will speak about three of these challenges. Challenges which in our time, will require fresh thinking – a fresh approach: artificial intelligence (AI); Singapore's energy security; and keeping Singapore's society together as a people.

On artificial intelligence. Less than two weeks ago, just before the Budget Statement 2024 by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong – our Finance Minister, there was another announcement, halfway across the world from Singapore. A tech company which is already changing the world – a tech company called OpenAI, which brought you ChatGPT not too long ago. That company announced a new AI platform, called Sora. Sora allows you to key in text – type in some text, a prompt – and it can produce videos, which are indistinguishable from what Hollywood can produce today and what smaller studios can produce.

Just one year ago, during the Debate on the President's Address in April 2023, I had spoken in Parliament about the age of AI and how fast things were changing – how software, like ChatGPT, GPT-4 and Midjourney V5, had appeared in the market within less than a year or so.

AI which can hold a conversation with you and can write an essay for you – that is ChatGPT. AI which can take high-school exams, advanced placement exams in the United States curriculum and outperform many humans – that is GPT-4. AI which can create photo-realistic pictures of events that never happened – that is Midjourney V5.

Just one year ago, I had spoken about how with increases in computing power, once you go from generating one make-believe image to 30 images a second, you go from AI-generated photos to AI-generated video. At the time April 2023, I had expected the technology to take another two to three years. As it happened, it took place faster than I had imagined. Within 10 months, OpenAI had announced the Sora platform-produced AI-generated video.

So, that is the world today – technology disruption happening very quickly. New challenges everywhere. The unexpected, increasingly the norm. And so, we cannot hide from these changes. No country, no economy can hide from these changes in the world with AI. Even if an entire country tries to prevent AI from entering its borders, other economies will do so – your competitors will do so. So, we have to accept the world as it is, the way the world is going to be and look after, support, empower and uplift our people.

This is why the new subsidy for Singaporeans age 40 and above to pursue another full-time diploma in higher education – this new subsidy in the Budget, that is why it is so important. Because it recognises that in a world that is changing so quickly, what you learn in school – in education – at age 20, may have changed, transformed and have been replaced by a new world by the time you are age 40. It recognises that change and supports middle-aged and older workers.

And having mid-career workers learning new skills alongside younger workers – a middle-aged mid-career worker alongside someone who is 18, 19, 20-plus years' old, learning together, that will also transform the education experience in our IHLs because older workers bring life experience, life skills and living wisdom into the classroom. Even as they bring that into the classroom, they also learn new skills, together with the younger students. These students, by working with each other, they lift up one another. They will transform the classroom even as it allows the older and younger worker to form new friendships, new networks and new opportunities together.

On energy security.

Another major challenge for Singapore is energy. Our electricity supply today does not just keep the lights on at home. It does not just keep our workplaces and hospitals going. It also keeps our water supply going.

Our energy supply is needed, so that our NEWater plants can expend energy to purify water and make it fresh and consumable again. Our energy supply is needed, for desalination plants to work against the salt gradient and produce fresh water without the salt that comes with the seawater. Our energy supply, our energy security underpins our water security. And all of us know what it means for Singapore if our water supply is ever called into question. And that means, we have to consider our energy security the same way too.

Two years ago, in the 2022 Budget debate, I had spoken about this: why we need to diversify our energy sources; why 95% energy generation from natural gas is not good enough for the future era; why 95% can be a concentration risk? I also spoke about how we need to go beyond looking at importing low-carbon electricity through a cable from overseas – because in a challenging world with all kinds of dangers, a cable may break down; a cable may have a technical incident; many things can happen to a cable anywhere in the world. And looking beyond to the future means that we have to consider new low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen or even the newer next-generation of nuclear technology as well.

I called upon the Government to look at moving ahead of the market – especially for hydrogen – and for Singapore's potential as a hydrogen hub. Looking ahead, because in a market where you may not have room for too many hydrogen hubs, it matters whether you are first mover, second mover or too late to move. It matters in that market. It matters for us in Singapore.

So, the Future Energy Fund in this year's Budget – the Future Energy Fund, with its initial injection of $5 billion is a significant decisive move. It puts money where the mouth is. It will allow Singapore to move quickly and seize opportunities in the energy sector, especially new low-carbon technologies – that in the future will help us secure our energy supply and, in turn, secure our water security for another generation.

Having a stronger supply of low-carbon energy will also help Singapore with our AI ambitions. Today, data centres are energy-intensive yet so essential for AI. You can keep a data centre offshore for cloud computing in the commercial sector. But in a world where major economies sometimes do not get along; in a world where, sometimes, you have derisking or decoupling, it makes sense to have more of those data centres, more of that computing power onshore in Singapore. And having low-carbon energy – a greener energy future – more secure energy supply will be key for that AI ambition as well.

On social togetherness, Mr Speaker, no amount of fiscal firepower, no amount of policy prescriptions, is going to be sustainable or implementable, if we, as a people in Singapore somehow become divided, fragmented or splintered. I have said this before. If we are splintered, we are going to be less than a dot in the world.

And there are deep forces around the world, driving people apart, forces that change societies because with digitalisation, more digital world, it means people are less likely to meet, face-to-face naturally. The social media algorithms that almost everyone has on their handphones, the social media apps; many of these algorithms feed you more of what you have seen before. They bring you to listen more of what you have heard before, leading to echo chambers and, as a result, sometimes, leading to polarisation in society as well.

Also, there will be troublemakers outside Singapore, trying to undermine our unity, cohesion and togetherness. In the world today – and we have seen many case studies far away from Singapore, some a little bit nearer – the first shock in a conflict may not be kinetic. It may be an op to undermine the social unity and trust in a society. see how in other countries, certain players are trying to polarise and divide societies. It will be even more challenging in the age of AI.

What happens when deepfakes are able to create videos of events which never happened? What happens when you have deepfake videos of public figures on any side of the House, saying things they never said, doing things they never did?

What happens if there is a deepfake video of people from different communities arguing or even fighting, a deepfake video of something that never happened but which has the potential to be spread widely and undermine our social harmony and social togetherness?

What happens when deepfakes become so similar to reality that people no longer trust what they see or hear even when it comes from a reliable source?

What happens when people can no longer tell the difference between what is true and untrue, what is fact, what is falsehood, its big implications for societies, big implications for democracies around the world?

There are no easy solutions in a world where anyone has access to the computing power to create a deepfake.

But Singapore is small enough that we have a fighting chance. Singapore is small enough that we can bring our people more closely together, build more face-to-face interactions, deepen human relationships. We can do this in a way that larger geographically spread countries are not quite able to do. Singapore is coordinated enough. We have the state capacity, governmental capacity for agencies to work together in teamwork, in cohesion, something that many other countries cannot quite do. We saw that during the pandemic and it will be essential for this next challenging future that we face.

So, we must keep building that sense of togetherness so that amidst different views, different backgrounds, different dispositions, everyone in our community sees ourselves as fellow citizens, fellow brothers and sisters, in that Singapore dream, in the idea that is Singapore.

That means, across Government, urban design and social policy must actively lean in, to encourage people to meet face-to-face in day-to-day life. All this can help maintain social trust, cohesion, togetherness, even amidst a wave of AI and the deepfakes that will come.

So, we must ask ourselves, when a new HDB development is built without the traditional void decks and in a shape that makes it harder for neighbours and their children to naturally meet one another, naturally play with one another, on the way to work, to school and coming back, we need to ask, are we inevitably weakening our social reserves, compared to the older HDB void deck designs? Are there revenue-neutral ways of designing an HDB block differently, so that people are more likely to meet, connect, get along, in a very organic and natural way?

When a neighbourhood centre is being built in a new estate, do our planners lean in favour of having more hawker centres, more coffee shops and getting these amenities to start up and activate sooner rather than later?

When we design our education policies and education system, do we encourage our younger generation, in addition to their Mother Tongue, to learn the language of another Singaporean community, not as an examination subject, not just because of the economic opportunities near us in Southeast Asia, but also because it builds understanding and helps deepen our identity as Singaporeans?

These are questions that have to be asked not just for these policies but in every policy in Government, moving ahead. And so, I suggest for this Government to set up an SG Togetherness Office (SGTO). I know it sounds like more alphabet soup, amidst many acronyms, but SG Togetherness Office, the SGTO – I suggest for this Government to set up the SG Togetherness Office which can be part of the Prime Minister's Office Strategy Group (PMOSG), which has approached major issues, like climate change, in the same coordinated, whole-of-Government way.

The SG Togetherness Office could have an inter-ministry steering committee, chaired by a senior member of Cabinet, a Co-ordinating Minister or a Deputy Prime Minister, with that experience of Ministries and connectivity and links to help drive the agenda. It should have a secretariat, a team of public officers actively looking at the net impact on social togetherness for every policy and every programme across Government.

This ethos of strengthening social togetherness and social cohesion, strengthening our social reserves, safeguarding our social reserves, has to be looked at with the same discipline, deliberation and attention that we give to the fiscal bottom line and to Singapore's financial reserves. Because just like fiscal reserves, our social reserves can take generations to build up, much effort to maintain and yet, are so important when a crisis hits. And the world ahead will have more than its fair share of troubles.

Mr Speaker, in my maiden speech in this House in 2016, more than eight years ago, I said and I quote: "… imagine this perfect storm: a global downturn lasting many years, divisions of race, language, religion, social class, inequality and culture. A fractured national consensus with divisive politics. And at the same time having to face a major crisis – a terrorist attack at home, a pandemic, or a regional conflict where two old friends ask us to choose between them."

Sir, we do not get to choose when the next crisis will hit or for that matter, what the next crisis will be. But we can choose how we deepen our togetherness, how to prepare today. We can choose how we strengthen and deepen our social togetherness, strengthen Singapore's social reserves so that in a world of troubles, no matter what comes, nothing and no one will ever knock Singapore down. I support this Budget. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Mark Lee.

3.09 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, as a student of history and currently chairing the Asian Civilisation Museum, I am inspired by our museum's artifacts that reveal the legacies of past civilisations. Insights from works like Ronald Wright's "A Short History of Progress" and Arnold Toynbee's "A Study of History" underscore the vital lessons history teaches us about the risks of unchecked progress that had collapsed civilisations.

Understanding why civilisations collapse is a complex matter, with no singular cause universally recognised. However, several critical factors have been identified that contribute to such declines.

The first factor is climate change and environmental degradation. These elements played crucial roles in the decline of various ancient societies, including the Anasazi, Maya and the Roman Empire. The second factor is inequality. This factor contributes to social unrest, erode social cohesion and weakens a society's ability to effectively tackle societal, ecological and economic issues. The third is complexity. As societies become more complex in their attempts to solve emerging problems, they may reach a point where the costs of complexity outweigh its benefits, ultimately precipitating collapse.

In the context of Budget 2024, these lessons from history underscore the importance of a balanced approach to progress. It is not enough to pursue growth for its sake. We must ensure that our growth is sustainable, inclusive and even resilient to the tests of time.

This is why the Budget's focus on advancing business and worker capabilities, building for the future and caring for society is so crucial. Commitment to green innovation, renewable energy investments and the development of resilient infrastructure that can withstand the challenges of climate change ensures that our progress today does not come at the expense of future generations.

Let me start with the advancing of businesses' and workers' capabilities. The Enterprise Support Package, with the 50% Corporate Income Tax (CIT) and minimum $2,000 cash payout signals that the Government is serious about supporting SMEs through its cost challenges.

Targeted support for SMEs is provided for through the permanent increase of the SME Working Capital Loan, capped to $500,000. The SkillsFuture top-up for mid-career workers, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, and extension of the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit are positive moves towards building up the long-term skills stock of our Singaporean workforce.

Second, building for the future. The $2 billion top-up to the Financial Sector Development Fund and the new Refundable Investment Credit will enable Singapore to build capabilities in new areas like FinTech and green finance and attract investment in high-value and substantive economic activities.

I particularly like the enhanced Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT). PACT will provide support for companies to partner each other on capability training, internationalisation and corporate venturing. Such partnerships with large companies will help our SMEs grow and become industry leaders in their own right, providing more good jobs for the future.

Third, caring for society. The enhanced Assurance Package will provide much needed relief for lower- and middle-income households. Improving the affordability of preschools and special education schools, enhancements to retirement support schemes, introduction of a new unemployment support scheme and the new ITE Progression Award will enable us to advance social mobility and create a Singapore that everyone can contribute and belong to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the great ruins that grace the deserts and jungles of the earth are monuments to progress traps, the headstones of civilisations which fell victim to their own success. Collapse, however, is not absolute and history has shown that societal resilience may be able to delay or prevent collapse. Evidence from around the world indicates that "economic diversity", the range and complexity of a country's exports, is linked to the skill level of its population, suggesting that a more skilled populace is better equipped to tackle crises as they emerge.

The Singapore business sector acknowledges the importance of collective efforts to advance the Forward Singapore vision and strengthening societal resilience.

Let me just say a few ideas of what the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) has done. As a Council Member at the SBF, I have seen first-hand how in 2019 SBF launched a business-led initiative, proposing six recommendations to support the employment of the elderly, the less well-off and those at risk of job disruptions in Singapore.

This Sustainable Employment initiative engaged over 50 business leaders, representatives from trade associations, Government, IHLs, non-government organisations (NGOs) and foundations, showcasing a nationwide effort to uplift disadvantaged and vulnerable workers. Today, SBF manages the Progressive Wage Mark accreditation scheme and has partnered trade associations and chambers (TACs), like the Association for Catering Professionals, the Singapore Fashion Council, the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Environmental Management Association of Singapore, to encourage companies to be part of this movement. I am proud to share that close to 4,500 companies have since been accredited.

In 2022, SBF established the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Leadership Development, aiming to prepare Singaporean talents for global leadership roles. Engaging with over 200 business leaders, human resource (HR) experts and young professionals, the AfA produced a report with recommendations for individuals, businesses and Government to foster the next generation of leaders.

Just this month, the Human Capital Action Committee within SBF has been tasked to implement these recommendations, ensuring that the report's insights are effectively put into practice.

Lastly, TACs have now offer over 100 Career Conversion Programmes, supported by Workforce Singapore, targeting various sectors, such as construction, marine and offshore engineering, electronics and manufacturing, alongside specialisations in internationalisation and sustainability.

To achieve our annual growth rate of 2% to 3% over the next decade, our economy and businesses will have to keep focusing on productivity, innovation and labour growth while keeping business costs competitive. I have four broad recommendations for this. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] The Government is boosting productivity by significantly investing in SkillsFuture, aiming to cultivate a skilled workforce. At the same time, in addressing our Manufacturing 2030 vision, there is a pressing need for more local talent in manufacturing. Our first recommendation is that training should extend beyond introductory topics to include advanced technical domains, and sector-specific modules, ensuring it meets the real needs of workers, businesses, and the economy.

To further enhance employability and cultivate a skilled workforce, more emphasis on workplace training is needed. Workplaces should be qualified as extensions of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), so that learning can be more practice-based and application-oriented. For SkillsFuture to be successful, not only employers should be responsible, workers must also have the right attitude and upskill voluntarily. This approach will enable workers to gain deepened industry skills beyond basic and general skills, boosting employability for the long term.

Our next recommendation is centred on driving innovation in new areas of AI and sustainability within our SMEs.

The allocation of $1 billion for National AI Strategy 2.0 and $5 billion for the Future Energy Fund in Budget 2024 highlights the Government efforts of fostering growth in these new sectors. The recent introduction of the ESG/IMDA AI Sandbox, which aims to involve 300 SMEs to participate, is a testament to ensure SMEs remain at the forefront of innovation.

To further support SMEs in adopting these technologies, the Government should consider implementing a tiered grant model. This model will enable businesses eager to innovate beyond basic level ‘plug and play’ solutions to do so, without being constrained by cash flow issues.

Additionally, it is essential that we provide SMEs with support beyond technology access, particularly in developing governance frameworks and ethical guidelines for the responsible use of AI.

To support SMEs in sustainability efforts, more assistance and education are essential. We urge the Government to collaborate with sectoral TACs to create and improve sustainability programs. Grants for consultancy, implementation, and training can help SMEs effectively manage and report emissions in compliance with sector standards.

Our third recommendation is a continual call for responsible labour growth to sustain Singapore's growth ambitions According to the Singapore 2030 vision and updated Industry Transformation Maps, we aim to create 8,400 jobs in manufacturing, 2,000 in logistics and 1,600 in environmental services, among others. This is against the backdrop of a declining resident labour force, which saw a reduction of 1,800 last year.

Given our aging population and persistently low birth rates, while businesses continue to reskill and upskill our local workforce, we can work closely with government to identify and unlock untapped manpower pockets. By harnessing smaller labour pockets, like gig workers looking to transit back to traditional economic jobs, women and older workers who are keen to re-enter the workforce, and students who might be incentivised to take on relevant part-time jobs or acquire real work experience that can count as academic credits offsets, we can collectively expand our labour force to support our economic growth targets.

