預算辯論 · 2024-02-26 · 屆國會 14
2024年預算案中的共享未來
辯論圍繞2024年預算案展開，質詢方關注政府資訊透明度、社會公平及退休保障等問題。政府回應部分採納反對黨建議，如臨時失業援助計劃。核心爭議在於政府是否真正開放接受多元意見及如何縮小理想與現實差距。
關鍵要點
- • 資訊透明度不足
- • 理想與現實脫節
- • 退休保障需加強
支援預算，採納部分反對黨建議
呼籲更多開放與公平保障
強化社會保障與包容發展
“The real challenge to the People's Action Party (PAP), however, is for it to be open, and the extent to which it is prepared to accommodate the diverse views of Singaporeans.”
參與人員 (29)
- Ang Wei Neng
- Jamus Jerome Lim
- Chua Kheng Wee Louis
- Darryl David
- Denise Phua Lay Peng
- Dennis Tan Lip Fong
- Deputy Speaker
- Foo Mee Har
- Gan Thiam Poh
- Gerald Giam Yean Song
- Hazel Poa
- Jessica Tan Soon Neo
- Joan Pereira
- Keith Chua
- Kwek Hian Chuan Henry
- Leong Mun Wai
- Liang Eng Hwa
- Mark Lee
- Cheryl Chan Wei Ling
- Murali Pillai
- Ng Ling Ling
- Ong Hua Han
- Pritam Singh
- Raj Joshua Thomas
- Saktiandi Supaat
- Shawn Huang Wei Zhong
- Tan Wu Meng
- Wan Rizal
- Yip Hon Weng
完整譯文（中文）
Hansard 原始記錄 · 2026-05-02
[(程式文本) 恢復辯論問題的議程宣讀 [2024年2月16日] [第一指定日], (程式文本)]
[(程式文本) “議會批准政府2024年4月1日至2025年3月31日財政年度的財政政策。” – [副總理兼財政部長]。(程式文本)]
[(程式文本) 問題再次提出。(程式文本)]
議長先生：普里塔姆·辛格先生。
上午11時33分
普里塔姆·辛格先生（阿裕尼選區）：議長先生，前進新加坡的口號是“建設我們的共同未來”，而2024年預算的口號是“共同建設我們的共享未來”，兩者極為相似，這絕非巧合。政府意圖將2024年預算作為邁向前進新加坡的一步。
前進新加坡計劃有三個主要目標，面向未來十年及更長時間。新加坡必須：第一，擁有強大且不斷增長的經濟；第二，發展更公平的社會；第三，加深我們的團結感。在此過程中，從多次公眾參與會議中提煉出的共同未來，是一個充滿活力、公平、有韌性、包容、繁榮且團結的新加坡。
先生，可以公平地說，這些是描繪我們所有人所追求的新加坡的宏觀藍圖。預算2024在闡述政府方向方面並無異議，因此工人黨支援該預算。
然而，對人民行動黨（PAP）真正的挑戰，是其是否開放，以及在多大程度上願意包容新加坡人對如何實現前進新加坡願景的多元觀點。毫無疑問，人民行動黨要求反對黨提出替代方案，雖然有人懷疑這只是修辭上的要求。工人黨真誠回應，提出了不少建議，最終政府以某種形式接受了這些建議，儘管最初有時存在顯著阻力。
事實上，今年的預算包含了工人黨的提案；財政部長宣佈的臨時財政支援計劃就是一個例子。雖然細節有所不同，但支援非自願失業者的理念是工人黨倡導的。
同樣，工人黨提出的反歧視立法建議，以更好地保護工人權益，也得到了體現。與人民行動黨不同，工人黨在競選宣言中明確提出這些建議，且我們的議員在議會中系統且反覆地提出這些觀點。
議長先生，現在讓我提出五點，作為我對預算回應的基礎。
第一，政府需要更加坦誠地提供資訊，以便新加坡人能更積極地參與政策討論。第二，新加坡人的期望與現實之間存在日益增長的不匹配，必須加以解決。第三，政府必須改善退休保障的充分性。第四，僱主需要對員工表現出更多支援。第五，我們必須努力在這個不確定的世界中進一步加強新加坡人的團結。
我的第一點是，政府需要更加透明和坦誠地提供資訊，以便新加坡人在影響我們最關鍵的事務上能有意義地參與。這是我演講中反覆出現的主題，但我絕非唯一持此觀點的新加坡人。
《海峽時報》2024年2月19日刊登了一篇題為“經濟學家讚賞2024年預算，但擔憂可持續性”的文章。文中引用的經濟學家擔心大量現金髮放與缺乏有關新加坡財政實力來源的資訊相結合。在報道中，一位前提名議員呼籲政府提供更多關於其支出資金來源的資訊。
另一位經濟學家指出，新加坡獨特，不遵循國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）等全球機構關於財政平衡中收入與支出差異的標準。還有一位經濟學家被引用說：“作為一個社會，我們現在面臨一些非常重要的選擇，除非我們獲得充分資訊，否則無法做出良好選擇。”先生，後者的觀點涉及儲備金，這是我們本月早些時候辯論過的主題，工人黨提出了五項原則。
2月20日，《海峽時報》發表了一篇評論文章，題為“預測未來政府收入變得更難”。作者指出，由於特定稅收徵收可能出現17%至27%的波動，實現預算精準預測將更加困難。他認為，預算精準預測2%的時代已經過去。
兩屆預算前，我曾詢問碳稅預計總收入是多少。政府未予以透露，儘管初步數字不難估算，財政部可能已統計。類似地，2016年政府宣佈了45億新元的產業轉型路線圖，但直到議會提出質詢前，未主動更新資金使用情況。政府在這方面顯然可以做得更好。
我多年來談論經濟合作與發展組織（OECD）關於稅基侵蝕和利潤轉移（BEPS）制度。財政部長提出了兩種可能影響我們的情況：一是企業所得稅增加徵收；二是部分跨國企業（MNE）離開新加坡。如果近期媒體報道屬實，這兩種情況可能同時發生：一方面預測更多跨國企業總部從香港遷至新加坡；另一方面報道伊萊克斯將區域總部從新加坡遷往曼谷。
鑑於第二支柱的實施，政府對樂觀和保守兩種情景下的預計稅收收入是多少？
本屆議會首次預算辯論時，工人黨呼籲設立議會預算辦公室，人民行動黨拒絕，稱此舉只利於反對黨。秉持前進新加坡精神，鑑於更大需求跟蹤政府政策及其支出效果，此類機構應成為我們民主和前進新加坡報告所要求的新加坡的組成部分。
《海峽時報》2月19日文章中引用的一位經濟學家說，議會外的新加坡人渴望更深入分析和理解政府所做的事情。我分享的這些例子凸顯了議會內政治反對派與議會外非政治新加坡人，以及人民行動黨政府之間可能存在的差異。這些對資訊的呼籲不能被視為無關緊要。如果政府在這方面做得好，私營部門經濟學家不會提出這些論點。
這些呼籲體現了塑造適合新加坡目的的政治環境的願望。新加坡人需要知道可支配資金的多少及其來源。這是進行理性財政討論和形成現實替代願景的基本要求。在任何民主社會，政府都應促進此類討論，並應主動解密更多資訊（如有必要）。盛港集選區議員何亭如女士將在其演講中談及協商民主、透明度和問責制主題。
回到前進新加坡目標的資金問題，副總理宣佈本預算中已預留50億新元用於前進新加坡政策舉措，至本十年末將使用約400億新元。鑑於預算宣告中作出的承諾，政府是否會詳細說明這些舉措，因為顯然對資助前進新加坡計劃所需資金已有一定考慮？
先生，人民行動黨必須告訴我們政府將如何部署這400億新元用於前進新加坡政策，以便新加坡人理解人民行動黨認為未來社會契約的需求。正如人民行動黨要求工人黨提出替代方案，人民行動黨理應也提出自己的方案。
議長先生，我的第二點是，新加坡人的期望與現實之間存在日益增長的不匹配，必須採取措施解決。前進新加坡報告中提及過去數十年的“五C”被媒體部分人士關注。五C代表現金（Cash）、汽車（Car）、信用卡（Credit card）、公寓（Condominium）和鄉村俱樂部會員資格（Country club membership）。前進新加坡報告呼籲新加坡人超越五C，追求更廣泛的成功定義。這無疑是對五C中相當一部分對大多數新加坡人來說已難以實現的事實的承認，或許是無意的。
但我想說得更進一步。現實是，無論採用何種成功定義，不少新加坡人的生活都非常艱難。2023年底《商業時報》報道了華僑銀行財務健康調查結果。越來越少的新加坡人能輕鬆支出基本生活以外的開銷，更多人沒有足夠的緊急資金或儲蓄滿足家庭需求。只有40%的新加坡人大部分時間能負擔基本生活以外的開銷，較2022年下降8%；23%只能負擔基本生活；79%的新加坡人沒有退休計劃或退休計劃未達標，較2022年的71%有所上升。
如果這項調查反映的情緒屬實，社會契約可能岌岌可危且不均衡，尤其是中產階級對財務未來感到不安時。為應對這一可能性，結構性投資未來，特別是通過“技能未來”（SkillsFuture）計劃，至關重要且關鍵，同時也認可並歡迎預算中的臨時生活成本支援措施。
工人黨預見未來需對人力資本進行更大投資，尤其考慮到職場環境快速變化，更多高薪職位需具備高階技能，盛港集選區議員林佔士副教授將進一步闡述這一點。
4000新元的技能未來學分專用於選定的就業效果較好的課程，可用於兼職文憑、後文憑、本科課程及私人財富管理（PWM）相關課程。工人黨認為，將技能未來學分用於經濟生產性課程並帶來就業成果，是本預算的重要政策舉措。但我們認為許多課程費用可能超過4000新元。
為進一步促進技能培訓並幫助新加坡工人，政府應推出無息技能未來教育貸款。工人黨在2020年大選宣言中將此提案置於核心位置。初期，這些貸款可針對高增長行業中缺乏新加坡人力的課程，或其他經濟重要領域的課程進行調整。
先生，我的第三點是，政府必須改善退休保障的充分性。副總理宣佈的中央公積金（CPF）特別賬戶（SA）變動，將由盛港集選區議員蔡偉豪先生闡述。
然而，我談論的是更廣泛的退休保障充分性問題，並將其視為未來數十年的持續關注點。許多新加坡人注意到，邁向前進計劃的三大核心組成部分：年度“賺取與儲蓄”獎金、一次性退休儲蓄獎金和一次性醫療儲蓄獎金，針對1960年至1973年出生的新加坡人，均涉及公積金補充。自由與先驅世代也將獲得這些補充。總計有140萬新加坡人將獲得公積金補充。
從工人黨的角度看，先生，這些舉措明確表明，公積金餘額的退休充足性是一個嚴重且持續的問題。至2030年逐步提高僱主公積金繳納比例的措施，也應被僱主視為確保所有工人在退休時不被落下的舉措。僱主必須重新設計崗位，使老年員工若願意，能繼續工作更長時間。未來因崗位被替代而導致更多裁員的真實風險，進一步推動崗位重新設計的必要性。
近日，國土發展部長在社交媒體上慶祝建屋發展局（HDB）組屋擁有計劃60週年。歷史顯示，組屋擁有計劃最初反響平淡，直到1968年公積金法案修訂，允許新加坡人使用公積金資金支付組屋首付和按揭，組屋才開始廣受歡迎。
毫不誇張地說，公積金從負責新加坡人退休的法定機構，變成了建屋發展局的附屬機構，目的是幫助新加坡人購房。當然，公積金政策自那時起已有諸多演變。
但顯而易見，新加坡如今與獨立初期大不相同。特別是年輕一代新加坡人無法指望1990年代以來的房產升值。儘管有新的按需建屋（BTO）分類系統，增加了限制並提高了補貼，組屋的可負擔性仍是許多新加坡人持續關注的問題。
實質上，政府似乎承認可負擔性是持續關注點。工人黨在去年議會辯論建屋動議時提出此點，旨在聚焦人民行動黨修訂的動議。
總理在2023年國慶集會上提及臭名昭著的宏茂橋877,000新元五房BTO組屋，作為新BTO分類系統下標準、優質及加成組屋因增迦納稅人補貼而應稍微便宜的例子，這並非偶然。
更多資金用於購置組屋意味著退休資金減少，儘管有降級選項。如果房價和整體通脹趨勢增長快於工資，許多人將不得不推遲退休計劃，因為他們今天需支付按揭，能儲蓄的資金減少。
現在是仔細審視應為住房預留多少公積金資金的時候了。但如果組屋價格持續上漲，減少住房公積金預留以增強退休保障的舉措可能適得其反。
政府可能不得不承諾通過進一步增加補貼，使組屋更可負擔。請勿誤解，直接補貼組屋購置並不降低組屋價格，只是將成本轉嫁給當前納稅人。工人黨將繼續密切關注人民行動黨在此方面的舉措。如果允許組屋價格持續超出工資增長，且損害新加坡人的退休保障，我們必將追究其責任。我的同事，阿裕尼集選區議員費薩爾·馬納普將在其演講中就住房和低收入家庭提出相關觀點。
議長先生，我的第四點是，僱主需要對員工表現出更多支援。商業團體對新的本地合格薪金上限1600新元表示關切，該數額被廣泛視為事實上的最低工資。
然而，如果新加坡真心擁抱前進新加坡的理念，我們就需要對經濟上脆弱的工人表現出更強支援。這是未來社會契約的重要組成部分。事實上的最低工資提高，應被視為邁向包容和公平新加坡的一步。如果我們有一個共享的未來，卻缺乏對最低收入工人按經濟基本面支付合理工資的支援，這將極大損害新加坡形象。
當經濟增長或支援措施擴充套件至企業時，工人也必須受益。但消費者也必須準備為商品和服務支付更高價格，不能僅由企業承擔工資上漲的額外成本。
前進新加坡承諾的最強社會契約，也為我們思考工人保護提供機會，超越工資層面。新加坡對所有藍領工人手工技能的認可不足已被廣泛討論。下一步，新加坡應立法規定遣散福利或引入裁員保險，保障這些工人。我將在人力部供應委員會辯論中對此作進一步闡述。
但部分僱主在某些方面表現良好，展現了與新加坡工人的團結。例如，配合現代新加坡勞動力需求實施靈活工作安排（FWA）。但FWA只是其中一方面。若要實現前進新加坡，必須改善職場文化，改變對技能提升和培訓的態度。
