Debate on Annual Budget Statement

[(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.