预算辩论 · 2024-02-27 · 第 14 届国会
2024财年预算中的未来挑战
Debate on Annual Budget Statement
议员Sharael Taha质询预算中对未来可持续发展的关注，指出居民对短期补贴的期待与对长期发展担忧的矛盾。政府副总理黄循财回应国际环境复杂多变，强调新冷战后世界更具冲突与不确定性。核心争议在于如何平衡当前民生需求与未来经济安全，及新形势下的政策应对。
关键要点
- • 居民期待短期补贴
- • 国际环境更趋复杂
- • 新冷战时代挑战大
保持谨慎乐观，应对不确定风险
强调未来经济可持续与安全
"The three decades of peace and stability in the post-Cold War era is now over."
参与人员（6）
完整译文（中文）
Hansard 英文原文译文 · 翻译日期：2026-05-02
[(程序文本) 恢复辩论议题的秩序宣读 [2024年2月16日] [第二指定日] (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) 议题再次提出。(程序文本)]
上午11时01分
沙拉尔·塔哈议员（巴西立-榜鹅）：议长先生，当我与许多居民谈论他们对今年预算的期望时，很多人回答：“政府今年会给我们更多吗？”似乎随着生活成本压力的增加，大家对每一份预算都期待有类似我们的保障计划这样的赠予方案。
即使在预算全部公布后，当被问及他们的看法时，有些人仍然关注眼前的需求，比如他们将获得多少社区发展理事会（CDC）代金券。然而，越来越多的居民向我表达了他们对未来的担忧，担心新加坡是否能继续增长和繁荣，这样的发展轨迹和预算是否可持续。
副总理黄循财在预算演讲中使用的词语是“谨慎乐观”。黄副总理提到，前景存在相当大的不确定性，风险偏向下行。令我印象深刻的是他所分享的未来挑战。他提到国际环境急剧恶化，这一点也被反对党领袖昨天提及。
冷战后三十年的和平与稳定时代已经结束，他说我们现在生活在一个冲突和对抗的时代。副总理还提到，世界将更加暴力，因为我们看到一个越来越大的有武装冲突和恐怖主义的有恃无恐区，全球社会难以轻易解决。当我们环顾四周，世界似乎更加分裂，主要大国优先考虑国家安全而非经济相互依赖。黄副总理还提到，局势将更加混乱和不可预测。
如果我们退一步观察周围的世界，可以看到许多冲突的例子，或因分歧而分裂的社区，或选举后组阁的分裂斗争，或议会陷入僵局无法通过重要法案以帮助国家。
这些由分歧引发的裂痕和创伤往往根深蒂固，需要几代人才能解决和修复。如果我们看看周围的世界，新加坡就像一根刺眼的拇指，因为我们是一个异常现象。这并非偶然发生，也不应被视为理所当然。
过去几年，新加坡如何团结起来——虽然也经历了不少挑战——使我们能够渡过这场风暴。面对未来的不确定性和挑战，我们如何继续保持团结，更新我们的社会契约，专注于保持社会的强大和团结，将是决定我们能否顺利应对未来不确定性、将挑战转化为机遇和进步的关键，也确保即使面对所有挑战，我们依然互相关心、互相照顾，建设一个充满活力、有韧性和包容的社区。
正是基于这样的视角，我将回应2024年预算。
首先，我们的计划和政策如何协同推动新加坡进步？其次，我们如何确保每个人都能享受进步，并继续为需要帮助的人提供更多支持？最后，我们如何确保进步对未来世代是可持续的？
议长先生，毫无疑问，高质量投资是新加坡进步的生命线。我们必须拥有强大、充满活力和创新的经济，这将带来优质就业，从而改善所有新加坡人的生活。这是新加坡经济进步的公式。
然而，吸引高质量投资的竞争日益激烈。我们听说日本、德国和阿联酋等国家推出大量补贴以吸引投资。我同意黄副总理的看法，我们无法与主要经济体进行这种“竞标战”，但我们可以加强充满活力的生态系统，使其有利于吸引投资到新加坡。
议长先生，请允许我声明，在我之前和现在担任跨国企业（MNE）战略和业务发展职位期间，我有机会了解跨国企业在投资外国之前的考虑因素，以及促使他们决定投资的原因。
我在新加坡航展与一家大型跨国企业高级主管的对话最能说明问题。除了动态展示的热闹气氛，他望着展厅说：“世界上没有哪个地方能像新加坡这样清晰地看到支持任何投资的生态系统。”
确实，在展厅前方，我们有经济发展局（EDB）努力吸引投资。然后是裕廊集团（JTC）推动可持续工业发展。跨国企业，包括本地本土跨国企业如新航工程公司和胜科工程，积极开展业务发展。这为本地中小企业（SME）带来全球就业机会，这些企业及其员工通过能力转型伙伴计划等方案分享成果。
接下来是如何提升劳动力能力的问题。展厅中有新加坡人力部（WSG）推广行业，鼓励职业转换计划吸引更多中年专业人士进入行业，并通过技能未来（SkillsFuture）提升技能，更好地为行业增长做准备。
展厅一侧是航空学院（AeroCampus），学校分享航空工程课程，培养人才储备，学生们参观航空学院，向资深专业人士学习更多行业知识。
吸引高质量投资没有单一因素，而是我们的计划、政策和机构如何协同合作。共同打造充满活力和创新的经济，是我们对世界的竞争优势。
我们必须继续平衡这些杠杆，并利用更多资源，使新加坡成为充满活力且可行的投资地点。因此，我很高兴2024年预算宣布在2025年研究、创新与企业（RIE）拨款中投资30亿新元，向国家生产力基金（NPF）和金融部门基金各追加20亿新元，并加强能力转型伙伴计划。
虽然我支持这一意图，但鉴于NPF的规模，我们如何确保资金被企业有效利用以推动真正的生产力、为行业增值并转型？鉴于拟议的NPF追加资金相当于文化、社区及青年部（MCCY）预算的一半，我们如何衡量成功，以量化这项投资的回报？
作为通讯及新闻部（MCI）政府议会委员会（GPC）成员，我也很高兴看到我们承诺在未来五年投资超过10亿新元用于国家人工智能战略2.0。我将在供应委员会（COS）辩论中详细说明。
我在本议院也多次谈及企业经营成本上升及实施税基侵蚀和利润转移（BEPS）2.0的不确定影响。这是我在2022年11月的商品及服务税（GST）修正案法案、2023年预算、2023年8月的国家生产力基金法案以及本次预算辩论中反复提出的问题。
在GST修正案法案中，我也质疑部分议员认为仅靠BEPS 2.0就足以弥补不提高GST所造成“缺口”的看法。我很高兴昨天的发言中，听到刘顺义先生似乎同意黄副总理的立场，即实施BEPS 2.0会有支出抵消影响，且企业和国家如何反应仍存在很大不确定性。
该议员还表示希望引入的可退还投资税额抵免不会违背全球BEPS 2.0实施的精神，也希望这不会以其他形式返还给跨国企业。
我认为这是一个极其令人担忧的立场。正如我演讲中所述，反对党领袖引用黄副总理的话说“国际环境急剧恶化”，我们对新加坡在不确定的全球环境中的未来持谨慎态度。
我可以肯定地告诉大家，吸引外国投资到新加坡越来越困难，我很高兴可退还投资税额抵免成为吸引投资的新工具。刘顺义先生提到我们不应违背BEPS 2.0的精神，但我担心他是否在理念上接受限制我们吸引投资工具的能力？
吸引投资——新加坡的生命线——这里理论与现实出现分歧，我们正拼尽全力争取更多投资到新加坡。这是刘顺义先生所倡导的吗？我可以向议院保证，吸引投资将持续更加困难，我们希望拥有全部工具以吸引优质投资，为人民创造优质就业。
其次，我们如何确保每个人都能享受进步，并继续为需要帮助的人提供更多支持？
我很高兴听到继续承诺通过技能未来升级计划提升和再培训工人，通过提升工作收入补贴（WIS）、技能未来中年培训津贴以及引入理工学院（ITE）进阶奖来加强对低薪工人的支持。
提升技能未来的有效性，专注于能力建设和真正的生产力提升，是我在议会多次谈及的议题。我在首次发言、2022年预算辩论、2023年所得税（修正）法案、2023年国家生产力基金（修正）法案和2023年技能未来（修正）法案中均有提出。
因此，我欢迎这些增强措施，特别是为特定行业导向培训课程提供的4000新元技能未来积分充值，这将使我们的劳动力专注于能力发展，推动创新，实现更高价值成果。
最后，我们如何确保预算对未来世代是可持续的？
议长先生，预算应对生活成本上升带来的紧迫挑战，通过锚定高质量投资追求更好增长和就业，装备工人应对未来经济，创造更多平等和流动性路径，为家庭和长者提供更多保障，投资安全稳定的新加坡，并在能源转型中保障能源安全。
未来挑战重重，支出压力将增大。预算解决关键挑战，建设能力，展望未来，同时保持财政平衡，不超支。我很欣慰听到黄副总理重申坚持财政纪律和责任的精神，确保财政状况始终保持平衡、稳健和可持续。
面对不确定的未来，我们的财政纪律、更新的社会契约以及保持社会强大团结的专注，将是决定我们能否顺利应对未来不确定性、将挑战转化为机遇和进步的关键，也确保尽管面临诸多挑战，我们依然互相关心、互相照顾，建设一个充满活力、有韧性和包容的社区。议长先生，我支持预算。
议长：刘顺义先生。
上午11时14分
刘庆伟议员（盛港）：议长先生，我想对沙拉尔·塔哈议员做一个简短澄清。如果我听得没错，他是不是在说我们应该违背BEPS 2.0的精神？
沙拉尔·塔哈议员：感谢刘顺义议员的提问。议长先生，我并不是说我们应该违背BEPS 2.0的精神。我只是说，在吸引投资方面，我们不应限制自己的能力，这意味着我们可能需要提供某些优惠或支持，以吸引投资到新加坡。
议长：林秀仪女士。
林秀仪女士（亚历山大）：谢谢议长先生。在这份预算中，我和其他1973年及以前出生的人被称为“年轻长者”。如今，当年轻乘客在地铁上为我让座时，我不再感到被侮辱，而是欣然接受。
话虽如此，随着寿命和健康状况的改善，60岁就是新的40岁。我们仍有很多可以为国家贡献的地方。今天，我想聚焦于年长工人，以及我们应如何被视为国家的宝贵资源。
年长者能贡献什么？很多。上周，资深好莱坞导演马丁·斯科塞斯在第74届柏林电影节荣获终身成就荣誉金熊奖。近60年来，斯科塞斯执导了无数开创性电影，最新作品是去年上映的《杀死花月杀手》，主演包括莱昂纳多·迪卡普里奥和罗伯特·德尼罗。他宣布下一个项目将是关于基督生平的电影。所有这些，他已81岁高龄。
新加坡也有自己的榜样。已故许芝女士，享年113岁，被誉为新加坡的特蕾莎修女。这位退休护士创办了关爱老人、病患和贫困者的慈善机构，110岁后仍积极参与慈善工作。
先生们女士们，我在此暗示我们需要改变的文化心态。多年来，我遇到许多年长居民，他们的求职经历显示存在年龄歧视。让我举一个例子。
有一位男居民，在医疗管理领域有数十年经验。他仪表整洁，沟通良好，身体健康。然而，他几乎无法获得面试机会，更别说在同一行业医疗领域找到与他之前职位相当或要求更低的工作。他已70多岁。
40岁及以上的年轻长者也未能幸免。就在上个月，英国广播公司（BBC）发布了一部关于职场年龄歧视的广播纪录片，采访了中年新加坡人；他们分享了仅仅获得雇主给予机会展示能力的困难。事实上，根据人力部（MOM）公平就业实践报告，年龄是求职过程中最常见的歧视形式。
然而，事实是仍有职位空缺等待填补。根据人力部2023年第三季度劳动力市场报告，职位空缺仍多于求职者。职位空缺与求职者的比例为1.58，高于疫情前水平。空缺较多的行业包括卫生与社会服务、信息与通讯、专业服务以及金融与保险服务。