在最近一項名為“新加坡人的想法、感受與行動”的益普索調查中顯示，五個新加坡員工中有三個，即60%的新加坡員工表示他們為自己的僱主感到自豪。但這一比例比全球平均水平低了14至19個百分點；29%的人表示計劃在兩年內離開當前僱主，比全球平均水平高出9個百分點。
雖然薪酬是一個原因，但感到未被認可和缺乏職業發展是促使員工離職的另外兩個因素。隨著人工智慧（AI）的興起和提高生產力的需求，現在正是大幅審視人力資源政策的好時機：使其與國家重點任務和新加坡工人的實際體驗相一致。阿裕尼集選區議員賈瑞爾·賈姆先生將在他的發言中更多談及生產力提升。
作為“前進新加坡”計劃的一部分，一個關於就業韌性的公民小組得出結論，許多工人直到有需要時才主動管理自己的職業生涯——這是由於缺乏升級資源的意識；或者資訊過多，令人望而生畏，難以導航。
技能未來企業信用旨在鼓勵僱主投資企業和職場轉型。它涵蓋一系列專案，包括生產力解決方案補助下的崗位重設計支援。這些舉措可以疊加在員工，特別是年長員工所指出的關鍵人力資源職場痛點上。阿裕尼集選區議員林秀娟女士將就此主題作更多發言。
今年的預算將技能未來企業信用延長一年。與往年一樣，工人黨呼籲政府報告這些企業計劃的成效或不足，這些計劃涉及鉅額資金。報告成果是問責制的基本要求。請向我們提供行業層面是否取得任何成果的資訊。請告知，以便本議院及議院外的行業專家能就如何改進這些計劃提出意見（如有必要）。
議長先生，我進入最後一點。在這個不確定的世界裡，新加坡人需要致力於團結一致，同時保持多種族和多元文化。
副總理黃循財在預算演講中，試圖聚焦一個重要資訊——許多人在和平安穩、遠離衝突威脅時往往忽視了這一點。財政部長演講中令我印象深刻的部分是對新加坡不確定前景的評估。有些措辭尤為強烈，包括，我引用：“國際前景急劇暗淡；孕育了三十年和平與穩定的後冷戰時代已結束；我們現在進入了一個新的衝突與對抗時代，且無回頭路；在這個新世界中，我們能期待什麼？它將更暴力、更分裂、更混亂且更不可預測。”
與此同時，世界因經濟置換而出現政治極化和被剝奪感上升，全球仍在努力應對共同問題，如氣候變化，後港單選區議員陳振聲先生將涉及此話題。
如果“前進新加坡”旨在重新整理社會契約，以保持社會強大團結併為艱難前路做準備，我們所有新加坡人——無論政治立場如何——都必須成為彼此的守護者，比以往任何時候都更重要。
但這並不容易。移民與融合是潛在挑戰的典型例子。早期移民幾乎沒有選擇，或選擇較少，必須融入社會。他們無法與東道國人口隔絕生活。僅僅30年前，國際電話費用高昂，難以承受。
現今移民可以輕鬆保持與其網路和出生國的聯絡。一個新加坡公民或永久居民雖身處新加坡，卻可能與新加坡社會脫節。種族與社群間更好的融合必須成為新社會契約的重要特徵。鑑於移民是新加坡社會的永久特徵，忽視這一社會目標將是自取滅亡。
由國家和非國家行為者持續進行的資訊戰是所有多元文化社會面臨的嚴峻威脅。作為一個多種族、多宗教社會，且依賴移民補充人口，我們作為一個統一民族的紐帶在未來幾年可能遭受嚴峻考驗。
網路虛假資訊和外國干預的現實，尤其是以民族主義或身份政治形式出現時，可能潛移默化且對新加坡極具破壞性。
即使我們尋求更多空間熱情表達觀點，包括種族和宗教方面，也應注意避免貶低其他群體。確實需要更多溝通，但我們永遠不應忘記共同的人性。我們無人選擇出生於何種種族或宗教，因此善良與同理心必須成為多元種族新加坡精神的主導特徵。
作為擁有當選議員的反對黨，工人黨不會自我審查，但承諾負責任地提出問題。一旦社群間的不信任根深蒂固，我們將不知所措。
工人黨贊同政府的立場，即新加坡絕不能出現極化。作為一個面臨不可預測世界的社會，我們不應忽視這一潛在現實。我們必須通過加深對同胞的承諾，忠實代表他們及其觀點，為此做好準備。
更具潛在波動性的前景也強化了新加坡武裝部隊（SAF）和內務部隊及國民服役的重要性。我們的安全機構可能面臨不僅是傳統軍事行動，還有非對稱挑戰，我們不能有絲毫懈怠。所有新加坡人必須全力支援我們的軍人。
總之，議長先生，對於“前進新加坡”所追求的成果，普遍存在共識。
但對公平、包容和團結新加坡的呼籲，也必須容納並回應公民對更大透明度和公民參與的訴求。否則，“前進新加坡”很容易淪為政治憤世嫉俗的犧牲品。
工人黨多次提出如何更好地回應這些對更大透明度的呼聲。這些呼聲不會減弱，也不與“前進新加坡”調查的發現和期望成果相矛盾。
人民行動黨與工人黨之間的一些分歧在於方法和途徑，我們必須同意存在分歧。但也許有些問題在最終成果上達成共識，而另一些則沒有。這就是議會民主的運作方式。一個擁有爭議和平衡議會體系、強有力反對派發揮作用、致力於公平包容社會的新加坡，最終使我們成為一個更好、更自信、更真實的新加坡。議長先生，工人黨支援預算。
議長先生：梁榮華先生。
中午12點01分
梁榮華先生（武吉班讓）：議長先生，閣下，今年的預算提出了“前進新加坡”計劃設想下重塑新加坡社會契約的第一步政策舉措。
我們可以在今年預算的許多方面看到“前進新加坡”的印記，包括各種新穎方法和舉措，為新加坡人提供保障。有重大舉措發展人才，投資中長期能力和安全，支援家庭和長者，建設更公平公正的社會。
我們在一個更加不確定、競爭激烈和波動的世界中前進。為了適應並在此環境中繁榮，我們需要不斷重新評估我們的主張和規範，但更關鍵的是保持凝聚力和團結。
議長先生，請允許我先談談預算中應對眼前挑戰的措施。秉承“前進新加坡”的核心理念——我們同舟共濟、互相支援——今年預算繼續加強幫助新加坡人應對生活成本的方案。
19億新元的增強保障方案（AP）可能看似“老調重彈”，但這是令人歡迎的“老調重彈”，實際上遠不止“老調重彈”。雖然還有其他措施和工具幫助緩解成本上漲，但沒有什麼比政府直接發放更多補貼和援助更有效。幸運的是，我們仍有財政能力推出如此規模的方案。
對於企業來說，雖然50%的企業稅回扣和企業融資計劃等措施也可能被視為“老調重彈”，但向所有至少僱傭一名本地員工的公司發放最低2000新元現金補貼顯然是新亮點，如果我沒記錯，這是我們預算中的首次。這將為小企業提供一定緩解，幫助抵消部分增量成本。
除了保障方案，今年預算還有其他有助於新加坡家庭和企業應對成本上漲的措施，如工作收入補貼、銀髮支援、學前教育費用上限、漸進式工資補貼計劃等。
因此，我感謝副總理兼財政部長持續為幫助新加坡人應對成本壓力提供保障。
除了年度預算措施，去年九月副總理還推出了額外的預算外11億新元生活成本支援方案。該方案還包括額外3億新元一次性公共交通補貼，以緩解2023年票價上漲。這是在政府每年提供20億新元補貼以保持公共交通負擔得起的基礎上。
我希望政府繼續監控成本狀況，包括關注公共交通票價；如果預算允許，考慮再次提供一次性援助以緩解票價上漲。
議長先生，現在讓我談談預算中我最為欣喜的部分——發展人才。
人才必須成為任何政策制定和意圖的核心，無論是發展經濟、建設能力、加強安全，甚至為何我們要審慎理財。我們希望人民過上充實幸福的生活。生活追求的重要部分是謀生。我們工作是為了賺取收入，養家餬口，過好生活，併為應急和退休提供經濟保障。
作為政府，沒有什麼比幫助人民獲得良好且有意義的生計更重要、更值得優先考慮的了。這必須成為政府的首要關鍵績效指標（KPI）。然而，隨著技術快速發展和經濟環境更具競爭性和顛覆性，長期就業保障將成為日益嚴峻且持續的挑戰。我們在學校和職場獲得的技能壽命縮短。一些舊職業將被淘汰，而需要新技能的新職業將出現。再加上勞動力供應方面，隨著健康壽命延長，我們現在可以擁有更長的職業生涯。我們活得更長，享有更多健康年華，這得益於我們今天的生活質量。
新加坡人理解這一必要性，知道職業生涯中可能需要轉型以應對變化。十年前推出的技能未來計劃開啟了我們終身學習的思維。2024年預算為技能未來運動提供重大推動和顯著資金提升，旨在推動40歲、50歲甚至60歲的新加坡人擁抱職業韌性，保持就業競爭力。
技能未來升級計劃提供多種補貼，大大降低培訓的經濟成本，這是中年職場人士的長期痛點。每月培訓津貼相當於個人平均收入的50%，上限3000新元，持續24個月，顯著緩解了工人在職業轉型專案中的經濟負擔。
為40歲及以上新加坡人額外增撥4000新元技能未來積分，是一項可觀提升，也是明確的未來方向訊號。該積分現更具針對性，僅適用於能實現預期就業成果的專案。
議長先生，2024年預算的另一個顯著轉變是教育補貼政策的變化；40歲及以上新加坡人可在理工學院和工藝教育學院（ITE）以補貼學費攻讀另一文憑。副總理稱之為“再咬一口”教育補貼。我希望這項新的補貼全日制文憑課程也能培養更多專業人士、經理、行政人員和技術人員（PMET），從而減少未來對更多S準證和就業準證（EP）的需求。
議長先生，這些都是實質性舉措。承諾資金只是第一步，當然也是關鍵推動力。真正的重任在於運營整個價值鏈，即工人尋求僱主需要的培訓；教育者深入瞭解行業和企業需求，策劃相關技能課程；工會和政府密切監控、促進並預判未來發展。
議長先生，我歡迎預算中提及的另一轉變，具體細節將於今年晚些時候公佈；即為非自願失業者提供臨時經濟支援計劃。這符合當前現實，我們將看到更多影響企業和就業的衝擊。我很高興我們已準備好採取行動。這正是我們所說的有效社會契約，體現了我們互相支援。議長先生，請允許我用中文表達。
（中文）：[請參閱方言發言。] 有句諺語說，人無定所，水無常形。如今技術快速發展，帶我們進入職場不斷變化的時代。經濟運作轉型直接影響職場，改變就業模式，縮短技能和知識的價值及壽命。針對這一情況，今年預算加強了應對策略，強化並推出新政策措施。
除了最高4000新元的技能未來補貼，政府還調整了教育補貼，允許中年新加坡人重返教育機構攻讀專業文憑，提升就業潛力。
希望參加合格全日制工作課程的工人，還可獲得最高每月3000新元的培訓津貼。通過這些措施，我們可以理解政府旨在幫助新加坡人保持就業能力，拓展就業機會，擁有更好未來的意圖。
學習和技能提升是一項挑戰，涉及經濟成本和個人時間投入。這就是政府投入大量財政資源並強化政策措施以減輕個人負擔的原因。
最終，能否取得成效取決於工人是否有意願和熱情去獲取技能和知識，以及僱主是否具備靈活、回報性強和長期支援的心態。
在此過程中，我們還需策劃更多可應用於提升就業機會的課程。這將是一條艱難道路，但我們別無選擇。我看到政府的決心，未來需要每個人和整個系統共同努力，落實這些強化的技能提升政策。
（英文）：議長先生，關於經濟，我完全同意副總理的觀點，我們需要繼續發展經濟，以提升新加坡人的整體福祉。
鑑於我們面臨的土地、勞動力和碳排放等內在限制，我們下一階段的增長必須依靠生產力和創新驅動。這並不容易，因為資源更豐富、國內經濟規模更大的大國也在做同樣的事情。
我們採用的戰略是通過持續吸引高質量、高價值投資來克服限制，這使我們成為全球人均經濟附加值最高的國家之一。
吸引此類投資幫助我們跳過風險更高、資本密集的建設階段，使經濟始終處於尖端技術前沿。因此，吸引高價值和創新的跨國企業在此設立基地和樞紐，仍是我們這樣規模有限經濟體的有力策略。
多虧了經濟發展局（EDB）、新加坡金融管理局（MAS）和企業新加坡（ESG）等一流投資促進機構，我們能夠在激烈競爭中吸引這些高質量投資。
我經常閱讀EDB的年度報告，以瞭解我們每年吸引了多少投資。除了報告固定資產投資（FAI）承諾和每年的總營業支出（TBE）外，EDB還會報告預期創造的就業崗位和對經濟的附加值。
例如，2023年，EDB吸引了127億新元的固定資產投資，89億新元的總營業支出，預計將創造超過2萬個就業崗位，預計附加值為267億新元。我感到欣慰的是，我們的經濟投資機構從未忘記引入投資的最終動機，即創造優質就業崗位併為我們的國內生產總值（GDP）做出貢獻。
先生，我們必須不斷加強我們的主張；其中包括始終成為企業友好的首選目的地，擁有多元化的人才庫，卓越的基礎設施和連通性，可信賴的司法管轄區，強大的財政狀況，當然還有有能力的政府和政治穩定。
我們的本地企業如何從跨國企業（MNE）的存在中受益？關鍵在於尋找方式讓我們的本地企業成為跨國企業的供應商和服務商；並在其價值鏈中發揮作用。
加強能力轉型夥伴關係旨在增加跨國企業與中小企業（SME）合作的多種模式，幫助中小企業提升實力。這可能是我們本地企業突破規模陷阱，提升為新興區域性企業或細分領域冠軍的途徑。
先生，除了吸引高質量投資和發展本地企業外，我們還必須投資於我們的能力建設，打造長期競爭力。副總理在今年的預算中宣佈了一系列對我們能力的重大投資；例如，研發、創新與企業2025（RIE2025）投入30億新元，金融業發展基金20億新元，全國寬頻網路升級1億新元。
為了增強我們的長期能源安全，政府還將注入初始50億新元設立未來能源基金。這些都是鉅額資金承諾。先生，我期待即將到來的財政部長辯論中的詳細內容。
關於人工智慧，我很高興新加坡在發展人工智慧能力方面領先，擁有國家人工智慧戰略。這一點在國際上也得到了認可。
去年12月，我恰好帶家人在臺灣度假。當時，臺灣總統和立法委員選舉活動正如火如荼。出於好奇，我參加了臺北的幾場競選集會，並觀看當地新聞，瞭解候選人關注的議題。
在臺灣選舉中，反對派政客用新加坡作為例子批評他們的政府沒有新加坡做得好，這並不罕見。因此，在這次選舉中，新加坡再次被提及。其中一例是反對派政客嘲諷他們的政府，質疑為何小小的新加坡能躋身全球人工智慧研究和技術領先的前十名，而臺灣卻未能入圍。他們哀嘆臺灣在人工智慧競賽中落後，這將嚴重影響其整體競爭力。
先生，我很高興我們現在進入了國家人工智慧戰略的第二版；在本次預算中，政府承諾未來五年每年投資10億新元。這些投資將用於與領先企業合作，在新加坡設立人工智慧卓越中心，並確保獲得人工智慧開發所需的先進晶片。
先生，我們需要保持人工智慧發展的勢頭；我支援副總理宣佈的額外資金。
議長先生，最後一點是關於企業所得稅調整，以納入BEPS 2.0第二支柱的變化。根據BEPS第二支柱，要求對大型跨國企業實施15%的全球最低有效稅率。包括瑞士和香港在內的許多司法管轄區已宣佈計劃於2024年和2025年實施。