However, pursuing our growth objectives necessitates a harmonised alignment of both local and foreign labour forces. The business community continues to advocate for strategic augmentation of our workforce with controlled foreign labour growth, tailored to specific sectors and job roles, where either local talent or local workforce participation is scarce. Such targeted augmentation is crucial for driving industry transformation and ensuring the long-term economic prosperity of Singapore.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the beginning of my speech, I have highlighted that societies can falter under the weight of their own complexity.

My final and fourth recommendation is for the Government to engage with the business community closely, working together with various Government agencies and unions with the aim to reduce bureaucratic complexity and expediting efficiency towards co-curating a conducive environment that fosters business competitiveness.

I wish to conclude by drawing to two additional factors contributing to the collapse of civilisations, which I have not previously mentioned.

First, external shocks. Often symbolised by the metaphorical "four horsemen" – war, natural disasters, famine and plagues. Second, randomness or just simply bad luck.

Singapore's advantageous position today, bolstered by our substantial reserves, grants us a unique capacity to mitigate the impacts of these external shocks and the uncertainties of randomness.

Observing Budget 2024, I am reassured by its prudent and balanced nature, which thoughtfully avoids excessive depletion of our reserves, but rather strengthens our ability to secure a resilient and prosperous future for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the unique advantage of being able to learn from the wreckages of societies past. Societal resilience can prevent collapse and Budget 2024 is a step in that direction in building this.

Let us continue to take inspiration from the past, a country born from mud flats and swamp and now a shining metropolis. Let us muster the will together to ensure Singapore will not simply fade out of existence and not be a nation that began with a bang and end with a whimper. Together, let us be confident to create a Singapore that stands as a beacon of sustainable progress and inclusive prosperity for generations to come. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Order. I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.25 pm until 3.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Debate on Annual Budget Statement

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Deputy Speaker : Dr Wan Rizal.

3.45 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar) : Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Today, I will shift away from talking about mental health and focus on discussing how the Budget lays the foundation of a resilient and inclusive society, focusing on education and lifelong learning as a vehicle for social mobility.

These are not just policy areas, these are the lifelines that will propel our nation forward, ensuring that every Singaporean – regardless of their starting point in life – can thrive in the face of adversities. In my vision, education transcends traditional learning. It is about equipping our youth with the ability, the agility to navigate the complexities of a future that we can only imagine. Lifelong learning is our commitment to every worker, ensuring that their skills remain relevant, that they are capable and robust in an economy that is perpetually evolving.

In our pursuit of social mobility, we reaffirm our promise to every citizen that their dreams, aspirations and hard work – not their circumstances at birth – will define their future.

Lifelong learning through SkillsFuture enhancements. In this era of relentless change and disruptions, safeguarding employability through strategic investments in skill development and productivity, enhancement is a paramount concern. Recognising this, Budget 2024 introduces the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, to me, it is a visionary initiative aimed at future-proofing our workforce. The substantial increase in SkillsFuture credits highlights the imperative of ongoing training and upskilling in navigating the complexities of a contemporary job market. A person who stands to gain from this opportunity is Mr Thomas Tan. He is currently working in a beverage company and has recently completed a certificate in business analytics. On hearing about the top-up, he is now eager to get back to study and complete a few more modules so that he can obtain a diploma. But what excites him most is not just getting that diploma, but the chance to learn new skills that he can apply in his work. Budget 2024 supports Singaporeans aiming to pursue another subsidised full-time diploma and a mid-career training allowance to further this commitment.

I recall my own endeavours, when I decided to take a two years leave to pursue my studies full-time. I was already married and I was about to have my first child – to be born that year – and I had to use my savings and spend money prudently. To add to the pressure, there was a stigma that goes along with it: how could he go and study and burden his family like that?

So, I am glad – I am glad that this Budget has set an allowance for up to 24 months, which represents a tangible investment in mid-career professionals. I also believe the allowance and two years of full-time studies could positively impact one's mental health. This is especially so for those who may feel burnt out and want to move to a new sector or industry. Those who come back are often refreshed and ready to share new ideas that they would like to apply in their new job.

Despite these enhancements, concerns persist among individuals and businesses. Individuals need guidance on what is the right programme for them: what could help them in the future, what could propel them further? On the other hand, businesses seek assurances that whatever training the individuals go to, they would benefit the company and, in turn, fostering productivity and innovation. To address these concerns, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. We should and must continue to engage industry leaders and businesses from various sectors through advisory panels and feedback mechanisms to further enhance the SkillsFuture courses with emerging demands.

We could also enhance career advisory services to help individuals select courses best suited for their careers. We also probably need to shift towards what I call an outcome-based training model, where the success of training programmes is measured by tangible outcomes, such as employment rates, career progression and salary increments. This ensures the courses deliver real value to participants.

Finally, I would like to suggest: continue to explore innovative ways to increase flexibility and accessibility to the courses and programmes further to accommodate the diverse needs of learners, including those who are doing it part-time, doing it online or through modular options that allow for balancing training with work and family commitments. Addressing these concerns can significantly shift lifelong learning participation and employer recognition.

Next, I would like to talk about the ITE Progression Awards, Sir. The introduction of the ITE Progression Award marks a significant milestone in Singapore's education and workforce development landscape. Now, this move is not merely about financial incentives. It is a profound statement against the stigma traditionally associated with skills-based education, reaffirming its value and indispensability in our economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have often mentioned the issue of the widening wage gap in Parliament. The wage gap, as in many parts of the world, reflects not just economic disparities, but also the value placed on different types of education and skills. The median gross starting pay for ITE graduates has increased – signalling a positive momentum – yet the gap remains significantly different compared to their university peers or from other Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).

Far too long, pursuing degree qualifications has been seen as the only path to success – sidelining the immense contributions of those with technical talent. The ITE Progression Award challenges this outdated notion by creating more robust career pathways for ITE graduates, ensuring they are not unfairly capped in their career progression.

As Singapore's economy diversifies and specialises, the need for technically skilled professionals in advanced manufacturing, IT and healthcare, for example, is growing. With the hands-on training and industry relevant skills, ITE graduates are well-poised, well-positioned to meet these needs. Recognising these values is essential for us to narrow the wage gap and ensure our economy has the skilled workforce it needs to thrive.

Therefore, I welcome the ITE Progression Award as it is the step in the right direction. But its success will depend on the collective efforts of all stakeholders to embrace and implement these changes. So far, many of my students who are in the polytechnic came from ITE and have queried whether the award can be given to them. I told them I will ask in Parliament. But it just shows how much interest and positivity this move has generated.

One such person that would benefit from this award is Mr Adil. He is a part-time ITE student, who is also currently working as a manager at a pizza outlet. Upon hearing of this, he quickly checked what courses are available for him. He believes that this is an opportune time for him to pick up a new skill in automation and he is raring to go.

By ensuring the ITE graduates have equitable opportunities for career advancement and adequately compensated, we signal a broader shift in societal values towards a more inclusive appreciation of skills diversity. This paradigm shift requires not just policy adjustments but a collective change in mindset from employers, educators and society at large. To that end, ITE should no longer be stigmatised as "It's The End". In fact, we should now rename it, "It's The Evolution". It reflects the evolutionary process of personal and professional development the students undergo and a change in mindset in the community. I believe that we all have our strengths and there are pathways to success for each and every one of us and this, in turn, helps us in our mental health.

Sir, I had often brought up the importance of preschool education and providing every child with a strong foundation. In my maiden speech, I highlighted the pivotal role of early childhood education as the cornerstone of lifelong learning and a vehicle for social mobility that cannot be overstated. Recognising its foundational importance, this year's Budget significantly bolsters support for preschool education – ensuring that children from every socioeconomic background have access to high quality early-learning experiences. By lowering fees at Government-supported preschools and increasing subsidies for lower income families, the Budget aims to make quality early childhood education more accessible and affordable.

But despite these positive steps, some concerns still remain. For example, questions are asked about the quality assurance. How are we able to maintain high standards of education? At the same time, questions also arise about teacher retention and the training to ensure that we have quality teachers and we have enough teachers out there.

But for me, I have always questioned about the enrolment rate of preschool education and the attendance that comes with it. Therefore, to address these concerns and fully realise the benefits of increased support for preschool education, I would like to suggest the following.

Firstly, of course, we need to strengthen the quality assurance mechanisms. That means we need to establish a more robust quality assurance mechanism in our preschools, against standardised benchmarks. We also need to enhance support for teachers – through comprehensive programmes and professional development opportunities. But finally, and this is something I have always mentioned – the need for compulsory preschool education. The reason is simple. We want to force a mindset change. And this can only come if you make it serious enough for them to take it seriously. Sir, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] In today's dynamic economic landscape, lifelong learning has emerged as a stepping stone for social mobility, as well as personal and skills upgrading.

By embracing lifelong learning and mastering new skills continuously, especially in the growing sectors such as technology, green energy, and bio-medicine, individuals can respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing job market and seize new opportunities. I admit that it is quite difficult for us to encourage individuals to continue their education because they are concerned about their advanced age or are busy taking care of their families.

Therefore, the support provided by this year's Budget towards lifelong learning initiatives is a proactive step to encourage all levels of society, and this includes our community, to continue to grow and adapt to the needs of the present and future workforce. Through the enhancement and expansion of the SkillsFuture programme, this year’s Budget offers various pathways for individuals to acquire and renew their skills and expertise that are relevant to current industry trends.

Among the initiatives in Budget 2024 are the SkillsFuture Credit Top-up specifically for those aged 40 and above. This provides specific impetus for individuals in this age group, to learn new skills or further develop existing skills.

For example, a worker in the service sector can choose to learn about information technology to further enhance his digital capabilities.

Secondly, the Mid-career Retraining Programme, which targets individuals who want to make a career transition or enhance their skills in certain areas. For example, an employee in the manufacturing sector can attend courses in the management of green economy projects, and thus enable him to take advantage of job opportunities in this rapidly growing industry.

Thirdly, subsidies for full-time diploma courses. This initiative provides opportunities for those who wish to pursue further education but have financial constraints. For example, an assistant preschool teacher may take advantage of this subsidy to obtain a Diploma in Early Childhood Education, strengthen her professional qualifications and see more career opportunities open up for her.

To harness lifelong learning, as a society, we need to promote a culture that values and promotes lifelong learning. This requires us to support those who are be bold enough to make the leap to study again, and they need to be steadfast and patient when embarking in a new field.

My hope is that our community will take advantage of these budget initiatives to actively engage themselves in lifelong learning.

This is not just about improving oneself but also about contributing back to society, family and country. By leveraging on the opportunities provided by this year's Budget, we can together build a brighter and more inclusive future for all.

( In English ): In conclusion, the initiatives outlined in this year's Budget represent a cohesive and comprehensive approach towards forging a future where every Singaporean, irrespective of their starting point, can thrive and contribute meaningfully to our nation's prosperity.

From the foundational significance of early childhood education to the transformative potential of lifelong learning through SkillsFuture enhancements, an equitable advancement of opportunities provided by the ITE Progression Award, these measures are intricately linked in their common goal to build a resilient, inclusive and forward-looking Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Mr Dennis Tan.

4.01 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang) : Mr Deputy Speaker, for my Budget Debate speech today, I would, first, like to speak on certain issues relating to the support for our seniors followed by the issue of support for adults with disabilities and, finally, like in my previous year's Budget Debate speech, I will continue with the issue of green transition.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said in his Budget speech that preventive care is especially important for seniors, that loneliness can do great harm to a senior. They need to stay active and socially connected. Hence, the Government will set aside $3.5 billion to start the Age Well SG for the next decade. There are several components to this, and one component is that there will be an expanded network of Active Ageing Centres (AACs) providing a wider range of programmes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as always, the devil is in the details and I look forward to hearing more details from the Ministers in charge on the changes and plans for AACs but, in the meantime, I have several comments and questions.

First, I would like to ask the Ministry of Health (MOH) what is the current situation with the staffing as well as the recruitment efforts for our AACs? How will MOH assist our AACs to recruit and maintain additional staff to tackle the manpower needs for a bigger scale AAC landscape? Does the Government have a guideline in mind for the manpower staffing per centre under AAC 2.0, of course, taking into consideration that requirements for clusters may vary according to the size of the cluster? AACs have a mix of staff and volunteers while staff strength of AACs may vary from centre to centre and volunteers are also an integral part of AACs. Volunteers may not always be able to take over the roles, expertise and, indeed, professionalism of the professionals in our AACs.

Next, for the group of seniors who do not wish to be involved in their AAC activities or do not desire to keep in contact with their AACs, I would like to know what are the plans that Age Well SG may have for them as far as outreach and keeping in contact are concerned? This will be in line with tackling loneliness and addressing the need for seniors to be socially connected, as mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Wong.

I am especially concerned with those who live alone, keep to themselves and who are not close to their families or neighbours. Beyond having more or more varied activities, we need to study what approach can be taken to better enable AACs to keep in regular contact with this group, at least to provide support when it is needed.

Studies should also be done to see how AACs can attract better male participation.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong also mentioned in his speech of silver upgrades to our residential estates to enable seniors to live more independently and safely in the community by way of amenities, such as therapeutic gardens and barrier-free ramps and senior-friendly home fittings, such as wider toilet entrances and shower seats. I look forward to more details from the Government, including how these amenities will be made available to residents in their homes and in our common spaces.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong also mentioned that there will be improvements to infrastructure for seniors' mobility and safety, such as more sheltered linkways, bus stops with senior-friendly features as well as safer and more pedestrian-friendly roads. I welcome these. As recently as August 2022, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question, the then-Minister for Transport said that there were no plans to expand the criteria of Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) existing covered linkway programme covering a 400-metre radius of major transport nodes, such as MRT, LRT stations and bus interchanges. I hope that there is now a rethink about this approach for covered linkways, especially on lands administered by LTA or other state lands. LTA should consider linking at least the heavily utilised bus stops to nearby housing estates. For example, working with Town Councils to link up such heavily utilised bus stops with the nearest covered walkways within the HDB estates.

Still relating to seniors, the Budget will give all Singaporeans born in 1973 or earlier a MediSave Bonus of $750 and double this at $1,500 if they are part of the Majulah Generation and their residence has an annual value of not more than $25,000.

For seniors with especially multiple chronic illnesses and frequent medical appointments, this MediSave top-up will not help much as long as the annual MediSave withdrawal limit remains at $700 a year for patients with chronic illnesses. Can the Government look at increasing the cap for the MediSave withdrawal limit for seniors with multiple chronic conditions so that such seniors, especially seniors who are retired and not working or are unable to work, will be less out of pocket when paying their bills? I know that the MediSave withdrawal limit was revised in January 2021. Would it now be timely for the limit to be raised, at the very least, to keep up with elevated inflation?

Given that the quarterly quantum of Silver Support Scheme will now be raised by 20%, can the Government consider raising MediSave withdrawal limits from, say, $500 to $600 and from $700 to $840 for chronic cases as well and that those suffering from multiple illnesses be granted further extension of the caps on a case-by-case basis? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong emphasised in the Budget that the Government would strengthen its support for the elderly. I hope the relevant Ministers can share more details on this.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned that the refurbishment and enhancement of senior-friendly facilities in neighbourhood to enable the elderly to live more independently and safely in the community. This includes expanding sheltered walkways and bus stops with elderly-friendly features. In August 2022, the then Transport Minister stated that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) did not have plans to expand existing sheltered walkways. Currently, LTA’s sheltered walkway coverage is limited to within 400 metres of MRT stations and bus interchanges. I hope the Government can reconsider this strategy, especially in LTA managed or state-owned areas. For example, LTA could consider collaborating with the Town Councils to connect HDB neighbourhoods with sheltered walkways to busy bus stops.

Furthermore, the Budget also includes a one-time MediSave Bonus for eligible Singaporeans. The amount is determined based on age and the annual value of the individual's residence, ranging from $700 to $1,500.

For elderly individuals with multiple chronic illness would need frequent outpatient care, especially those who are retired or unable to work, if the annual withdrawal limit remains at $700, this top-up may not provide much help to them. The withdrawal limit was last revised in 2021. In times of rising prices, will the Government consider raising the withdrawal limit for MediSave to reduce the cash outlay for retirees?

The Silver Support Scheme is set to be increased by 20%. Will the Government also consider increasing the withdrawal limit for MediSave by the same 20%?

( In English ): I will next touch on the issue of support for adults with disabilities.

I welcome Deputy Prime Minister Wong's announcement that he will provide more support for adults with disabilities. He said he will expand spaces in sheltered workshops and day activity centres where they can undergo skills training and launch more enabling services hubs to provide community support to persons with disabilities and their caregivers. I believe that, as a society, there is a lot more we can and should do for adults with disabilities among us, in particular, adults with serious special needs as well as their caregivers.

Earlier this month, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will consider increasing the number of day activity centres and residential homes for adult persons with autism. Minister Masagos replied that there are currently eight day activity centres serving adults with autism spectrum disorder with over 300 clients enrolled in these day activity centres and about 80 referrals pending enrolment. He also said that there are four adult disability homes funded by MSF serving adults with autism spectrum disorder. There are about 50 residents with autism spectrum disorder in these adult disability homes which have the capacity to house about 100 residents, and about 20 referrals are pending enrolment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe there is such a need to increase our day activity centres and residential homes. I believe that we really should increase our resources to provide continuous training for adults with disabilities, including but not limited to special needs adults, such as those with moderate to severe autism beyond their time in the SPED schools. In my view, there are multiple possible benefits. We should continue to think of ways to improve long-term post-SPED school education or training, providing further education and skills training, if possible.