虽然仍有一些体力要求较高的行业可能不适合年长工人，但这类行业已逐渐减少。显然，随着科技和人工智能（AI）的发展，工作性质已发生变化。对此，新加坡社会科学大学（SUSS）高级讲师Helen Ko博士为CNA撰写评论文章《长者工作表现良好，但年龄歧视的迷思和负面刻板印象依然存在》。她认为，最重要的不是工人的年龄，而是工作要求是否超过工人能力。她指出，在现代，健康和技术的进步意味着平均70岁的工人几乎没有什么工作是做不到的。
世界卫生组织（WHO）近年来发布了许多关于年龄歧视的研究。世卫组织文献驳斥了许多关于老龄化的误解。研究指出，没有典型的老年人，有些80岁的人在身体和心理能力上甚至可与20岁年轻人媲美。因此，年龄不应作为能力的替代指标。
此外，随着寿命延长，许多年长者的健康寿命也更长。因此，每一代老年人口实际上都更年轻，不应因年龄而受到歧视。
让年长公民参与劳动力市场对整个社会有巨大益处。如果大量年长和中年人失业，尤其是低收入群体，他们将更多依赖非正式家庭援助、公积金储蓄、政府转移支付或慈善机构。这将加剧社会分层和社会分裂。
先生，在此我应当承认，政府有多种激励计划鼓励雇主聘用年长员工。这些包括各种补助金和高级就业津贴（SEC），后者提供工资抵扣。截至2022年9月，已有超过10万家雇主采用了SEC，惠及超过46万名年长员工。虽然这些激励措施是适当且必要的，但我相信如果我们改变任何年龄歧视的观念，年长员工的劳动参与率还可以更高。
为此，我期待今年晚些时候公布的反歧视立法。各相关利益相关者正确地指出年龄歧视是需要解决的问题。为了使立法更有效，它应渗透到整个人力资源流程中。例如，在英国，我了解到《2010年平等法案》保护所有年龄段的人在就业、招聘、晋升、奖励与认可、裁员和职业培训方面的权益。
因此，例如，英国立法规定招聘人员在面试潜在雇员时不得询问其年龄或出生日期。如果我们即将出台的立法也有此效果，可能会成为改变游戏规则的举措。
接下来，我想简要谈谈如何确保我们的年长员工能够再培训。为协助中年职业人士，本预算在SkillsFuture提升计划下推出了三项措施，面向40岁及以上的新加坡公民。我想对这项举措提出一些看法。虽然访问这些措施的最低年龄为40岁，但没有最高年龄限制。我赞同这种做法。不设最高资格年龄隐含承认无论年龄多大，员工仍有潜在的就业能力。这值得称赞。
我先谈第一项措施，即提供新的4000元学分，用于报名参加以提升就业能力为目标的课程。如果目的是确保报名者获得更好的就业结果，是否会对参与者附加任何条件，例如必须在某些行业获得工作？
至于第二项措施，即为任何领域的全日制文凭学习提供额外补贴，未提及提升就业能力是该措施的目标。那么，是否可以仅为充实自我而报名参加此类补贴课程？
即使如此，我认为这也有用处，因为它能保持年长者的思维敏捷，延长健康寿命。即使他们不领取薪水，也能使他们成为非政府组织（NGO）和慈善机构的有效志愿者。
最后，关于第三项措施，即全日制课程将获得最高3000元的每月培训津贴，了解其资格条件及是否附带任何就业结果将很有帮助。
先生，作为一名管理和教授继续教育与培训（CET）课程超过十年的人，我亲眼见证了成年学习者强烈的自我提升愿望。他们中许多人并非出身优越，珍视这第二次机会。为了让成年学习者成功，课程费用补贴和雇主支持至关重要。继续教育与培训是一项有价值的事业，是社会流动性的重要方面。
先生，请允许我总结。我重点强调年长员工是国家资源，应加以利用，造福社会。若要最大化国家潜力和福祉，我们仍需努力解决年龄歧视问题。我们都应成为终身学习者，否则将面临被淘汰的风险。正如我在演讲开头所说，60岁是新的40岁。让我们以新的信心拥抱这一现实。
议长：林女士，和您一样，我也是“年轻的长者”。同样，我也喜欢电影《杀死花月杀手》。接下来请黄先生发言。
上午11时24分
黄先生（蔡厝港）：议长先生，我支持本预算中保持新加坡竞争力并为下一阶段做好准备的措施。我的建议和澄清来自自2024年2月16日以来我接触到的企业主、报纸报道和论坛信件。
我想先谈谈各种税收计划。BEPS 2.0的第二支柱为大型跨国企业引入了15%的最低有效税率。我赞赏政府灵活且进步地重新评估新加坡现有的税收激励措施，注意到其他司法管辖区也在进行税收激励改革，以应对这一里程碑式的举措。
引入可退还投资税收抵免计划将帮助受BEPS第二支柱影响的现有公司和潜在投资者。作为带有可退还现金功能的税收抵免，这是一项有吸引力且灵活的计划，支持包括制造业、绿色转型活动以及研发（R&D）在内的多种高价值经济活动。
拟议的可退还投资税收抵免似乎基于合格支出。政府能否将该计划适用于那些支出不重但能为新加坡带来经济利益的企业，例如技术解决方案相关企业？政府是否考虑基于产出和量的特征授予税收抵免？
接下来，我呼吁扩大批准的外债激励计划下合格活动的范围，超出资本密集型生产设备投资。该计划对贷款利息支付免征或按较低税率征收预扣税。
我还建议将预扣税优惠扩展至支持企业在新加坡开展其他经济生产活动，包括商品交易、知识产权（IP）收购、并购（M&A）活动以及研发。政府是否考虑扩大知识产权发展激励计划下合格知识产权的范围，涵盖其他无形资产，如植物品种权、设计和实用新型？
接下来，政府是否会进一步放宽碳信用交易相关费用的进项税处理？增强税收扣除将有助于购买自愿碳信用以管理排放目标的企业。政府是否考虑将新加坡投资者在海外某些合格绿色投资产生的所有收益免征本地企业税，类似于对外来源股息的待遇？
为鼓励电动车（EV）的早期采用，是否可以申报与这些电动车相关的消费税（GST）进项税？
我欢迎将SkillsFuture学分从500元提高到4000元。为进一步发展新加坡劳动力，我还建议提高个人发展课程费用的税收减免上限。自2011年以来，课程费用减免上限为5500元，适用于个人参加提升技能或获得学术、专业或职业资格的课程。随着成本上升，可能是时候提高上限，以进一步鼓励个人通过提升技能投资未来。
为更好支持家庭应对成本上升，我建议政府审查计算个人所得税时的合格子女减免金额。
接下来谈谈中小企业（SME）。可以为中小企业提供更有针对性的资金支持，用于投资碳定价和建模解决方案，以及价值链排放管理和脱碳等项目。这些措施可包括对相关支出的进一步扣除或项目的共同资助，设定上限。可设定两到三年的评估期限以确保措施有效。
我也欢迎政府计划扩大能力转型伙伴关系计划，旨在促进跨国公司（MNC）与中小企业之间更多更深入的合作。加强伙伴关系，涵盖能力培训、国际化和企业风险投资，对我们的中小企业极为有利，尤其在技术进步空前迅速、全球环境动荡的背景下。
可持续发展是中小企业可与通常为“蜂王买家”的跨国公司合作的领域，共同探索提升竞争力的机会。目前，环境、社会及治理（ESG）报告仅适用于上市公司，但中小企业应评估其碳排放，因为其他国家的法规要求供应链上的所有企业遵守可持续发展标准。议长先生，以下用中文发言。
（中文）：[请参阅方言发言。] 最近，许多中小企业在投标时受限，例如JTC提出的海岸开发招标，评分标准中对有海外项目经验的投标者加分。我知道该标准非强制，但很少有新加坡公司有海外项目经验，因此新加坡公司在争取这些额外分数时感到不利。
为了获得这些额外分数，本地公司被鼓励与较大的韩国或中国公司组建合资企业（JV），以提高赢得新加坡大型基础设施项目的机会。我获悉，这些大型合资伙伴主要看重人力资源，包括新加坡合资伙伴拥有的外劳配额，因此知识转移非常有限。
许多企业主告诉我，他们司机住所附近重型车辆停车位短缺，许多企业主甚至支付工人额外的交通费用。政府能否将空置场所如学校或JTC用地改造为停车场，无论期限多短？这将有助于降低部分企业开支。
我希望政府短期内也能放宽就业准证雇佣互补性评估框架中的多样性配额标准，因为企业在紧张劳动力市场中难以满足要求。我希望战略经济优先人力计划下的配额调整能更灵活，该计划允许符合条件的企业在约三年内超额雇佣S准证和工作准证持有者。
政府也可考虑审查现行外劳配额，将其与岗位职责挂钩，而非现有分类。
（英文）：政府是否考虑为实行包容性雇佣的企业提供更多激励，涵盖聘用年长者、残疾人士及有特殊需求者？
目前，政府向雇佣13岁及以上、月薪低于4000元的残疾人士（PwDs）的雇主提供启用就业津贴，并通过开放门计划工作重设计补助支持最高90%的工作重设计费用。我建议进一步给予税收回扣、更高的外劳雇佣配额以及在竞标政府项目时给予更多加分。
企业反映某些领域本地人才短缺，但部分问题在于他们存在固有偏见，拒绝考虑某些潜在员工群体，即使他们具备匹配技能。这包括所谓的“年轻长者”，即50至60岁之间的人群。他们面临的挑战是找到能发挥多年积累技能的有意义工作。
许多年长者大多属于中等技能水平，也有部分高技能工人。他们对所从事的工作有较高期望，不太愿意接受低技能工作。像许多年长的新加坡人一样，他们面临职场年龄歧视、是否能继续现有岗位、资历、薪资等问题，直到达到退休年龄。
除了鼓励这群人尽可能长时间且愿意工作外，激励企业设计更适合他们长期工作的岗位也很重要。随着工资趋于停滞，政府是否考虑将渐进式工资推广至更多行业并提升收入阶梯？
接下来，关于提升低薪工人，我欢迎工作收入补贴（WIS）提高至4900元及合格收入上限提高至3000元。
虽然推出了如ComCare和近期增强的ComLink+等社会支持计划以帮助低收入家庭，但这些计划往往针对人口中最低收入群体。然而，许多家庭收入处于人口20百分位以下的新加坡人也需要更多帮助。
WIS多年来不断增强，以更好支持这更大范围的低收入工人。然而，个别工人往往不仅需养活自己，还要赡养家属。由于WIS仍按个人发放，未充分考虑部分工人在抚养幼儿、赡养老人或照顾有特殊需求家庭成员时面临的更重经济负担，尤其在生活成本上升的情况下。
政府是否考虑将WIS及社会支持计划与通胀或消费者物价指数挂钩，每年调整？WIS的年度审查可类似于公共交通理事会的年度票价审查。
提高WIS现金发放比例也有助家庭满足即时需求。当前通胀率超过2.5%的公积金普通账户利率，WIS受益人手中持有更多现金更为实际。
WIS也应重新校准，考虑家庭收入和规模。目前WIS以个人为单位，依据工人的年龄、就业状态和收入确定发放金额，但即使低薪工人所在家庭较富裕也能领取补贴。相反，基于家庭的WIS将为低收入且有更多赡养人的家庭提供更高的月度补贴。这将是更全面的方法，考虑家庭整体经济状况。
新加坡有许多针对低收入家庭的社会支持计划，资格标准各异。基础工人最需要帮助，但他们最缺时间和能力去了解资格并申请各种计划。他们也面临学习和利用最新提升技能措施的挑战，包括本预算中推出的措施。他们可能缺乏关于在哪里、如何申请培训项目及适合自己的课程的意识和知识。
此外，鉴于市场上存在大量就业和培训诈骗，我们还需帮助他们识别并避免这些陷阱。政府是否考虑建立更系统的框架，主动接触并指导这些工人走上安全的培训之路？必须开展公众教育活动，确保这些工人知道通过可信渠道在哪里、如何利用这些培训补助和课程。至此，我支持本预算，发言完毕。
议长：赛义德·哈伦博士。
上午11时38分
赛义德·哈伦·阿尔哈布西博士（提名议员）：谢谢您，议长先生。首先，我要感谢尊敬的副总理兼财政部长以及各部委推出2024年预算提案。
随着包括人工智能（AI）在内的新兴技术的出现，加上尚未完全理解及其影响的社交媒体激增，世界正以惊人的速度飞速发展。如今世界乃至新加坡的变化速度已不再是线性按年、月、周或日计算，自本世纪初以来，全球变化速度显著加快。如今的停滞不前不只是落后几步，而是随着时间推移，若不弥补差距，将被指数级远远甩在后面。