BEPS 2.0將重置全球投資競爭的公平競爭環境，這就是為什麼我們必須不斷完善整體優惠措施，例如引入可退還投資抵免，以加強我們的競爭地位。
一個備受關注的問題是引入國內補充稅對財政收入的影響。
短期內，預計將為政府帶來額外收入。根據經濟合作與發展組織（OECD）2024年1月釋出的報告，OECD估計投資樞紐的企業所得稅收入將增加約15%至40%。以我們修訂後的2023財年企業稅收入284億新元為基數，這意味著額外收入約40億至110億新元。
2024年2月，計劃於2025年實施第二支柱的香港估計其收入影響約為100億港元，約合17億新元。2023年8月，瑞士的估計為16億瑞士法郎，約合24億新元。香港和瑞士的估計似乎低於OECD的估計，後者對香港的估計最高約為100億新元，對瑞士最高約為150億新元。
當然，OECD警告其估計存在較大不確定性。
先生，第二支柱是稅收政策的前所未有的變革，之前的經驗和研究在預測政府和跨國企業的“行為反應”及其財政影響方面存在重大侷限。
此外，OECD報告未考慮第一支柱的影響，而第一支柱將對新加坡產生負面財政影響。綜合第一支柱和第二支柱，難以準確確定淨財政影響。
更重要的是，BEPS 2.0是新加坡必須謹慎應對的關鍵挑戰。
這也是我支援2024年預算通過可退還投資抵免增強投資促進工具包，以及對勞動力、創新和基礎設施的各種投資的原因。
先生，總結來說，一個好的預算不僅取決於我們如何花錢、花多少、花在哪些領域，還取決於我們如何以可持續的方式籌集資金。保持預算平衡的紀律尤為重要，尤其是在支出趨勢上升的情況下。
評論者常用預算是左傾還是右傾、偏中左還是偏中右來描述預算，但今年的預算可能沒那麼簡單。
我認為，與其說預算偏左或偏右，不如說這是一個向前推進、不斷進步的預算。我們決心推動新加坡前進；在這條前進的道路上，確保社會流動性和凝聚力，重要的是確保每個人都能實現向上的進步。先生，我支援這份預算。
議長先生：接下來是傅美霞女士發言。
中午12點20分
傅美霞女士（西海岸選區）：議長先生，2024年預算是一份以廣泛支援措施為特色的預算。這些措施包括慷慨援助以應對生活成本壓力，以及採取前瞻性步驟，確保新加坡和新加坡人在快速變化的經濟和社會環境中繼續繁榮。
先生，我全力支援今年的預算，感謝政府傾聽並響應基層需求。預算中宣佈了許多重要的進步舉措，如為40歲及以上人士追加4000新元的技能未來信用，以提升技能；以及更好地調整政策，如減輕許多房主因稅單激增而承受的物業稅負擔。
我們甚至看到政策創新，政府為家庭提供育兒臨時住房計劃券，允許他們在開放市場租賃組屋一年，以緩解家庭等待組屋交付期間對臨時住房的強烈需求。
先生，我想重點談談預算2024在緩解成本壓力、提升新加坡競爭力以及解決退休保障方面的三大重點。
首先，關於成本壓力。先生，依託2023財年政府收入好於預期，個人和家庭將受益於19億新元的保障計劃中的現金、代金券和回扣組合。
企業，尤其是中小企業，也將受益於13億新元的企業支援計劃，包含一系列支援措施，包括慷慨的企業所得稅50%回扣，最高限額為4萬新元，適用於2024財年評估年度。
收入較低者將獲得更多，但每個人都有所獲益。
先生，我讚賞政府為增強個人和企業現金流所做的努力。然而，我們必須謹慎調整補貼，確保其可持續性，因為人們可能隨著時間推移依賴這些補貼。未來可能面臨挑戰，難以讓他們放棄對廣泛支援的期望。
此外，為緩解居民因通脹上升而提供的慷慨直接轉移支付，諷刺的是，可能會進一步增加需求，逆轉通脹初現的緩和跡象。
去年，我曾提出類似擔憂，認為政府補貼可能推高需求，導致價格惡性上漲。幫助人們應對成本上升是值得的政策，但必須權衡延長通脹壓力的風險。畢竟，如果補貼導致通脹長期居高不下，持續發放援助將不可持續。因此，我呼籲政府密切關注這一點。
接下來，提升新加坡競爭力。議長先生，副總理黃循財宣佈未來十年GDP增長目標為2%至3%。去年經濟僅增長1.1%，低於前一年的3.8%。實際收入十多年來首次下降2.2%。新加坡在全球新發展時代的持續增長並非必然。
我們面臨國際稅收環境的挑戰，全球最低稅率法規即將實施，全球各國爭奪高質量投資。
先生，新加坡已從貿易港發展為全球金融中心、物流樞紐及製造業基地。為實現下一階段增長，我們需轉向高附加值、創新型經濟發展。
這一轉變需要我們技能和能力的深刻變革，遠超以往成功經驗。
在技術迅速發展的時代，我們必須重點培養創新、研發、數字化和人工智慧領域的技能。這些領域具有變革潛力，可推動經濟發展，但需要新型產業和專業人才，精通這些前沿領域。轉型的規模不可小覷。我們不僅是採用新技術，更是重塑經濟結構。
因此，2024年預算合理地撥出130億新元用於能力建設——包括提升生產力、研發創新、綠色轉型和人工智慧轉型。
副總理黃循財宣佈推出更新的激勵工具箱，包含新的財政計劃，如可退還投資抵免計劃，並追加現有基金以進一步提升能力。這是幫助企業應對短期挑戰資金的十倍。
然而，先生，許多舉措的效果取決於其被採納的程度。必須付出巨大努力促進使用，以實現各計劃的預期效果。
例如，儘管技能未來計劃已推出近十年，只有三成新加坡人使用過技能未來信用。利用研發補助的企業數量不足，中小企業仍難以理解眾多計劃及其複雜繁瑣的申請流程。
先生，儘管我持續敦促政府加大刺激採納力度——這是我將在財政部長辯論中深入探討的話題——最終企業和員工必須抓住機會，為自己開創更光明的未來。可用的支援計劃是跳板，躍進的動力在於我們自己。
踏上轉型之旅猶如準備攀登未知的新山峰。這旅程迫使我們穿越陌生地形，克服攀登任何有價值高峰的固有障礙。
我們欣慰地知道，在這旅程中我們並不孤單。可用的支援計劃如同工具、地圖和安全裝備，確保我們的攀登不僅成功，而且安全可靠。
這些資源旨在幫助我們應對變革的複雜性，在每一步提供指導、培訓和支援。但最終，只有我們自己能攀登山峰；裝備本身無法代勞。
接下來，退休保障。議長先生，2024年預算包含卓越舉措，進一步提升退休保障，如“前進計劃”、加強配對退休儲蓄計劃、銀髮援助計劃增強等。但遺憾的是，關閉55歲及以上公積金特別賬戶的宣佈引起了最多關注。
雖然我支援政府此舉的理由，但特別賬戶的突然關閉影響了許多中產階級長者。根據既定公積金規則，他們系統性地儲蓄並信賴該計劃積累退休資金。
許多人依賴公積金儲蓄作為退休資金的主要來源。這一突如其來的變化擾亂了他們的退休規劃。作為政策舉措，如果政府能為現有55歲及以上公積金成員保留特別賬戶，可能更為公平。
先生，對我而言，公積金框架內最令人振奮的發展是增強退休儲蓄額（ERS）提高至基本退休儲蓄額的四倍，2025年達到42.6萬新元。
多年來，我一直倡導提高ERS，使公積金終身年金（CPF LIFE）更好地滿足中產階級新加坡人的退休需求，特別是那些將公積金作為主要退休規劃來源的人。這對公積金服務中產階級至關重要。
維持退休生活水平所需收入的經驗法則通常涉及替代退休前收入的一定比例。普遍建議退休人員需約70%至80%的退休前收入以維持生活水平。這個70%至80%的估計考慮了某些支出減少，如通勤、工作相關費用或按揭付款，同時預期醫療保健或休閒活動等支出增加。
若以當前中產階級全職工作居民的月中位收入約5200新元計算，新的ERS預計月支付約3300新元，約為收入替代率63%，低於中產階級建議的70%至80%。這較當前月支付2530新元顯著增加，後者僅替代約49%的中位收入。
先生，推出新的ERS是縮小中產階級退休保障差距的重要一步，這是我多年來持續呼籲的議題。
公積金終身年金不應專為富裕人士量身定製，但必須作為低收入和中產階級長者的主要退休收入來源，確保他們在晚年擁有財務安全和安心。
最後，先生，關於財政空間和資金補充。
先生，在審視2022和2023財年的預算狀況時，我想就幾個方面尋求澄清。
首先，關於政府對財政預測的問責。2022財年最終財務結果與初步預測顯著偏離，預計赤字20億新元，最終卻實現盈餘17億新元。
2023財年，儘管收入較預期增長7.9%，超過1040億新元，但財政赤字修訂為36億新元，較早前預計的4億新元赤字大幅擴大。
鑑於這些情況，我想詢問政府如何預測收入和支出，以確保決策的可預測性，例如是否需要加稅以實現預算平衡。
其次，2023財年和2024財年分別有243億新元和204億新元資金用於補充捐贈基金和信託基金。
我讚賞政府展現的財政紀律，將資金預留用於未來承諾的專案，避免未來預算和世代負擔，但我想就幾個方面尋求澄清。
首先，各基金的提款率。其次，政府如何決定支出應由基金和捐贈基金撥付，而非運營預算。此外，我還想了解未提取金額如何處理，以及如何最佳化各基金的提款以平滑支出。先生，基於此，我支援預算案。
議長先生：Poa Hazel 女士。
中午12時36分
Poa Hazel 女士（非選區議員）：議長先生，或許今年預算案中最值得注意的是，在沒有宣佈任何額外重大加稅的情況下，向新加坡人提供了大量支援措施。這對仍在努力應對高生活成本和不確定就業環境的許多新加坡人來說，無疑是極大的安慰。
我將首先談談支援措施，以及我們如何採取更大膽的步驟幫助新加坡人應對不斷上漲的生活成本。隨後，我將討論進步新加坡黨（PSP）對預算中支援終身學習和開發新加坡人潛力的提案的看法。
先生，我們這些深入基層的人都知道，生活成本上升是新加坡人最關心的問題，我們去年11月在議會對此進行了長時間的辯論。許多新加坡人感到工資跟不上物價上漲，導致焦慮和不安全感。這種感受在工資統計資料中得到了體現。扣除通脹後，2022年實際工資僅增長0.4%，但2023年上半年則下降了4.5%。
此外，衡量通脹的消費者物價指數（CPI）並未考慮貸款還款。這意味著利率上升導致的按揭和其他貸款還款增加未被計入通脹和實際工資增長的計算中。
政府的回應是提供補貼和回扣，幫助家庭短期應對，例如保障計劃。雖然這些短期支援措施值得歡迎，但PSP一貫認為，這些並非解決生活成本上升根本原因的長期方案。
誠然，價格上漲受全球因素影響，如油價、食品價格、疫情、戰爭或氣候變化導致的供應鏈中斷，但也存在推動價格上漲的國內因素。這些國內因素包括我們的房價、配額證（COE）價格、人口政策和政府稅收。
今天，我只談房價和政府稅收，關於COE和人口政策的討論留待他日。簡言之，COE增加了我們的交通成本，人口政策影響所有商品和服務的整體需求，從而對所有價格施加壓力。
生活成本上升的一個根本原因是租金上漲。
在零售業，租金約佔營業成本的30%。這意味著當你走進商店購買產品時，該產品成本的30%來自商鋪租金，這還未包括供應商的租金成本，這些成本已計入銷售商品成本。同樣，在餐飲業，租金約佔營業成本的27%。因此，租金對大多數新加坡人的生活成本有重大影響。
PSP再次呼籲政府採取行動，遏制新加坡商業租金的過度上漲。首先，可以釋出合理年度租金增長的指導方針，類似於國家工資理事會（NWC）釋出的工資增長指導。
如果能控制租金增長率，不僅對新加坡人有利，也將惠及企業。
此外，政府是新加坡最大的土地所有者，對房地產市場具有重大影響力。如果有政治意願，可以推動市場朝其期望方向發展。
生活成本上升的另一個根本原因是房價。對我們大多數人來說，買房是畢生最大的一筆支出。PSP提出了“可負擔住房計劃”，即首次購房者購買組屋時，房價不包含土地成本部分，但在出售時才支付。這將大大減輕年輕人的住房負擔，使他們更容易積累退休儲蓄。甚至可能讓部分人有餘地在職業上冒險，追求創業夢想，而不被高額按揭束縛。
政府稅收構成生活成本的一部分，最明顯的是商品及服務稅（GST）。
在2022年預算中，副總理黃循財表示，隨著人口老齡化，醫療支出增加，預計2030年將達到270億新元。因此，需要提高GST以資助預期的醫療支出增長。如果醫療支出如預期達到270億新元，且全部由GST資助，則GST需在2030年前再提高約3.5%，達到約12.5%。
政府是否會分享是否有進一步加稅計劃以資助醫療支出增長？
目前，政府通過現金補助、回扣和代金券幫助新加坡人應對GST和生活成本上漲，導致大部分人口現在定期領取政府援助。
任何社會都會有不同收入水平的人，政府向低收入家庭發放補助是正常的。但如果大部分人口需要政府援助來應對生活成本，這就不是健康的狀況。我們也應警惕大部分人口習慣於接受政府援助成為常態。
提供援助應對生活成本可能是較容易的途徑，但我們必須著眼於採取措施控制成本。
首先，我們要求政府重新考慮將一系列基本必需品免徵GST。我們可以列出具體產品，而非廣泛類別，以減少分類問題，並限制價格水平至低中收入家庭普遍消費的範圍。隨著GST稅率上升，這一措施的必要性將更加迫切。
政府目前對土地銷售收益的處理方式及組屋定價也增加了納稅人的負擔。組屋必須向新加坡土地管理局（SLA）支付用於建屋的土地費用。這些土地銷售收益隨後被鎖定在過往儲備中，並由大量政府撥款支付。這些政府撥款必須由納稅人承擔。換言之，稅款被徵收後又被鎖定在儲備中。
為了讓組屋更負擔得起，還向購屋者發放額外補助。這些補助也必須由納稅人支付。
我曾建議將土地銷售收益視為租賃期內分攤的收入。令人欣慰的是，首相在本月初的公共財政辯論中承認這並非不可想象的提議。鑑於此措施可減輕新加坡人的稅負，我希望政府認真考慮。
除了控制成本，應對生活成本上升的另一途徑是提高工資，確保工資跟上成本上漲的步伐。實現這一目標的主要方式之一是教育和培訓。
在談教育前，我宣告我擁有一傢俬立教育公司。
PSP支援為40歲及以上新加坡人推出的SkillsFuture升級計劃，該計劃包括4000新元學分、另一全日制文憑課程的補貼及全日制學員的培訓津貼。我們相信全日制培訓更有效提升工人就業能力。這些政策也將幫助中年工人更容易轉行，進入更好或更多的就業領域。
然而，我們對臨時失業者財務支援計劃的細節仍未準備好感到失望。
裁員日益普遍。臨時財務支援對尋求新工作的被裁員工極為有益。該計劃的任何延遲實施都會對被裁員工產生實際影響。我們希望政府儘快敲定該計劃。