More studies should be done to increase the possible range of work training these adults can undergo and the range of work they can undertake in society. This will enhance their lives and promote better integration with society. At the same time, spending time at day activity centres rather than at home, with structured programmes, activities and interaction with others will enhance the mental well-being of such adults.

My heart also goes out to senior caregivers and their special needs adult children, wondering what is going to happen to the care of their children when their health gives way one day. Even when these parents may have other children who are non-special needs, is it appropriate to expect them to take over care of their siblings when their parents pass on? Should we not provide adequate residential homes for these adults with more structured care and development? And can we also consider for these homes to allow some of the special needs adults to be able to go home to their families on weekends, providing some balance between residential care and home care, allowing family members suitable respite in the process?

Minister Masagos also said that MSF has been working with the sector to develop plans to better support adults with autism and their families, given the increase in awareness of autism and in the clarity of its diagnostic criteria and that MSF will share more details in the coming months. Indeed, I hope that MSF is able to share such details during COS, including details of any studies undertaken recently.

In November last year, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking the Minister, among other things, whether the Ministry keeps a record of the current number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adult persons with intellectual disabilities and whether the Ministry will consider developing and implementing early identification and support programmes for such caregivers. Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How mentioned in his reply that MSF does not directly track the number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adults with intellectual disabilities.

In December 2023, news broke that one of my Hougang residents, an adult with special needs, stayed in his flat with the body of his elderly father after his passing for five days while continuing to attend day sessions at the day care centre. While I am extremely thankful that the authorities and stakeholders were commendably quick to assist and arrange for care for the son thereafter, this case reinforces the need for us to consider developing and implementing an early identification and support programme for elderly caregivers who are caring for adults with special needs.

Such a programme could adopt a multi-agency approach that involves our AACs, day care centres for adults with disabilities, healthcare providers and even service providers like lawyers who may have interactions with family members in the course of their related work, for example, doing Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), as well stakeholder agencies like Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and MSF, such that each party can trigger another party to provide necessary checks or support for the family concerned. Studies should be done to see how contact and support can be appropriately maintained by one or more stakeholders for both elderly caregivers as well as the special needs adults.

Last year, I said in my Budget debate speech that we should work towards AACs, which cater to the different needs of seniors, whether social or medical, or for more specialised areas like mental health or disabled persons who are seniors. The centres should still be referring centres even if other organisations or sub-units are involved. Indeed, an expanded AAC can also perform the coordinator or contact role for elderly caregivers of adults with disabilities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me know move on to ongoing efforts for green transition. Last year, I said in my Budget debate speech that we need a detailed roadmap for retraining workers in these sectors as Singapore decarbonises. I asked whether we have sufficient sustainability-related courses that businesses and workers can afford to attend, both in terms of time and money. In my speech today, I will go on to talk about the quality of the education to be provided.

Mr Deputy Speaker, capacity building is a core concept of development. In the context of climate change and sustainable development, upskilling is now necessary to ensure a just transition and that no worker is left behind.

Singapore has been investing heavily in lifelong learning and upskilling since SkillsFuture was launched back in 2015. Government spending has shifted towards adult education and training to accelerate the nation's green transitions. IHLs form the backbone of this shift and there exists a multitude of courses available to build capacity and upskill the existing work force in areas such as environmental, social and governance (ESG) and carbon services and trading.

However, growing our talent pipeline must also include investing in primary, secondary and tertiary education. I am pleased to hear of a new Master of Science (MSc) in climate change and sustainability programme at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The MSc programme in data science for sustainability was also launched in NUS to train data scientists who can integrate their knowledge and skills with an understanding of sustainability issues. The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has the Asian School of the Environment and offers majors in environmental and earth systems science, public policy and even a second major in sustainability. These are examples of positive development in Singapore.

But to ensure that graduates are well equipped to meet the demands of the times, all such courses must go through sufficient policy and industry validation. For instance, IHLs should, if they have not done so, internalise the SkillsFuture reports to assess SkillsFuture needs in these areas and assess what skill sets they have to teach undergraduates and graduate students. We should also encourage our course providers to ensure that all courses provide adequate time, emphasis and coverage on Singapore, so that students can really understand how to green Singapore and the challenges that Singapore face.

Do knowledge providers have the right people to teach and impart such knowledge and skills? How do we ensure this? Some form of impact assessment is necessary to track lifelong learners' progress, comprehension and application.

Second, knowledge and content providers across the IHLs also need to be given adequate support to do this important work of providing the knowledge and skills for the workforce. Hiring practices at university need to reflect contribution to society beyond traditional publication and impact factors. If Singapore is to succeed in our green transition, more emphasis needs to be placed on hiring experts that have real-world experience in solving complex sustainability challenges.

Demand is also growing for Singapore to help build regional and international capacity. Overall, there is growing demand for Singapore's experts to be ready and available to impart valuable knowledge. To do so, we need more Singaporeans to step forward with the right knowledge, skills and attitude to help grow our local, regional and international sustainability talent. Indeed, we need to actively grow our pool of educators.

Climate change demands urgent action from everyone, across all sectors of society. As we focus on upskilling and capacity building of workers, we must also not overlook the support and training we need to give our educators. We need to grow our pool of sustainability educators and we need to do so fast in this quick journey of manpower transition, so that we do not lag behind our 2030 and 2050 goals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, I look forward to the replies to the concerns I have raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Ms Denise Phua.

4.19 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar) : Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2024 is a well-stitched effort to tackle both immediate challenges and longer-term issues affecting our citizens and businesses. Whilst it is not flawless, it does stand as evidence of our Government’s commitment to listening and understanding ground realities.

I am very grateful to my residents, grassroots activists, fellow volunteers and my Central District CDC councillors and partners for sharing their insights on Budget 2024 with me. Many of them have expressed admiration for its comprehensive suite of benefits to individuals, households, seniors, businesses and families with children in preschools and special education schools. The Budget’s positive features are widely recognised and appreciated.

In my speech, I wish to focus on three areas of concern: firstly, the need to scrutinise if the intended outcomes of Budget 2024’s initiatives will be met; secondly, the sustainability of escalating social development costs; and thirdly, the need to foster a more robust ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality.

First, on the need to ensure intended outcomes are achieved. Let me provide one example that is close to my heart. I applaud the Government’s bold and potentially game-changing investment in two target groups within the Singaporean labour force: one, our young ITE graduates below the age of 30; and two, our mid-career Singaporeans.

However, the devil, as they say, is in the details. For instance, while attractive financial incentives are provided for ITE graduates below age 30, to pursue further diploma studies, several questions remain unanswered. It is unclear to me how many are eligible for these targeted diploma courses and whether the potential opportunity costs of not working will deter them, and if they will receive adequate career guidance to ensure alignment with their strengths and job market needs?

The same questions also apply to the mid-career reskilling plan for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. This is also a profile who similarly needs to be urged to undertake the reskilling initiative for better future employability.

I therefore would urge a careful study of the response of the target pool of ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans to further improve the chances of success of this potentially game-changing investment by the Government. Government can consider an even more aggressive move of specifically approaching the lower-skilled gig economy workers, for instance, and others whose industries or jobs are at risk of being obsoleted by technology, including AI.

The investment in our younger ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans is not the only ones that need careful eyeballing and tweaking if need be. Some initiatives such as the corporate income tax and personal income tax for everybody, the reduction of fees in preschools and SPED schools are blunt measures that signal Government's care and empathy. Yet, they may or may not be needed or appreciated by some Singaporeans. An option for those not in need to redirect their benefits for a common pool for those more in need should be considered. Much like how unused CDC Vouchers are channeled to charities with an Institution of Public Character (IPC) status.

I therefore urge Government to undertake a proactive mitigation strategy to guarantee the effective execution and success of Budget 2024's well-intentioned initiatives.

Next, I would like to touch on the worrying trend of rising national expenditures, especially in what is categorised as "social development costs". More than 50% of the total Budget allocation is dedicated to social development. Receiving the largest shares are health, about 17% or about $19 billion; education at 13% or about $15 billion; and national development at 8.1% or $9 billion. This investment in social development reflects Government's priorities and commitment to improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans.

Yet as we increase spending in these vital areas, we must also consider innovative ways to sustain this investment. Our Singapore society is not accustomed to higher personal and corporate income taxes for various reasons. And this is unlike countries such as Australia and the Nordic countries, where high levels of citizen welfare are funded by tax regimes with high tax rates.

So, one innovative way that the PAP Government has used is to tap on the National Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) to fund expenditure, which in the last seven Budgets from FY2018 to now, has been increasingly relied upon. How sustainable this funding model is remains to be seen. There must constantly be found ways to pay for the ever-increasing expenditure. Some people I have spoken to call for an even more resources, for example, to be channeled to GIC and Temasek Holdings for them to invest, so that the NIRC base can be enlarged. The two investors have, over the years, delivered decent medium- and longer-term returns. And others call for more public-private-people partnerships for more innovative and flexible funding.

Whatever it is, the concern over the sustainability of the current funding model for our ever-rising national expenditures should not be underrated and underestimated – and that is my second point.

Finally, the need to foster a more robust and cohesive ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality. Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s clarion call through Forward Singapore and through Budget 2024 to “build a shared future together” is an important call to action for every sector of society. Already, Singapore is working with partners in areas such as community hospitals, hospices included, special education and other social services.

I refer to hon MP Dennis Tan's lament about the adults with disabilities. And I just want to share that all of us have a role as well. In my Kampong Glam division, for example, we have tested and piloted in the last two years with the People’s Association (PA) grassroots and CaringSG, a special programme that is called "Purple Hearts". It is a special needs families' network, where more than 20 volunteers from the ground, led by some of our grassroot leaders and me. We regularly visited, befriended, tried to find out the needs and then referred and directed the needs of these 200 families to the different agencies, some of them in Government and some are non-government. And almost two years now. I am very happy to share with Mr Dennis Tan and also other MPs, if they are interested, to at least make this happen in their area.

Already, Singapore is working with a lot of partners in this space. But let me just propose some ways by which our Government can take a better lead in ensuring the building of a shared future together, especially in the non-profit charity sector, where I actively volunteer. I need to declare. This is a sector that is full of heart but is fairly fragmented.

First, the Government can play a crucial and more helpful role in facilitating this ecosystem to ensure more informed decision-making and impactful outcomes. In recent years, substantial resources have been allocated to governance of the partners, which is vital of course – audits, governance and so forth.

However, there needs to be a deeper understanding among both donors and recipients about the landscape – identifying the key essential services, causes, beneficiary groups, key gaps and expectations, as well as clarifying the Government's participation in these gaps and how others can contribute effectively. For example, major donors in Singapore, such as Ngee Ann Kongsi and various foundations, could be better supported to invest in the essential areas sustainably.

Second, support for back-end functions. The back-end of any effective social service ecosystem lies in its operational capabilities. Currently, many social service agencies and charities face challenges due to fragmented support structures in governance, procurement, risk management and internal controls. Not their fault; it is just that they are operating with very limited resources. They are not the Government. They cannot afford to pay for what one Member called “bureaucratic complexity”.

So, operating with limited resources, these charities and partners often find it very difficult to establish systems that meet Government operating and audit standards. Improving support in these areas therefore is crucial. For instance, enabling IPCs to access Government procurement networks such as the GeBiz or Demand Aggregated vendors; this could significantly reduce operational burdens for charities. For instance, having good senior public servants from the Public Service for Good movement started by Minister Chan Chun Sing to sit down with key sector leaders and help set reasonable standards and install cost-effective back-end functions – this is one way of moving forward for a shared future.

Next, on supporting manpower needs in this non-profit charity sector, the Government can play a pivotal role by being sensitive to and supportive of the workforce dedicated to its non-profit partners. The manpower challenges faced by organisations, for example, like Dover Hospice, which I just visited, where healthcare staff, despite their experience, face tenure limitations; and partner homes, nursing homes, residential homes, which see staff leaving for other sectors, for example, the public sector, due to more attractive connect plans or compensation packages. All these underscore the need for a more supportive and sensitive framework by the Government, together, working as partners.

Fourth, in tiered matching and tax exemptions. The Government should implemented tiered matching for donations and offer more attractive tax exemptions for contributions to essential under-resourced social sectors. Essential and emerging needs should be carefully identified and receive more support. These include healthcare, lifelong education, care facilities for adults which Member Dennis Tan has mentioned also, and I raised many times in the House here and outside, for persons with disabilities and their families, especially the adult ones, and also support social enterprises that lead to job creations for the vulnerable, such as our neuro-diversed, disabled and lower-educated Singaporeans. While I appreciate that tax exemptions will now be offered for overseas donations, I urge for local investments to be given priority and granted more attractive tax incentives over overseas donations.

Fifth, empowering social enterprises. Instead of relying only on donations and grants, charities as the Government's partners should be encouraged to fish rather than being fed in the long term. Social enterprises play a critical role in addressing societal challenges through business solutions. But social enterprises are some of the most difficult businesses to run, having to achieve both financial and social output bottom lines. Supporting these organisations by prioritising them in procurement processes, offering set-up assistance and providing more tax exemptions and grants can amplify their impact, especially for those that are run by charities. The money goes into the charity and not into any individual's pockets. So, this approach will not only foster social innovation but also contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Public procurement policies that favour social enterprises can create a more inclusive economy and drive social value creation.

Sir, I have proposed five ways by which the Government can be more sensitive and appreciated in its aspiration to build a shared future with stakeholders in the area of social development. And I look forward to the Government double-clicking on what I have shared on these five items, so that we can build a shared future together. And I also look forward, of course, to its considered responses in this Budget season.

In conclusion, Sir, Budget 2024 is not merely a financial plan. It is a blueprint for a compassionate, inclusive and resilient society. There are some brilliant programmes that ought to be further scrutinised to ensure their well-intentioned goals are achieved. Social development costs are rising in terms of dollars and proportion. Only with a vibrant ecosystem can each one play their role to the best and bring to reality the spirit of ForwardSG and Budget 2024.

Budget 2024 calls upon each one of us – the Government, Government officials, corporate leaders, philanthropists, social service agencies, citizens, residents, all of us – to contribute towards a shared future. Notwithstanding my inputs, I strongly support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4.34 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) : Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, close our eyes and imagine Ah Ma, a silver-haired hawker, her smile fading as she sees the rising cost of ingredients threatening her livelihood. Now picture Encik Ali, struggling to choose between essential groceries and his medication due to inflation. These are not isolated stories. They represent the daily struggles of a sizeable number of Singaporeans, both young and old, feeling the squeeze from rising costs of living across the board. I meet some of these residents at my Yio Chu Kang Meet-the-People Sessions.

While Budget 2024 deserves recognition for its priorities, the affordability crisis casts a long shadow, threatening not just the financial security of our seniors but the very fabric of our diverse society. Let us act before affordability becomes a barrier to opportunity and well-being for all Singaporeans. We can do more to make Singapore an affordable place to live in, particularly in transport, housing, CPF and social support schemes.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to ensure affordable and accessible transport for Singaporeans. While our public transport network continues to expand, car ownership remains a critical aspect of life for many Singaporeans. Families with young children, seniors, individuals with limited mobility and those with special needs often rely on private vehicles for their daily commutes.

Despite its world-class efficiency, our public transport system experiences sizeable crowds at most hours. During peak periods, the situation intensifies, with limited seating availability for vulnerable passengers. While private hire vehicles (PHVs) offer an alternative, their costs and waiting times are rising, not to mention that there are peak-hour surcharges. Recent experiences during festive periods like Chinese New Year, with reported waiting times of 30 minutes, raise concerns about their reliability. Of course, this is understandable as PHV drivers have families, too, and will join in the celebrations during this festive season. But this also means that there is a certain market failure in the PHV network which may require some intervention.

Skyrocketing Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) threaten to push car ownership out of reach for the average Singaporean. This is not a luxury car problem; it is a family car problem. The recent Parliamentary debates on this issue demonstrated the urgency of addressing the affordability issue.

The ongoing review of point-to-point travel is encouraging. I urge the Government to seriously consider separate COE categories for PHVs. I have raised this issue in Parliament on several occasions. This issue centres around the fairness and impact of placing PHVs and individual buyers in the same COE pool. Firstly, the demand patterns differ significantly. PHV companies often have access to greater financial resources and can be more aggressive bidders, ultimately, passing on the cost to passengers. Secondly, for PHVs, cars are essentially business tools. Companies are likely to prioritise higher bids, compared to individual buyers purchasing for personal use, knowing that they can recoup the money in the future. Hence, creating a separate category addresses this imbalance between corporations and individual buyers, ensuring a fairer and more equitable system.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to protect our seniors from seemingly unfair property tax increases. While the recent adjustments to AV brackets and property rebates are a positive step, their delayed implementation presents a pressing concern for our retired seniors. Can the Government hence implement the changes earlier?