我深切关注的是，在新加坡努力保持领先步伐的同时，那些被落下的人所受的影响；与此相关的是社会流动性这一深刻问题。
我在本次预算辩论中的发言旨在提高大家对社会流动性话题的认识，强调其对我们作为一个民族和国家的重要性和价值，结合2024年预算的背景。谈到社会流动性，我想到几点。
首先，无论我们是否愿意承认，在座的每个人都从某种形式的特权中受益。无论是出生于某种财富和社会经济特权，还是拥有良好的健康、体面的成长环境、稳定的家庭和慈爱的父母，或是拥有关心我们的老师、知己、导师或朋友，他们给予建议或培养了我们成为今天的自己。我的谦逊观点是，任何成功的故事都不是单靠个人努力，而是在那位勇敢个人的努力之外，周围的“村庄”使成功得以扎根。
第二，我们知道并非每个人都拥有这种特权。我们听说有些孩子出生在功能失调的家庭，遭受虐待并受到创伤的折磨。我们知道有些家庭的经济支柱或其他成员突然患上严重疾病或残疾，这会在瞬间彻底改变一个家庭的前景。我们听说有些家庭人口众多，相对于他们的居住空间来说，唯一真正的隐私只有在洗手间里才能获得。我们也听说有些租赁组屋的社区，孩子们在不太理想的环境中成长，早早接触反社会行为、毒品和犯罪，警察的出现也并不罕见。
第三，拥有这种特权与否之间的真正距离实际上可能非常微妙。认为我们的社会地位是出生时就注定的，且无法改变，是一种谬误。身份可能会改变，疾病可能会袭来，工作可能会失去。在我们这个快节奏的世界里，尽管我们尽力而为，变化有时仍然无情、剧烈且残酷。在这种范式下，理解并接受社会流动性的重要性对我们的社会至关重要。
在个人层面上，尽管我们不希望任何人遭遇，但我们不能忽视这种脆弱性，也不能假装它不会发生在我们任何人身上。我们必须以谦逊的态度接受，降临在我们身上的成功不一定完全是努力工作的结果，而是得益于我们有利的社会环境、周围的人，甚至有人认为在很大程度上是偶然的。
反之亦然；对于许多通过收入或财务能力衡量被评估为社会经济地位较低的个人和家庭来说，他们陷入困境并非因为缺乏努力、勤奋或智慧。有些人尚未获得机会和指导的特权，可能受到健康不佳和残疾的困扰，或者生于早早陷入贫困、匮乏和困苦循环的环境。
当我们从不平等和社会流动性的视角深入审视成功时，我们就能以谦逊的态度看待自己的成功，少一些对自身努力的浪漫化，同时对他人缺乏成功表现出更多关切和对其福祉及生活状况的兴趣。
许多议员在我之前曾在本院谈论过社会流动性。社会流动性确实是公平公正社会的基石。它允许个人无论其初始背景、种族或经济地位如何，都能在社会阶梯上上下移动。有人将其形容为社会阶梯，但我认为事物变化如此迅速，“自动扶梯”更为贴切。在我们这个动态且快节奏的世界中，追求社会流动性始终是一个不断变化的目标，要跟上步伐并确保所有人机会均等并不容易。作为一个社会，我们必须继续致力于为所有新加坡人做好这件事。
没有社会流动性，弱势群体和最脆弱者几乎没有希望、机会、成长和成功。特权将固化，事实上，不信任和歧视只会滋生和蔓延，侵蚀我们花费长时间建立和强化的社会凝聚力。每个人，无论其生活状况如何，都应享有公平公正的成功机会。
今天，议长先生，我们或许比几十年前更协调一致地推动社会流动性。我们有负责社会服务整合的部长，以及社会及家庭发展部（MSF）政策与规划总监部下的康复与社会流动政策部门。我们认识到，要赋能和提升最脆弱群体，需要政府整体协作。
我们不能零散地处理社会流动性及其层层挑战。涉及早期教育和健康、就业机会以及迈向住房拥有权的相关问题必须集体解决。我们知道ComLink+今天正尝试这样做，意图采取整体和全方位的方式支持家庭。我能看到预算中一些拟议的变动将在一定程度上帮助解决社会流动性问题。
例如，增强保障计划让每个新加坡家庭有信心，确保人人受惠，无人被落下，尤其是在持续存在通胀压力和生活成本上升的时期。配合企业支持计划，即使企业寻求转型和强化劳动力，真正的收益也会流向新加坡员工，因为这为他们提供了提升技能、发展和成长的机会，与他们所服务的企业共同进步。
政府持续关注本地企业，尤其是中小企业，这令人鼓舞，我们希望这能为本地企业带来信心，助力它们进一步成长，甚至走向海外市场。
我呼应副总理的呼吁，我们需要深化终身学习和技能掌握的文化，充分开发每位新加坡人的潜力，让我们每个人都有机会拥有富有成效和意义的职业生涯。
SkillsFuture升级计划让我感到年轻了许多。该计划为学习新技能提供了第二次机会，尤其是在这个变化迅速、技术远远超出过去所学技能的时代。它支持我们的员工迈出再次学习的步伐。4000新元的SkillsFuture学分充值和重新获得补贴全日制文凭课程的机会，对我来说都是非常欢迎的消息。
我想知道部委能否分享制定该计划的思考过程，比如4000新元充值金额是如何确定的，为什么不是更多，为什么选择40岁作为引入该计划的年龄，以及为何仅限于文凭课程。我也想知道是否可能考虑在更年轻时引入，比如35岁，以及是否允许学位课程。有些人可能希望通过学习与现有专业无关的文凭来拓宽知识面，而另一些人则可能希望深入其兴趣领域，攻读学位。
我也对ITE进阶奖感到欣慰。这是对符合条件的ITE学生继续攻读文凭的鼓励，完成文凭后还能获得1万新元的普通账户公积金充值。
我时常听说一些有才华的ITE毕业生在课程中表现优异，但不愿继续深造。有时，短期内零工经济或全职工作，以及迫切需要为家庭贡献收入，使他们选择进入职场，而不是面对更快节奏的三年教育。当他们从ITE进入理工学院时，也会明显比直接从中学升学的同龄人年长。成年人会认识到，从长远来看，文凭自然有益，但也要考虑来自较少特权家庭、早早承担照顾兄弟姐妹和大家庭责任的年轻人，他们可能看不到此决定的长期影响。
我认为通过ITE进阶奖，虽然金额相对适中且纳入公积金体系，但有实际好处，能促使更多符合条件者认真考虑继续攻读文凭。我希望部委能监测这一趋势，观察其如何鼓励更多ITE毕业生攻读文凭，如果证明有效且受欢迎，未来可考虑增加金额。
我想知道部委是否能确认该计划是否可追溯适用于已在理工学院就读或今年刚毕业的前ITE学生。这将大大帮助他们迈向人生下一阶段，尽最大努力完成当前学业。
议长先生，除了金钱问题，社会流动性的挑战实际上是关于建立弱势和较少特权者的自信和自尊。这更难量化，我们永远不能对此强调不足，因为这是一个微妙的过程，需要我们把握得当。
对于曾尝试做面包的人来说，酵母使面包发酵。我们可以用尽全力揉面，加入面粉、水、盐和糖等原料，但面包仍可能无法在烤盘中膨胀。酵母是面包中一种难以量化的微妙成分，其加入几乎是一门艺术，需要谨慎判断。
社会流动性也是如此。它不仅仅是简单加入可量化的成分，期待事情自动上升。预算有帮助，资金重要，结构也重要，但我们必须记住，社会流动性的实现同样关乎维护尊严和自主权。它关乎知道社会支持你，支持每个人成功。我们的社会政策只有在最后一公里以真诚和坚定的愿望去提升他人、以关怀和关心对待同胞、以共享新加坡身份的信念去执行时，才能真正生效。我们相信那些生活中被赋予较少特权的弱势群体也应当获得成功。
作为志愿者，我记得曾面试过一位奖学金申请者，她来自单亲家庭，曾就读邻近的中学，兼职支持家庭，但理工学院成绩几乎满分。令我和评审团印象最深的是，尽管她成绩优异，却对自己未来的学习、发展和卓越潜力缺乏认识。她的智慧、谦逊、现实韧性和成绩虽出色，但缺乏榜样，不了解脚下众多全球机会，也未意识到在适当支持下，她可以为家庭开辟更好生活的道路，甚至带领母亲和兄弟姐妹脱离现状。
由于她的背景，她确实无法看到生活现实之外的未来，她的抱负和志向远低于她本可轻松达到的水平。事实是，她和家人缺乏社会资本，无法想象超出他们合理视野的未来。
许多这样的家庭中蕴藏着潜力未被发掘的宝石。他们经历逆境、困苦和挑战，这些孩子真正需要的是公平公正的机会。他们往往比大多数孩子成长得更快，谈判技巧源自他们成长的艰难环境，具备难以在课堂上复制和教授的适应力和韧性。尤其当我们看到某个孩子身上有深厚潜力和卓越品质时，如果我们真正坚持社会流动性的理念，就必须给予他们全面的选择和充分的机会去实现潜能。当我们揭示这些选择时，必须伴随真诚的愿望，认为他们也应当成功。
在所有部委中，无论是解决健康、教育、住房和社会支持的机会不平等问题，我相信，议长先生，我们已有相应的结构和统一的组成部分。理论上，烤盘已备好，面包的所有原料也已混合。酵母有时难以启动，需要耐心等待面包发酵。
同样，在推动实现社会流动性的预算中，资金、结构和流程等组成成分固然重要，但更重要的是我们以真诚关怀社会最脆弱群体的精神来处理这一问题。
最后，议长先生，社会流动性也给我们这个国家带来教训。自独立58年来，我们取得了不错的成绩。我们必须认识到，尽管新加坡今天起点较高，我们通过努力改善和强化社会，保持合理的成功节奏，但我们也应谦逊地接受，2024年我们能达到今天的成就，部分是历史上逆境中的幸运，是站在前辈领导者的肩膀和智慧之上，是几代新加坡人继承的结构和努力的结果。我们同样是幸运的。
还有一些人未必有我们今天的幸运，我们依然是许多国家效仿的榜样。我们必须妥善守护这份特权，成为新加坡持续繁荣的守护者，但同时，我们也不能对世界上的战争、冲突、危机和灾难视而不见。鉴于此，海外人道援助税收扣除计划（OHAS）也是对我们作为新加坡社会特权的提醒，体现了新加坡人相较世界其他地区有能力为处于危机中的人们提供支持，帮助他们重建生活。
这是我们作为新加坡社会的生活理念和价值观的延伸：人人应有成功机会，生活现实不尽相同，特权以多种形式存在。
过着特权生活、为生存激烈且策略性竞争、为自己、家庭和下一代争取更好生活，这并无不妥。然而，拥有特权的同时，我们必须认识到环境、周围的人和机遇在其中扮演了重要角色。
尽管自我肯定令人诱惑，我们不能忽视他人在我们成功故事中所扮演的角色，无论是个人成就还是国家成就。谦逊让我们脚踏实地，培养关怀他人的世界观，进一步巩固我们作为一个拥有伦理价值观、富有同情心和善良的社会。
议长先生，我希望明年的预算执行能继续减少不平等，为社会流动性扎根提供机会。我支持预算声明。
议长先生：克里斯托弗·德·索萨先生。
晚上11时57分
克里斯托弗·德·索萨先生（荷兰-武吉知马）：感谢允许我参与本次预算辩论。今天，我们正处于一场堪称最深远的变革——人工智能（AI）变革的边缘。许多人已对此发表看法，我将聚焦两个具体方面：首先，这场变革如何影响我们的社会契约；其次，新加坡如何以及应如何继续治理人工智能。
要真正理解人工智能对社会的影响，我们首先需要了解我们所面对的是什么。虽然存在多种人工智能系统，但大多数当代人工智能系统基于机器学习（ML）。机器学习系统通过数据训练以产生洞见和预测，且在2010年代初至中期变得普遍。2010年代后期，深度学习作为机器学习的一个子集开始兴起。它利用神经网络，包含类似人脑的多层节点，处理输入并产生输出。这些系统还能调整权重，随着时间推移提高模型准确性。
最近风靡全球的技术当然是生成式人工智能（genAI）。生成式人工智能利用深度学习，但不同之处在于通过新技术和机制，它们可以在大量非结构化数据上进行训练。其结果是基础模型，即能够为广泛任务生成输出的模型，无需针对特定任务专门训练。
然而，尽管人工智能今天的能力强大，我们必须记住，我们谈论的是人工狭义智能（ANI），它只能擅长特定任务，而非人工通用智能（AGI），后者指能够执行人类通常能做的各种任务的人工智能。
我花时间探讨技术细节，是因为我认为在谈论人工智能影响社会契约时，牢记这些非常重要。