此外，如果被裁員工在被裁幾個月後決定參加全日制培訓，我們希望其培訓津貼金額不受失業期間影響。我們請求政府確認其培訓津貼將基於其最後的工資發放。
副總理黃循財在預算演講中宣佈，確保工藝教育學院（ITE）畢業生的工資和職業前景不應遠低於理工學院和大學生。他隨後宣佈新的ITE進階獎，為報名文憑課程的ITE畢業生的高等教育賬戶提供5000新元補充；併為獲得理工文憑的ITE畢業生提供1萬新元公積金補充。
我們全力支援幫助ITE畢業生的初衷，但認為ITE進階獎未能完全實現該目標。
目前，每年約有4000名ITE畢業生（約佔ITE畢業生總數的28%）符合理工學院入學資格，且約有4000名ITE畢業生入讀理工學院。由於大多數符合資格者已選擇升讀文憑課程，該獎項鼓勵更多人升學的空間有限。
5000新元的教育賬戶補充確實減輕了ITE畢業生報讀文憑課程的經濟負擔；但1萬新元的公積金補充則效果較小，且實際上是發放給已不再是ITE畢業生，而是特定文憑持有者群體。
這引發了文憑持有者之間的公平問題。僅根據進入理工學院的途徑不同，給予部分文憑持有者1萬新元補助，而不給予其他人，可能引發爭議。
我們認為，更好的幫助ITE畢業生方式是：第一，幫助更多ITE畢業生符合理工學院入學資格。入學要求可審視，認可相關工作經驗的價值，而非僅看平均績點（GPA）。選擇參加“O”水準考試以符合理工學院資格者也應獲得支援。可通過推廣或擴大ITE通識教育課程，或為以私人考生身份參加考試者提供教育補助。
第二，幫助已報名文憑課程者順利完成學業，開設橋接課程彌補ITE課程與“O”水準課程之間的差距。去年7月《今日報》引述學生表示需要數學和作文等方面的橋接課程。
上述支援措施也應擴充套件至那些尚未完成ITE課程即輟學，但現希望重返教育體系提升技能或學歷者。
PSP希望政府考慮我們的建議，共同尋找更持久的解決方案，幫助新加坡人應對生活成本上升的挑戰。
先生，進步新加坡黨支援2024年預算案。
議長先生：Joan Pereira 女士。
中午12時50分
Joan Pereira 女士（丹戎巴葛）：議長先生，我感謝預算案中協助家庭應對眼前挑戰並更有信心面對未來的措施。
全球緊張局勢和衝突加劇了供應短缺並擾亂物流鏈，商品和服務價格大幅上漲，預計還將繼續上漲。不幸的是，我們工人的工資難以跟上價格上漲和通脹的步伐。
面對不確定的全球經營環境、優先事項的競爭以及預算平衡的需求，我歡迎財政部決定為低收入群體和有老人及兒童的大家庭提供更多援助。
低收入和中等收入家庭會感到欣慰的是，60億新元的GST代金券基金追加撥款將確保他們永久抵銷GST支出。許多人還將獲得生活費特別補助、U-Save回扣和服務及維護費（S&CC）回扣；繼最近發放的500元社群發展理事會（CDC）代金券後，額外600元的代金券也令人感激。
在此，我希望政府考慮將此批或未來批次的代金券與每戶人數掛鉤。如果三代或四代同堂或大家庭住在同一地址，可能是出於經濟限制。因此，更有理由實行基於人數的CDC代金券制度。另一方面，如果同住是為了相互照顧和支援，家庭也不應因此受到懲罰。
今天，我想借此機會呼籲為“夾心階層”提供更多中長期支援——即必須照顧子女和年邁父母，同時為自己退休需求做準備的群體。我們必須考慮壽命延長，這意味著他們需要更長時間支援父母，同時自己也將成為老年人。家庭是社會最重要的單位，我們需要繼續為這一群體提供相關支援，以保障我們的家庭和社會。
提高的家庭人均收入門檻將使更多家庭受惠於醫療和相關社會支援補貼計劃，這將受到家庭的歡迎。我也讚賞銀髮援助計劃的提升，該計劃為工作期間收入較低且家庭支援較少的長者提供季度付款。我希望能為那些工作期間收入同樣較低但與家人同住的長者推出類似計劃，儘管他們屬於中低收入階層。此類支援計劃也將減輕夾心階層的負擔。
我還想談談目前確實需要接送幼兒和年邁父母的家庭——他們需要汽車，但發現擁有汽車負擔沉重。政府是否也會考慮調整我們的車輛配額證（COE）制度，以反映汽車使用模式的變化，包括共享汽車服務的興起，同時繼續保持汽車擁有的可負擔性，滿足有需要家庭的需求？
最後，我想反映關於居住在有地房產的退休人士的反饋。近年來，他們的物業稅不斷上漲，影響了依靠儲蓄生活的這部分長者。雖然年值區間將提高，且允許通過24個月無息分期付款，但部分人仍可能面臨財務困難。因此，我建議稅務局（IRAS）能審查、與受影響業主討論並就具體情況提供多種付款選項和替代方案。先生，我用中文說。
（中文）：[請參閱方言發言。]我想反映關於居住在有地房產的退休人士的反饋。近年來，他們的物業稅不斷上漲，影響了依靠儲蓄生活的這部分長者。雖然年值區間將提高，且允許通過24個月無息分期付款，但部分人仍可能面臨財務困難。因此，我建議稅務局（IRAS）能審查、與受影響業主討論並就具體情況提供多種付款選項和替代方案。
（英文）：這是一個面向未來的預算，專注於引領整個國家前進，同時不讓任何人落後。先生，我在此表示支援預算案。
議長先生：Raj Joshua Thomas 先生。
中午12時57分
Raj Joshua Thomas 先生（提名議員）：先生，我感謝副總理提出的預算案，在我看來，資金投放得當，包括對新加坡人的長期投資。
我今天的發言分兩部分。首先，我將談談新加坡的工作文化。其次，我將談論提升藍領工人工資。
首先，我為政府對工人的投資感到欣慰——通過加強SkillsFuture學分計劃和中年技能津貼，以及為成熟工人提供另一全日制文憑課程的補貼。這將幫助確保我們的工人保持相關性和未來競爭力。
但如果工人沒有正確的心態，工作文化不利，這些計劃將難以見效。
包括新加坡在內的許多國家的工作文化正在發生變化。我歡迎其中一些趨勢，比如靈活工作時間和居家辦公，因為它們有助於創造適合老齡化人口的工作環境，並支援夫婦多生育孩子。我對其他趨勢和建議則持更謹慎態度，比如非常短的工作周和斷開工作聯絡的權利。
許多這些趨勢起源於發達經濟體。新加坡當然也是發達經濟體，但我們與許多其他國家非常不同——其中一些國家擁有可利用的自然資源或腹地。新加坡唯一的資源是我們的人力資源，所有成功都建立在此基礎上。正如已故李光耀先生所說，我引用：“你瞭解新加坡人。他是勤奮、刻苦、堅韌的個體；否則我們不會取得成就。”這句話當然還說他也是一個抱怨冠軍。但只要他努力工作，就有權利抱怨。
因此，合乎邏輯的是，如果我們的勞動力減弱，我們的競爭力和經濟吸引力也會減弱，這威脅到我們持續維持生活方式的能力。因此，在採納這些趨勢時，我們應非常謹慎，評估其對新加坡的可持續性以及將其納入立法和政策的後果。
以澳大利亞最近頒佈的斷開工作聯絡權利立法為例。對《公平工作法》的修正允許員工在工作時間之外拒絕監控、閱讀或回應僱主或第三方的聯絡或嘗試聯絡，且不受處罰。讓我們看看這項立法的實際影響。
首先，總會有一些員工選擇放棄他們的權利，保持聯絡。這些人出於各種原因不想斷開聯絡。在這些人中，我們可能會發現未來的組織領導者、未來的企業家、發明家、立志成為高階律師的年輕律師、想要多付出以取悅客戶的員工、希望晉升的行政服務人員。努力工作、付出時間和精力是無可替代的。在全球化城市和超級互聯的世界中，一個可聯絡且響應迅速的員工無疑更有價值。
第二，雖然拒絕被聯絡的員工不會受到懲罰，但保持可聯絡的員工可能會在績效評估中獲得提升。他更可能獲得加薪和晉升，因為組織必須獎勵那些對其更有價值且願意多做的人。
第三，可能會產生緊張關係，因為嚴格行使權利的員工可能期望自己與放棄權利的員工處於同一水平，而後者則期望因付出更多工作而表現更好。
澳大利亞的立法賦予員工可訴權利斷開聯絡。這意味著更多訴訟和勞資糾紛，而這些問題最終可能難以證明。此類立法帶來更多問題和緊張，可能與其潛在好處不成比例。我希望此類立法不會提交本議院審議。
我們應謹慎選擇在本議院支援的趨勢和時尚，因為它們可能對勞動力的生產力和競爭力產生嚴重影響。不要忘記“大辭職”潮的興衰。
有一種趨勢提倡對物質成功的反感，彷彿那是一種恥辱，轉而支援更輕鬆的工作態度。過度物質主義當然不好，但我希望這不會演變成對努力工作、抱負或追求成功的反感。我們必須面對現實，許多成功人士的動力來自物質成功，而這種追求可能促成成功企業、就業和新加坡的機會。
因此，讓我們鼓勵那些想努力工作、想多工作以追求夢想的人，避免在新加坡形成反對工作的文化。
相關地，在上一次會議中，我們就心理健康進行了長時間且非常重要的辯論。我很高興王副總理表示心理健康是國家優先事項，並將擴大心理健康服務。但我對某些敘述感到擔憂，這些敘述暗示心理健康與努力工作是對立且互斥的。我聽到有人說：“我不會在這份工作上投入太多，因為我優先考慮心理健康。”是的，過度工作壓力會導致心理健康問題。但我相信也有許多人工作非常努力，承擔大量專業責任，工作時間艱難，同時心理健康良好。我想本議院許多議員都屬於這一類。
因此，在解決工人心理健康的現實問題時，我們應避免支援此類敘述。
我擔心新加坡工人可能變得自滿，認為我們的生活方式是理所當然的。新加坡並非不可戰勝。正如副總理在預算演講中指出，我們不能自滿。我們很脆弱——如果增長緩慢，如去年所見，副總理說，我們將陷入困境，無法改善集體福祉，生活水平將受影響。因此，我們必須不斷努力，防範可能負面影響競爭力的趨勢和觀念。
但同時，努力工作以保持領先地位卻不享受生活也毫無意義。我們需要實現平衡。我們不能孤立地生活得好，也不能僅僅努力工作，這不僅僅是工作效率的問題，而是努力工作並生活得好。這是我們應在新加坡人中推廣的工作文化。
因此，也許我們可以讓工人擁有一切，並將此作為新加坡工人的理想。我對新加坡工人的願景是：他努力工作，盡力做好本職工作。他為自己的職業成就感到自豪，有信心具備承擔未來角色和與外國人才競爭的技能。他獲得足夠報酬，享有良好的新加坡生活水平，包括與家人共度優質時光和追求個人興趣。他身心健康。這是一個全面的新加坡工人形象——努力工作，生活美好。
事實上，我鼓勵工人將此作為座右銘和網路標籤：#workhardlivewell（努力工作，生活美好）。你無需因分享休閒活動、與家人度假或剛買到心儀物品而感到“害羞”。為什麼？因為你努力工作，取得了成就，值得擁有。#workhardlivewell。
先生，以上所述，接下來我要談的是，仍有一些工人努力工作但生活不如應有，主要因為收入不足，也有部分因工作時間長和工作條件所致。他們屬於所謂的“體力職業”，即手工性質且入職門檻不高的工作。許多屬於漸進工資模式（PWM）行業，如清潔、零售、餐飲、保安和廢物管理。我在此宣告利益關係，作為保安協會新加坡主席，該協會屬於PWM行業的行業協會。
首先，先生，我認為我們需要認識到這些工作需要工人具備一定技能。我們必須承認並接受這些是技術性工作。上週，有關清潔行業強制培訓中一門關於洗廁所的SkillsFuture課程在網上引發討論。一則廣泛傳播的帖子評論說這些技能可以在國民服役或家裡學到。我認為這忽視了重點。僅僅因為有人能在辦公桌上養仙人掌，並不意味著他是樹藝師或園藝師。
該課程教授工人如何以商業標準清潔廁所。涉及許多內容，從安全措施（如清潔時在廁所外放置警示牌及何時移除），到使用各種清潔裝置和化學品（若使用不當可能危險）。還包括基本的保潔檢查和時間管理，因為這些工人一天要管理多個洗手間的清潔。因此，我們不應嘲笑他們的工作或培訓。
第二，我們應認識到這些工作體力要求高。我挑戰反對者去餐廳做服務員，這並不容易。我自己做過。整個班次都要站立，來回走動於餐桌、廚房和酒吧，搬運可能很重的食物和飲料。工作還涉及公共關係，因為你要對顧客友好，可能還需進行一定的娛樂活動。這並不像某些人想象的那麼簡單。
第三，這些崗位存在嚴重人手短缺。保安行業估計任何時候短缺8,000至18,000名保安人員。大型活動如一級方程式賽車期間，需求激增，短缺問題更嚴重。因此，我們需要吸引更多新加坡人進入這些職業，並給予合理報酬。
第四，這些工作對新加坡的現狀和未來願景有重要貢獻。新加坡以“乾淨、綠色、安全”著稱，這些均由PWM行業管理。我們是美食天堂，致力成為購物目的地，均屬PWM行業。這些行業的工人學歷可能不高，但他們為新加坡奇蹟貢獻巨大，理應獲得認可和相應回報。
我讀到王副總理去年一月在IPS新加坡視角會議上的演講時感到非常鼓舞。副總理表示，我們應接受更廣義的“好工作”定義，認可技能和能力，而非過分關注學歷。副總理強調，這不僅是重塑勞動力市場，更是轉變對工作的認知。
我進一步欣慰地看到《前進新加坡》報告將“尊重和獎勵每一份工作”列為目標之一。我們不僅要獎勵這些崗位的工人，還要提升對其職業的尊重，以平衡各類工作的社會認知。報告還呼籲通過PWM進一步縮小職業間的工資差距。
本預算中也有措施通過漸進工資補貼計劃支援PWM，並通過進階獎支援工藝教育學院（ITE）畢業生。顯然，政府優先推動心態轉變，使新加坡所有工作都被視為好工作，縮小不同職業工人薪酬差距，我對此表示讚賞。
現有PWM著眼於縮小低薪工人與中位收入之間的差距。我呼籲政府和三方夥伴更進一步，實現獎勵與尊重的雙重目標。我建議將各PWM行業工人的平均工資長期目標定為與新畢業大學生的平均工資持平。
我之所以提出此建議，是因為《前進新加坡》報告雖涉及提高獎勵，但對如何提升尊重度關注不多，主要依靠道德勸導。將體力職業的平均工資與學術導向新畢業生工資掛鉤，能更直觀地表明兩類工作同樣值得尊重，或能引發社會對這些工作的文化轉變。
我還希望政府和三方夥伴加快PWM工資增長步伐，讓低薪工人也能生活得好，享受新加坡應有的生活水平。雖然PWM已帶來顯著工資提升，否則不會發生，但我認為還需更進一步。
例如，2024年規定的入門級保安工資為2,650新元。以一名40歲保安為例，扣除公積金後，實得約2,120新元——這筆錢需養家餬口。我不打算重複本議院之前討論過的最低生活工資計算，但我們應誠實問自己，2,120新元是否足夠？這能否讓該保安享受我之前設想的新加坡工人生活水平？坦率說，答案是否定的。