Also, many retirees are "asset-rich and cash-poor". They have acquired their private properties decades ago and lived in them for a long time. A sharp property tax increase can devastate these retirees who lack the income to absorb the cost. We need a fairer system that protects our seniors. They lack the readily available cash flow to absorb any significant rise in property tax associated with increasing AVs. One retiree I know told me that her property tax has increased by almost three times. Perhaps the Government should provide more assistance to retirees with no income who possess a single owner-occupied home. By all means tax more for those with a second property, a third property and so on. What the Government is doing now is essentially asking retirees staying in their own home who cannot pay their property tax to sell away their home and uproot from the environment that they are familiar with. This will put stress on our seniors and affect their mental health. It might even cause dementia to set in earlier.

We also need to implement a fairer property tax system considering residents' unique circumstances, especially for owner-occupied homes. Can we encourage our banks and financial institutions to have reverse mortgages? Monetise some of the lease of the houses, but with the option of paying back when the house is eventually inherited. This may create a market and allow price discovery and competition, too.

We also need greater clarity on the relevant physical attributes that are being considered when calculating the AV of the home. How will IRAS assess the condition of houses, both private and HDB, that are located in districts with higher property value but have not been renovated in many years? Moreover, can the Government also consider introducing a maximum annual increase cap on property taxes, up to 50%, for example?

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need clearer communication and targeted support for CPF changes. While the closure of the Special Account (SA) and the transfer of funds to the RA simplify the system and offer potentially higher interest rates, I seek clarification on the 1% of members who cannot transfer their SA savings to RA. Can the Minister elaborate on who falls under this exception? Will moving funds from the OA to the RA be voluntary? How will members be informed of this option, its benefits and drawbacks, and receive assistance on this if needed?

Moreover, the imminent closure of SA raises concerns and confusion among many residents, especially those in their 50s who have reached the full retirement sum. Numerous residents have expressed concerns that they have to replan their retirement due to this change. Years of financial planning based on the SA's higher interest rates are disrupted, leaving them with limited time to adjust. The limited withdrawal options from RA raise concerns about accessing emergency funds, unlike the SA, which has more flexibility. Conversely, leaving funds in OA means lower interest earning and retirement savings, impacting our seniors' long-term financial security. I urge the Minister to address these residents' concerns and explore ways to minimise the impact of the SA closure on members aged 55 and above, particularly regarding withdrawal flexibility.

Furthermore, while I acknowledge the move to raise the ERS to allow members to benefit from the high interest rates in RA, I emphasise the need to focus on lower-income earners who struggle to reach even the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS). Can the Minister elaborate on specific measures to help them grow their retirement savings?

Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to refine means-testing processes for essential schemes to ensure inclusivity. While the Silver Support Scheme (SSS) aims to help seniors who have low incomes during their working years and now have less in retirement, using housing type to determine Silver Support payouts may unfairly disadvantage seniors who have shared their flats with their families. I would like to suggest the removal of this criterion. Seniors in larger flats may face other financial limitations. They may share the roof with many family members and do not have the option to downsize or monetise the house. Hence, it may not be right to equate housing type with wealth.

Likewise for hospital bills and subsidies. The current means-testing based on housing and family income might not accurately reflect the true financial situation of all seniors. With the increasing trend of later marriages and singlehood, many young Singaporeans live with their parents while striving for financial independence or waiting for their BTOs. Denying subsidies based on these further disadvantages young Singaporeans and impacts their decisions regarding marriage and family planning. It also deters seniors from seeking necessary healthcare due to the fear of burdening their children. We, hence, need to consider removing housing type as a criterion, refine means-testing processes to consider a more holistic view of individual and family income.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us open our eyes. Let us view Singapore as a grand, age-old tree, deeply rooted in our values and traditions, providing shelter and sustenance to all who seek refuge beneath its branches. Just as we cherish and nurture our seniors, so, too, must we ensure that they are sheltered from the storms of uncertainty and hardship. They grew the tree, and now it is their time to enjoy the shelter it should provide. It is evident that action is needed to address the affordability challenges facing Singaporeans.

I have made several suggestions in my speech.

Firstly, in transportation, we must ensure accessibility and affordability, particularly for families and vulnerable individuals like seniors. We need to explore separate COE categories for PHVs.

Secondly, regarding housing, a fairer property tax system, considering the unique circumstances of residents, is imperative. Tailored policies and capped increases can alleviate the burden on seniors and home owners.

Thirdly, in CPF, greater awareness of policy changes and targeted support are critical to help seniors grow their retirement savings, especially for lower-income earners who struggle to reach the Basic Retirement Sum.

Lastly, in social support, refining means-testing processes for essential schemes like Silver Support and medical subsidies is necessary to ensure a holistic view of individual and family income.

I urge the Government to prioritise these measures to ensure affordability for all, especially for our seniors. Let us not wait until rising costs become insurmountable barriers for Singaporeans of all ages. By working together, we can build a more inclusive and equitable society where everyone thrives, regardless of their circumstances. Together, let us make Singapore a truly affordable place to live in, and a nation where everyone can chase their dreams without being crippled by financial hardship. I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Miss Cheryl Chan.

4.45 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast) : Mr Deputy Speaker, the fate of a country through the ages has been that it either rises, falls or stagnates. We are lucky that in Singapore – against massive odds – we have continued to do well. Budget 2024, which is a part of the Forward Singapore movement, aims to keep the upward trajectory going. But even as we grow our economy, the immutable fact is that resources will always be finite but wants unlimited.

Our needs rise with each generation and their aspirations for a brighter and progressive future imply we have to keep adapting and evolving. We need to take deliberate actions to stretch every dollar we spend to ensure we continue to meet the growing aspirations of our citizens and expand our economy in a holistic manner. Thus, strengthening key areas and preventing unnecessary resource wastage, while ensuring that our wealth and social equality keep pace across different segments in society, is necessary.

In this Budget 2024 Statement, there are four areas stood out for me. First, I agree with the need for our economy to continue growing at a healthy pace, but not at all costs.

I applaud the Government in planning for the future of economy and setting a direction of what industries and jobs will anchor this little red dot beyond a decade or two. However, we have to be careful not to be blindsided by the potential unseen structural and social costs that such development could bring. We have to plan for such economic activities in a holistic and calibrated manner and, most importantly, as part of a whole-of-Government effort to ensure we consider all dimensions of each plan.

For example, as we pursue new high value activities, such as R&D, we should not neglect strengthening our foundational engineering capabilities or to continue encouraging our high value-add manufacturing base. The pandemic has shown that over reliance for core parts of a supply chain globally has its downside.

Offshoring some of these jobs not only impact our blue-collar workforce, but it could also risk Singapore losing our ability to effectively translate innovation into market-ready products. On the long run, this limits Singapore's capabilities of being a "one-stop" shop for such innovation deployment.

Deliberate planning of lifelong learning and scoping career transition pathways through the newly launched SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will help develop our workforce to deliver products and services in the new economic growth areas. However, we must continue to support capability development in tradecrafts and some blue-collar domains, to ensure we have a holistic workforce to drive our economic plans forward.

I am happy about the new ITE progression award to support students to upskill in more practical and hands-on areas. I hope similar schemes would continue to support and enhance our workforce to develop mastery in key skills which are needed to drive some fundamentals in Singapore's growth forward.

To be clear, I am in full support of our future economic thrust, such as preparing for the digital and green transition, continuously moving up the value chain and finding niche areas where we can be globally competitive and differentiated.

But while we push the frontiers of innovation – and it is critical – it is the ability to imagine the future of Singapore's economy that presents hope and possibilities to all segments of workers that will keep our economy going.

Second, I am enthused that we will be allocating budget for key infrastructure development to support the transition towards clean energy through the Future Energy Fund. These spendings are important to ensure that Singapore remains a good participant of global climate action and potentially be a beacon to other countries in transiting towards cleaner energy.

These infrastructural developments are, however, costly; and could entail higher risk of being stranded, given the uncertain energy landscape. A prudent allocation of these funds must go beyond just evaluating the capital. It requires Government leaders to make good judgement calls on the risk of such investments and to consider the potential high recurring cost and approach to maintain such infrastructures for usability over a defined lifetime; so as to prevent wastage both now and in the future.

In the same vein, we should follow this philosophy when developing any infrastructure projects to ensure we can stretch every dollar spent. Take, for example, many sheltered linkways have been constructed to provide increased convenience to our citizens and give them the comfort during the hot and wet weather. However, some of the sheltered linkways are not built at areas with heavy footfall and they are under-utilised.

The lightings that are required to keep them bright for usage at night is also drawing more energy from the grid when it is already lighted by parallel streetlights. To ensure the safety of these structures, especially the ones spanning across the roads, are both expensive to construct and maintain. Have we considered how to minimise high recurring expenses to maintain these assets for decades? Were there options to modify the usage of these sheltered paths to serve a wider community, or other innovative and cheaper ways to provide such shelter? Such decisions do require some level of judgement.

Given our limited resources and the possibility that some day, we will have little foreign workers to serve our daily needs, will the public works regulatory evolve to allow citizens to volunteer their expertise or knowledge on potential technology and designs that can be used?

Third, I welcome the move to help address the immediate cost of living and to enhance the AP. Our GDP per capita stands at about S$91,100, according to the World Economic Outlook in 2022 and ranks amongst the top three globally.

For a young nation with relatively high median income, it is hard for some to apprehend that we have amongst us the low-income workers, a sandwiched middle-income group and seniors or retirees who may not have sufficient financials to support their retirement. With impending global headwinds that may adversely affect our economy and our ageing population, I am concerned for the future for this group of citizens, especially given the uncertainty it may bring. While the country prospers, a key topic we have to face squarely is whether our wealth and social equality is keeping pace across the different segments in society.

The prices of essential goods and services have increased over the past year and the provision of the CDC and U-Save vouchers would go some way to help many Singaporeans cushion a part of the escalating cost burden. While such schemes have instant effect to address current inflation challenge, the long-term deployment of such schemes, likewise places a fiscal burden on the Government. There is a need to continually track the impact of such packages and to regularly benchmark it with the intent of the package or the policy.

With Singapore's continued investments into new high value economic growth areas and as we continue to support upgrading our workforce to undertake higher value jobs, I am hopeful that the real wages for Singaporeans will continue to grow. I am not against the provision of financial support for targeted groups of individuals who have needs and are unable to support or manage without additional support or truly needs a helping hand in that manner.

The question I have for the Government is whether the plan is to continue making some of these support schemes, like the CDC Vouchers and AP a permanent one, and how are we intending to fund these. Everybody likes "free money", but it is important that we always prioritise our fellow Singaporeans who might need a bit more help and continue to support them as a national family.

And this brings me to the last aspect of helping those who need more support and in a targeted manner. I am very encouraged by the announcement of the increased support to be provided to families of persons with special needs.

I believe that inclusivity is an important pillar in our social fabric, and we should continue to aspire and rally more Singaporeans to support and integrate people with special needs into our community to the largest possible extent. Lowering the cost of monthly fees at special education (SPED) schools and increasing support for employment and integration of special needs individuals are moves in the right direction.

To be a caregiver for someone with special needs is not only a matter of financial cost, but it also takes a toll on the entire family as their lifestyle completely changes beyond one about affordability, to one that focuses on how best to enable the special needs person to live a life.

One resident who approached me for help recently had an issue with her daughter's application for a transport concession card. The issue of not getting the approval was one around definition of disability and the assessment criteria. The fact of the matter is her daughter has been diagnosed with varying degrees of disability since young. Now at 20, her condition has not improved, and she faces other societal challenges and the lack of opportunity to participate in the workforce. What her parents are concerned about is not merely about a transport concession card, which is lesser in value than GST Voucher or even the CDC Voucher support that were generously given. The concern they have is that the availability of options their daughter has for rest of her life is determined by what others are willing to provide and the decisions to support rely on rulebooks that are seldom exercised with a sense of understanding.

I do ask if there are more we can do as a community to support such individuals. I am heartened to see that there are more commercial facilities setting aside space and adjusting their operational procedures to make spaces that are more welcoming to those with special needs.

Places like Gardens by the Bay plans to have a quiet hour for people with autism and an inclusive playground for children. Other similar efforts are also taken by corporates, such as Frasers Property and its tenants, who chose to be the inaugural "Inclusive Champions". Proliferation of such community, as well as commercial-led efforts are essential to ultimately mainstream the inclusivity of special needs individuals into Singaporeans' daily way of life.

I hope the Government will expand its support for such ground-up efforts, both in the commercial and the community space to help those with special needs.

Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I am optimistic about Singapore's growth ahead despite the global headwinds. Budget 2024 provides a view of how we can shape our economy to embrace a new demand, which also ensures our workforce can be better placed for future job propositions.

While the Government plans for the nation, I also seek fellow Singaporeans to take an active role in our path forward. This country can only benefit from our collective wisdom, efforts and willingness to see it succeed. Success is not simply a definition of being the best, but one where we feel proud and comforted that our success includes those who are needy and vulnerable in society as well. And with that, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Ms Jessica Tan.

4.57 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast) : Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in Budget 2024. It takes care of the immediate cost-of-living challenges, provides support for families and our seniors, supports individuals and businesses to be future ready for growth and jobs. The introduction of measures to anchor quality investments, invest in new economic sectors and major moves to decarbonise the economy, are welcomed but require large funding.

Our spending needs continue to rise. The question is, will we be able to continue to afford such large funding. Deputy Prime Minister Wong outlined that our medium-term fiscal position is tight, but assured that if we remain in the range of projected spending increase, we should have sufficient revenues to maintain a balanced Budget.

So, I hope that we continue to be able to share as we progress on our specific initiatives. My speech will focus on four areas: better growth; jobs and opportunities; healthcare and senior care and the property tax adjustments.

With the continuing geopolitical situation, slower economic growth and decline in real income, Singaporeans and businesses have been challenged in coping with inflation, higher cost of living and of doing business. The cash support and grants announced for the AP and Enterprise Support Package will help families and businesses cope with current cost and inflationary pressures.

But we do need to give focus to growth and quality growth. This is vital if we want better lives for Singaporeans and for businesses to be able to thrive. This point was aptly articulated by one of our residents in Changi Simei last year during our Budget dialogue.

As we were discussing budget measures to support cost-of-living pressures, he reminded us that while support measures are needed, we must also "grow the pie". If we do not grow, we will be worse-off in the long run as we will be relying on a shrinking pie and there will be less to count on. This is the stark reality and a timely reminder.

We cannot do more of the same. Global uncertainties, disruptions and structural shifts, driven by technology and climate change, require us to make fundamental shifts and innovate to achieve good and sustainable growth. Singapore needs to continue to remain an attractive hub for businesses to invest their high quality projects, as this brings cutting-edge capability, knowledge and technology, and more importantly, it creates good jobs.

The introduction of the Refundable Investment Credit, investments in AI, upgrading of our Nationwide Broadband Network, and the further boost to the RIE2025 plan, are some of the important measures that Budget 2024 is investing in for Singapore to continue to remain competitive and attractive for companies to invest in.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

But to realise the full potential of the growth will require our businesses, including SMEs, to have the capability to be part of that growth. Having strong local businesses will also improve Singapore's attractiveness for investments, as businesses looking to invest will require a strong base of companies to partner. It is critical that our local enterprises transform to remain relevant and the changes, we must realise, will not be easy as it will require new ways of doing business, harnessing technology, building new skills and adopting energy-efficient solutions. The measures and enhancements in the Budget will support our local enterprises in their transformation efforts. But it will come down to whether our local enterprises will commit and make the investment to do so while continuing to run their current businesses.

When I was working in MNEs, I personally witnessed the synergy and benefits of collaboration between MNEs and local businesses, especially SMEs. SMEs can level-up by tapping on the technical know-how, expertise, financial strength and access to markets of MNEs. Many MNEs have initiatives to develop local businesses as MNEs understand the value of working with and building a strong network of local businesses to provide local market insights, tapping on the potential of the local markets and address gaps. It is a win-win for both the MNE and local businesses. Hence, it is important that our local businesses make the necessary investments to transform and be ready to partner and play a key part in the value chain of MNEs.

The Partnership for Capability Transformation scheme and the enhancement that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced in the Budget will promote partnerships between MNEs and our local businesses. But our local companies can only do so if they have the capability.

Let me now touch on an equally important point. For growth to be possible, businesses need people, people who have the relevant skills and knowledge to take on the jobs. The disruptions are impacting businesses structurally and, in turn, jobs.

In an Adjournment Motion that I raised in 2022 on senior employability, I shared the findings of work that the PAP Seniors Group embarked on to better understand work and senior employability.

One of my recommendations was the need for structural intervention in how we support learning and organise work. As people live longer and healthier, we continue to learn, are productive and desire to be able to continue to work as we age.

But we will progress through our life stages in a non-linear way. Just as we allow for different pathways of our young in formal education, I highlighted the need to rethink how we structure learning for those in the workforce to enable continuous learning and work. Individuals, as well as employers, know the value of continuous learning. The challenge is the opportunity cost and making the time to substantially invest in it. Hence, the vicious cycle of talents gaps and skills relevancy affecting both businesses and individuals. I had asked that we find ways to allow a period of maybe a few months of work-related learning every few years. Then, we can really build skills.