议长先生，许多尊敬的议员在过去的会议中都提到了人工智能带来的诸多好处和风险。我不想重复已经说过的内容。相反，我认为我们必须谨慎行事，在鼓励人工智能创新和应用的同时，继续支持我们的人民及其生计。
一个关注点是人工智能时代将如何影响就业。耸人听闻的标题强调人工智能会导致失业，但实际上，使人工智能成为创造就业而非取代就业的关键，是让人们找到自己的热情，承担需要独特人类能力的新职责。每一次工业革命，经济都会发生变化，工作也会随之改变，人类所需承担的职责也会变化。
当前的第四次工业革命也不例外。据估计，在英国，未来20年内，人工智能可能影响700万个现有岗位。但更关键的是，可能创造720万个岗位。因此，实际上是就业的净增长。
但作为政府，我们必须确保没有人被遗忘，确保每一位新加坡人在成为人工智能赋能社会的过程中，都有机会学习和成长，无需担心被取代。
我们还必须考虑，并非每个人都能同时以相同速度完成转型。但通过正确的保障和基础设施，我们必须帮助每位新加坡人认识到他们核心且独特的人类技能，并向他们展示这些技能如何保持相关性，即使他们的工作范围涵盖更多决策和创造性职责。
议长先生，如前所述，我们今天讨论的是人工窄智能（ANI）。ANI系统有其局限性，超出其范围时需要人类干预。事实上，情况越是前所未有和复杂，人类管理得越好，因为我们具备判断力、同理心和价值观，这是任何人工智能系统目前无法替代的。
议长先生，谈论人工智能与就业时，还有另一个维度。借助人工智能，我们可以将数据集输入深度学习模型，向上游探查，理解各种社会问题的根本原因。我们不仅应致力于支持社会中脆弱群体，尤其是那些易受未来变化影响的人群，还应努力确保他们根本不会陷入脆弱境地。
先生，新加坡在这些发展上并未停滞不前。相反，我们在人工智能治理领域一直非常审慎且积极主动。例如，2019年，个人数据保护委员会（PDPC）首次制定了人工智能治理模型框架，2020年进行了更新。该模型框架为组织提供了如何以可信赖和负责任的方式部署人工智能的实用指导，作为全球首创，使新加坡在全球人工智能治理话语中占据有利位置。
2020年，信息通信媒体发展局（IMDA）、个人数据保护委员会（PDPC）和新加坡科技设计大学（SUTD）李光耀创新城市中心联合发布了《人工智能时代的岗位重塑指南》。该指南采用行业无关且以人为本的方法，展示如何重塑现有岗位以利用人工智能潜力，使人工智能成为岗位的辅助而非替代。指南还提供了企业通过岗位重塑和培训赋能员工的真实案例。
自2022年以来，新加坡还推出了诸如AI Verify和人工智能治理测试框架及工具包等举措，属于世界首批之一。2024年1月，发布了针对生成式人工智能系统的新模型治理框架。此外，本月新加坡主导发布了东盟人工智能治理与伦理指南。这些仅是冰山一角，展示了新加坡在区域乃至全球人工智能领域的思想领导力。
我想借此机会感谢所有公务员和政治任职人员在如此动态且快速变化的环境中，为将新加坡带到今天的位置所付出的辛勤努力。
议长先生，先生，我们当然不是唯一制定国家级人工智能治理方案的国家。
全球已有60多个国家制定了某种形式的监管。美国有一份人工智能权利法案蓝图，旨在负责任地设计和使用人工智能。欧盟最近获得政治认可的《人工智能法案》采用基于风险的方法监管人工智能应用及透明度规则。中国则采用基于结果的监管，包括生成式人工智能服务管理临时措施和互联网信息服务算法推荐管理规定。
新加坡的做法从未是照搬其他国家的方案。相反，我们密切关注全球发展，结合自身需求量身定制，推出适合新加坡的措施。
但我们也必须警惕国际碎片化风险，即各国采用各自独特的人工智能监管，导致全球监管呈现拼凑且常常不合理的局面，给跨境提供人工智能产品和服务的企业带来沉重合规负担。因此，国际合作以构建监管互操作性至关重要。新加坡在制定风险导向且务实的治理方案时，将加倍努力推动这些合作。
我们还应研究国际同行如何应对人工智能对就业、社会及社会契约的影响，并果断行动，最大化人工智能为新加坡带来的利益。
议长先生，自ChatGPT问世以来已逾一年。ChatGPT背后的生成式人工智能技术恰恰展示了人工智能技术对社会和经济带来的利益与风险的二元性。凭借新加坡务实且前瞻的态度，让我们今天播下可信赖人工智能的种子，塑造未来。
这本应是我发言的结束语。但我还想对尊敬的议员林秀燕女士在我之前几位发言中的讲话作些评论。据我理解，林秀燕女士的立场是我们不应剥夺年长工人的权益。我完全同意这一点。
如果研究副总理黄循财在预算演讲中提出的多项关键举措，实际上有一整套措施旨在帮助我们的长者不仅积极老龄化，还能重新技能提升、技能升级并重返职场。
因此，我恳请尊敬的林秀燕女士关注我们正在做的事情——为“安享乐龄”计划投入35亿新元。其目的是什么？是赋能积极老龄化。或者为1974年至2003年出生的所有成年新加坡人提供最高300新元的医疗储蓄奖金。为什么？为了医疗保障。我们将银发支持计划的季度支付提高20%，并将合资格家庭收入门槛提高至2300新元。为什么？为了支持长者的退休需求。还有更多举措。
但具体到我若未误解议员的发言，是关于再就业和就业方面。在这里，我也邀请议员关注政府为中年职业人士提供的再技能培训。我们将在2024年5月提供4000新元的技能未来补充积分，可用于选定行业导向的培训课程，以提升就业能力，并为选定全日制课程提供最高每月3000新元、最长24个月的技能未来中年培训津贴。
但我在本议院多年来学到，统计数据未必比故事更能说明问题。因此，让我分享一个故事，回应林秀燕女士提出的关切。这是我认识多年的居民苏布拉马尼安先生的故事，他现年65岁。
几年前，我们见面时，他告诉我他想提升技能，考取保安执照。我问：“苏布拉马尼安先生，您为什么想考保安执照？”他说：“因为我能提升技能，为家人赚更多钱。我有妻子和一个儿子拉马萨米。我们住在我负责的选区金茂的一个一房一厅组屋里。”我说：“好的，我们会尽力帮您拿到保安执照。”他做到了。
我们见证了拉马萨米的成长。他从亨利公园小学转到费尔菲尔德卫理公会小学，成绩足够好进入工艺教育学院（ITE），在那里取得4.0满分绩点，随后进入新加坡理工学院（SIT），并在格拉斯哥学习了一个学期，表现非常出色。我们在市场访问、家访或他来参加“见人民”活动时聊天，关系已发展成朋友。
我问苏布拉马尼安先生：“您用提升技能和再培训做了什么？”他说：“德索萨先生，我在樟宜机场找到了一份工作。”我问：“樟宜机场？您住在金茂，去樟宜机场要多久？”他说：“一个小时到一个小时二十分钟。”我说：“回程也是一个小时二十分钟？”他说：“是的。”我问：“为什么？”他说：“因为樟宜机场的薪水更好，我想给儿子最好的生活。”
所以，当我们谈论为长者提供保障时，我同意政策和统计数据可能显得冷冰冰且缺乏人情味。但这正是我们在本议院的职责：让政策和统计数据真正改变居民的生活。这是我们的使命和召唤。当拉马萨米拿着SIT的证书来访时，家人告诉我：“现在，我们觉得是时候买组屋了。”这是一次非常感人的分享。
因此，我完全同意林秀燕女士的观点，我们不能忘记我们的长者。我全心全意支持这一点。但我谦逊且尊重地不同意的是，我们正在做这件事。我们正在推出政策、举措和大量财政支持。桥梁就是我们，我们要尽最大努力完成这项使命。为此，先生，我支持预算案。[掌声]
议长先生：林秀燕女士。
下午12时15分
林秀燕女士：谢谢您，议长先生。我必须说，我对德索萨先生对我发言的回应感到相当困惑，也许，恭敬地说，我建议他误解了我的意思。
首先，他说作为当选议员要关注政府所做的事情，而我在发言中实际上强烈支持继续教育和培训（CET）计划。作为一名从事CET课程管理和教学超过十年的人，我看到了其价值，并在发言中表达了这一点。我也详细认可了技能未来升级计划。所以，我认为他误解了或者没听清我说的话，错误地指责我没有认可政府的努力。我不认为那是真的。
我发言的主要焦点确实是年长工人，以及我们如何应对职场中的年龄歧视。政府自己的统计数据，劳工部的公平就业实践报告，都强调年龄歧视是需要解决的主要歧视形式。虽然我很高兴听到他的居民表现良好，但他难道没有遇到过年长居民在职场遭遇年龄歧视的情况吗？
克里斯托弗·德索萨先生：感谢尊敬的议员给我机会回应。我没有听到尊敬的议员谈及我们为支持长者所采取的各种措施，我刚才已经提及。
议员可能提到了我提到的技能提升。我认为重要的是不要二分法，不要说“这是水和油，政策层面做的事情实际上没有渗透到底层。”事实并非如此。
我举例的原因是想说明我们应成为桥梁。如果我们看到年龄歧视，正如我所见，并且我谦逊地尽力去弥合这个差距，我们就应该这样做。这是我的观点，而不是抛弃已有的努力。
这些措施是协同工作的——财政措施以及我们在基层为居民做的工作，帮助他们匹配工作，确保他们尽可能接近理想的岗位，不仅为了他们自己，也为了他们的居民。
所以，我不认为我误读或误听了林秀燕女士的发言。我认为她的重点主要是年龄歧视，我谦逊地回应，如果你看所有财政措施和议员们在基层的努力，我认为我们确实有一套成功的方案来帮助长者。
议长先生：林秀燕女士。
林秀燕女士：先生，我不想延长这个话题。我认为会议记录会清楚反映我所说的话，我不同意他对我发言的指控。
议长先生：德索萨先生。
克里斯托弗·德索萨先生：我认为“指控”是个很强的词。我并没有指控尊敬的议员。我是在总结我认为她的观点，她的观点确实是年龄歧视是一个尖锐、棘手且可能难以攻克的问题。我同意这是个难题，我同意这是基层存在的问题。
但我不同意这是无法攻克的问题。解决方案就是议员们在基层弥合差距，将财政政策和副总理黄循财在2024年预算演讲中提到的内容转化为现实生活中的成功案例，影响家庭。
所以，我没有指控，我只是想重新引导议会关注政府如何重视这个问题，并已推出所有举措尝试克服它。但真正的成功方案是，作为后座议员，我们的职责和使命是弥合这个差距。我真心相信这一点。
议长先生：林秀燕女士。
林秀燕女士：谢谢您，先生。我从未说过年龄歧视是无法攻克的，事实上，我在发言中表达了希望即将出台的反歧视立法能够推动进展，成为改变游戏规则的举措。
议长先生：德索萨先生。
克里斯托弗·德索萨先生：感谢林秀燕女士同意年龄歧视不是无法攻克的。
议长先生：我向议员们保证，这里所说的一切都会被完整记录在会议记录中。议会领袖。
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] [2nd 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)]
11.01 am
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol) : Mr Speaker, when I speak to many residents on what they are looking for in the year's Budget, many reply, "Will the Government give us more this year?" There seems to be a growing expectation, especially with the cost-of-living pressures, that every Budget should have a giveaway package, such as our Assurance Package.