但好訊息是，未來四年保安工資將快速增長。到2028年，入門級保安最低基本工資將達到3,530新元或以上；保安主管為4,130新元，高階保安主管至少4,430新元。我希望三方夥伴在2028年後談判保安PWM時，考慮我的建議，將各級保安的平均工資與新畢業大學生工資掛鉤。
雖然我的提議在新加坡可能被視為大膽，但在許多發達經濟體中這是常態。我的研究顯示，瑞典、瑞士、日本和澳大利亞的清潔工、保安和廢物管理人員平均工資與新畢業大學生工資相差不遠。事實上，廢物管理人員和保安的平均工資往往高於新畢業大學生。
因此，新加坡在這些行業支付給工人的工資在可比發達經濟體中顯得有些異常。
最後，先生，我還希望政府加大力度說服消費者支援工資上漲，願意為PWM行業提供的服務支付更高價格。正如王副總理在IPS會議上所說，消費者必須願意為某些商品和服務支付更多，以提升提供者的工資。
我完全贊同副總理的觀點，我引用：“我們不能一方面要求同胞提供的服務價格便宜，另一方面又抱怨他們工資太低。這完全矛盾。”
但另一個觀察是，最初的幾個PWM行業均屬於設施管理，主要服務私人公寓和商業樓宇。這些服務的買家實際上有能力承擔價格上漲，但遺憾的是，許多買家仍持有這些服務是體力服務、理應便宜的心態，因此不願意因價值提升而漲價，仍然採取低價採購策略。
在這方面，我希望政府與相關行業協會和工會合作，更多改變買家心態。
綜上所述，先生，我希望我們的工人繼續保持認識到自身脆弱性的心態。我們必須付出努力以維持生活方式。相應地，努力工作的人，包括體力職業者，應獲得應有回報。我希望無論職業和學歷如何，我們都能共同享受新加坡的生活水平。維持新加坡競爭力和繁榮的現實是，如果我們想繼續生活得好，就必須準備努力工作。努力工作的人應期待獲得使其生活美好的回報和尊重。先生，我支援本預算。
議長：劉士豪先生。
下午1時16分
蔡慶偉先生（盛港選區）：議長先生，正如我在預算日當天於《新加坡國內稅務局（修訂）法案》演講中所分享的，2023財年確實又是稅收創紀錄的一年，在過去兩年國內稅務局的稅收大幅增長後，2022財年稅收躍升約38%，達到680億新元。
2023財年的整體運營收入較去年同期增加了133億新元，達到1043億新元，這也比去年預算首次公佈的預計運營收入高出76億新元。值得注意的是，這不僅僅是依賴於印花稅或車輛配額溢價等波動性收入，而是基於企業所得稅、個人所得稅以及消費稅的創紀錄水平，這些稅收均持續刷新歷史新高。最令人印象深刻的是2023財年企業所得稅增長了23%，即使在前一年已大幅增長27%的情況下，企業所得稅仍將維持在約280億新元的歷史高位。這並不令人意外，因為一些大型新加坡企業如星展銀行和勝科工業均傳出創紀錄的利潤。
對2022財年資料的積極修訂也意味著，2022財年不僅沒有修訂後的42億新元赤字，反而實現了17億新元的盈餘。雖然2023財年的整體財政狀況仍預計為赤字，但這主要是由於特別撥款的增加，尤其是最近納入的75億新元“前進計劃基金”，如果沒有這筆撥款，2023財年本應實現39億新元的盈餘。
將政府創紀錄的運營收入和改善的財政狀況置於2023年我們所面臨的嚴峻經濟環境中來看尤為重要。國內生產總值增長放緩至僅1.1%，而通脹成為許多新加坡人關注的焦點，這也是工人黨去年底在議會提出生活成本動議的原因，旨在通過政策變革分享減輕生活成本壓力的想法和可能性，其中許多是結構性的。
秉持提供建設性反饋和建議的主題，我有兩項收入措施建議政府考慮，這基於我對過去幾年收入和支出趨勢的研究。這將是對我和同事們在過去預算辯論中提出的增加收入措施的補充，例如我之前提出的財富稅問題，儘管我們可能已經提高了最高個人所得稅檔和物業稅，但那些通過其龐大財富獲得股息和資本利得收入的富裕個人，同時在新加坡租住豪華公寓，仍未被直接徵稅。
首先，檢視2018財年至2024財年作為國內生產總值百分比的稅收收入（見表3.2b），多年來，關稅和消費稅作為GDP的貢獻比例有所下降，儘管去年菸草消費稅提高且碳稅納入該類別。符合財富稅精神，有空間研究對酒類按從價稅徵稅的可能性，考慮到我們提出提高所謂“罪惡稅”的建議。這不必導致日常酒精飲料稅率上升，但如果世界上那些售價輕易達到數千新元一瓶的“高檔”葡萄酒徵收比超市售價20新元一瓶的葡萄酒更高的消費稅，將更為公平。
其次，我注意到賭場稅在2022年有所提高。儘管如此，過去幾年博彩稅作為GDP的比例保持在約0.5%的水平。鑑於博彩稅自2014年以來未變，有空間考慮提高相關博彩稅，這也可起到威懾作用。
接下來進入我今天演講的主體，我將談及結構性變革相較於一次性補貼的重要性，強調個人所得稅和企業所得稅結構性改進的必要性，以更好地支援個人和企業，同時保持我們的稅制進步性和現代化，並觸及退休保障這一緊迫且重要的話題。
從概念上講，我認為：第一，重要的是在我們的制度中設立結構性槓桿，而非依賴一次性計劃，這些計劃可能是新的，也可能需要年復一年地更新，給公務員帶來大量行政成本和資源消耗，同時給新加坡人帶來很大不確定性；第二，重要的是將資源導向最需要幫助的人，而非向所有人發放普遍補貼，這可能導致預算措施被指為“選舉預算”。
以社群發展理事會（CDC）代金券計劃為例。雖然我相信所有新加坡人在生活成本危機中都感激現金補貼，但CDC代金券計劃從2020年旨在幫助低收入新加坡家庭減輕生活成本，演變為所有新加坡家庭均有資格領取。發放金額多年來也有較大變化，且該計劃是否永久存在仍是疑問，若是，是否所有家庭都將繼續符合資格，代金券價值又將是多少。
此外，與現有的消費稅代金券計劃相比，新加坡人在申領CDC代金券時似乎面臨許多操作上的挑戰，例如租住公寓且與其他家庭共用同一地址者、住在收容所者，以及無疑屬於同一家庭但家庭關係困難者。
關於個人所得稅，我注意到2024課稅年度引入了相當於應納稅額50%或最高200新元的稅收回扣，類似於2019課稅年度。然而，與其一次性回扣，我們更應提高邊際居民個人所得稅的低端稅率，並提高首2萬新元應納稅收入的免稅額，以反映通脹，這是我在2022年議會質詢中提出的建議。
同樣，關於企業所得稅，2024課稅年度將向所有納稅公司，無論是否為稅務居民，授予相當於應納企業稅額50%的回扣。在我2021年《所得稅（修訂）法案》演講中，我建議提高企業所得稅制度的進步性，以更好地支援本地中小企業。
即使其他支援企業能力建設的措施正在加強，我希望政府考慮為本地中小企業提供更大稅收減免，例如提高免稅限額或引入類似香港2018年推出的兩級利潤稅率制度，特別減輕中小企業的稅負。
這很重要，因為2018年預算中政府宣佈對我們的免稅計劃實施更嚴格限制。例如，一家中小企業若有30萬新元應納稅收入，按舊規則繳納的企業所得稅約為2.5萬新元，稅率約為8.4%；而按新規則，繳稅額接近3.4萬新元，稅率約為11.2%。
將此類企業所得稅改革納入稅制也將提供更大確定性，而非當前企業所得稅回扣在過去十年間從20%到50%不等，回扣上限從1萬新元到4萬新元波動。
確保我們持續投資於本地中小企業至關重要，它們是我們經濟的支柱，佔所有企業的99%，提供71%的就業崗位，使新加坡在後BEPS時代保持競爭力。否則，若本地中小企業因新商業環境而將更多活動轉移至其他司法管轄區，我們可能面臨稅基和就業水平下降。
談及BEPS 2.0，我在過去預算辯論中也曾提及，調整我們的稅制的時機終於到來。副總理黃循財也宣佈引入支柱2的兩個組成部分，即收入納入規則和國內補充稅。
正如我去年所問，雖然精確數字可能難以獲得，財政部是否有關於實施國內補充稅影響的藍天和灰天預測範圍？尤其是考慮到收入納入規則和國內補充稅將在不到一年的時間內生效，適用於2025年1月1日或之後開始的企業財年？
為使我的問題更具背景，經濟合作與發展組織（OECD）今年早些時候釋出的一份工作報告指出，全球最低稅率“每年可增加1550億至1920億美元的企業所得稅收入，所有司法管轄區均將受益”。此外，被歸類為“投資樞紐”的參與國，包括新加坡，預計將從改革中獲得最大收益，企業所得稅收入將從最低14%提升至最高34%。如果這不準確，鑑於財政部有更好的估算基礎，我希望副總理能在總結髮言中予以糾正。
然而，副總理在預算演講中表示，他不預期新措施會帶來“淨收入增長”，因為“保持競爭力需要大量支出”。如此說法無異於說任何形式的稅率上調，從個人所得稅、印花稅到消費稅，都不會帶來淨收入增長，因為支出需求更高。
我理解這可能與可退還投資抵免的引入有關，BEPS 2.0與可退還投資抵免的淨效應在一定程度上也取決於經濟發展局和企業發展局向公司授予這些抵免的慷慨程度。
我同意，實際收入增長只有時間能證明，我們期待支柱2在全球範圍內的推廣，但如果各國違背改革精神，那將是令人遺憾的一天。
BEPS 2.0改革旨在阻止主權稅收政策的競相壓低，促進國際合作以終結避稅。讓我重申，OECD表示通過兩支柱方案，所有經濟體都將受益於額外稅收——所有經濟體。我希望BEPS 2.0帶來的額外稅收不會實質上以其他形式返還給跨國企業。
最後，讓我談談一個我非常關心的話題——退休保障。這也是一個緊迫且需要果斷行動的問題，鑑於我們社會迅速老齡化。雖然有若干改善退休保障的良好舉措，如提高延遲退休金（ERS）、加強銀髮支援計劃和醫療儲蓄計劃（MRSS），但我擔憂55歲後關閉公積金特別賬戶（SA），以及缺乏幫助新加坡人可持續增長退休儲蓄的長期措施。
我本身並不反對關閉特別賬戶，但這在確保新加坡人退休保障方面是倒退，我們需要做很多工作，真正加強今天和未來老年人的退休保障。
當強制年金計劃CPF LIFE推出時，特別賬戶仍為公積金持有人提供靈活性，允許他們訪問或“動用”退休儲蓄，同時提供4%的體面利率底線。
副總理黃循財在預算演講中說：“剩餘的特別賬戶儲蓄將轉入普通賬戶（OA）。當然，成員可以隨時自願將普通賬戶儲蓄轉入退休賬戶（RA），最高至修訂後的延遲退休金限額，以賺取更高利息並獲得更高退休金支付。”但這真的是全部情況嗎？
新加坡人知道，退休賬戶的資金將用於支付CPF LIFE計劃的保費，意味著我們不能隨意提取這些資金。確實，從55歲到例如65歲支付年齡，這些退休賬戶資金仍享有與特別賬戶相同的4%利率底線。到此為止還算不錯。但許多人不知道的是，從支付開始時起，任何利息收入不會歸屬於公積金持有人，而是集中在CPF LIFE下的所有成員共同池中。
公積金局的一份常見問題解答明確指出，CPF LIFE保費產生的利息不包括在成員去世時支付給受益人的金額中。我理解這是年金計劃的概念，旨在讓成員獲得終身支付。但這也意味著，儘管特別賬戶和退休賬戶的名義利率相同，兩個賬戶實際獲得的收益率卻截然不同。根據新加坡人的最新平均預期壽命，退休賬戶儲蓄的有效收益率不太可能超過原本在特別賬戶中的資金。
此外，每當我在議會提出公積金利率問題時，各政治官員的回應都是強調過去二十年低利率環境下，普通賬戶2.5%、特別賬戶、醫療儲蓄賬戶和退休賬戶（SMRA）4%的無風險利率底線的吸引力。55歲後關閉特別賬戶使這些反駁理由失色。
正如副總理黃循財提醒我們的，我們正面臨從極低利率向更正常化、利率長期較高且寬鬆貨幣時代結束的環境轉變。正是在這一重大變化背景下，我們應審視未來的公積金利率。我們應如何讓數學和複利法則為老年人的退休資金髮揮作用？
我堅持本月早些時候在儲備動議中所說的，即讓所有新加坡人，而不僅僅是我們的儲備，直接參與政府基金管理者GIC的長期回報，並設立適當的保障措施。這一點尤為重要，因為GIC的資金來源部分間接來自通過新加坡儲蓄債券（SSGS債券）的公積金儲蓄。
正如我所分享，基於GIC投資組合20年名義回報率6.9%和公積金普通賬戶2.5%的利率，按照簡單的72法則，我們的公積金資金翻倍所需時間從基於GIC回報的約10年，延長至基於現行普通賬戶利率的29年。這對我們為退休儲蓄的能力影響巨大。
我聽部長Indranee Rajah解釋，2014年時任副總理Tharman在議會詳細說明了我們如何設定公積金利率和管理公積金收益。我查閱了相關議會記錄，發現我並非第一個提出此問題的人。時任副總理Tharman的解釋是回應人民行動黨議員Inderjit Singh的質疑，後者也質疑我們支付給公積金普通賬戶的2.5%利率是否公平，考慮到新加坡人長期鎖定儲蓄。
事實上，回溯更早，許多人民行動黨、工人黨議員和非選區議員都建議讓普通新加坡人獲得政府投資實體如GIC的更好投資回報。人民行動黨議員Lily Neo呼籲公積金局與GIC合作，或許將利率定在比GIC回報低兩個百分點。非選區議員Siew Kum Hong引用一篇學術論文稱：“鑑於GIC的投資回報高於實際計入公積金成員的回報，公積金成員承擔了一種反覆出現的、高度累退的、隱性的公積金財富稅。”人民行動黨議員Ong Kian Min和Sim Boon Ann呼籲政府與公積金成員分享公積金盈餘。Ong議員甚至說：“我無法理解政府為何說不負責我的退休保障，但我必須將退休儲蓄借給政府投資，且任何收益都不屬於我。”工人黨議員Sylvia Lim也呼籲政府在管理風險的同時，採取更多措施提升公積金回報，特別是在2002年經濟審查委員會建議通過私人養老金計劃後。
這些都是前輩們的智慧之言，二十年後仍深深觸動我。若當時採納這些建議，今天有多少新加坡人能達到退休儲蓄目標，而非如今的四成或五成？
如果政府仍堅持不願或無法讓新加坡人分享GIC的基金管理專業知識和回報，那麼我們至少應緊急實施終身退休投資計劃（LIRS），這是我過去三年每年都重複呼籲的，以更好支援新加坡人的退休需求。
讓我們記住，八年前的2016年，當時的人力部長林瑞生先生代表政府接受了公積金諮詢小組報告第二部分中的建議，其中包括引入LIRS作為額外的投資計劃。引用當時林部長的話：“這些額外的選項將有助於解決一些新加坡人關於退休生活成本上升的擔憂，以及那些必須承擔一定投資風險者對更高預期投資回報的渴望。”
我們今天的一位議員，Saktiandi Supaat先生，也是公積金諮詢小組的一員，主席陳楚傳教授明確指出了公積金投資計劃（CPFIS）的侷限性，並恰當地表達了“諮詢小組認為有必要提供一個額外的投資途徑，以更簡單的方式幫助這些公積金成員獲得比公積金利率更高的預期回報，而不是通過CPFIS。”