The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme announced in the Budget is significant. It will support all Singaporean mid-career workers aged 40 years and above with $4,000 SkillsFuture credits for selected industry-oriented courses in sectors with good hiring opportunities; subsidise full-time diplomas at the polytechnics, ITE and arts institutions and give training allowance capped at $3,000 a month up to 24 months throughout one's lifetime. These measures are meant to offset income loss during the period. It also signals a recognition of the structural shifts impacting employment and the need for the right support for mid-career workers to proactively take the step to reskill and to enable them to deal with changes in employment by being future ready to take on new and good job opportunities.

SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme is indeed a structural change in supporting mid-career workers. It will cushion the cost of retraining and I believe will go some way to encourage individuals to make the commitment and take charge of their reskilling and career. This will require a mindset shift and support from employers, educational institutions and family for reskilling and work and managing the transitions. It will require adjustment to all stakeholders including the mid-career worker as going back to formal education after some years can be daunting. There will be other considerations, such as finding and deciding on suitable courses that will lead to better employability and better jobs and for those who are not taking full-time courses, the ability to manage work and study. But ultimately, for SkillsFuture to be meaningful for workers, reskilling must align to business needs so that the result is really indeed securing better jobs.

If we are successful in making the shift to reskilling, as advocated in the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, I am hopeful that it will make learning as systemic for workers in the workplace as it is for our young in formal education.

Let me now touch on healthcare and senior care.

With household facing higher cost pressures and cost of healthcare, I welcome the Government's revision of the monthly per capita household income (PHCI) criterion for means-tested healthcare and associated social support subsidy scheme. As stated, with the revision, more than one million will benefit from the higher subsidies.

I would like to seek clarification on the revised thresholds and subsidies for Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social and Family Development long-term residential and non-residential care. The details provided make no mention of AV. Is AV no longer a criterion? In the case of retirees who have no PHCI, will AV be used as the means-tested criteria to determine eligibility? If the AV is even slightly above the AV threshold, they would not be eligible for any subsidies.

I made this appeal in last year's Budget debate for a review and refinement of the means-tested criteria for senior long-term residential and non-residential care. If AV continues to be a means-tested criterion to determine eligibility, at risk of sounding like a broken record, I ask the Government to review how we support Singaporean families to care for their seniors, just as we support all Singaporean families with the care of their young children as announced in last year's Budget, without means testing.

I am not asking for no means testing but a refinement of how AV is used to determine eligibility. The cost of eldercare services is not insignificant. Without subsidies, daycare services can cost from $945 to $1,430 per month. Dementia care services range between $1,260 to $1,575 per month before subsidies. For families that have both young children and seniors to care for, these expenses do add up. For retirees, the impact is even greater.

Finally, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for recognising the challenges faced with the increase in property tax in 2024 for owner-occupied residential properties with the sharp increase in the AV and for making the adjustment to widen the AV bands for the property tax for owner occupied properties. This means homeowners will pay less property tax in 2025 and following years if AV remains unchanged.

As shared by CBRE Research, the adjustment to the AV bands will benefit the lower- and mid-tier properties the most with lower property tax payable in the range of 20%-30%. The adjustment will help homeowners, especially retirees, who may not be well-off. Together with the 24-month instalment plan without any interest, this will help retirees who are unable to make the lump sum payment for their property tax.

Budget 2024 is a comprehensive Budget. It lays new foundations and building blocks for us to build our shared future together. To achieve the bold ambitions set out in Budget 2024 will require everyone, Government, businesses, individuals and community to take an active role and play our part. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.

5.08 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, Singaporean workers aspire towards making a good living and engaging in meaningful work that uplifts not only their own families, but also their communities, their nation and the world.

One inescapable reality of work is competition.

We have always had a very competitive culture in Singapore. This has served us well in many ways, from the excellent performance of our students in schools to our efforts the top global rankings and everything from corruption perceptions to business friendliness. However, competition also has a darker side.

Singaporeans are not looking to the Government to shield them from global competition. However, we detest unfair competition where people who do not play by the rules or follow local norms, still get ahead. For example, when Singaporean workers see colleagues getting hired and promoted not on the basis of their ability or hard work nut because their manager prefers working with people who share his cultural background, this creates a profound dissonance in them.

Why? Because Singaporeans have been brought up to believe that meritocracy is a guiding principle in our society. We want a Singapore which rewards workers and professionals based on their competence and hard work, not connections or tribal loyalties.

Nevertheless, while we strive to shape the Singapore that we desire, we are but a small drop in a vast ocean. We have to teach our children and students to deal with the world as it is, not how we wanted to be. They must be taught at home and in schools to speak up when they have something to contribute, not stay silent in the background. They must be encouraged to ask for what is due to them and not simply accept what others decide for them without question. And they must be willing to network with a wide spectrum of people from different cultures and nationalities and understand what motivates them.

Singapore is often viewed as a nation of excellence. In local parlance, we do things "swee swee". Give Singaporean a task and when they say they have done it, we can trust that it has been done well. We must never let this culture of excellence slip. It is our advantage in an increasingly competitive world.

AI and robotics both have both burst into mainstream consciousness in recent years, with the launch of generative AI and self-driving cars. These technologies could provide a path to boosting Singapore's productivity by enhancing the speed, accuracy and efficiency of various tasks and processes.

There are many studies of AI's measurable impact on productivity. For example, a joint study by BCG and Harvard found that consultants using GPT-4 completed 12% more business tasks 25% more quickly with 40% higher quality than a control group without AI-access.

These are amazing opportunities for Singapore to take advantage of. The Government can spur a broader uptake of AI and robotics, not only for our scientists and businesses, but also for general purpose use by ordinary citizens.

In November 2023, I asked about whether the Government plan to develop indigenous capabilities in creating and deploying AI foundation models, including establishing a national Foundation Model Research Institute.

In February 2024, I proposed the creation of a national AI Healthcare Foundation Model which can be used to predict and intervene in a broad spectrum of diseases. I would like to repeat these calls here.

These are not just national initiatives but possible precursors to greater regional scientific cooperation. Singapore needs the right institutions and opportunities in order to attract and retain the best minds, including talented Singaporean students, scientists and entrepreneurs.

I am under no Illusions about the potential of these new technologies to cause job losses. This is why in January 2024, I asked the Government for its plans to proactively retrain workers who are at most risk of displacement from AI. We need interventions to steel our citizens against AI-driven job redundancy. It is better for us to be the architects of our own disruption than to allow technology to change us for the worse.

It is tempting to pull out the old playbook or pouring money into training programmes and encouraging workers to attend courses. However, this approach may not succeed in upskilling an entire workforce in disrupted new technologies.

We must also embrace tacit learning, through the hands-on use of AI and robotics. Tacit learning is learning by doing. Using AI tools or robots needs to be made as easy and as commonplace as goggling for answers on a web browser or operating a television remote control. Robots should be deployed more widely in our environment so that the public get used to seeing and using them every day.

Giving every Singaporean hands-on practice with AI and robotics will better ensure that the gains of these technologies go to everyone, manual workers and knowledge workers, civil servants and entrepreneurs, MNCs and SMEs.

SkillsFuture must also support tacit learning. In February 2024, in my Adjournment Motion on global AI leadership, I called for the subscriptions to cutting edge AI tools to be subsidised by SkillsFuture credits.

AI tools make workers more productive and we should give our people more opportunities to use them. We must strive for the whole breadth of Singapore society to have contact with the best AI models and robots. Only by trying them out as a first mover and being willing to accept and learn from failure can we gain and retain the thousand points of knowledge that no instructor can teach.

In his Budget Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong rightly pointed out that we are now in an era of armed conflict, confrontation and terrorism, with major powers prioritising national security over international cooperation and that there is a diminished willingness to tackle global issues. These are stark realities. We must work within the realities of this new world order as the old order is probably not coming back anytime soon.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong said that we will pursue better jobs and better growth. He made a commitment to improve wages across professions. In particular, he said that the wages and career prospects of ITE graduates should not be too far behind polytechnic and university graduates. I fully support this. I hope the wages of skilled tradespersons will come much closer to par with knowledge workers, because of the value they bring to our economy and our society. I will elaborate further on this during the Committee of Supply debate on MOM's budget.

The introduction of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which injects another $4,000 into Singaporean SkillsFuture credit is welcome. Deputy Prime Minister Wong said it is to be used for selected training programmes with better employability outcomes, including part-time and full-time diplomas and undergraduate programmes. In addition, workers 40 years and above will have the opportunity to pursue another full-time diploma at subsidised rates.

Can I ask the Minister, how did the Government arrive at the conclusion that these diploma and degree programmes have better employability outcomes? Is there empirical evidence to support this and if there is, are the better outcomes due to the greater skills that these graduates have acquired or because local employers continue to emphasise paper qualifications over skills and experience?

In fact, it has been recognised that one of the most effective ways to pick up employable skills is through on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeships. As such, I would suggest that the Government subsidise OJT and apprenticeship programmes to the same tune as diploma and degree programmes.

In his Budget Statement Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned briefly about how the Government will do more to support those whose jobs are made redundant, through a temporary financial support scheme for the unemployed. He said the Government will be working out the details later this year. Sir, this scheme was announced almost one year ago at the National Day Rally in August last year. How much longer will it take to flesh out?

More importantly, how fiscally sustainable will the scheme be? Will it include an insurance component, like what the Workers' Party has proposed through its redundancy insurance scheme, to ensure that premium contributions from employers and employees during times of plenty can be drawn down during economic downturns when retrenchment levels are higher?

Mr Speaker, social inclusion must be at the heart of all our economic policies. I am glad to note that the maximum monthly fees at special education (SPED) schools will be lowered to $90, with lower fee caps at all centres. However, Singapore should move towards equalising the fees for SPED schools and mainstream schools. While I am aware that the cost of providing education at both types of schools is different, the school fees should be the same.

Sir, mainstream primary school fees are only $13 a month. Then SPED school fees should also be $13 a month not $120, which is the current average. Even lowering it to $90, while commendable, is still not equitable. This is especially so considering the higher costs that parents of special needs children incur in many other areas besides education. The additional costs of SPED schools, should be socialised in the interests of creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

School bus fares remain another significant concern for the disability community. As of 1 January 2024, the Ministry of Education has increased the price cap of school bus fares for school bus operators at mainstream schools by up to 13%. But we know that SPED school students face a higher increase in their school bus fares, due to the smaller pool of bus operators who are able to meet their more complex needs.

I am aware and appreciate that there are various school bus subsidy assistance schemes, like the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS). While I understand the need to keep the school bus operators sustainable, the adverse impact of the cost of living crisis has made the cost of school bus transport an added burden for many parents of students with disabilities. Many rely heavily on school bus transport to commute to and from home, school and social service agencies to attend programmes, such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), daycare centres, sheltered workshops and special student care centres.

Very often, there are additional costs involved. EIPIC, for example, is a half-day programme. So, the students also need to be ferried from their school to the programme, creating a double whammy in transport costs.

I would, therefore, like to call on the Government to increase the monthly household income limit for both the FAS and the ETS, especially for households with special needs members. In addition, more subsidies can be provided to match the inflation of school bus fares. This would ensure that more families can access and benefit from these subsidies to cover the ever-increasing cost of living.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we chart our cause through the rapidly changing global and technological terrain, our policies must embody a steadfast dedication to fairness, meritocracy and innovation. By nurturing an ecosystem that champions fair competition, leverages the transformative power of AI and robotics and places the welfare and progress of every Singaporean at its heart – we can secure a robust and flourishing future.

Let us remain committed to building a society with access to opportunities, a culture of excellence and the value of each individual's contributions shape the Singaporean journey for generations to come. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker : Mr Keith Chua.

5.21 pm

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to share perspectives on this year's Budget – Building Our Shared Future Together.

Implicit, as I see it, are the key words – Building, Shared Future and Together.

In listening to Deputy Prime Minister Wong deliver the Budget on 16 February and subsequently reading his speech again, more than one time and reflecting, I feel very grateful that despite the uncertainties we will encounter, we are well-placed to face these together as one people.

Budget 2024 addresses immediate issues whilst continuing to structure our future social compact. Budget 2024 is the start of an estimated spending of about $40 billion towards our new social compact. Budget 2024 continues to encourage and support necessary economic growth, albeit at a slower pace.

Our Budgets typically attract the interest of the financial and business community. I do hope, though, that more Singaporeans will find time to read Budget 2024 in totality. I hope that even as the financial and business communities evaluate and debate the Budget from fiscal perspectives, that they will play a part in communicating the essence to a much broader constituency.

Possibly, one reason for the limited engagement in the Budget details by our broader population is a historical implicit trust in our Government. However in this age of misinformation, it becomes essential that every Singaporean increasingly appreciates facts and realities. It needs to be seen beyond simple statements, such as Government handouts, if we are to be a part of contributing toward our shared future together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to offer my observations under three themes or headings.

Firstly, having been faithful and responsible in little and therefore being entrusted with much. Secondly, continuing to seek the welfare of our people and finally, recognising and appreciating our success and, in turn, sharing this both within and beyond our shores.

Much has been spoken in our recent debate on our reserves and the prudent fiscal stewardship exercised by our Government over the past decades. But we need to understand that we started building our reserves with what we can assume was a smaller initial sum and, over the decades, have grown this significantly. In terms of our own economy, we started our economy from a challenging base and today we have been able to attract significant international investments and also develop a strong local business sector.

Budget 2024 has acknowledged current challenges and has therefore provided support in a number of areas for both individuals as well as for businesses.

Growth in our local business sector will come organically and will also come from new initiatives. We need to ensure our SMEs continue to thrive. We need to encourage entrepreneurship to stay vibrant and relevant.

Innovative entrepreneurship can come from intentional support of budding social entrepreneurs. Perhaps some of the new and some of the enhanced funding provided under this Budget, including areas such as research and development, can be allocated to suitable social entrepreneurial initiatives that are not just seeking commercial return but also achieving social impact and social objectives.

Budget 2024 provides for the welfare of those in our community who are more needy and vulnerable. Owing to structural shifts in our domestic economy and also in the global economy, some of our workers will find themselves involuntarily unemployed.

Support may be helpful in conveying – they are not facing this alone and that both Government and the community are ready to help. I also hope and request that the approach we introduce will be wholistic. I would also encourage individuals who are unfortunately affected to try to stay positive in planning their future.

Some may become involuntarily unemployed owing to physical or mental incapacitation. There are some existing avenues to help this group. However, it is likely some will fall in the gaps. Would the Government, in developing this support framework, review how help can be delivered to cover as many individuals who become involuntarily unemployed besides through retrenchments or redundancies?

Our social sector must continue to retain talent and attract new talent to be ready to support both current and future needs. As we define success under our new social compact, I am hopeful that we will find many who will see this sector as a fulfilling vocation.

Our youths and seniors will need a variety of targeted support and interventions. This Budget has outlined support for our seniors to improve their retirement adequacy amongst other areas of support. In this area, employers need to step up and provide opportunities for seniors seeking to remain in the workforce. Many of our larger local companies are doing well. Would such companies continue to step up and lead the way to meaningful engagement and employment of seniors?

It is troubling that drug use is increasing amongst our youth. While enforcement may seem to be natural response, have we been able to identify what are the systemic issues that we may need to address? In a recent opportunity to hear from MHA, I am heartened that there is increased efforts to help early drug abusers rehabilitate and hope we can keep supporting this.

There is also the issue of decline in mental wellness and the recent increase in suicide rates amongst youth. Again, what are the possible systemic issues that we may need to address?

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been beneficiaries of economic and material success. We are also a nation that is one of the safest and, largely, most secure in this rather troubled world. Many of us will describe this as being a nation that has been truly blessed.

The proposed plan to help those who desire to help others is a tangible step to building a cohesive and generous society. It enables those in our community to play a part in contributing together toward our shared future. Engaging the Community Foundation of Singapore, MSF and Community Chest is an excellent starting position. So is the objective, which is to uplift the lower income members within our community with collaborative programmes and initiatives.

The proposed Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme is a positive step, as we seek to share our blessings beyond our shores. I would note that, as a country, we have responded generously to appeals over the years without the tax deduction. The Government is stepping forward to support acts of humanitarian assistance, which should see increase in our levels of response should such unfortunate events occur.

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the City of Good Summit organised by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC). One of the keynote speakers spoke on the issue of water and the continuing challenge of clean water in many less-developed parts of the world. Statistics quoted were about 700 million people – or about one in 10 – do not have access to clean water. Many communities could live their entire life with little or no access to clean water.

Our Embassy in Myanmar has helped communities access clean water. Clean water solutions have been initiated by Lien Aid in Cambodia, which I have had the opportunity to visit and to learn. I also had the opportunity to meet the Wateroam team in the Singapore International Foundation Young Social Entrepreneurs event, when they were in the early stages of startup. Wateroam was founded in 2014 by three Singaporean undergraduates while at NUS.