And even after all the announcements are made on the full extent of the Budget, when asked for their views, there are some who continue to focus on the immediate needs, such as how much more Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers they will be receiving. However, more and more residents come up to me and share that they are getting increasingly worried about our future, if Singapore can continue to grow and prosper and if this trajectory and Budget is sustainable.
The phrase used by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in his Budget speech was, "cautiously optimistic". Deputy Prime Minister Wong shared that there is considerable uncertainty in the outlook and the risks are tilted to the downside. What struck me was the challenges that he shared ahead. He mentioned how the international environment has darkened dramatically, something that was also picked up by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
The three decades of peace and stability in the post-Cold War era is now over, and he shared that we now lived in an era of conflict and confrontation. And the Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned that the world will be more violent, as we see a growing zone of impunity involving armed conflict and terrorism that cannot be easily resolved by the global community. When we look around us, the world seems to continue to be more fragmented as major powers are prioritising national security over economic interdependence. Deputy Prime Minister Wong also mentioned that it would be messier and more unpredictable.
If we take a step back and observe the world around us, we can see many examples of conflicts or of communities wedged apart by differences, or of fragmented post-election struggles to form government and of parliaments in deadlock that they cannot pass important bills to help the country.
Very often, the fractures and the wounds driven by wedging differences often lie so deep that it will take generations to resolve and mend. If we look at the world around us, Singapore sticks out like a sore thumb, for what we have is an anomaly. And this did not happen by chance and should not be taken for granted.
In the past few years, how Singapore came together – not without our own fair share of challenges – has enabled us to sail through this storm. With the uncertainties and challenges ahead, how we continue to stay together with our refreshed social compact and our focus on keeping our society strong and united will be integral to define how well we can navigate the uncertainties ahead, turn challenges into opportunities and progress for Singapore and ensure that even with all the challenges, we continue to look out for one another and care for one another, in a vibrant, resilient and inclusive community.
And it is through that lens that I will respond to Budget 2024.
Firstly, how do our schemes and policies work together to drive progress for Singapore? Secondly, how do we ensure that everyone enjoys the progress and we continue to provide more support to those that need help? And lastly, how do we ensure that the progress is sustainable for our future generations?
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is of no doubt that quality investments are the lifeblood of Singapore's progress. We must have a strong, vibrant and innovative economy which will then bring good jobs and hence, better lives for all Singaporeans. That is the formula for economic progress in Singapore.
However, the competition to attract quality investments is getting stiffer. We have heard of countries, such as Japan, Germany and the United Arab Emirates, rolling out vast amounts of subsidies to attract investments. I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Wong that we cannot afford to engage in this "bidding war" with the major economies, but what we can do is to strengthen the vibrant ecosystem that makes it conducive to attract investments in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, let me declare that in my previous and current roles in strategy and business development for a multinational enterprise (MNE), I have had the opportunity to understand the considerations an MNE has before it invests into foreign countries and what makes them decide to trigger that investment.
A conversation that I had with a Senior Executive of a large MNE at the Singapore Airshow best sums it up. Beyond the buzz of the dynamic display, he mentioned, while overlooking the hall, "There is no place in the world where we have such a clear view of the ecosystem of support for any investment, such as that shown in Singapore."
True enough, at the front of the hall, we have the Economic Development Board (EDB) hard at work attracting the investments. We then have JTC Corporation championing sustainable industrial development. MNEs looking to develop their business, including our local homegrown MNEs, like SIA Engineering Company and ST Engineering, pursuing business development. This then brings in jobs globally for our local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who, together with its workers, have a fair share of the pie through schemes, such as the Partnerships for Capability Transformation scheme.
We then come to the next question of how to develop the workforce capability? We had Workforce Singapore (WSG) in the exhibition hall promoting the sector, encouraging the Career Conversion Programme to bring more mid-career professionals into the industry and skills upgrade, through SkillsFuture, to better prepare the workforce for the growth of the industry.
At the side of the hall, we had AeroCampus, where schools were sharing courses on aerospace engineering to prepare our talent pipeline, and the students toured the AeroCampus, learning more about the industry from seasoned professionals.
There is no single ingredient of how we continue to attract quality investments into Singapore, but rather how our schemes, policies and agencies continue to collaboratively synergise. Working together to create a vibrant and innovative economy is our competitive advantage to the world.
We must continue to balance these levers and leverage on more to continue to make Singapore a vibrant and viable investment location. Hence, I am glad that in Budget 2024, it was announced that there are $3 billion investments in the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 grants, $2 billion top-ups to the National Productivity Fund (NPF) and Financial Sector Fund each and the enhancements to the Partnerships for Capability Transformation.
While I support the intent, given the size and scale of the NPF, how do we ensure that the funds are effectively used by businesses to drive real productivity, add value to the industry and transform the industries? Given that the proposed top-ups to NPF is half of the budget of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), how do we measure success so that we can quantify the returns on this investment?
As a member of the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), I am also glad to see our commitment to invest in more than $1 billion over five years for our National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2.0. I will elaborate more on it in the Committee of Supply (COS) debates.
Something that I have also always talked about in this Chamber is the rising cost of doing business and the uncertain impact of the implementation of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0. This is something that I have raised in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) amendment Bill in November 2022, Budget 2023, National Productivity Fund Bill in August 2023 and in this Budget debate again.
In the GST amendment Bill, I have also challenged the perception from some of the Members that BEPS 2.0 alone will be sufficient to make up the "hole" left behind by not raising GST. I am glad that in yesterday's speech, I may have heard Mr Louis Chua agreeing with Deputy Prime Minister Wong's position, that there will be spending to offset impact of implementing BEPS 2.0 and there is still a lot of uncertainty on how businesses and countries will react.
The Member goes on to say that he hopes that the introduction of Refundable Investment Credit does not go up against the spirit of the global BEPS 2.0 implementation. He also mentioned that he hopes that it is not returned back to MNEs in other forms.
I find that as an extremely worrying position. Similar to my speech, the Leader of Opposition quoted Deputy Prime Minister Wong's speech that the "international environment has darkened dramatically" and we expressed caution towards Singapore's future in the uncertain global environment.
I can tell you for certain that it is getting increasingly difficult to attract foreign investments into Singapore and I am glad that the Refundable Investment Credit is an additional tool introduced to assist in attracting investments into Singapore. Mr Chua mentioned that we should not go against the spirit of BEPS 2.0. But I am worried if, philosophically, he is comfortable with limiting the capability of the tools that we have to attract investments?
To attract investments – our lifeblood for Singapore – here is where theory diverges from reality, where we are fighting tooth and nail for more investments into Singapore. Is this what Mr Louis Chua is advocating for? I can assure those in the Chamber that attracting investments into Singapore will continuously be more challenging and we want to equip ourselves with the full disposal of tools to attract good investments into Singapore to create good jobs for our people.
Secondly, how do we ensure that everyone enjoys the progress and we continue to provide more support to those that need help?
I am pleased to hear the continued commitment to upskill and reskill our workers through our SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, provide enhancement support to our low-waged workers through the enhancements of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance and the introduction of the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Progression Award.
Enhancing the effectiveness of SkillsFuture to focus on capability building and real productivity improvement is something that I have often spoken about in Parliament too. I have raised this in my maiden speech, in the Budget Debate 2022, Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2023, National Productivity Fund (Amendment) Bill 2023 and SkillsFuture (Amendment) Bill 2023.
Hence, I welcome these enhancements, especially the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit top-up, for selected industry-oriented training courses as it will enable our workforce to focus on capability development to drive innovation towards higher value outcomes.
Lastly, how do we ensure the Budget is sustainable for future generations?
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget tackles the immediate challenges brought about by the higher costs of living, pursues better growth and jobs by anchoring quality investments, equips our workers for the future economy, creates more paths towards equality and mobility, provides more assurance for families and seniors, invests in a safe and secure Singapore and safeguards energy security amidst the energy transition.
There are many challenges ahead of us and there will be pressures to spend more. The Budget addresses the key challenges and builds our capability as we look ahead and it does so with a balanced fiscal position, where we do not spend beyond our means. I am heartened to hear the reassurance from Deputy Prime Minister Wong on upholding the ethos of fiscal discipline and responsibility to ensure our fiscal position always remain balanced, sound and sustainable.
As we head towards the uncertain future our fiscal discipline, our refreshed social compact and our focus on keeping our society strong and united will be integral to define how well we can navigate the uncertainties ahead, turn challenges into opportunities and progress for Singapore and ensure that despite all the challenges ahead of us, we continue to look out for one another, care for one another, in a vibrant, resilient and inclusive community. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Mr Louis Chua.
11.14 am
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang) : Mr Speaker, just one quick clarification for the Member Mr Sharael Taha. So, if I am hearing him correctly, is he saying that we should then go against the spirit of BEPS 2.0?
Mr Sharael Taha : I would like to thank Member Mr Louis Chua for his question. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not saying that we should go against the spirit of BEPS 2.0. I am just saying that when it comes to attracting investments, we should not limit our capability to attracting investments, which would mean requiring us to provide certain benefits or support in order to bring the investments into Singapore.
Mr Speaker : Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied) : Thank you, Speaker. Sir, in this Budget, I and others born in or before 1973 have been called "young seniors". These days, when younger commuters give their seats up to me on the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), I no longer feel insulted but accept with grace.
That said, with better life expectancy and health, 60 is the new 40. We still have much to contribute as citizens. Today, I wish to focus my speech on older workers and how we should be tapped on as a resource for the good of the nation.
What can older people contribute? A lot. Last week, veteran Hollywood director Martin Scorsese won the prestigious honorary Golden Bear at the 74th Berlinale for lifetime achievement. For close to 60 years, Scorsese was at the helm of countless groundbreaking films, the latest being "Killers of the Flower Moon" released last year, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro. He announced that his next project would be a film on the life of Christ. All this, at age 81.
Singapore, too, has its own role models. The late Ms Teresa Hsu Chih, who died at the ripe old age of 113, was dubbed Singapore's Mother Teresa. The retired nurse founded charities caring for the aged, the sick and destitute, and was still actively involved in charity work after turning 110.
Sir, here, I hint at a cultural mindset that we need to change. Over the years, I have met many older residents whose job search suggests age discrimination. Let me take just one instance.
There was a male resident who had decades of experience in healthcare management. He was well-groomed, communicated well and seemed fit. Yet, he found it near impossible to land an interview, let alone secure a job – in the same industry, healthcare – in positions either equivalent or less demanding than he had previously held. He was in his 70s.
Younger seniors aged 40 and above are also not sparred. Just last month, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) released a radio documentary on ageism in the workplace and interviewed mid-career Singaporeans; they shared their difficulties on just getting employers to give them a chance to show what they were capable of. Indeed, according to the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) Fair Employment Practices Reports, age was the most common form of discrimination encountered during job searches.
Yet, the fact is that there are jobs waiting to be filled. According to the MOM's Labour Market Report for the third quarter of 2023, there were still more job vacancies than job seekers. The ratio of job vacancies to job seekers was at 1.58, which was higher than pre-pandemic periods. The sectors that saw significant vacancies included Health and Social Services, Information and Communications, Professional Services, and Financial and Insurance Services.
While there may still be some physically demanding sectors that may not be suitable for older workers, this space has decreased over time. It is clear that jobs have evolved in the advent of technology and artificial intelligence (AI). On this issue, Dr Helen Ko, Senior Lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), wrote a commentary for CNA entitled: "Seniors do well at their jobs yet ageist myths and negative stereotypes persist." She opined that it was not the age of a worker that was the most important, but whether the demands of work exceeded the worker's capabilities. She noted that in this modern era, health and technology improvements meant that there were few jobs that the average 70-year-old could not do.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has put out many studies on ageism in recent years. The WHO literature refutes many misconceptions about ageing. It has been noted that there is no typical older person, and that some 80-year-olds have levels of physical and mental capacity that compare favourably with 20-year-olds. Thus, age should not be used as a proxy for capability.
Also, as life spans increase, many older people experience longer health spans. So, each cohort of the older population is effectively younger and should not be discriminated against because of age.
Having older citizens engaged in the workforce has immense benefits for society as a whole. If a significant proportion of older and middle-aged people are unemployed, especially those in the lowest income groups, they will become more dependent on informal family assistance, Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings and Government transfers or charity. This will increase social stratification and social division in our country.