我最大的疑問是，政府何時才能最終準備好推出這一計劃？政府是否仍然準備這樣做？我希望政府意識到，拖延越久，新加坡人的退休儲蓄機會成本和實際成本就越高。
最後，議長先生，我感謝政府在又一個創紀錄的高營業收入基礎上，為新加坡人和新加坡企業提供一次性福利和補貼，這些收入比去年高出130億新元。然而，我們必須在系統中建立結構性槓桿，而不是依賴一次性計劃，我已建議對個人和企業所得稅制度進行改革以說明這一點。最後，我們都認同加強新加坡人退休保障的緊迫性，因此讓我們不要將新加坡人排除在吸引人、可持續且實用的退休資金增值方案之外。
議長先生：Darryl David先生。
下午1時34分
Darryl David先生（宏茂橋）：議長先生，閣下，2024年預算是在全球重大不確定性背景下制定的。新加坡仍然容易受到我們無法控制和影響的宏觀力量的影響。雖然我們對全球發展保持謹慎關注，但我很高興今年的預算體現了政府對“前進新加坡”運動的承諾，針對新加坡人關注的領域推出了具體且有針對性的支援。
閣下，我將重點談三個主要方面：（一）政府如何完善針對55歲以下新加坡人的額外買家印花稅（ABSD）計劃；（二）技能未來和繼續教育與培訓（CET）；（三）教育部（MOE）如何加強個人學習裝置（PLD）計劃，覆蓋更多學生，特別是小學學生。
首先，支援“年輕長者”並完善ABSD。我特別高興政府在不確定和成本上升時期，為長者提供額外支援，涵蓋養老、醫療和退休。這向包括我這樣的年輕長者在內的長者保證，政府將在他們的銀髮歲月中提供社會安全網，尤其是在他們面臨健康惡化和收入減少的雙重挑戰時。
許多新加坡人渴望擁有私人房產，因為在某種程度上，這是一項具有高潛在回報的投資，可以在他們的晚年釋放價值。我很高興政府現在允許55歲以上的單身長者在縮小居住規模時申請第二套私人房產的ABSD退款。我在2023年7月就此話題提出過議會質詢，感謝政府對此政策的回應。
這將使單身長者在晚年更靈活地釋放其初期較大或更有價值房產的價值，而無需承擔ABSD的財務負擔，之前的政策會顯著減少他們的退休儲蓄。
我認為這是一個重要的政策變革，假設單身新加坡人不太可能擁有已婚長者有子女的經濟支援水平。允許他們申請ABSD退款將幫助他們更好地滿足退休需求。
同樣，我想詢問政府是否考慮將相同的ABSD退款計劃擴充套件到較年輕的單身新加坡人，如果他們購買較小的第二套私人房產居住，並在購入第二套房產六個月內出售第一套房產。我相信這項政策將為年輕單身新加坡人在住房選擇上提供更多靈活性，尤其是在需要釋放私人房產價值以應對突發財務需求時。
針對年輕單身新加坡人的退款政策可以比針對長者的更嚴格，以防止濫用和牟利。例如，年輕單身新加坡人必須持有第一套房產達到一定年限，方可享受第二套較小房產的ABSD退款，且此類退款可能僅限於一生中申請一次或最多兩次。
接下來我將談談技能未來和繼續教育培訓（CET）。除了支援長者的養老、醫療和退休需求外，我很高興看到政府也加大了對中年新加坡人的關注，推出了技能未來升級計劃。特別是，我歡迎4000新元的技能未來信用（中年）補充和中年增強補貼，用於另一項公費全日制文憑課程。
閣下，隨著技能壽命迅速縮短，確保新加坡人的技能能夠跟上快速變化的行業需求至關重要。曾在淡馬錫理工學院工作多年，我相信我們的理工學院和高等教育機構（IHL）有能力設計和開發幫助中年新加坡人提升技能的繼續教育課程。
不過，鑑於行業需求變化迅速，我們理工學院和高等教育機構的教育者可能未完全掌握最新的行業知識和見解，難以完全滿足行業需求。目前，理工學院和高等教育機構提供的與行業合作開發、共同授課和共同認證的課程非常少。
我呼籲教育部考慮如何激勵理工學院和高等教育機構與行業更緊密合作，開展共同認證的就業前培訓（PET）和繼續教育培訓課程。共同授課和共同認證的繼續教育培訓對中年新加坡人尤為重要，能讓他們掌握最新知識，積極影響職業發展。畢竟，參加與領先行業合作伙伴共同認證的課程，向僱主傳遞了員工從行業頂尖學到知識的強烈訊號，而不僅僅是理工學院的教職員工。
同樣，我強烈建議理工學院與行業合作伙伴共同建立新的文憑課程，以利用中年增強補貼。與其讓中年新加坡人加入已有的就業前培訓學生的文憑課程，不如為他們設計專門的行業導向課程，採用不同的教學方法、教學理念和學習成果。
我們必須認識到，成人學習者與青少年或年輕成人的學習需求和學習方式截然不同。將成人學習者放在同一文憑課程中，難以幫助他們獲得職業轉型或晉升所需的技能，因為兩類學習者的行業經驗和認知水平差異很大。類似於碩士課程和本科課程在教學方法和風格上的差異，中年新加坡人的文憑課程也必須有不同的設計和教學方式。
我還呼籲政府將中年增強補貼擴充套件到兼職文憑課程，而不僅限於全日制課程。我相信這將鼓勵更多中年新加坡人參加此類課程，因為他們可以在全職工作的同時進行技能提升和再培訓。
閣下，我最後談談為小學生提供個人學習裝置（PLD）。近四年前的2020年6月，我曾發表演講，敦促教育部考慮向所有新加坡學生，特別是小學生，提供個人學習裝置。雖然教育部承諾到2021年底為所有中學生提供PLD，以配合國家電子學習平臺學生學習空間（SLS）使用，但教育部現在是否也會考慮為小學生提供PLD？
鑑於過去四年教育科技環境的顯著變化，我認為現在是教育部考慮為小學生提供PLD的合適時機。
隨著中學PLD採購框架的建立，現在只需將相同的採購框架和財政支援計劃擴充套件到小學生即可。
重申我之前提出的一些觀點：為所有學習階段的學生擁有PLD，是實現新加坡擁抱智慧學習雄心的大膽且宏偉的舉措。此裝置將使各級學生能夠隨時隨地學習，是未來的教科書，所有形式的教育和作業提交都可在統一平臺完成。
在早期引入PLD所有權，有助於引導我們的年輕學生養成自主電子學習的觀念，鼓勵他們從小就掌控自己的學習進度和表現。這無疑將在他們長大後產生連鎖反應，尤其當電子學習和隨時隨地持續學習成為他們的第二天性時。
議長先生，今年的預算延續了以往預算的軌跡，政府為特定群體提供有針對性的支援，幫助他們應對我們所面臨的不確定環境。雖然預算很大一部分集中於通過社群發展理事會券、服務與維護費（S&CC）、U-Save和所得稅回扣等形式提供短期生活成本支援，但預算也著眼未來，為長者和中年新加坡人提供支援。
隨著新加坡預計到2030年成為超級老齡社會，尊嚴養老成為許多新加坡人最關心的問題之一。我很高興政府通過“前進新加坡”運動及其推出的相關政策，積極採取措施及早應對這一問題。
我希望政府能加快推出長者支援計劃的步伐，並考慮如何更好地滿足這批為新加坡早期發展做出巨大貢獻的新加坡人的需求。除了增加醫療儲蓄賬戶（Medisave）和通過銀髮支援計劃提供直接財政支援外，我也希望政府能致力於建設強健的本地生態系統，讓我們的長者能夠有尊嚴地養老。至此，閣下，我堅定支援本預算案，結束髮言。
議長先生：Henry Kwek先生。
下午1時44分
Kwek Hian Chuan Henry先生（芽籠巴魯）：議長先生，閣下，我支援本預算。今天，我想談兩件事：如何幫助我們的人民在工作中茁壯成長；以及如何支援我們的長者有目的、有尊嚴地養老。我還將簡要談談生活成本。
我們多年來在議會討論失業支援。根據我與芽籠巴魯居民的對話，這尚未成為他們的首要關注點。作為背景，我的居民中有四成住在私人住宅區。為什麼？因為居民相信政府會在困難時支援他們，比如在新冠疫情期間。我還想指出，主要保險公司確實銷售失業保險，但投保率不高。
但從概念上講，我相信新加坡人，包括我自己，如果設計得當，是願意接受的，因為世界和就業市場變化迅速。兩週前，OpenAI以其文本生成影片能力“Sora”震驚世界。Sora能夠根據文本提示生成逼真的一分鐘影片，影片中的一切都遵循物理定律！想象一下！確保動畫中的每個互動都遵守物理規律。這讓一些資深好萊塢製片人預測，三到五年內，生成式人工智慧可以完成大部分小螢幕電視劇製作。
潛力巨大。但全球包括新加坡的創意專業人士將面臨什麼？這一故事可在許多行業、許多國家複製。
我們需要做好準備。我們希望我們的人民在這波變革中領先。大多數人同意這一核心理念，但也有許多疑問。誰來支付？我們是否購買保險？可以選擇退出嗎？如果政府支付，我們都要繳納多少稅？會被濫用嗎？個人責任怎麼辦？
為解決這些疑慮，我們應明確想要什麼、不想要什麼。當然，我們希望人民在變革面前充滿信心。我們必須聚焦核心問題，即大多數人在失業時面臨的意外現金流挑戰。我們希望這種支援不同於貧困線以下的援助。
目前，我們只在新加坡人耗盡財富和家庭支援後提供援助。但未來，當新加坡人失業時，我們希望他們能專注於再培訓和技能提升，給予他們一定的財務安心。失業支援不應僅在儲蓄耗盡後才提供。
那麼，我們不想要什麼？我們不希望出現濫用或逃避個人責任的情況。我們不希望人民做出不明智的職業再培訓決策。
結合我居民的意見，我提出一個多層次的失業支援方案，平衡三大社會支援支柱：一是強烈的個人責任感；二是通過保險實現高效風險分攤；三是由政府提供足夠支援，且主要由稅收資助。
首先談談通過保險實現高效風險分攤。我希望我們能看到一個基本而非奢華的失業補助，持續數月，設有終身上限，由失業保險資助，並希望能通過公積金支付保險費。
部分居民也希望有選擇退出的自由。當然，我們必須謹慎考慮。如果保費負擔得起，加入保險會更容易說服人們。
第二，我們必須保持強烈的個人責任感。由於生活成本差異大，我們應給予人民選擇權，管理重大現金流中斷時的生活方式。為此，我們可提供以下選項：在有限時間內完全或部分凍結住房貸款及大部分醫療、保險費、稅費，幫助緩解現金流；提前發放政府轉移支付，如消費稅回扣，讓他們比其他新加坡人更早獲得補貼；允許已有健康公積金餘額的新加坡人以公積金抵押貸款。政府還可與理財顧問協會合作，為受影響者提供免費理財諮詢。
第三，提供足夠的政府支援，主要由稅收資助。我希望政府能承擔部分保險費用，啟動計劃。如果某些行業或大型企業大規模裁員，我希望政府能增加月度援助，或延長支付期限，因為當大量人員離開一個行業時，並非人人能迅速轉入另一個行業。
簡言之，在實施失業支援時，新加坡必須找到自己的前進道路。我們必須確保個人責任、風險共擔和政府支援相輔相成，而非相互削弱。
為確保支援，我也希望政府在推出前積極諮詢沉默的大多數，謹慎推進，從小規模專案開始，隨著時間推移進行評估，因為如果通過增稅來資助該計劃，納稅人可能會感到疲勞。
現在轉談技能未來。公眾普遍支援技能未來的加強。新加坡人非常感激政府為成人提供的每月全日制返校支援。這是本議會成員，包括我本人，多年來一直倡導的。這填補了我們提升和再培訓人民技能的關鍵空白。當然，政府也必須盡最大努力確保大多數行業的技能培訓相關且有用。
現在，讓我轉到第二個話題，關愛我們的長者。我謹代表人民行動黨長者組，感謝政府為長者提供了一個A+級的預算，並採納了許多人民行動黨長者組議員的建議。
我也很欣慰政府在我多年來所關注的問題上採取了果斷行動：長者的公積金繳費率、讓我們的社群更適合長者居住以及鼓勵居家護理服務。現在，我們必須迅速落實這些服務，因為我們正面臨銀髮浪潮。此外，我希望政府能考慮以下幾點。
首先，快速擴大“Age Well SG”居家護理試點專案。這個想法很簡單。我希望政府不僅支援外勞配額，還能在組屋區預留空間，讓專業護理人員能舒適地安置在那裡，快速響應我們的長者需求，同時避免過高的交通成本。
第二，即使我們提升活躍老齡中心（AACs）的水平，我也希望政府能考慮資助長者常聚集的可信節點的相關服務，比如宗教場所：清真寺、教堂和廟宇。
第三，確保我國長者相關服務生態系統始終關注服務私人住宅區的居民。我們的私人住宅區長者雖然經濟條件較好，但仍有護理和情感支援的需求。通過他們，我們也能預見未來新加坡長者的需求。
在結束髮言前，我想簡要談談生活成本。
首先，我希望政府在下一份預算中提供更多生活成本補貼，而不僅僅是這次預算，特別是幫助我們的長者和家庭，包括那些資產豐富但現金緊張的退休人員，尤其是居住在私人住宅區的退休者。
我也希望政府能積極尋找供應端的解決方案和改進措施，以降低營商成本，從而降低生活成本。讓我給議員們舉幾個例子。
一、為緩解人力短缺，我們能否允許企業以合理的徵費僱傭更多外勞，作為交換，企業需創造更多靈活的工作安排機會，這將惠及長者、居家媽媽和護理人員？我們能否增加專門建造的宿舍數量，同時允許更多現場宿舍，以確保外勞住宿成本可控？
此外，一旦我們與柔佛實施特別經濟區，能否改善人力密集型運營和產業與移民設施的連通性，以便我們能利用更多來自柔佛的人力，日常往返工作？
我們能否進一步啟用親企業小組，識別那些耗費私營部門時間和金錢的繁文縟節，從而減少與政府交易的成本？
最後，我希望政府和議會同仁在通過新法律、法規或要求加強執法時，能考慮生活成本的影響。對許多從事商業的人來說，我們本能地知道更高的質量或服務水平通常意味著更高的成本。許多政府也是如此。
執法公平也需要成本。讓我以即將實施的租賃公平框架為例。
是的，法律更精確，但也更復雜。未來，大多數房東將需要律師來起草合同，而不是像現在這樣由代理和房東自行處理。未來，每次測量區域發生變化，房東都需聘請測量師。這些都會讓房東至少多花幾千元。這意味著什麼？是的，違規房東更難損害租戶利益，但所有消費者都必須承擔因租金上漲帶來的更高生活成本。
最後，我希望我們能在議會內進行真正的對話，探討我們辯論的問題和提出的解決方案如何導致生活成本上升、稅負加重或政府效率降低。我希望大家在呼籲更多規則、額外研究和議會質詢時能更為審慎，尤其當這只是為了在悲劇後表達道德憤慨或向某些更為激烈的選民群體展示美德時。
我完全理解我們在議會發聲是為了表達人民的觀點。但讓我們記住，當我們堆積過多法規和執法時，社會必須承擔的真實代價是生活成本的上升，這由沉默的大多數承擔。
事實上，我希望未來我們在議會談論法律時，能明確說明對社會、企業和人民施加的監管和執法成本。基於此，我強烈支援本預算。