When Hyflux was still an operating business, I was able to promote their portable filtration system for use in rural communities.

When we talk about water solution, we also need to acknowledge the early efforts of Dr Jack Sim – founder of his very own WTO. For the benefit of Members here, WTO in this case is World Toilet Organisation. Dr Jack Sim has done a great deal in promoting clean water and proper sanitation.

Mr Speaker, we have an amazing array of water solutions currently developed in Singapore, by Singaporeans. Lien Aid is serving in four Asian countries. Wateroam products and solutions are in 44 countries. As access to clean water will require varied approaches across countries, much more will need to be done globally to resolve this problem and to help develop lasting solutions.

May I, therefore, propose that as we plan to pilot the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme, we give some thought to starting a similar scheme for being a key player in actively providing and scaling global clean water solutions? Could such a collective project also be given the same tax deduction for our Singapore charities and social entrepreneurs, who can raise grants to scale up solutions for communities currently having little or no access to clean water?

Solving the global water challenges will transform communities, address health issues, generate improved economic standards and improve access to education. Singapore can play a key part – bringing together existing and new providers and delivering a coordinated plan to solve this global challenge as a partnership of public, private and people sectors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot afford to become complacent despite our significant achievements. There will be future challenges – some we may foresee while others may confront us suddenly, as with the recent COVID-19 pandemic. However, as Deputy Prime Minister Wong has mentioned, we have pulled through challenges over the past decades and often emerged stronger.

We are embarking on a new social compact that will shape future generations. Budget 2024 continues to support our shared journey together. It is imperative that we stay united and build collective resilience. Sir, I support Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker : Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

5.34 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the various vouchers, payouts and rebates in the Budget to help middle- and lower-income households cope with the rising cost of living. It is welcome news, in fact, based on the feedback of my residents. With such supporting resources to tackle immediate challenges, our families should be in better positions to take advantage of the longer-term programmes to upgrade and upskill – so that they can continue to fulfil good jobs and earn higher incomes.

There were some calls to dip into our reserves in the past so that more handouts and subsidies can be distributed. The House had debated on this issue recently. I would like to take this opportunity to express my agreement with many of my Parliamentary colleagues that, we should be prudent with the use of reserves and continue to make savings for future generations because they are our children and grandchildren. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Our parents and even ourselves, will give the best food to our children. Even though it is food that we ourselves enjoy, we will tell our children that we are not hungry, or that we do not like this food, but this is not true. All parents would want to give the best and save the best for their children and grandchildren. Our young and future generations are our children and grandchildren. Therefore, we have the responsibility to give the best to them to take care of them.

With regard to the full disclosure of our reserves, it is in our national interest that the Government needs to guard against the ill-intended that may try to scheme away from us. In Hokkien, there is a saying, "capable or not, you will know once you try." In fact, in the past, there were more than one attempt by those with malicious intentions to attack our currencies. These attempts have all failed in the end. That was because we have strong reserves to deter attacks by the others.

( In English ): Sir, as Prime Minister had said, our reserves is a precious resource which must be protected. We have to strike a delicate balance between meeting present needs and future emergencies.

For now, let us work with this balance and find ways to increase productivity and augment our economic pie, so that we can finance the needs of our own generation and have some extra to contribute to the next generation, as our predecessors had done for us.

Sir, we continue to face the threat of future pandemics and uncertainties. The war in Ukraine, Gaza and the resulting security threats in the Red Sea, disrupt supply chains. The invisible cybersecurity networks have further extended the dimensions of threats from land and sea, and to the air.

The lessons from the Ukraine war have given a new perspective and definition of warfare. It becomes clear that we are vulnerable to the use of the technology that we have used to our advantage.

Therefore, we need to continue to invest in R&D and support innovation. The family offices in Singapore should be encouraged to allocate resources to support the R&D and innovation initiatives in Singapore, including attracting top talents and scientists to Singapore to work with our researchers and scientists.

They may include projects to strengthen our food and energy security. I am supportive of looking into the latest and safer nuclear technology, such as small modular reactors for deployment offshore as the additional green energy solution for our energy needs. In fact, just before I came in, I saw that one country has even successfully launched satellite from a platform in international waters. So, we can look at that – onshore and including in the waters offshore – to meet our energy needs.

Next, about the employment of older workers. I support the Ministry's decision to continue with the planned CPF contribution rate increase for senior employees, age 55 to 65, by an additional 1.5 percentage points. This will enable our working seniors to build up more CPF savings for their retirement.

There is a perception that persons age above 50 face greater challenges finding employment. Based on statistics released in the 2023 Labour Force in Singapore Report by MOM, the unemployment rate for PMETs age 50 and above, is comparable those age 40 to 49 and those below 30, at 2.6%. For non-PMETs – at 2.7% – it is the lowest of all age bands.

So, I would like to urge for more job search support and matching for older persons who wish to continue working, especially those who have been retrenched. Of the employees retrenched in the last two years, does the Government have the details of their age groups, the duration of their job searches and how many remain unemployed presently? What are the success rates of retrenched workers age 50 to 55, 55 to 60 and those age above 60 respectively, in finding employment within six months?

While I am delighted that all Singaporeans age 40 and above will receive a top-up in SkillsFuture Credit of $4,000 to be used for selected training, I hope that the Government will go beyond ensuring that these will bring about better employability. Will the Government consider tie-ups with employers, including the Public Service, to place those who have completed the relevant training to meet the job requirements? How about providing incentives to employers to offer jobs to seniors? Can the Government provide more details about how it is helping workers who are actively looking for jobs and what are the measures to detect and minimise age discrimination in hiring practices?

Finally, about HDB flats – a topic close to my heart. While it is encouraging to note that about 100,000 units of public and private housing will be completed between 2023 and 2025, can more be done to shorten the waiting time for flats for young married couples? Subsidised rental housing under the PPHS and the one-year PPHS (Open Market) Voucher to support eligible families who rent a HDB flat in the open market are both excellent schemes. However, these flats are temporary accommodations. As moving house is one of the most stressful life events, it is no wonder that some couples choose to delay having children until they have moved into their own flats. With later births, couples tend to end up with having fewer children.

Hence, I appeal to the Government to review its long-term HDB policy and see if it could consider building more flats – a certain number of HDB flats – ahead of time so that the waiting time for couples, especially the young families, can be shortened to within one year or one and half years. With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Mr Ang Wei Neng.

5.43 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget.

We are pleased with the Budget measures to support companies in Singapore, particularly the $1.3 billion Enterprise Support Package to build capabilities. When I speak with many business leaders, the key concern always revolves around manpower. Given our low birth rate, it is difficult to hire enough Singaporeans to support the growing economy. Additionally, many of the business leaders say that many manual jobs and roles outside air-conditioned environments are not favoured by Singaporeans. Companies tell us that they sometimes have no choice but to hire foreign workers. However, the strict foreign worker quota and the continually rising minimum salary requirement for S Pass renewals are pain points for SMEs.

It is commendable that the Government is encouraging SMEs to invest in technology, particularly in the fields of AI and green initiatives. For some SMEs, survival is paramount. I would like to suggest three areas in which the Government could assist our SMEs, which employ 71% of the entire workforce in Singapore. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that leases out vehicles and provides services to vehicles, including the maintenance of specialised vehicles such as fire engines, ambulances and oil tankers.

Firstly, regarding manpower: some Singaporeans shy away from the retail sector due to the need to work outside office hours and on weekends. We would like Singaporeans to have more time to date, get married, to have children, to spend time with the families or care for their loved ones. So, it is very essential for this retail sector to supplement its manpower with foreign workers.

Similarly, in environments without air conditioning, Singaporeans are also reluctant to work. Given these factors, I would like to call on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) not to maintain and not tighten the foreign worker quota and foreign worker levy in sectors that are not favoured by Singaporeans, especially for the next three years where the world economy is very uncertain. In fact, many SMEs would like to appeal to MOM to increase the foreign worker quota for jobs that are not favoured by most Singaporeans.

In addition, many entrepreneurs among my constituents in Nanyang lament that they have to substantially increase the pay of skilled foreign workers when they renew their S Passes. For example, a motor insurance claims executive who consistently works in hot and humid workshops will see his pay increase from about $3,400 to $4,200 upon renewal of his S Pass and this translates to an almost 24%-pay increase. Most Singaporeans would unlikely experience a 15%-pay rise in a year, even with a promotion.

Such a significant increment for foreign workers' pay not only increases the costs of SMEs but also creates discord among their Singaporean co-workers. Thus, I hope MOM can consider a more moderate minimum salary adjustment for S Pass holders.

Secondly, on Government projects, it is commendable that many Government sectors have centralised their procurement functions across different departments. The Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) is one good example, where the procurement needs of the Police, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Prisons and Central Narcotics Bureau are centralised for better synergies and transparency.

Many civil servants are diligent in protecting the Government's interests when writing the tender specifications. For example, some Government tender contracts specify that payments will only be made upon the full delivery of expensive items, tools, specialised vehicles or only big payment on completion of projects, and they do not give any down payment or make progress payments.

While this practice protects Government from receiving substandard products or reduces the risk of incomplete projects, it makes things very difficult for the SMEs. It is difficult for SMEs because with no down payment or progressive payment, it adds to the financing costs of SMEs. Given the current high-interest-rate environment, it will be challenging for SMEs to bid for such Government projects. Project tenders that do not offer deposits or progressive payments typically favour the large companies with deep pockets, especially MNCs. So, therefore, I urge the Government to review such practices to level the playing field for SMEs.

Thirdly, on land use: thanks to the Ministry of Transport, we now have more Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines. Residents in the West, including those in Nanyang, are excited about the upcoming Jurong Region Line. The Jurong Region Line is not an underground line; it will run on MRT viaducts similar to most of the lines in the North-South and East-West MRT lines. The space below the MRT viaducts along the current MRT lines is not well utilised, unlike in other countries like Japan. Currently, we do see some of the spaces below the viaducts used for cycling paths. But these viaducts are near MRT stations and they are valuable land so we hope the Government can allow the space below the viaducts to be used by the private sector, especially for SMEs that provide important services such as childcare and eldercare services for the convenience of the residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, next, I want to touch on the topic of CDC Vouchers. I have spoken on this topic several times before in this House. Many residents, including those in Nanyang, are pleased with the 2024 Budget announcement of the additional $600 in CDC Vouchers for each Singaporean household. I have previously mentioned that CDC Vouchers are a better way to help Singaporeans mitigate the impact of inflation on two aspects. Firstly, the CDC Vouchers are to be spent in Singapore, mainly benefiting the heartland shops. The heartland shops benefit from these CDC Vouchers a lot. Unlike cash given under the GST Vouchers, CDC Vouchers cannot be spent abroad, especially across causeway. In addition, CDC Vouchers also have multiplier effects, as reported in the press quite widely. The only setback is that CDC Vouchers are given to each household, regardless of family size.

Hence, I propose that the Ministry of Finance consider doubling the quantum of CDC Vouchers for every three registered Singaporeans residing in HDB flats. For households that do not need the CDC Vouchers, they can choose to donate the vouchers to those who need them more or simply refrain from spending, allowing the Government to redirect the resources to other more urgent needs.

Lastly, I would like MOH and MSF to consider incorporating inflation or the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, into the formula used to determine the income criteria for various Government financial assistance schemes. The CPI component could function similarly to the price index used by the Energy Market Authority to determine electricity tariffs and how the Public Transport Council uses the price index in the fare adjustment formula to determine the adjustment of public transport fares.

This price index is crucial, as inflation has been high over the last three years and is likely to remain elevated in the next couple of years. In fact, the real income of Singaporeans has declined by 2.2% in 2023, even though the nominal income has increased. This is a double whammy for low-income Singaporeans. When nominal income increases, many Singaporeans no longer qualify for financial assistance, as the Government only adjusts the income criteria very infrequently. At the same time, these low-income Singaporean families require more financial assistance as their real income has decreased in a high inflation environment.

I understand that MOH and the MSF have promised to review the income criteria for blue CHAS card and financial assistance periodically. From experience in the past few years, "periodically" means once every few years. This is acceptable when the inflation rate was low in the pre-pandemic situations. But in the current high inflation rate environment, where periodic reviews are done every few years disadvantage low-wage Singaporeans very greatly.

Hence, I appeal to MOH and MSF to incorporate the price index into the income criteria for determining financial assistance to provide for low-income families. In short, the periodic review should occur yearly or even quarterly, rather than once in a few years' time. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the above, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker : Ms Ng Ling Ling.

5.55 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio) : Mr Speaker, I welcome the comprehensive packages in Budget 2024, with its focus on building our shared future together in the next decade as a nation that aims to remain vibrant and inclusive, fair and thriving, resilient and united.

Last year, I rose to speak on three areas in my Budget Debate speech to urge strong efforts by the Government to: one, support working adults; two, care for our seniors; and three, support our young couples and families. For this year’s Budget, I would like to continue focusing my speech on considerations and support for these three groups who made up most of the residents in my Jalan Kayu Constituency.

In the Jalan Kayu constituency, the largest segment is aged between 20 and 60 years old. They are mostly working adults who may be embarking on their first job to sustaining employment as far as possible in their senior years, all with the hope of retiring with comfort and confidence. As such, the Budget packages announced that can affect some of their career trajectory and opportunities are of great interest to them.

I am delighted to hear that the Government is introducing the new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to better support mid-career workers. This includes a $4,000 top-up SkillsFuture credit in May to encourage more mid-career workers to refresh their skills and progress in their careers.

However, I am concerned about the low take-up rate of individuals attempting to upskill or consider mid-career switches through the SkillsFuture Scheme so far. As data published from SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) last year showed, across all ages, seven in 10 Singaporeans have not yet used their SkillsFuture Credit since the scheme started in 2015.

I understand from some of my residents that despite the generous SkillsFuture Credit, time for attending approved courses is a major factor in them using up the credits. As such, I would like to ask the Government how it can further support employers to enable their employees who are motivated to upgrade, to be given more training leaves and time-off to pursue upskilling courses and more so, to embark on another diploma programme as the new top-up to the scheme will enable.

Another consideration is the age of the Singaporean interested to utilise the top-up credit to stay employable. Let me share the story of one of my residents, Mr Lee, who is 64 years old and looking for employment. Mr Lee came to my Meet-the-People Session and shared that he held a diploma in mechanical engineering from Singapore Polytechnic and an advanced diploma in manufacturing technology many years ago. He had also taught modules and given lectures to ITE students previously.

Mr Lee is healthy and hopes to continue working but he struggled in his job search due to his age. I worked with Workforce Singapore (WSG) to make referrals and tried to assist him in the journey. His case highlights the need for a more inclusive, flexible approach to career continuation for our older workers besides upskilling. For a case like Mr Lee, how likely would SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme help in his job search if he does invest time to take up another diploma? This is something in the mind of some of my residents in their 60s who are keen to continue to pursue life-long learning and to work well into their 60s and 70s, if they are in good health.

Next, let me move to another group of important Singaporeans, our young seniors in their 50s. During my house visits and grassroots events, many of these young seniors have shared with me that they welcome the move by the Government to introduce the Majulah Package to better assure their retirement needs. One of these is the Earn and Save Bonus of up to $1,000 annually to help young seniors accumulate more retirement savings.

A group of them are, however, full-time caregivers to their elderly parents who are in their 80s and 90s and who are frail. They shared with me that the Majulah Package would have been helpful for them too, but family caregiving is not recognised as a formal employment.

Will the Government be open to adjusting some of the criteria for the Majulah Package's Earn and Safe bonus, such as by establishing the family members' genuine needs for full-time caregiving, and the duration of caregiving provided, to include this group of young senior caregivers, who are also concerned about their own financial needs, so that they can also benefit from the package?

I also welcome the move by the Government to raise the Enhanced Retirement Sum from three times the Basic Retirement Sum, to four times, to allow more members, aged 55 and above, who wish to put more of their accumulated CPF savings to receive higher CPF payouts on retirement. Nevertheless, I would like to raise a concern for some single seniors, aged 55 years old and above whom I have met at my Meet-the-People Sessions, who have yet to settle their housing needs.

The latest Population Trend 2023 showed that the proportion of singles rose across all male and female groups aged 25 to 49 years, between 2012 and 2022 . This would inevitably mean that we would have more individuals who are approaching the age of 55 years old, who are still single.

During my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have come across cases where the single seniors, who are 55 years old and above, who have finally succeeded in balloting for their own HDB 2-room Flexi flat, and were looking forward to having a home of their own as they reach retirement, but they are unaware that the sums from their Ordinary and Special Accounts, that have been transferred into their Retirement Account when they reached 55 years old, could not be used when their house came, for payment beyond the loan they can get from HDB at that old age.

Some of them were disappointed that the extra sums transferred into their Retirement Account could not be reversed when they needed the amount to pay for these BTO flats. Even though they have tried to appeal to the CPF Board for the withdrawal of their Retirement Account for their flat purchases, the recourse for them is limited, as the CPF Board also needs to ensure that the Retirement Account amounts are maintained to support their retirement needs.