Sir, at this point, I should acknowledge that the Government has various incentive schemes to encourage employers to hire older workers. These include various grants and the Senior Employment Credit (SEC), which offers wage offsets. As of September 2022, the SEC has been taken up by more than 100,000 employers and benefited more than 460,000 senior workers. While these incentives are appropriate and necessary, I believe we can attain even higher labour force participation of older workers if we change any ageist mindsets.
To this end, I am looking forward to the anti-discrimination legislation to be unveiled later this year. The various stakeholders involved have rightly identified age discrimination as something to be tackled. To make the legislation more effective, it should permeate the entire human resource process. In the UK, for instance, I understand that the Equality Act 2010 protects people of all ages regarding employment, recruitment, promotion, reward and recognition, redundancy and vocational training.
Thus, for example, the UK legislation has made it illegal for recruiters interviewing potential hires to ask their age or date of birth. If our upcoming legislation has this effect as well, it would potentially be a game changer.
Next, I would like to turn briefly to the related topic of how to ensure our older workers can retrain. To assist mid-career workers, this Budget introduces three measures under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. I would like to make some observations about this initiative. While there is a minimum age of 40 to access these measures, there is no maximum age. I agree with this approach. Not having a maximum eligibility age impliedly recognises that a worker remains potentially employable, regardless of age. This is laudable.
I move to the first measure of providing a new $4,000 credit to enrol in courses that are targeted at employability outcomes. If the intention is to assure enrollees of better employability outcomes, will there be any condition attached to participants, such as to secure jobs in certain sectors?
As for the second measure of providing additional subsidies for a full-time diploma study in any area, it was not mentioned that increased employability was a goal of this measure. Would it then be possible to sign up for such subsidised courses simply for enrichment purposes?
Even if so, I would say that there is utility in this, as it keeps the minds of seniors agile and keeps them healthy longer. It could also allow them to become effective volunteers in our non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and charities, even if they are not earning a salary.
Finally, on the third measure of full-time courses that will attract a monthly training allowance of up to $3,000, it would be useful to know what the eligibility conditions are and whether there are any employment outcomes attached to these.
Sir, having managed and taught continuing education and training (CET) courses myself for more than a decade, I have personally seen the strong desire of adult learners to improve themselves. Many of them do not come from privileged backgrounds and they value the second chance, as it were. For adult learners to succeed, having course fee subsidies and employer support is critical. CET is a worthy cause, as it is an important aspect of social mobility.
Sir, let me conclude. I have focused on how older workers are a national resource that should be leveraged on, for the benefit of society. We still have work to do to tackle age discrimination if we are to maximise our country's potential and well-being. All of us should be lifelong learners, or risk becoming obsolete. As I said at the start of my speech, 60 is the new 40. Let us embrace this reality with renewed confidence.
Mr Speaker : Ms Lim, like you, I am also a "young senior". And like you, I, too, enjoyed the movie "Killers of the Flower Moon". Mr Don Wee.
11.24 am
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the measures in this Budget to retain Singapore's competitiveness and to position us for the next lap. My suggestions and clarifications stem from business owners, newspaper reports and forum letters, which I have encountered since 16 February 2024.
I would like to begin with the various tax schemes. Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 introduces a minimum effective tax rate of 15% for large MNEs. I applaud the Government for being nimble and progressive in reassessing Singapore's existing suite of tax incentives, noting that other jurisdictions are also undergoing tax incentive reforms, ahead of the landmark move.
The introduction of the Refundable Investment Credit scheme will help existing companies and potential investors impacted by the BEPS Pillar 2. As a tax credit with a refundable cash feature, it is an attractive and flexible scheme supporting a range of high-value economic activities, including manufacturing, green transition activities as well as research and development (R&D).
The proposed Refundable Investment Credit seems to be based on qualifying expenditure. Can the Government make the scheme available to businesses which are not as expenditure-heavy, such as the ones that are tech solutions related, but also can bring economically beneficial activities to Singapore? Would the Government consider awarding tax credits on output and volume-based features as well?
Next, may I appeal for the scope of qualifying activities under the Approved Foreign Loan incentive to be expanded beyond capital-intensive productive equipment investment? Under the scheme, the withholding tax is exempted or is applied at the reduced rate on interest payments on loans taken.
I also recommend that the withholding tax concession be extended to support companies in undertaking other economically productive activities in Singapore, including commodity trading, intellectual property (IP) rights acquisitions, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activities as well as R&D. Can the Government consider expanding the scope of qualifying IP rights under the Intellectual Property Development Incentive to include other intangible assets, such as plant variety rights, designs and utility models?
Next, would the Government further liberalise GST treatment for input tax claims on carbon credit trading-related expenses? Enhanced tax deductions would be helpful for the businesses that purchase voluntary carbon credits to manage their emissions targets. Can all yields deriving from certain qualifying green investments made by Singaporean investors overseas be exempted from corporate tax here, similar to the foreign-sourced dividends?
To encourage the early adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), can the input tax be claimable on the GST incurred for expenses related to these EVs?
I welcome the increase of the SkillsFuture Credit from $500 to $4,000. To develop Singapore's workforce further, I also propose to increase the cap for tax relief on course fees for personal development. The Course Fees Relief has been capped at $5,500 since 2011, for individuals taking courses to upskill or gain academic, professional or vocational qualifications. As costs increase, it may be time to increase the cap, to further encourage individuals to invest in their future by upskilling.
To better support the families amidst rising costs, I propose that the Government reviews the quantum for the Qualifying Child Relief when computing personal income taxes.
Next, on SMEs. More targeted funding support can be provided to SMEs to invest in carbon-pricing and modelling solutions, as well as projects such as value-chain emissions management and decarbonisation. These measures can include a further deduction on the expenditure incurred or co-funding on such projects, subject to a cap. A limited time frame of two to three years of assessment can be used to ensure the effectiveness of the measure.
I also welcome the Government's plan to expand the Partnerships for Capability Transformation scheme, which aims to promote more and deeper collaboration between the multinational corporations (MNCs) and SMEs. Enhancing partnerships to include capability training, internationalisation and corporate venturing is highly beneficial for our SMEs in a world where advances in technology are progressing at an unprecedented rate in a turbulent global environment.
Sustainability is an area where the SMEs can work with the MNCs who are usually the "queen bee" buyers, on opportunities to become more competitive. Presently, environmental, social and governance reporting only applies to listed firms, but SMEs should take stock of their carbon emissions as legislation in some other countries require firms all along the supply chain to comply with sustainability standards. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Recently, many SMEs are constrained in what they can bid for, such as projects like the JTC proposed Coastal Development Tender, which award points to bidders that have the experience of completing projects overseas. I am cognisant that this criterion is not compulsory. However, few Singaporean companies have the experience of securing projects overseas, thus Singaporean companies feel disadvantaged to earn these additional points.
In order to earn these additional points, local companies are encouraged to form a joint venture (JV) with larger Korean or Chinese companies, so that the JV has a higher chance to win large infrastructural projects in Singapore. I was informed that there is limited transfer of knowledge as these large JV partners are only interested in the manpower resource, which include the foreign workers quota that their Singaporean JV partners possess. Hence, the transfer of knowledge is very limited.
Many business owners had informed me that there is a shortage of heavy vehicle parking lots near their drivers’ residences and many business owners even pay for their workers' extra transport expenditure. Can the Government convert vacant premises like schools or JTC sites into carpark lots, regardless of how short term it may be? This would help to reduce some of the companies’ expenditure.
I hope that in the short term, the Government can also relax the diversity quota criterion in the Complementarity Assessment Framework for Employment Pass Hires, as firms find it hard to meet the requirement in a tight labour market. I hope that there can be flexibility in quota adjustment under the Manpower for Strategic Economic Priorities Scheme, which allows eligible firms to hire S Pass and Work Permit holders beyond their existing ceiling for about three years.
The Government could also review the current foreign worker quota to allow them to be pegged to job roles, instead of the current classification.
( In English ): Would the Government consider providing more incentives to companies which practise inclusivity hiring of seniors, the disabled and those with special needs?
Presently, the Government provides an Enabling Employment Credit paid to employers of persons with disabilities (PwDs) aged 13 and above and earning below $4,000 a month and the Open Door Programme Job Redesign Grant by supporting up to 90% of the job redesign costs. I propose going further by giving tax rebates, higher quotas for hiring foreign workers and more points awarded when bidding for Government projects.
Companies have noted a shortage of local talent in some areas but, sometimes, part of the problem is that they have inherent biases and refuse to consider certain groups of potential employees, even if they have the matching skillsets. These include young seniors or the group defined as being between the ages of 50 and 60. A challenge for them is finding meaningful work that allows them to use the skills they have developed over the years.
Many young seniors are medium-skilled for the most part, with some high-skilled workers. They have higher expectations for the jobs that they are doing and are less likely to be willing to take lower-skilled jobs. Like many of the older Singaporeans, they face challenges like age discrimination at the workplaces, questions about whether they can continue in their current roles, seniority, salaries and so on, until they reach the retirement age.
Along with encouraging this group to work for as long as possible and as long as they want to, it is also important to incentivise businesses to configure jobs in a way that actually makes it more acceptable for them to work longer. As wages become more stagnant, would the Government consider extending progressive wages to more sectors and up the income ladder?
Next, on uplifting lower-wage workers, I welcome the increase in the WIS payout to $4,900 and the increase in the qualifying income cap of $3,000.
While social support schemes, such as ComCare and the recently enhanced ComLink+, have been introduced to boost lower-income households, these schemes tend to target the lowest income group in our population. However, many Singaporeans who fall below the 20th percentile of population by household income need more help, too.
WIS has been enhanced over the years to better support this larger group of lower-income workers. However, an individual worker is often responsible not just for themselves but for their dependants, too. As WIS is still disbursed at the individual level, it does not fully account for the heavier financial burdens that some of these workers may face when raising young children, supporting elderly or caring for family members with special needs, especially with the cost of living rising.
Would the Government consider indexing WIS and social support schemes to inflation or the consumer price index annually? The annual review of WIS can be administered similarly to the Public Transport Council's annual fare review exercise.
An increase in the proportion of WIS payouts allocated to cash can also help households to meet their immediate needs. With current inflation outpacing the CPF Ordinary Account interest rate of 2.5%, it would be more practical for WIS recipients to have more cash in their hands.
WIS should also be recalibrated to take into account household incomes and size. The current WIS is pegged to an individual, using the worker's age, employment status and income to determine the disbursement amount. But this supplement is provided even to a lower-wage worker in a wealthier household. Instead, a household-based WIS would provide a higher monthly payout to lower-income households with more dependants. This will be a more holistic approach to take into account the overall financial situation of a household.
Singapore has many social support schemes for lower-income families with different eligibility criteria. Essential workers need the help most but they have the least time and capacity to navigate their eligibilities and to apply for the various schemes. They also face challenges learning about and taking advantage of the latest upskilling measures, including those introduced in this Budget. They may lack the awareness and knowledge about where and how to apply for training programmes and what kind of courses suit them.
Furthermore, in view of the number of job and training scams in the market these days, we also need to help them navigate and avoid this pitfall. Would the Government consider a more systematic framework to reach out to and coach these workers on the safe path to training? Public education campaigns must be conducted to ensure that these workers know where and how to avail and take advantage of these training grants and courses through trustworthy channels. With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Dr Syed Harun.
11.38 am
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to, first, thank the hon Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, as well as the various Ministries in rolling out the proposals for Budget 2024.
With the advent of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), coupled with a proliferation of social media yet to be fully understood and its impact realised, the world is moving incredibly fast and at a blistering pace. The pace of change in the world today and, indeed, in Singapore, is no longer just a function of linear years, months, weeks or days, but the pace of change globally has profoundly accelerated since the turn of the century. Stasis today no longer means we will be left behind by a mere few steps but inevitably left behind exponentially further and further with the passage of time if gaps are left unaddressed.
A deep concern I have is the impact on those left behind as Singapore attempts to surge ahead and maintain its pace in the world today and, in tandem with this concern, is the profound issue of social mobility.
My contribution to this Budget debate seeks to raise greater awareness on the topic of social mobility, its importance and value to us as a people and as a country in the context of our Budget in 2024. When we talk about social mobility, a few things come to mind.
First, whether some of us care to admit it or not, each and every one of us here have benefited from some form of privilege. Whether we may have been born into some form of wealth and socioeconomic privilege, whether we had the privilege of good health, a decent upbringing, stability in the household and loving parents, or the privilege of teachers, confidantes, mentors or friends who looked out for us, gave a word of advice or nurtured us to who we have become and where we are today. My humble view is that no story of any success bore out of the efforts of a single individual alone, but it had to be that alongside that valiant individual's effort, the village around him or her made it possible for success to first take root.