議長：梁文韜先生。
下午1時56分
梁文韜先生（非選區議員）：議長先生，2024年預算是一個大預算，因為政府在2023年取得了豐厚的收入。2023年的營運收入比原先估計多出80億新元，這主要得益於2022年宣佈的稅收增加、高通脹和高房價。這80億的超額收入，加上2024年235億的新加坡投資回報淨貢獻（NIRC），使得預算中有超過300億的新元盈餘資源可供分配。
因此，政府能夠創紀錄地撥出超過300億新元的資本轉移，用於補充現有的捐贈基金和信託基金，並設立一些新的基金。正因如此，2024年預算將惠及幾乎每一位新加坡人。
然而，捐贈基金和信託基金中的資金將用於未來多年的社會支出，今年只會花費少量資金。人民行動黨在三週前的公共財政動議中已解釋了捐贈基金和信託基金的運作機制，以及為何對這些基金的資本轉移不應視為當年支出。
因此，2024年預算在當年即時支出方面有所不足。雖然我們歡迎19億新元的保障計劃，以及通過調整物業年值區間有效降低2022年宣佈的自住住宅物業稅增加，但這些支援對於現金緊張的新加坡人應對當前生活成本危機來說遠遠不夠。
政府還決定關閉55歲以上公積金成員的特別賬戶。這將影響許多新加坡人的退休計劃，他們將無法同時享受更高的公積金利率和靈活提取公積金的便利。政府能否告訴我們目前支付給這些特別賬戶的利息是多少，以及關閉後將節省多少利息支出？
另一方面，我們高興地注意到，2024年預算已解決了人民行動黨在本議院經常提出的一些問題。
首先，政府將為符合條件的家庭提供為期一年的開放市場父母臨時住房計劃（PPHS）券，支援他們在等待建屋發展局（BTO）組屋期間租賃組屋外的住房。這將極大幫助希望組建家庭的年輕新加坡人，人民行動黨對此表示強烈支援。
自2021年預算以來，我們指出，等待BTO組屋的漫長時間是拉低新加坡總生育率的主要因素之一。由於無法快速增加BTO供應，人民行動黨一直敦促政府增加租賃組屋數量並改善租賃組屋質量，使年輕新加坡夫婦在等待BTO期間有住所可住。
雖然我們支援PPHS（開放市場）券，但擔心該計劃可能對不符合PPHS資格的其他新加坡租戶產生負面影響。我們敦促政府進一步推動租賃組屋成為未來可行的住房選擇。在預算辯論期間，我將解釋為何人民行動黨的“千禧公寓計劃”比PPHS提供券更優越、更全面。
第二，全職工人的本地合格薪金（LQS）將從今年起由1400新元提高至1600新元。我們認可這一LQS的提升，視其為向人民行動黨提出的最低生活工資概念邁進的一步。
人民行動黨長期倡導為所有新加坡工人設立每月2200新元的最低生活工資，相當於每月1800新元的實得工資。雖然我們支援LQS的提升，但也關注其對中小企業的負面影響，這些企業需要新加坡員工以便僱傭外勞。我們希望政府推出配套措施，儘量減少LQS提升對在高成本環境中運營的中小企業的影響。
第三，將推出新的技能未來升級計劃，為中年職業工人提供4000新元的培訓額度。我的同事Poa Hazel女士已表示支援。政府現在將技能未來培訓專案與更好的就業成果掛鉤，這是好事。人民行動黨長期認為，技能未來專案每年耗費約十億新元納稅人資金，但對提升新加坡工人的就業能力貢獻甚微。
仍需做更多工作，確保新加坡人獲得更多優質高薪工作。為此，我們建議提升技能發展基金，吸引僱主參與，確保工人所接受的培訓與提升其當前崗位生產力相關。
議長先生，2024年預算延續了政府傳統的“發放補貼”方式。該方式特點是存在約60個支援計劃和服務，每個針對特定群體提供短期補貼。然而，針對一個特定社會經濟問題，受益人往往需申請多個計劃，這常常使受益人感到困惑，這是可以理解的。
例如，在2022年預算中，人力部長舉例說明一位年收入27570新元的65歲低收入園林工人。雖然這個數字與人民行動黨提出的最低生活工資相當，但這筆收入並非來自單一來源，而是由僱主支付的17400新元基本工資和政府通過七個不同計劃支付的10170新元組成，分別是特別就業補貼、年度漸進工資模型獎金、工作補貼、工作特別支付、社群健康援助計劃（CHAS）補貼、關懷支援包和U-Save及消費稅券。因此，七個計劃共同實現了確保該工人有更多收入應對生活成本的社會經濟目標。
此外，這種系統可能導致低收入工人自尊心下降，因為他們的基本工資仍然很低，且這些計劃缺乏激勵他們自我提升的機制。
發放補貼方式還伴隨高行政成本，因為有需要的新加坡人通常需要外部幫助才能理清資格規則，申請特定支援。例如，向一位新加坡人發放福利時，社會服務處（SSO）、人民協會、銀髮世代辦公室及許多私人慈善團體往往同時介入。
超過半數的60個計劃還需申請。許多有需要的新加坡人已在掙扎，可能沒有時間或精力關注自己符合哪些計劃資格，即使這些計劃能幫助他們。他們也缺乏足夠的英語能力理解這些規則。
因此，儘管政府出發點良好，發放補貼方式的複雜性意味著許多有需要的新加坡人可能無法享受眾多計劃的福利。有些人可能也無法及時獲得所需幫助，尤其在緊急情況下更為令人擔憂。
人民行動黨強烈支援為新加坡人提供更多支援，但納稅人的資金必須激勵新加坡人追求更高目標，而非滋生對補貼的依賴。
已故李光耀先生領導下的人民行動黨一直避免滋生依賴。相比之下，現今的人民行動黨政府依賴一套補貼、折扣和補充的拼湊方案，使低收入新加坡人越來越依賴，而非推動系統性經濟改革，如減少房地產市場的尋租行為、加強勞工保護或引入最低生活工資。這套系統是否將新加坡人拖入社會陷阱，而非提供讓他們反彈的社會彈簧？
這或許是為何自2011年起人民行動黨政府大幅增加社會支出，但新加坡人的財務福祉並未相應改善的原因。
人民行動黨政府發放補貼系統的主要弱點是未能賦能個人。
賦能的目標是給予個人主動改善自身生活的手段。人民行動黨認為，這始於為個人提供最低水平的支援，然後通過可達成的目標激勵他們。
一旦個人達到這些目標，他或她將有動力追求更多。這一過程需要“永久計劃”方式，而非發放補貼方式。
人民行動黨自2021年首次預算辯論以來一直倡導這一永久計劃方式，但政府完全忽視了我的提議。我將重複三項我多次推薦的建議。
首先，我建議在組屋可負擔住房計劃（AHS）中推遲土地成本計入組屋定價。我們認為，AHS將開啟許多潛在積極的社會經濟成果。首先，它將立即減輕新加坡人的生活成本壓力，使他們在退休時無需降級組屋即可擁有足夠的公積金儲蓄。最重要的是，這種住房和退休的安心感將惠及所有未來的新加坡人。
有了AHS，我們無需通過匹配退休儲蓄計劃和偶爾補充公積金賬戶等方案來增強退休保障。所有這些方案的資源可以整合到一個永久計劃，即AHS。
第二，我們建議設立最低生活工資，為每位工作的新加坡人提供永久的最低支援水平。正如人民行動黨在2020年宣言中所述，任何誠實工作的人都應有尊嚴地生活。
最低生活工資是我們應建立的社會標準，不完全與工人生產力掛鉤。因此，我們提議政府共同資助最低生活工資。共同資助可來自之前提到的多項補貼計劃。
在確保約2200新元的最低毛工資後，我們建議政府設立永久的漸進工資計劃，激勵所有新加坡工人不斷提升技能，爭取更高的毛工資。
第三，我們敦促政府設立由政府資助的國家健康保險計劃，而非讓新加坡人自行支付醫療保險和護理保險保費。為減少道德風險，新加坡人需從醫療儲蓄賬戶自付部分醫療費用。政府可每年通過“更健康新加坡”獎金補充醫療儲蓄賬戶。對於踐行健康生活的新加坡人，該獎金將成為可轉入退休賬戶以增加退休收入的醫療儲蓄餘額。
人民行動黨設想，大多數新加坡人將涵蓋在少數幾個永久計劃下，財政部長無需在每年預算中向數百萬新加坡人發放補貼。
我們的社會福利和保障結構也可簡化整合，聚焦於一小部分仍需超出永久計劃幫助的有需要新加坡人，確保他們能迅速獲得所需援助。
議長：梁文韜先生，您還有一分鐘。
梁文韜先生：議長先生，我已闡述了人民行動黨政府的“發放補貼”方式與人民行動黨的“永久計劃”方式。後者賦能新加坡人，在需要時提供確定的幫助，並通過激勵鼓勵他們追求更高目標。
人民行動黨估計，轉向永久計劃方式不會顯著增加財政資源消耗——因為政府已實施60多個計劃，並鎖定了數百億新元於捐贈和信託基金中。
人民行動黨相信，我們可以做更多工作來改善公民福祉，應對未來挑戰，如氣候變化，並支援值得的人道主義事業。
作為世界上最大的主權財富基金之一的擁有者，新加坡人理應擁有能夠帶來更好生活和更安全未來的更優政策。我們必須意識到，我們有能力和責任為自己、新加坡乃至世界做更多。
議長先生：我們支援預算案，希望這是朝著正確方向邁出的一步。為了國家，為了人民。
議長先生：僅供您參考，我給了您額外的30秒。
梁文韜先生：謝謝您，議長先生。
議長先生：請大家遵守分配給每個人的時間。接下來是薩克提安迪·蘇帕特先生。
下午2時17分
薩克提安迪·蘇帕特先生（碧山-大巴窯選區）：議長先生，2024年預算案是公平且進步的“前進新加坡”預算，延續近年來預算的總體主題——進一步改善社會經濟平等，同時不抑制經濟增長。
這一目標說起來容易，但要找到正確的平衡點卻很棘手。在追求平等與增長的過程中存在相互權衡。同時，確保沒有人被遺忘也非常重要。
雖然我聽到並讀到一些反對意見，但我選區居民的普遍反饋是，預算發放慷慨，他們能看到政府正試圖從社會中的富裕群體向新加坡的低收入和中等收入群體轉移更多資源。但資訊很明確。借用兩年前副總理黃循財的話說，“那些擁有較少的人，將獲得更多”。
然而，我也意識到我們的預算限制，更重要的是，我們需要關注未來的可持續性問題——尤其是我們的收入以及未來的支出計劃。
我將就三個選定領域談談我們在經濟和社會領域提升平等的舉措，這些領域相互強化。第一，提升交通福利，支援中產及中上階層。第二，保護弱勢群體。第三，關於我們維持經濟增長的雙管齊下策略——吸引投資和人才到新加坡；以及促進本地企業發展。
議長先生，請允許我用馬來語發言。
（馬來語）：[請參閱方言發言。]今年，政府繼續努力使新加坡成為更公平的社會。就像往年一樣，成功者將為較弱勢和能力較低者多做貢獻。副總理黃循財宣佈的針對年輕工藝教育學院畢業生通過工藝教育學院進階獎和麵向40歲及以上新加坡人的SkillsFuture提升計劃攻讀文憑資格的措施，受到歡迎。對學前教育費用的支援以及為符合條件的租住組屋的家庭提供一年的育兒臨時住房計劃券也非常重要且受歡迎。
然而，日常開支中一個尚未得到針對性關注的重要方面是交通和醫療費用。我的發言將重點關注交通成本。新加坡私人車輛的擁有和維護成本被認為是世界上最高之一。即使是公共交通，票價在2023年9月每程上漲了10至11分，未來幾年也可能出現類似漲幅。然而，與其他主要城市相比，我們的交通成本仍相當低，政府提供支援以減少票價上漲對通勤者的影響，並確保我們的基礎設施和交通網路保持現代化。
請問2023年12月宣佈的公共交通券（PTV）是否能夠幫助受益者抵消2023年的票價上漲100%？更重要的是，我建議政府考慮將公共交通的定向支援範圍擴大，超出人均家庭收入（PCHI）1600新元或以下的人群。未來我們能否將PTV作為預算轉移的一部分，比如社群發展理事會（CDC）券，幫助更多新加坡人？
公共交通援助更可能惠及低收入和中等收入群體，而高收入群體通常較少使用公交和地鐵。然而，如果此類援助能鼓勵高收入者使用公共交通而非私人交通，這仍將有助於我們的可持續交通目標。我在大巴窯有一位居民，需要公共交通券幫助他去參加工作面試以及前往較遠的工作地點。有些中等收入者被裁員，正在找工作，但需要臨時交通費用援助。因此，我希望政府能推出交通費用援助，形式為針對被裁員且正在找工作的人員的臨時財政支援計劃。
（英語）：我們也必須支援中上收入群體，而不僅僅是低收入群體。他們同樣面臨成本上漲，但可能獲得的福利不及低收入和中等收入群體。
2024年預算中也向中上收入群體提供的措施之一是SkillsFuture的增強。如果我們希望持續技能提升成為社會契約的關鍵支柱，這一點是正確的。
然而，中上收入群體利用這些針對40歲以上追求文憑、學位或認證的具體增強措施的可能性有多大？我們是否有按收入十分位劃分的SkillsFuture學分使用資料？這些趨勢告訴我們什麼？我們是否會調整方法，確保技能提升成為全社會的運動？
我們還必須確保SkillsFuture等計劃不被濫用。部分原因是我們不希望不需要幫助的人利用這些專案牟利，轉移本應幫助有需要者的資源。令人震驚的是，2017年4月至10月間，一個犯罪集團欺詐性地騙取了近4000萬新元的補助。雖然涉案主要人員均被判處13至17年監禁，我們今天是否仍在採取措施追回仍然損失的2100萬新元？
我也歡迎對業主自住住宅物業稅率的年值（AV）區間進行調整。2022年初物業稅上調時，市場租金飆升的幅度尚不可預見。城市重建局（URA）私人住宅租金指數從2022年第一季度到2023年第四季度上漲了35.3%。因此，更多中上收入的業主看到其物業的年值和物業稅賬單增加。
對於業主自住住宅，這些業主並未直接受益於租金上漲，因為他們沒有出租物業。結果，他們變得更貧困，因為必須支付更高檔次的物業稅。鑑於新加坡市場租金的波動性，是否會更頻繁和定期審查物業稅結構？更根本的是，是否到了停止將業主自住住宅物業稅與年值掛鉤的時機，而年值又是基於市場租金水平？
第二，我們追求社會經濟平等顯然必須包括保護弱勢群體。我將重點談兩個弱勢群體。
首先是我們的長者，包括現在和未來的長者。感謝副總理黃循財持續關注新加坡人的退休保障——尤其是在我去年幾乎整篇預算演講以及2022年預算演講中都專注於此話題之後。政府支援提高長者的公積金繳存率，提高基本退休保障（ERS）以及增強支援計劃，如銀髮支援計劃和配對退休儲蓄計劃（MRSS），將幫助長者積累退休資金，體面地退休和養老。
關於取消55歲以上人士的特別賬戶，我理解此舉將消除一種“規避”手段——即較富裕的公積金成員能夠在特別賬戶和退休賬戶中保留超過其ERS的金額，並對該金額獲得4%的較高利息。請問，在今年之前，有多少百分比的公積金成員的特別賬戶加退休賬戶餘額超過其ERS？