Although the Enhanced Retirement Scheme is helpful for those seeking higher CPF retirement payouts, I urge the CPF Board to highlight and explain the policies for transfers into Retirement Account clearer and to work with HDB to advise those who have not yet settled their housing needs, to be more mindful of the amounts to be transferred into their Retirement Account.

Lastly, I would like to speak about the aspirations of our young couples and families, and how they can be better supported to achieve their dreams of home ownership and starting their own family. I am glad that the Government has introduced the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme or PPHS (Open Market) Voucher in this Budget for one year to support eligible families to rent a HDB flat in the open market.

I have encountered many residents coming to seek help at my Meet-the-People Sessions to secure HDB flats to start a family. They are usually young couples who have not been successful yet in their balloting for new flats – be it BTO or Sales of Balance flats – but hope to have a home to start a family soon or have a baby coming on the way.

In fact, the request for assistance in balloting for new flats usually forms the majority of my Meet-the-People Session appeals to HDB for my young residents, especially during the BTO launch seasons. Could the Government consider extending the new PPHS (Open Market) Voucher also to couples who have been applying, but have yet to be successful in balloting for a new flat, especially those who are expecting their first baby?

Finally, I also believe that more needs to be done to alleviate the fear of having children due to the high cost of living in Singapore. According to a survey done by Channel NewsAsia and YouGov in 2023, 52% of those below 35 years old cited the affordability of raising a child in Singapore as the main reason for not wanting to have one soon.

As Budget 2024 looks towards supporting families at each stage of our lives, I hope that the Government can consider placing more importance on implementing comprehensive strategies, such as creating a social support ecosystem for mentoring young couples in financial planning, financial management, so as to reduce their financial anxieties associated with raising children in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, as we look towards building a shared future, we must continue to adapt and evolve our support for the diverse needs of our people. From working adults striving for career advancement, seniors navigating their golden years, to young families dreaming of a brighter future, our policies must continue to be inclusive, flexible and forward-looking as we prepare for the next decade.

Let us continue to work together to uphold the values of inclusivity, resilience and unity, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of age or life stage, can look forward to a thriving future, prepare for the challenges of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.

6.05 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) : Mr Speaker, Sir, on 21 April 2023, during the debate on the President's Address in this House, there was an important agreement reached across the aisle between the hon Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, and the hon Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.

Both of them agreed that there is no place for populism in Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Wong characterised it as follows: "Both sides of the House, we stand for a democracy that is maturing, a serious Government and a serious Opposition. But we say no to populism and political opportunism ever taking root in this House and in Singapore."

This was a laudable bipartisan moment. It is also recognition of the fact that in countries where populism has taken root, societies have become divided, people have become polarised and the trust between the people and the Government weakened. Singapore should not follow suit.

The agreement, however, presumes that we know what populism is. But do we? Most academics and commentators agree that the core feature of populism revolves around the division between the "people" on one hand and "the elite" on the other.

Cas Mudde stated, "It is a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, "the pure people" versus "the corrupt elite"; populist politicians advocate that they represent the "whole people" whereas the elite represents "special interest", regardless of the truth of the matter.

The framing of issues is usually confrontational, antagonistic and emotive. This sort of populism – once we see it for the grandstanding and posturing – is really not very hard to reject. It is mere opportunism played out in the political arena. This is what I call "weak populism".

But there are two further elements to populism. First, it is not always easy to see through grandstanding rhetoric and recognise opportunism in its true face. Second, populism is not always mere words – it also reaches into real policy action with a specific approach, which I call a "fool's gold" promise.

Populism in action lulls people with the promise of easy money, soft compromises, zero trade-offs. These two elements – words and deeds – make up what I call "strong populism". And notwithstanding the forging of the agreement in Parliament, there remains no guarantee that this sort of populism will not take root in Singapore.

Structurally, we will always be vulnerable. This is because, as in all modern democracies, we have a representative government, where a minority – that is the elected – represents our people, the majority, and has the mandate to govern. The suspicion that this representation is imperfect will always be there.

We have seen several examples where people's fears, especially during crises, are capitalised by populist politicians espousing radical change. I will give two examples: one from the right and the other from the left.

In November 2023, in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party, a far-right political party that fanned Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments amongst its people, with promises to de-Islamicise the country, made huge electoral gains and was the clear winner by a wide margin. It is poised to feature in a coalition government. Should that happen, it would not be difficult to imagine the impact on the cohesion of the country across race and religion.

Let me identify the specific populist lever here – the use of religion and nativism to divide and polarise a country.

In 1998, the late Mr Hugo Chavez, a charismatic Venezualuan leftist leader, came to power after promising to use Venezuala's vast oil wealth to reduce poverty and inequality. As President, he launched programmes that offered free or highly subsidised goods. He passed away in office in 2013. His policies continued though. In the end, the country's economy shrunk and hyperinflation set in, despite it being an oil producer.

Again, let me identify the specific populist lever – which is to use price-distorting policies to give short-term, apparent benefits to people, at the cost of the country's long-term economic health.

Both these acts are forms of strong populism to me. From my research, I noted a number of writers, particularly Prof Simon Tormey, who have observed that in recent times, the world is facing a populist insurgency. The fact that such political opportunists have taken in so many voters across so many countries, shows us that it is no easy matter to see populism for what it really is.

We, as a country, therefore, need to develop the capability to recognise and emphatically reject this insidious and seductive form of divisive politics. If we do not do this, the consequences for us as a small nation will be serious.

Just last week, I learnt about a speech that our first Foreign Affairs Minister, the late Mr S Rajaratnam, made in the UN General Assembly in October 1971. He said to the effect that small nations need to keep their own houses in order, to be able to secure their places in the world. In other words, small nations need to ensure that they retain social cohesion and political, as well as economic stability for the long term.

The implication is clear. Unlike bigger countries, small nations like Singapore, when they fall victim to divisive politics that populism brings, they will be easy for the picking. They would no longer be taken seriously by their bigger neighbours. Once that happens, small nations would not have the ability to protect and promote their national interests in the international arena anymore. In other words, we will have a "double whammy", domestically and internationally.

Therefore, our commitment to reject populism in its strong form, must therefore carry a commitment to educate all Singaporeans to recognise it when we see it and call it out.

Which brings me to my second caution. Fool's gold and the easy choice.

The rejection of strong populism commits us to a specific duty. It is a duty to make hard choices, to be accountable to the people of Singapore, by way of political and practical solutions to the social imperatives of our nation.

The critical difference between this "hard choice" approach and a populist approach to policies is two-fold. First, this should be done without the histrionics that populism often attracts. I must say here that I am for even more scrutiny of policy proposals and performance from political leaders, from both sides of the aisle. What I am against here the chest-beating, sabre-rattling politicisation of issues that get in the way of true analytical discourse. Without the "noise", there will likely to be better engagement on the substance of the matter.

In the end, there will be clarity on what parties are agreed and what they are not. This is what we should aim for. I feel that this distillation process is essential. Otherwise, there is a danger of performative politics entrenching itself in this House.

Second, I believe details matter. We have reached a point in our country's development where solutions to most things are complex, and sometimes, finely balanced. It is characteristic for populist politicians to be short on details when advocating for a policy change.

We politicians, from both sides of the House, need to do the homework, understand the background facts, and also understand how the status quo was forged, highlight the trade-offs inherent in the policy proposals, separate facts from fiction and then, go on to make arguments as to why the balance should be struck one way or another.

I would also add one other point. Political leaders in office should eschew the tendency to just label policies as "populist", even though they may in fact receive broad support of citizens when what they really want to do is to make the policies sound unreasonable and irrational. This is a point that Francis Fukuyama made – and I agree with him.

It is incumbent on leaders to go beyond labelling, highlight the precise aspects of the proposed policies that they are concerned about. It is this process of responsible contestation and distillation of ideas and proposals which, in my respectful view, will serve as a bulwark against the emergence of populism in its strongest form in Singapore.

Through this process, there will be better accountability to our people. Our people, noting the areas where politicians are agreed and where they disagree, will be better placed to choose which future they wish to ascribe to through the ballot box.

Let me underscore the point by making reference to the debate at the last session of Parliament on the national reserves.

In opening the debate, the hon NCMP Mr Leong Mun Wai highlighted what he referred to as "social ills" that must be addressed. These included cost of living, social inequality, mental health and declining total fertility rate. To this list, the hon Leader of the Opposition, in his speech during the debate on the Motion added healthcare costs and intergenerational equity. Both hon Members advocated for the slowing of the growth of reserves so that more money can be spent on these areas.

I, for one, do not see these human conditions as diseases or "ills" but as imperatives for the Government of the day, as moral directions for us to apply our best minds and our utmost resources. These social imperatives cannot be denied, but they cannot be solved by mere handwringing, or by profligate spending. Our duty is to be accountable in the way that I have outlined above, by a serious political commitment and spending our time, energy and resources in formulating and explaining our policies.

Importantly, we need to be aware of the parameters of the hard choices at play and to reject the "fool's gold approach".

To explain its hard choice in rejecting even more spending of the income from the reserves, the Government has stated that the reserves provide substantial "passive income" for expenditure in the Annual Budgets and given our unique vulnerabilities, we need to grow the reserves to ensure that we have a chance of overcoming what future challenge that may come our way. These points were articulated so well in my hon friend, Mr Shawn Huang's speech which I heard earlier today.

Putting aside the use of monies from the reserves for the moment, I think there are two points arising from what both the hon Members have said that will find agreement on both sides of the House.

First, that the social imperatives identified by both of them are legitimate. These imperatives require the attention of this House and the Government. In fact, I would say, as a backbencher, much of what I do in my constituency for my constituents revolve around dealing, amongst others, with such issues.

Second, as responsible MPs, both sides of the House will reject spending for merely the sake of spending. This constitutes fiscal prudence. Hence, to make the case to spend more money will involve taking at least the following steps.

First, an examination of the existing programmes that the Government has for the imperative in question. Second, a calculation of how much the Government is committing or spending on these programmes. Third, a performance assessment or review of the programmes. And finally, the articulation of the case for more spending on the imperative which will have to include dealing with the Government's points on "passive income" that the reserves currently provide and having sufficient ballast for the future.

At this point, I would like to deal with the hon Leader of Opposition's point raised in his speech earlier that the Government should be even more forthcoming with information to make better decisions on the Budget.

With respect, this is a red herring. There is already sufficient information available. In fact, at the last Sitting, the hon Prime Minister gave us a Master Class. Hon Members may recall he asked us to take out the back of our envelopes and follow him in doing the sums. He projected that the returns from the reserves at about 4%; he then said if we were to spend 2% for the Budget, that means 2% for the reserves. So, the reserves will grow at a rate of 2% per year and that more or less, keeps up with the GDP. So, we roughly know what is the band of the NIRC which has remained stable and contributes about one-fifth of our revenue.

We also know that the variance of the operating revenue and the expenditures within a band of about plus or minus 4%. Of course, there would be situations where the predictability may be affected by, say, market situations. For example, for property tax, it went up because the AV went up and that is a function of the market.

For that kind of situations, all we can do is we make best predictions and then make adjustments as we go along. But these will be the inputs for which we would have available for the purposes of making sure that whatever we are articulating as policy proposals for more expenditure can be supported and fiscally prudent.

The hon Leader of the Opposition made reference to an article which appeared on 19 February in The Straits Times and he pointed out that some economists had also made the point about lack of information being forthcoming from the Government.

One point to note, as he had stated, is that most economists lauded the Budget. One economist had asked about the use of pre-funding Government programmes, for example, the Pioneer Generation package and he suggested that there should be more transparency in relation to this plan. But the reality is, every year, the statement of accounts is presented to Parliament. That statement of accounts is actually audited by the independent auditors. All MPs can ask questions and it is also subject to scrutiny of the Estimates Committee. And, of course, drawdowns are also subject to scrutiny of the Auditor-General.

Another economist felt that the amount of past reserves should be disclosed. This is something which, as we all know, the Government has a conscientious objection to. But most importantly, as I said earlier, the NIRC amount can be estimated and that is the important part for Budget planning.

For these reasons, I would say that there is no real obstacle for anyone of us in this House to articulate holistically why more money or more resources should be spent for a particular policy imperative.

I will now provide an illustration on the working of the framework that I suggested by dealing with the Cost-of-Living imperative.

In October 2022, the Government unveiled a support package to give Singapore households additional help to deal with rising prices. The amount of monies committed for these programmes is a matter of public knowledge – $1.5 billion.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong, in his announcement, said that the package was designed to fully cover the increase in cost of living for lower-income households and to cover more than half the increase in the cost of living for middle-income households.

It is entirely open to hon Members who wish the Government to spend more to tackle cost of living issues to make the case that the 50% mark is insufficient for middle-income households and argue that it should be higher, say, 60%, 70% or even 100%.

They should articulate how such a move would be in the better interest of Singaporeans and Singapore as a whole. What then this leads to is the crystallisation of a sum that is needed to fund the advocated policy proposal from the reserves or elsewhere with the accompanying reasons.

The political office holder responding to hon the Member's proposal, if he disagrees with the proposal, will be well advised not to simply shrug it off by labelling it as populist. Rather, he must tackle the proposal head-on and explain why the current spending levels are sufficient and should be maintained, having regard not just to the specific issue but the big picture as well. Through this, we will gain a clear understanding of the points of agreement and disagreement as well as the reasons in support of the respective contentions. Singaporeans will be better able to follow the debate and the implications of the policy proposals should they be implemented or rejected.

It is, of course, open to hon Members across the aisle to make their plans part of their election campaigns even if they may be rejected by the Government. That is their prerogative. But they must have such plans in the first place. If they do not, it is merely promising Singaporeans as a share of a piece of gold that disappears after election day.

I view this as healthy politics as both sides will then present their cases to our people. In the end, it will be fellow Singaporeans who will judge and decide through the ballot box. This is how we prevent populism from rearing its head in our politics. This is how a high level of accountability to our people will be maintained.

Mr Speaker : Mr Murali, you have a minute left.

Mr Murali Pillai : Very well, Sir. If that is the case, I will just end off by saying that the social imperatives are upon us. We all know this and it is no great epiphany to point these out. If we are to really say that we have a serious Government and a serious Opposition, as exhorted by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, the focus must fall on the generation of solutions to such imperatives and a reasoned articulation of why these solutions create better outcomes for our people whilst being fiscally prudent. And by democratic acclaim, let us stand behind the ones which we believe, as elected Members, most benefit the people of Singapore for now and the future and by so doing, reject populism in its strongest form. I support the Budget. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.

6.25 pm

Mr Pritam Singh : Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his speech.

I have been trying to follow very carefully what he has been suggesting. I think the broad strokes, typical of Mr Murali Pillai, you would not really disagree with them. But in terms of populism, I thought it would be important for me to just come down to some specifics.

He mentioned some references in my speech to the 19 February Straits Times article. I think the point that I made in my speech was that article showed how people outside of this House, Singaporeans, in the context of the Forward Singapore exercise, were also looking at fiscal sustainability, fiscal balance, how the Government raises revenue and its expenditure policies.

And in that regard, the point I made was we had put forth a proposal to smoothen that conversation, to better that conversation for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

I understand he moved on later to talk about certain proposals that we have made for which the PAP has a conscientious objection. I think that is where I would like some clarification from him. If there is a conscientious objection, then what happens to the populism argument? Is it wrong for the Opposition to bring up those points?

The second clarification I have is, again, bringing it down to an example. In this debate so far, we have the PAP Members speak up about building BTO flats in advance. What sort of numbers would the Member expect from anyone across the aisle or even in his own party, raising in Parliament, to substantiate that argument? Some clarity on that would be helpful.

For the moment, I will leave it at these two clarifications.

Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Leader of Opposition for giving me an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of my speech.

Let me just take the point about conscientious objection. I would like to clarify that what I was referring to in my speech was in relation to the fact that we do not disclose the full entirety of the value of our reserves. So, that is the reference to our conscientious objection. And it was in the context of referring to one of the economists featured in the article which the hon Leader of Opposition referred to. There, the economist said that we should know the full amount; then, we would know whether the spending is high or low.

The reference to conscientious objection is really the arguments made by the Government in the Motion on national reserves which I am sure the hon Leader of Opposition is familiar with. But more importantly, I made the point that for the purposes of the Budget, if one can calculate the NIRC already and I made reference to the hon Prime Minister's masterclass, in relation to how the reserves are projected to grow and the fact that the NIRC contributions are relatively stable.

As far as the issue of the purpose of referring to the article itself, I take the hon Leader of Opposition's point. I understand that it is really with the view to provide further feedback on the Forward Singapore exercise and I welcome them.

Finally, the point that my hon friend referred to is in relation to the building project of HDB. If we were to go through the analytical framework that I have suggested, the point is really about a Member of the Opposition, for example, articulating that even more houses should be built than what the Government is proposing, then what really needs to be done is to, first, identify the programme, highlight and find out how much exactly is being spent or committed for the purposes of building X number of flats, for example, and then also, in the same process, nail his colours to the mast and say exactly what he stands for in relation to the number of flats that is to be built, why is this important and then deal with the financial issues by reference to the allocation of the spend for the other aspects of the Budget as well.