Second, we know not everyone has this privilege. We hear of children born into dysfunctional families, suffering abuse and afflicted by trauma. We know of families where breadwinners or other members are suddenly saddled with debilitating illness and disability and how that can catastrophically change the outlook of a family within an instant. We hear tales of families so big relative to the size of their physical house that the only true privacy one has from the shared space is only when he or she is in the washroom. We also hear of neighbourhoods of rental flats where children grow up in less than savoury environments, confronted with an early introduction into a life of antisociality, drugs and crime, and where Police presence is not uncommon.
Third, that the true distance between the two, having such privilege or otherwise, can actually be quite the fine line. It is a fallacy to think that our station in life is set at birth and that things cannot upend themselves. Sides can change, illness can hit and jobs can be lost. In our fast-paced world, despite our best efforts, sometimes change can be unforgiving, dramatic and merciless. In this paradigm, an understanding of the importance and acceptance of social mobility is critical for our society.
At the level of the individual, as much as we do not wish it for anyone, we cannot ignore this vulnerability and pretend like it cannot happen to any of us. We must accept with some humility that the success that has befallen us is not necessarily the result of hard work alone but that of our favourable social milieu, the people around us and, some would argue, chance to a significant extent.
The reverse also holds true; that for many individuals and households assessed as low in their socioeconomic status through a measure of their income or financial ability, many find themselves stuck, not by virtue of a lack of hard work, effort or intellect. Some have not yet been blessed with the privilege of opportunity and mentorship, they may be encumbered by ill health and disability, or just born into circumstances that snared them early into a cycle of poverty, scarcity and hardship.
When we take a deep look at success through the lens of inequalities and social mobility, we then are able to view our own successes with some modesty and romanticise less about the gallantry of our own efforts, and we view the lack of success in others with much concern and interest into their well-being and life circumstances.
Many Members have, before me, spoken about social mobility in this House in the past. Truly, social mobility is, indeed, the cornerstone of a fair and just society. It allows for individuals to move up or down the social escalator of life, regardless of their initial background, ethnicity or economic status. Some would describe it as a social ladder, but I contend that things are moving at such a pace that makes an escalator a more apt descriptor. In our dynamic and fast-paced world, trying to achieve social mobility remains a constant moving target and it has not been easy to keep pace and ensure full equitability in opportunities for all. As a society though, we must continue to commit to giving our best to get this right for all Singaporeans.
For without social mobility, there is little hope, opportunity, growth and success for the underprivileged and most vulnerable amongst us. There will be entrenchment of privilege and, in fact, distrust and discrimination will only fester and proliferate, gnawing and tearing at the social cohesion we have taken so long to build and strengthen. Everyone, regardless of their life circumstances, deserves a fair and equitable chance at success.
Today, Mr Speaker, we are perhaps more coordinated than we were decades ago in wanting to gain traction for social mobility. We have the hon Minister in-charge of Social Services Integration as well as the Rehabilitation and Social Mobility Policy Department, as part of the Policy and Planning Directorates of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). We recognise that in wanting to empower and uplift the most vulnerable, it requires a whole-of-Government approach.
We cannot afford to take on the issue of social mobility and its layered challenges piecemeal. Problems relating to early access to education and health, employment opportunities and steps towards housing ownership must be addressed collectively. We know that ComLink+ attempts this today and the intent is to take a holistic and wrap-around approach to support families. I can see how some of the proposed changes in the Budget will help address social mobility to some extent.
For example, enhancing the Assurance Package lends confidence to each Singaporean household that there is something for everyone and no one is left behind, especially at a time when there continues to be inflationary pressures and rising costs of living. When coupled with the Enterprise Support Package, even as businesses seek to transform and strengthen their workforce, the true yield and benefit also go to the Singaporean workers, for it gives them opportunity to upskill, develop and grow alongside that of the business enterprises they work for.
That the Government continues to pay close attention to local enterprise, especially smaller firms, is heartening and we hope that this seeds confidence for our local businesses to grow further and for them to flourish even beyond our shores.
I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s call that we need to deepen this culture of lifelong learning and skills mastery to develop every Singaporean to their fullest potential and for each and every one of us to have the opportunity for productive and meaningful careers.
The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme actually makes me feel young again. What this programme does is that it gives a second wind of opportunity to learn a new skill, especially in a world where things have moved so quickly and technology has outstripped skillsets learnt from what feels like a lifetime ago. It gives support to our workers to take that step towards learning again. And both the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit Top-up and the opportunity to have a renewed access to subsidised full-time diplomas are very much welcoming news to me.
I wonder if the Ministry could share what the thought process behind this was, in terms of how the $4,000 top-up amount was arrived at and why not more, the choice of 40 years old as the age to introduce this programme and why it is limited to a diploma programme only. I wonder if it were possible to consider introducing this at a younger age, say, 35, and whether degree programmes could be permitted as well. While some individuals may be keen to spread some breadth to their knowledge base by taking a diploma unrelated to their existing expertise, others may be keen to dig deeper into their field of interest and pursue a degree instead.
I am also heartened by the ITE Progression Award. It is a welcome nudge for ITE students who qualify to continue on to pursue a diploma and that upon completion of the said diploma, to get a further $10,000 CPF top-up in the Ordinary Account.
From time to time, I hear of young talented ITE graduates who do well in their courses but stop short of wanting to continue. Sometimes, the draw of the gig economy or full-time employment in the short term, coupled with the pressing need to contribute to the family’s household income looks like a reasonable option to enter the workforce, rather than be confronted with another three years of education at a pace of learning that is faster than before. When they enter the polytechnic after finishing ITE, it will also be apparent that they are older than their peers who may have come directly from secondary schools. The adult in the room will recognise that in the longer term, a diploma would be of natural benefit, but consider also a young person from a family of less privilege, pressed with imminent caregiving responsibilities of his siblings and wider family at an early age and no direct sight of the longer-term implications of such a decision.
My view is that through the ITE Progression Award, while relatively modest and encapsulated within the CPF construct, there are practical benefits that could nudge more to consider strongly to move on to diplomas if they qualify. I hope that the Ministry monitors this trend to see how it encourages more ITE graduates to pursue diplomas and, if proven beneficial and well-received, to consider a greater quantum for them in time.
I wonder if the Ministry could confirm whether this could be retrospectively introduced to former ITE students already currently in polytechnics or those who have recently graduated this year. This would go a long way in helping them move forward into the next phase of their lives and in giving their best to their current studies.
Mr Speaker, other than dollars and cents, really, the challenge of social mobility is about building self-confidence and self-esteem of the vulnerable and less privileged in themselves. This is harder to quantify and we can never emphasise this enough, for it is a delicate process and we need to get it just right.
For those of us who have ever tried a hand at making bread, it is the yeast that makes bread rise. We can knead the bread with all our might and effort, add the ingredients like flour, water, salt and sugar, and yet it still does not rise in the bread pan. Yeast is one of those delicate ingredients in bread that can be hard to quantify, and its introduction into the recipe is almost an art and takes careful judgement.
Social mobility is the same. It is not a mere insertion of quantifiable ingredients and an anticipation that things will rise automatically. The Budget is helpful, the funds are important and so is the structure to enable it. But we must remember that the exercise of social mobility is also just about maintaining dignity and autonomy. It is about knowing that society has your back and are rooting for everyone to succeed. Our social policies can only come to life when, at the last mile, we deliver them with a genuine and determined desire to uplift, with a care and concern deserving of a fellow brethren with a shared Singapore identity and a genuine belief that the vulnerable, having been played a card of less privileged circumstances in life, deserve to succeed, too.
In my volunteering capacity, I remember interviewing for a scholarship, a young lady from a single parent household, formerly from a neighbourhood secondary school, having done part-time work to support her family, but yet also scoring a near-perfect grade point average (GPA) for her polytechnic studies. What struck me and my fellow panellists most about our interview with her was how unaware she was, notwithstanding her sterling grades, about her potential options to study, flourish, to be exceptional and to take on the world. Her intellect, humility, real-world resilience and results notwithstanding, she had a lack of role models, was oblivious to the plethora of global options at her feet and how, with the right support, in good time, she could pave the way for her family to a better life, potentially lifting not only herself but also her mother and siblings out of their current life circumstances.
Because of her background, she genuinely had no access nor sight to see beyond what her lived reality could offer, and her aspirations and ambitions were much constrained and reduced from what she could have easily attained. The truth was neither she nor her family had the social capital to envision a future beyond the horizon of what they could reasonably see.
There are gems in the rough arising from many of these families. They are borne from a life of adversity, hardship and challenges, and what some of their children need is really a fair and equitable opportunity. These children often grow up faster than most, their negotiation skills drawn from the uncertain and harsh environment they have grown up in, and they possess an adaptability and resilience that can be hard to replicate and teach in the classroom. Especially when we see deep potential and exceptional qualities in an individual child, if we were to fully affirm our ethos of social mobility, we must be able to give him or her access to the full swathe of options and the full mile to realise their potential. And when we shed light on these options, it must be coupled with a genuine desire that they deserve to be successful, too.
Across all Ministries, whether it be in addressing inequalities of access to health, education, housing and social support, I believe, Mr Speaker, we have the structures and unitary components in place. In theory, the bread pan is ready and we have got all the ingredients for the bread in the mix. The yeast sometimes can be a little tricky and fickle to get going, and it takes patience for the bread to rise.
Similarly, in delivering a Budget towards realising social mobility, the constitute ingredients like funding, structure and processes matter, but they do not matter as much as how we approach the issue in a spirit that genuinely cares and is concerned for the most vulnerable in society.
Finally, Mr Speaker, social mobility has its lessons for us as a nation, too. We have done well in our 58 years since Independence. We must recognise that in as much as Singapore starts from a strong position today, that we are doing well through our fervent efforts to improve and strengthen Singapore society, and that we are on a reasonable cadence for continued success, we must also have the humility to accept that we arrived here in 2024 with a little luck against the odds stacked against us in history, recognise the privilege of standing on the shoulders and wisdom of leaders before us, and that the starting point for Singapore today in 2024 has arisen from inherited structures and efforts of generations of Singaporeans prior. We, too, are privileged.
There are others who may not be as fortunate to be where we are today and we remain a country many others seek to emulate. We must guard this privilege well and be custodians of Singapore’s continued prosperity, but at the same time, we cannot also turn a blind eye to other calamities in this world, such as places of war, conflict, crises and disasters. In light of that, the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS) is also a welcome reminder of our privilege as a Singaporean society, and the depth of means to which Singaporeans have, relative to others around the world, to provide and support people in crisis to rebuild their lives again.
This is an extension of our lived ethos and values as a Singaporean society that everyone deserves a chance at success, that not all lived realities are made equal and that privilege exists in many shapes and forms.
It is not wrong to live a life of privilege, to compete fiercely and strategically for our survival, and to want to do well for ourselves, our families and our next generation. However, with the blessings of privilege, we must recognise that our environment, the people around us and chance had a significant role to play.
Tempting as it may be to only give ourselves a pat on the back, we cannot discount the role that others have had to play in our success story, be it our accomplishments as individuals and as a nation. The humility keeps us grounded, informs us of a worldview of care and concern for others and further fortifies us as a society of ethical values, compassion and kindness.
With that, Mr Speaker, it is my hope that the delivery of this Budget in the coming year continues to further erode inequalities and lends opportunity for social mobility to continue taking root in our midst. I rise in support of the Budget Statement.
Mr Speaker : Mr Christopher de Souza.
11.57 pm
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah) : Thank you for allowing me to join this Budget debate. Today, we are at the cusp of a transformation that ranks among the most profound of them all, the AI transformation. Many have spoken on this, so I rise to speak on two specific aspects. First, how this transformation affects our social compact, and second, how Singapore has and should continue to approach the governance of AI.
To truly understand the societal implications of AI, we need to, first, understand what we are dealing with. While there are many kinds of AI systems out there, most contemporaneous AI systems are based on machine learning (ML). ML systems are trained on data to produce insights and predictions, and they have become more prevalent in the early to mid-2010s. In the late-2010s, deep learning, a subset of ML, grew in prominence. This utilises neuronetworks, which comprise layers of nodes similar to a human brain that process inputs and produce outputs. These systems are also able to adjust their weights, thus increasing the model's accuracy over time.
Most recently, the technology that has taken the world by storm is, of course, generative AI (genAI). GenAI utilises deep learning, but the difference is that through new techniques and mechanisms, they can be trained on large sets of unstructured data. The result is foundational models, that is, models capable of producing output for a wide range of tasks without having to be specifically trained for it.
Yet, notwithstanding the capabilities of AI today, we must remember that we are talking about artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), which is able to only do specific tasks well, rather than artificial general intelligence (AGI), which connotes AI that is able to perform a wide range of tasks that a human can normally do.
I have spent some time delving into the technicalities because I believe it is important to bear this in mind when we talk about AI affecting our social compact.
Mr Speaker, many hon Members have, in past Sittings, alluded to the multitude of benefits and dangers that AI brings. I do not wish to rehash what had already been said. Instead, I believe we must be careful on how we tread this line in encouraging AI innovation and adoption while continuing to support our people and their livelihoods.
One concern is how the AI age will affect jobs. Alarmist headlines emphasised the loss of jobs to AI, but actually, the key to making AI-enabled jobs rather than replace jobs is to allow people to find their passion with new responsibilities that require uniquely human abilities. With every industrial revolution, the economy changes and so do jobs where what is required of humans also change.
The current fourth Industrial Revolution is no different. It was estimated that in the United Kingdom (UK), over 20 years, seven million existing jobs could be affected by AI. But very critically, 7.2 million jobs could be created. So, that, in fact, is a net gain in jobs.
But what we must ensure as a Government is that no one slips through the cracks, to ensure that every Singaporean, as we become an AI-enabled society, will have that opportunity to learn and grow, and none of us need fear being replaced.
We must also consider that not everyone can make such transition at the same time and at the same pace. But, through the right assurances and infrastructure, we must help every Singaporean realise their core and unique human skills and show them how these skillsets remain relevant and even while their job scopes encompass more decision-making and creative responsibilities.
Mr Speaker, as mentioned, we are talking about ANI today. ANI systems have limits beyond which human intervention is required. In fact, the more unprecedented and complex the situation, the better humans are at managing it, because we have a sense of judgement, empathy and values that no AI system can foreseeably replace.
Mr Speaker, there is another dimension when talking about AI and jobs. With the help of AI, we can feed datasets into deep learning models to look upstream and understand the root causes of various societal issues. Not only should we aim to figure out how to support those who are vulnerable in our society, especially those vulnerable to the coming changes, we should also try to ensure that they do not reach that point of vulnerability in the first place.
Sir, Singapore has not been standing still on these developments. On the contrary, we have been moving very thoughtfully and proactively in the realm of AI governance. For instance, in 2019, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) first realised the modelled AI governance framework. This was then refreshed in 2020. The model framework provided organisations with practical guidance on how to deploy AI in a trustworthy and responsible manner, and as the first of its kind globally, positioned Singapore well in the global discourse on AI governance.
In 2020, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), PDPC and the Lee Kuan Yew's Centre for Innovative Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) launched a guide to job redesign in the age of AI. The guide adopts an industry-agnostic and human-centric approach to show how existing job roles can be redesigned to harness the potential of AI so that AI augments, rather than replaces, jobs. The guide also provides real-life examples of how companies have empowered their employees through job redesign and training.
Since 2022, Singapore has also launched initiatives, such as AI Verify and AI Governance Testing framework and toolkit, one of the world's first, and in January 2024, a new modelled AI governance framework for GenAI systems. Further, just this month, Singapore led the release of the ASEAN guide on AI governance and ethics. These, which are just the tip of the iceberg, showcase the thought leadership that Singapore wields regionally and, I might say, globally in the space.
I would like to take a moment to recognise all the hard work that our public officers and political office holders have put in to bring Singapore to where we are today in such a dynamic and fast-changing environment.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we are certainly not the only country to have developed a national approach towards AI governance.
Over 60 nations around the world have some form of regulation. The United States (US) has a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights for responsible design and use of AI. In the European Union (EU), the AI Act, which recently received political endorsement, adopts a risk-based approach to regulating AI applications and rules surrounding transparency. China has adopted outcomes-based regulations, including interim measures for the management of GenAI services and the Internet information service algorithmic recommendation management provisions.
Singapore's approach has never been to take another country's approach and apply it wholesale. Instead, we watch global developments closely and tailor them to our needs while introducing fit for Singapore measures.
But what we also need to watch out for is the risk of international fragmentation. This is where countries adopt their own unique regulations of AI, resulting in a patchwork, often quite irrational, of global regulations and heavy compliance burdens for companies looking to provide AI products and services across borders. This is why international corporation to build regulatory into operability is important. Singapore points double down on these efforts while developing our governance approach in a risk-based and pragmatic way.
We should also study how our international counterparts address the impact of AI on jobs, societies and the social compact, and act decisively so that we maximise the benefits of AI for Singapore.
Mr Speaker, it has been over a year since ChatGPT launched into the forefront of the world's consciousness. The GenAI technology behind ChatGPT showcased exactly the benefit and risk dichotomy AI technologies present to our societies and economies. With Singapore's pragmatic and forward-thinking approach, let us plant the seeds and shape the future of trustworthy AI today.
That was meant to have been the concluding remarks of my speech. But I would like to also make some comments on the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim's speech, a couple of speeches before me. As I understand, Ms Sylvia Lim's position is that we should not disenfranchise our senior workers. I could not agree more.
If one were to study the Budget speech delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, there are a number of key initiatives. In fact, a whole raft of measures that are targeted to assist our seniors to not only age actively, but also to reskill, upskill and re-enter the workforce.
So, I enjoin the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim to have a care and look at what we are doing, the $3.5 billion for Age Well SG. And what is the purpose behind this? It is to empower active ageing. Or a MediSave bonus of up to $300 for all adult Singaporeans born in 1974 to 2003. Why? For the assurance for healthcare. We will increase quarterly payments from the Silver Support Scheme by 20% and raise qualifying household income thresholds to $2,300. Why? To support seniors in their retirement needs. And the list goes on.
But specifically, if I have not misunderstood hon Member's speech, is the aspect of re-employment and jobs. And here, I would also like to invite the Member to take a look at what the Government is doing to have mid-career reskilling. We are providing $4,000 in SkillsFuture credits for mid-career top-ups in May 2024, which can be used for selected industry-oriented training courses with better employability outcomes, and up to $3,000 monthly SkillsFuture mid-career training allowance for up to 24 months for selected full-time courses.
But I have learnt, over the years, in this Chamber, that statistics do not necessarily make the point as well as stories do. So, let me share with you that while we have all these measures in place and there is a lot of deliberation, a lot of the need to balance competing interests and pushing out new policies, funding them, ensuring the revenue is there for them. But at the end of the day, as MPs and Members of this House, at least, the elected ones, have a duty to ensure that these policies and measures meet their intended need on the ground.
Let me share with you a story which, I think, meets the concerns of what Ms Sylvia Lim raised. This is a story of a resident, Mr Subramaniam, whom I have known for a number of years. He is now 65 years old.
Some years ago, we met and he shared with me that he is looking to upskill himself and he wants to get a security guard licence. I said, "Mr Subramaniam, why would you like to get a security guard licence?" He said, "Because I will be able to upskill, earn more money for my family. I have a wife, and I have one son, Ramasamy. We live in our one-room one-hall flat in Ghim Moh", an area in the ward that I am responsible for. So, I said, "Yes, we will do our best to get you a security licence." He did.
We have seen Ramasamy grow up. He went from Henry Park Primary School to Fairfield Methodist Primary School. He did well enough to get into ITE. He got a 4.0 out of 4.0 GPA in ITE. He went on to Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and he did one semester in Glasgow, and he is doing very, very well. And along the way, when we meet, whether at market visits, home visits or when he comes in for Meet-the-People sessions and we have a chat, and the relationship is now a friendship.
I asked Mr Subramaniam, "What did you do with your upskilling and reskilling? He said, "Mr de Souza, I got a job in Changi Airport." So, I said, "Changi Airport? You live in Ghim Moh. How long does it take for you to get to Changi Airport?" He said, "An hour, an hour and 20 minutes." And I said, "And an hour and 20 minutes back." So, he said, "Yes." I said, "Why?" He said, "Because at Changi Airport, the pay is better, and I want the best for of my son."
So, when we talk about wanting to provide for our seniors, I agree that policies and statistics can be quite clinical and impersonal. But that is what we are called to do in this House; to make the policies and the statistics and change the lives of our residents. That is our vocation. That is our calling. And when Ramasamy came in with his certificate from SIT, the family said and shared with me, "Now, I think it is time for us to buy our flat." That was a very moving sharing with the family.
So, I could not agree more with Ms Sylvia Lim's point that we cannot forget our seniors. I agree wholeheartedly with that. But where I diverge humbly and respectfully is that we are doing that. We are pushing out policies, we are pushing out initiatives and we are pushing out a lot of fiscal provision. The bridge is us and it is for us to accomplish that vocation to the best of our ability. With that, Sir, I support the Budget. [ Applause. ]
Mr Speaker : Ms Lim.
12.15 pm
Ms Sylvia Lim : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say that I am really rather puzzled by Mr de Souza's response to my speech and perhaps, respectfully too, I may suggest that he has misheard me.
First of all, you know, he says to have a care as elected Members of Parliament (MPs) for what the Government is going and, in my speech, actually, I strongly endorsed the continuing education and training (CET) initiatives. Having been a person that has been involved for more than a decade in managing and teaching CET courses, I see the value and I did say so in my speech. I have also acknowledged the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme in detail. So, I think he has misunderstood or has not heard what I have said and kind of accused me of not acknowledging Government's efforts. I do not think that is true.
The main focus of my speech really is on older workers and how we need to tackle ageism in workplace and the Government's own statistics, MOM's own Fair Employment Practices reports, highlight that age discrimination is the main form of discrimination that needs to be tackled. While I am happy to hear that his resident has done so well, has he not come across any residents who are older who have faced age discrimination in the workplace?
Mr Christopher de Souza : I thank the hon Member for giving me this chance to reply. I did not hear the hon Member talk about all the different measures that we have in place to support the seniors which I went through.
The Member may have alluded to the upskilling which I alluded to. I think what is important is to not dichotomise, not say, "Look, this is water and oil and what we are going to do at the policy level doesn't actually trickle down to the low level." It does.
And the reason why I gave an example is to show that we are meant to be the bridges. If we see that there is ageism, as I have seen and as I have tried humbly, to the best of my ability, to bridge, then we should. That is my point. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
These are a slew of measures that work in concert with each other – the fiscal measures as well as what we do on the ground for residents to job match and to ensure that they get as close to a job as they want, not only for their own sake but for the sake of their residents.
So, I do not think I misread or misheard Ms Lim's speech. I think it was largely based on ageism and my humble response to that is, if you look at all the fiscal measures, and the grind and the work of the MPs on the ground, I think we do have a chance of a winning formula for our seniors.
Mr Speaker : Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim : Sir, I do not wish to prolong this matter. I think the Hansard will speak for itself of what I have said, and I do not agree with what he has accused me of saying.
Mr Speaker : Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza : I think "accusation" is a very strong word. I am not accusing the hon Member. I am summarising what I think her point is and her point is really that there is this stark, prickly, difficult and possibly unassailable issue of ageism. I agree that it is a difficult issue. I agree that it is an issue on the ground.
I do not agree that it is unassailable. And the formula for that, the remedy or the solution for that is what the MPs do on the ground to bridge that gap, to translate fiscal policies and all that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had said in his Budget 2024 speech into real-life examples of how this has worked and impacted families.
So, I make no accusations. I seek to re-orientate the House into how the Government is vested with this issue and has put in place all the initiatives to try to overcome it. But the winning formula really is, as backbenchers, our calling and our vocation, to bridge that gap. And I genuinely believe that.
Mr Speaker : Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim : Thank you, Sir. I never said that ageism is unassailable and, in fact, in my speech, I expressed the hope that the upcoming anti-discrimination legislation would move the needle and be a game changer.
Mr Speaker : Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza : I thank Ms Lim for agreeing that ageism is not unassailable.
Mr Speaker : I assure Members that everything that is said here will be captured in Hansard. Leader of the House.