What I think would happen through this articulation, using this framework, would be a laudable outcome, which is that the people of Singapore outside this House would know that it is something that is being proposed, there is seriousness in the proposal because the facts and figures are there and then you could juxtapose what is the Government's position on the matter against the hon Member's position.

Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh : Just a quick response to Mr Murali Pillai on his clarifications. In the case of the BTO example that was raised as part of this debate by a PAP Member, that example then would actually fail the test that Mr Murali Pillai has brought up. Similarly, when other Members on the other side say we want to introduce a scheme, such as Carefare, or they speak of — nobody said cost of living crisis, but I heard affordability crisis today by PAP Members. I am assuming that in Mr Murali's schema, that analysis would also have to follow. Just for clarification.

Mr Speaker : Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai : I thank the hon Leader of the Opposition for pointing out and asking whether the framework I have applies to hon members from both sides of the aisle. The short answer is yes. This is an exhortation not specifically to the hon Leader of the Opposition, or rather, hon Members from across the aisle, but it is actually from both sides of the aisle. And for anybody who wishes to make a proposal that involves extra spend, then you need to go through the analytical framework and I think then there will be clarity as to whether or not, ultimately, it is in the better interest of Singapore and Singaporeans to proceed with the extra spend.

Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh : Just a last clarification. So, just to push the Member a little bit more. In the case of a commitment made by the Government, for example, to spend $40 billion up to the end of the decade for ForwardSG initiatives, should these also be laid out earlier?

Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to be pushed by the hon Leader of the Opposition. I think I will just basically deal with it on a point of principle, and while he can take suggestions from my colleagues from the PAP, I can also refer to suggestions made by hon Members from his party. I still remember an example of setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office and that was a proposal made in this House and there was really no understanding as to how much money that would entail in not just setting up the office but in terms of its operations as well.

So, I would rather that the points I made not be obscured. Let us stick on the principle and the focus is really to make sure that the ugly head of populism does not rear in our politics. And, thankfully, that is a bipartisan point and I do hope that, on both sides, there will be an opportunity to reflect on the contributions I made in this House.

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. You have a clarification for Mr Pillai?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang) : Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to clarify some points made by the Member Murali Pillai. I would just point out two things.

First, I would respectfully disagree first that, with his claim that just because all the necessary information was provided by Prime Minister Lee with regard to this back-of-the-envelope calculations, it would be therefore reasonable for us to take his calculations as self-evident.

Let me be clear, far be it for me to challenge the first Wrangler in Cambridge for his Maths. But I believe that he introduced a number of assumptions about expected returns to reserves and GDP growth and, indeed, about the amount that would be returned to the reserves based on the way that the Government calculates the primary surplus vs the IMF recommendations.

So, my question is: if the Member accepts that these assumptions are not necessarily self-evident, is it reasonable, in a debate, for us to question these assumptions?

My second point builds on this and I ask if the Member would think that the Government would be comfortable with making the kind of public policies that they have proposed just based on the publicly available information that is currently available to the Opposition or whether the Government would actually require more information that is not made publicly available.

Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai : Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in reference to the hon Member Assoc Prof Lim's first question about the propriety of the assumptions, this is a point which has been discussed at length. Let me just say that what is relevant for the purposes of the Budget is the proportion of NIRC. Even if we were to put aside the assumptions of growth, the fact is that the NIRC, which is reflected in the Budget, has been relatively stable and it is now for every dollar that has been spent, 20 cents comes from NIRC. So, from the perspective of anybody proposing to spend more, these facts would be important.

I do accept that my hon friend across the aisle may have a different view about the extent of the information that is needed. But the point I am making, and I guess we can agree to disagree, and I said this advisedly, that this actually is a red herring. Because all the information needed to calculate revenue is there, in terms of NIRC, in terms of the operating revenue expenditure which falls more or less within a defined variance as well. So, for these reasons, I think we are not disadvantaged.

As far as the second point is concerned, and I stand corrected, I think my hon friend mentioned about whether the Government would be comfortable—I am sorry that I kind of stopped there, if the hon Member could just clarify the purport of his question, I will try my best to answer.

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : Yes, my clarification is simple. The Government routinely makes policy. So, my question is whether the Member thinks that the Government would be willing to be comparably hamstrung in terms of only making public policy on the basis of all the publicly available information or they feel that the Government can only make policy when there is additional proprietary information.

Mr Speaker : Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai : Thank you, Sir. I think there is a false premise in the question. It is about the Government being hamstrung in relation to public information. I mean the point is this. As far as the Government is concerned, it puts out the operating revenue, it puts out the proposed operating expenditure and there are, of course, constitutional requirements to make sure that the Budget is balanced and it is against that backdrop that we can do the analysis as to whether the proposals meet the aspirations or the requirements of Singapore and Singaporeans for now and the future. So, I see this as based on a false premise and, therefore, I will not answer the question.

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Lim. Hopefully, it is the last clarification.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : Much obliged, Speaker. I will be very brief. So, the Member Murali has mentioned repeatedly that there is a red herring, that we have all the information that is required based on the fact that the share of NIRC is stable. My question to him is simple. Does he think that this stable share has nothing to do with the assumptions about expected returns or GDP growth?

Mr Speaker : Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the issue of it being stable, that is an empirical fact. So, that is something that is being set out in the Budget Statement. So, as far as contributions are concerned, of course, there is a certain projection and is made by reference to a certain framework. So, there is no — I mean, subject to the assumptions inbuilt in the framework, it is not just plucking a figure out of the air.

Mr Speaker : Let us move on. Mr Ong Hua Han.

6.40 pm

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.

Sir, Budget 2024 as delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is a sustainable and forward-looking one. At the same time, it seeks to address immediate cost-of-living pressures. The fact that we can take a medium- to long-term outlook and yet expect a small surplus of $800 million reflects our privileged financial position. For this I am thankful.

Budget 2024 is also about building our shared future together. It is about refreshing our social compact. If these phrases sound familiar, it is not just because we have heard them many times today already, but because they are the same phrases used to describe Forward Singapore. In other words, Budget 2024 is the first step in bringing Forward Singapore, the vision of our nation's future, to life.

Forward Singapore mentions "inclusiveness" as a shared value that must be upheld. The word "inclusive" or "inclusion" has likewise been used many times in this House. When a word has been used so often, it runs the risk of losing its meaning. When was the last time we paused to think what "inclusion" really means?

In this context, I would like to dedicate my speech today to talk about inclusion or social participation of persons with disabilities in Singapore. At its core, social participation refers to the active engagement of individuals in all aspects of society.

Today, I will look to cover five areas, from education, transport, sports, housing, to employment. To prepare for this speech, I thought it would be best to hear directly from the voices of young persons with disabilities (PwDs). I wanted to know how they saw Singapore, through their unique lenses and lived experiences. Underpinning this is a firm belief that understanding this well will guide us towards more inclusive and effective policies. As such, I collected the experiences and thoughts of 136 PwDs between the ages of 15 and 35 through a public consultation in the form of an online survey over the course of a few weeks. To those who earnestly contributed, thank you for indulging in my unpolished attempt at gathering feedback and for your valuable insights. I will be sharing some of your ideas and hopes today.

For PwDs, social participation is not only essential for their personal well-being but also for fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion within society. Social participation encompasses the ability to interact meaningfully with others, access shared public spaces and services, and participate in enriching and fulfilling activities. True integration enriches the social fabric for everyone, cultivating a culture of empathy, diversity and mutual respect. It should not be surprising then that education should serve as the foundation for social inclusion. Education, especially at a young age, equips PwDs with the knowledge, skills and opportunities they need to succeed in life.

Programmes, such as the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT), is a great way to positively integrate students with behavioural difficulties into mainstream settings. To ensure a smooth transition from school and foster a truly inclusive society, it is also crucial to address the social challenges faced by PwDs with special education or SPED school backgrounds.

According to MOE, in the past three years, 18% of students with autism from SPED schools continued their education in mainstream secondary schools after passing the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). A further 18 SPED school students with autism transferred midway to mainstream schools after being assessed to be suitable. Thirty-one percent of the autistics I surveyed said they rarely interacted with students without disabilities during school activities. Outside school, 35% said they rarely interacted with their non-disabled peers and 15% had no such interactions.

6.45 pm

The two most common reasons given were previous experience of name-calling or bullying and concerns about acceptance. In the face of this, we have to ask ourselves what can we do to minimise such seemingly common negative experiences. One possibility may lie in bridging the awareness gap. School settings are a great way for mainstream students to benefit from meaningful interactions with their peers with disabilities. It breaks down social barriers and will reduce awkwardness later in life.

One suggestion that was shared with me, was to incorporate awareness lessons specifically about disabilities into the school curriculum. We could also go one step further and impart such lessons organically during Physical Education (PE). When I was in school, I was often – by default – entrusted with the role of safeguarding my classmates' mobile devices when they did their PE lessons. It was always my honour to be given such great responsibility at a young age.

This role, though, kept me on the sidelines. I vividly remember one exception, when I was first invited to play a game of poison ball in Primary school, by our favourite PE and form teacher. It was a rare opportunity for me to bond with my classmates in lighter settings. I enjoyed those moments.

To foster awareness and acceptance of others, play time is the best time.

How can we do more of this, rather than relying on the spontaneity of a few good teachers? Could MOE study ways in which we could institutionalise more inclusive PE programmes in mainstream schools?

Sports is often regarded as a powerful social leveller; this is a great opportunity to harness the same to weave inclusivity into the fabric of early education. Sir, the ability of PwDs to participate freely in shared spaces also hinges on our commitment to ensuring comprehensive access and seamless public transportation. In the face of Singapore's restrictive car ownership policies, this is doubly important. PwDs do appreciate the accessibility features in our public transport network.

Some that were shared with me include: wheelchair zones in buses and trains, generally well-designed MRT stations and the MyTransport.SG app, which shows bus arrival timings. As a regular MRT user myself, I share these positive observations.

Compared to many other cities in the world, we are blessed to have an MRT system that is generally quite accessible for wheelchair users. However, there is more that can be done in this area.

In my survey, 63% of those with physical disabilities said they use public transport two days or less in a week. Forty-two percent of this group rarely uses or totally avoids using public transport during peak periods. Difficulties encountered when using public transport include: platform gaps in the MRT system, slippery floors on buses that cause wheelchair sliding even when the wheels are locked and unexpected closure of the only accessible route.

Other PwDs also face different types of problems while taking public transport. One PwD shared that no one offers a seat on the MRT even when a yellow card with details about their medical condition is prominently displayed. Another also shared the same concern about the lack of acceptance of invisible disabilities – this individual has neuropathic pain due to surgery and sometimes needs to sit down to minimise pain.

I understand that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) through LTA has been working on this area, introducing programmes, such as the priority cabin pilot and the invisible medical condition card. "Hardware" solutions like gap fillers, while not able to fully solve for the height difference between the platform and train floor, helps to narrow the train gaps and enhance safety.

Given awareness and acceptance of less obvious conditions still fall short, could MOT study ways to further elevate the visibility and understanding of the invisible medical condition card?

Earlier, I made a brief mention of sports in the educational setting. In the broader context, sports and recreation plays a vital role in promoting physical and mental well-being among PwDs and promote social inclusion. Competitions like the Special Olympics and the Paralympic Games, provide opportunities for PwDs to showcase their talents and abilities on a global stage. These events not only empower PwDs to pursue their passions and flourish, but also challenge stereotypes and limiting perceptions about disability.

Our national athletes fly the Singapore flag high at regional and world level competitions and are elite performers in their respective fields. But what about those who do sports recreationally? Access to sports and recreational activities remains a challenge for many PwDs due to a lack of inclusive programming or facilities, their medical condition or a combination of these factors.

The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has been making progress in ensuring that more sports facilities are accessible and inclusive. For example, I understand that SportSG is on track to make all 27 ActiveSG gyms inclusive by 2026. On top of this, SportSG is developing an inclusive ActiveSG gym orientation programme, to encourage gym usage by PwDs, which is a good initiative.

Interestingly, based on my findings, 67% of those with physical disabilities have not used any of their free ActiveSG credits. This is 59% for autistics and 58% for those with sensory disabilities. During the weekend, I did my regular swim at an ActiveSG Sports Centre – a routine I have kept up for many years now. As always, I observed no other wheelchair user in sight. This is despite facilities being outfitted with accessible ramps and toilets.

Apart from improving infrastructure, we must therefore make the effort to help more PwDs feel empowered and safe to exercise and play sports in shared spaces. Boosting PwD sports participation is something that we should strive for and I will speak more about this during MCCY's Committee of Supply.

Moving on, housing is the cornerstone of the Singaporean dream. For PwDs, this is no different. Eighty-one percent of the PwDs I surveyed, said that they wish to buy their own house in future. Yet, 48% of those with physical disabilities rated the likelihood of purchasing a house between one and three out of 10, with 10 being the likeliest.

Thirty-four percent of autistics I surveyed rated the same. Much like everyone in Singapore, cost of housing is a common concern for these groups too. We must do more to facilitate home ownership among PwDs. There are significant financial barriers to PwD home ownership, because of additional expenses they incur in their lifetimes and/or lack of stable employment. We should look towards bridging this gap.

One suggestion raised to me is subsidised rental programmes for PwDs.

As independent living may be a daunting prospect for some, why not lower the barriers to entry – let PwDs and their families have a tangible experience of what is possible in a financially accessible way, while they work towards home ownership?

Access to good housing fosters a sense of community and a sense of having a stake in our country. We must explore innovative solutions that empower PwDs in this regard, tailored to their varying levels of independence. I will also raise the topic of inclusive housing policies during Ministry of National Development's (MND's) COS debate.

Lastly, on employment.

Meaningful employment is vital to economic independence for any adult and adds to the feeling of having achieved. However, for PwDs, the path to meaningful employment is often clouded by challenges and barriers that hinder their potential and opportunities. One PwD shared that during job interviews, interviewers did not think that they would be able to work. This was despite years of different job experiences.

Another shared about their very low income level. Many PwDs also work part-time, often not by choice. According to MOM, there is a 13% median pay gap between PMETs with disabilities and those without. The ratio of part-time to full-time employed PwDs in the workforce is approximately one to four. Some of the key barriers often encounter by PwDs in relation to employment is discrimination, lack of accommodations and limited access to training and career development opportunities.

While I acknowledge the Government's acceptance of the Tripartite Committee's final recommendations, which excludes reasonable accommodation provisions from the initial form of the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL), this decision poses significant questions.

It becomes crucial to understand the Government's strategy for ensuring that PwDs receive the reasonable accommodations they need to participate in the workforce. We must address how to prevent these accommodations from being left to the discretion of individual employers, which could lead to subjective biases.

At the workplace, the welfare of PwDs is also not something to be overlooked. Thirty-nine percent of those I surveyed said they were often or always experiencing feelings of loneliness at their workplace. Some PwDs hoped for more support from their teammates at work. For others, it is as simple as being invited for lunch.

We spend so much of our time at work. A little more attention and effort from each of us could go a long way to make a positive difference to those around us.

In Budget 2024, SkillsFuture has been presented as a key pillar of Singapore's social compact. In other words, it serves as a social leveller in Singapore. To ensure it truly serves its purpose, we must ensure it is accessible to all groups of Singaporeans – including PwDs.

According to feedback gathered from PwDs by the Disabled People's Association (DPA) Singapore, PwDs still face significant barriers in accessing the SkillsFuture system. This ranges from course materials not in accessible formats or training providers unwilling to provide reasonable accommodations.

While I understand that SkillsFuture SG works with the Enabling Academy and disability organisations, such as DPA, to help training providers offer reasonable accommodations, implementation is not mandatory. The Enabling Academy also curates courses specially for PwDs as an alternative.

Although well intentioned, these courses are significantly limited in scope compared to the extensive offerings available within the broader SkillsFuture system. This not only restricts opportunities available to PwDs, inadvertently causing them to fall further behind, but also risks further segregating them from wider society.

In light of this, I strongly urge the Government to deepen its commitment to inclusivity in Budget 2024 and ensure that we make SkillsFuture accessible to all users. Harnessed correctly, SkillsFuture has big potential to not only enhance career opportunities and professional enhancement for PwDs but also to cultivate greater societal integration and strengthen our social fabric.

Sir, let me now close.

In preparing for this speech, I recalled the words of American writer, Max Ehrmann, "You are a child of the Universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here."

Mr Speaker, inclusion is not just a matter of accessibility or accommodation; it is not merely about enabling one to hold on to a job, make a living. No – it is about thriving. It is about ensuring that every person, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, has the opportunity to fully engage in community, to enjoy life and pursue their aspirations.

Society must give every Singaporean the courage to dream.

By breaking down barriers, challenging stereotypes and fostering inclusive environments across various domains, we can create a society where all individuals – including PwDs – can be a part of a greater whole and contribute meaningfully.

Let us work together to build a more inclusive Singapore, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential. Let us make Forward Singapore a reality for all.

Sir, I support the Budget.

Hansard 原始记录

2024年预算案中的共享未来

关键要点

参与人员（29）

完整译文（中文）

英文原文