但現在特別賬戶將被關閉，超過ERS的資金將被轉回只獲得2.5%利息的普通賬戶。我們注意到了這一點。政府是否願意重新考慮普通賬戶的利率機制？
一個建議是，除了目前參考的三大本地銀行外，納入一些符合條件的全功能銀行。這可能會改變利率水平，更能反映新加坡的融資狀況。另一個建議是考慮銀行提供的促銷利率，而不僅僅是掛牌利率。雖然消費者可能需要滿足某些條件才能享受促銷利率，但這不應成為拒絕公積金成員獲得更高普通賬戶回報的理由——尤其考慮到公積金局獲得投資資金的規模和確定性。
政府當然可以隨後對利率應用一定的負信用利差或輕微折扣，以反映將資金存入公積金的風險低於銀行風險。但我的總體觀點是，鑑於近期及未來全球利率條件的顯著變化或潛在快速變化，長期以來的計算機制可能已經過時，不再適合當前環境。
對於非自願失業者，我原則上支援副總理黃循財宣佈的臨時財政支援計劃。但我們需要更多細節，以審查該計劃是否能實施而不削弱我們的工作倫理，並設計措施減輕資助非生產性行為的道德風險。政府預計何時公佈這些細節，何時實施該計劃？副總理和財政部能否分享該計劃的長期資金來源？
我熱切期待更多資訊，因為這確實是我們人民行動黨政府在原則上的重大轉變，旨在幫助新加坡工人。我欣慰地看到政府不會迴避“屠殺”某些“神聖的牛”，如果認為符合新加坡和新加坡人的利益。若情況需要，回撤也無可厚非。
談到因意外失業導致的收入波動，我想再次提出我的建議，給予新加坡人選擇按當年收入即付即扣方式繳納個人所得稅的選項。與按前一年收入徵稅相比，這種制度能幫助納稅人更好地管理現金流，使稅款支付與當期收入相匹配。
議長先生，接下來我談談吸引投資和人才。我們推動更大平等不能以犧牲增長為代價。為了幫助新加坡人以可持續方式應對成本上漲，我們必須專注於增加他們的機會和工資，而非依賴一次性分配。
因此，我演講的第二部分轉向維持經濟增長的雙管齊下策略：吸引投資和人才到新加坡；以及促進本地企業發展。
作為資源匱乏的國家，我們的經濟奇蹟建立在吸引企業在此建立基地或部分運營，即使它們可能服務海外市場或在國外開展大量業務。這些外來企業和投資創造就業機會，也為新加坡人和新加坡公司帶來下游或合作機會。
我很高興聽到加強半導體和金融產業競爭優勢的舉措，但為何沒有提及我們的轉口貿易和轉運樞紐，以及具體的防禦或擴大領先優勢的措施？可能會在財政預算辯論中討論。
但我注意到，樟宜機場的貨運量較2022年下降了6%，而仁川機場等其他機場在客運量方面正在縮小與樟宜的差距。另一方面，我們的海港在2023年船舶到港總噸位創歷史新高，超過30億總噸。我將在財政預算辯論中提出相關質詢，期待聽到交通部長關於維護和提升我們作為國際航空和航運樞紐地位的計劃。
《稅基侵蝕和利潤轉移》（BEPS）2.0第二支柱的實施也將降低吸引力，因為不同司法管轄區將設立有效的企業所得稅底線。那麼，經濟發展局（EDB）和其他機構為吸引外國公司提供的哪些財政激勵措施能在全球稅基侵蝕規則下繼續提供？
副總理宣佈的新可退還投資抵免，根據目前可得資訊，將符合全球反稅基侵蝕規則中合格可退還稅收抵免的要求。企業可獲得每個合格支出類別（包括資本支出、人力和培訓費用、貨運和物流費用）最高50%的支援。這將有助於應對新加坡相對較高的土地、人力和運輸成本。
鑑於專案的具體支援率將與預期帶來的經濟或脫碳成果相稱，如果最終發現專案成果遠未達到預期，會怎樣？是否會有回溯期，允許追回那些能很好推銷專案但實施能力不足的企業的支援資金？
更根本的是，我們是否已確定衡量和驗證脫碳成果的體系？距我們在本議院辯論“低碳社會”動議已逾兩年，我認為本地區尚無任何碳測量標準實現普遍或廣泛使用。國家氣候變化秘書處（NCCS）、Gold Standard和Verra正在制定的操作手冊，是否已有其他國家初步支援跡象？
為了吸引企業和投資，我們還必須保持作為宜居城市對外國人才的吸引力。假設我們無所不知且無須向他國學習，未免太狹隘。這也是為何其他國家採取重大舉措吸引外國人才。
以英國為例。2022年5月，英國推出高潛力人才（HPI）簽證，允許全球排名前50大學畢業的年輕人攜家屬赴英兩年，進行“探索、工作、學習和創新”。隨後，英國政府宣佈1.18億英鎊技能計劃，包括為人工智慧研究人員設立新簽證，吸引其職業早期赴英，以及提供補助幫助AI工作者承擔搬遷費用。
自2022年8月推出海外網路與專長（ONE）通行證以來，它在吸引全球頂尖人才來新加坡生活和工作方面表現如何？在激烈的全球人才競爭中，與通過更便捷的簽證途徑、搬遷補助及其他福利吸引人才相比，效果如何？
眾所周知，我們也是全球生活成本最高的城市之一。除了租金飆升問題，外國外派人員還無法享受新加坡政府提供的大量醫療補貼和公用事業支援。因此，我們對這些高收入外派人員的稅收徵收存在上限，過高稅負可能導致他們遷往他國，造成稅基、資產和專業知識流失。我們對外派人員的稅收政策與倫敦、法蘭克福、紐約或迪拜等人才中心相比如何？
最後，議長先生，關於促進本地企業發展，我懷疑本議院許多同事對此會有更多發言，但我關注點較窄。作為未來五年10億新元發展人工智慧計算、人才和產業計劃的一部分，近期是否會有針對採用基於AI解決方案或從事AI相關研究的新加坡企業的補助？繼2023年12月釋出國家人工智慧戰略2.0後，具體下一步措施是什麼？
我們不能忘記，人工智慧與資料密不可分。我們是否會將促進AI的舉措擴充套件到以資料為中心的活動，儘管它們可能不是以AI為中心？例如，大規模資料處理或可持續資料收集與處理的研究將是實現AI目標的關鍵推動力。那麼，我們對資料行業正在做什麼，計劃做什麼？
議長先生，正如我在多次演講中提及，我們正處於新常態。當前環境結合了高通脹、高利率，且可能持續較長時間，世界日益不確定，頻繁遭受衝擊。這還未考慮新冠疫情，現今看來更像是一場噩夢，而非經歷了兩三年的現實。
但通過“前進新加坡”行動，我們知道新加坡人想要走向何方。幫助非自願失業的求職者更強勁地反彈，支援家庭和長者，賦能並提升有需要的人群，本預算緊密契合新加坡人建設更平等社會的願望，同時不犧牲支撐我們安全的經濟增長。議長先生，我支援2024年預算案。
議長先生：黃偉中先生。
下午2時35分
黃偉中先生（裕廊）：議長先生，我們如何評價生命的價值？在新加坡，1960年代出生的人預期壽命為64歲。1980年代和1990年代，這一數字提升至70至75歲。如今，我們的預期壽命達到84歲。
過去60年裡，新加坡的預期壽命增加了20年，增長了31%。我們如何評價一年的健康壽命？如何評價額外的20年？新加坡持續加大對醫療保健的投入，從2011年的人均789新元增至如今的人均2,674新元，過去10年增長了338%。
這如何成為可能？這些持續的投資用於提升醫療人員的能力和基礎設施建設，這是一個複雜且長期的承諾。這些能力需要基礎設施、裝置、培訓和教育的多方面投資匯聚。必須有健全且可持續的醫療政策，配合卓越文化和創新精神，推動醫學研究和技術的前沿發展。這對我們所有人意味著什麼？
新加坡有五家醫院躋身全球前150名，新加坡中央醫院位列前十。這是令人矚目的成就。想象一下，每當我們的祖父母或父母需要醫療護理、手術或緊急治療時，可以安心，因為有一支高度勝任且積極的醫療團隊，他們是世界頂尖，竭盡全力提供世界級的護理。眼科方面，新加坡國家眼科中心排名世界第三，新加坡眼科研究所排名世界第五。
如今，新加坡人繼續健康老齡化，身體狀況比以往更好。我們還能做得更多，成果顯著。2010年，新加坡有700名百歲老人，2020年超過1,500人，數量翻倍以上。
如今，大多數五歲兒童預計能活到100歲。到2050年，活到100歲將成為新生兒的常態。問題再次出現：我們如何評價生命？你會做什麼來獲得額外一年的健康壽命，額外20年的健康壽命，以完成生命中的重要事情？
如果你有額外的一元錢，你會如何使用？下一元呢？再下一元呢？每一分邊際和增量資金，你會如何花費、管理和投資？我們如何讓增量資金幫助我們活得更長、更好、更健康、更有意義？
2022年，東盟的外國直接投資（FDI）達到2240億美元的高點。新加坡佔其中三分之二，達到1410億美元。我重複：佔東盟所有FDI的三分之二。
新加坡在全球吸引FDI排名第八，在亞太地區排名第一。那麼，什麼是FDI？它指的是一個國家的公司或個人在另一國家進行投資並擁有商業利益。這為新加坡帶來了多少優勢和財富？
2022年，新加坡的FDI佔名義GDP的31.7%。這對新加坡尤為重要，因為它顯示了前瞻性的經濟軌跡。FDI創造優質就業，促進並鼓勵技術轉移，推動基礎設施發展，提升出口能力。
新加坡今天的經濟成就建立在數十年的領導力、獎金和集體團隊合作之上。這需要經濟和社會因素的匯聚，平衡以實現所有人的可持續未來。
我們賺取那一元增量資金絕非偶然。這非常重要。因為我們必須理解作為一個國家，要處於強勢地位所需的困難和集體努力。
投資環境，我們的基礎設施連線性和協調性如何？我們的勞動力有多熟練和靈活？我們的法律框架、技術和創新、國際協議如何？我們的市場和貿易有多開放？
我們的公民有多雄心勃勃和充滿活力？還有同樣重要的社會因素：我們的社會和政治穩定、醫療系統、教育和生活質量。所有這些因素吸引公司和個人在新加坡投資時間和資源。新加坡之所以持續有吸引力，是因為我們數十年來所做的努力。未來50年必須如此，未來100年也必須如此。
我們如何評價我們的未來和未來世代？一個國家的壽命是158年，而一個帝國約為250年。這是歷史資料，我們正處於第59年，接近第60年。
在我們所處的這片土地上，過去700年經歷了動盪。從13世紀開始，從巴釐巴板、室利佛逝帝國到滿者伯夷，再到馬來亞，然後是英國、日本，再回到英國、馬來西亞，最後是新加坡——這一切都發生在過去700年。
我們必須記住作為一個民族國家的脆弱性。歷史充滿了值得學習和重新學習的教訓。古代威尼斯共和國、熱那亞共和國、迦太基、斯巴達、拜占庭——政治分裂和外部壓力侵蝕了國家權力和漢薩同盟。
我們有多堅定，能夠在百年或兩百年後依然是一個主權獨立的國家，逆轉所有機率和統計，超越帝國和國家的平均壽命？
有人估計我們的儲備略低於2萬億新元。為了讓大家有個概念，假設我們的估計準確，我們的儲備價值低於蘋果公司，低於微軟，低於谷歌，最近輝達的市值甚至超過了我們。所以，當你下次購買蘋果、微軟、谷歌產品或輝達顯示卡時，請記住它們的市值高於我們整個國家儲備。
我們的儲備價值低於我提到的這些公司。值得我們反思如何規劃儲蓄、投資和分配資源以應對未來。我們很幸運擁有能夠支援今天預算的儲備。這是因為我們開國和歷代先輩的謹慎和價值觀。正是這種數十年如一日的行為，使我們能夠照顧所有新加坡人，讓大家擁有更長更好的生活。
我們如何評價孩子們的生命？“拯救兒童”組織評選新加坡為最佳成長地。我們為孩子和未來世代付出最好的。2013年，新加坡為每名小學生投入8,550新元。2020年，政府投資增至13,350新元。
人人都能接受優質教育。我們之所以能時不時就教育問題展開討論，是因為我們打好了基礎。記住，20至30年前的我們資源和知識遠不及今天。雖然不完美，但我們在進步和調整。
我們推行終身學習，培養適應力和自學能力，以應對技術進步的浪潮，增強技能和能力的韌性。過去，工作更線性，變化節奏緩慢。我們多次重組，保障一代又一代人的就業，建立彼此的成功。
如今，新加坡勞動力在管理、職業和技術技能方面位居世界前列。根據INSEAD年度全球人才競爭力指數，新加坡在全球知識和技能（包括管理和溝通能力）排名第一，職業和技術技能排名第三，涵蓋134個國家。
今年，工藝教育學院（ITE）慶祝成立32週年，持續壯大。我們不會說自己做得很好，積累了足夠能力，可以減少對教育系統的投資。我們不會說排名太高，可以稍微放鬆，因為這很危險。
一個城市國家能否在對未來——對未來世代的承諾上稍微降低標準？
不能。
不能，因為作為新加坡人，我們內心深處知道保持相關性需要什麼，知道如何照顧未來世代。
我們如何評價生命？更重要的是，我們如何珍惜、尊重生命，成為生命的良好管理者？
加沙擁有世界上最年輕的人口之一。40%的人口年齡在14歲及以下。2020年中位年齡僅為18歲。65歲及以上人口不到3%。烏克蘭男性預期壽命從戰爭前的67歲降至57歲，女性從76歲降至70歲。
這不僅僅是戰爭和衝突的問題。暴力水平高的國家預期壽命比和平國家低，估計差距約為14年——在最暴力和最和平國家之間。這不僅與衝突有關，還涉及兇殺、暴力、生活質量、教育等多種因素。我們正在構建版本1和版本2，就像網際網路瀏覽器和應用程式的演進一樣，逐步改進。我們必須這樣做，為新加坡打造更好的版本。
我們不能期望所有事情都完美，但我們努力。我們每天都更努力地提升能力，創造更好的生活。這就是建設——為未來建設。今天的能力是由過去幾代人打造的。我們為今天和未來世代建設——更長壽、更健康、更有意義、更充實、更包容的生活。
就像我們的閃亮典範——新加坡航空和新加坡樟宜機場。這不是偶然的成就，也不是星象巧合。它需要努力——所有新加坡人的集體努力。
所以，讓我們共同建設更美好的明天。議長先生，我支援預算案。
議長先生：陳武明博士。
下午2時49分
陳武明博士（裕廊）：議長先生，我支援預算案，也支援我緊接著發言的裕廊集選區同事黃偉中先生的演講。
前幾天，我遇見一個年輕的金文泰家庭——爸爸媽媽和他們幾個月大的小女兒。我們談論世界變得更加危險、不確定，充滿挑戰——一個危險的世界。一個大國欺凌小國，有時甚至入侵——入侵和佔領的世界。一個小國和小社群可能被圍困，水電供應被切斷，食物和藥品被封鎖的世界。一個氣候變化加速、海平面上升的世界，這意味著50至100年後，一些島嶼將被淹沒；一些島國可能在本世紀末不復存在。
我們談話時，這個金文泰家庭和我意識到，他們的小女兒及其子孫將知道我們這一代是否做出了正確選擇。眼前的選擇需要豐富的想象力和決心。
11年前，我在《今日報》上寫過，我們需要在不可思議的事情發生前想象它——不僅是昨天挑戰的更大版本，而是以前不存在的新挑戰。今天，我將談論其中三個挑戰。我們這一代需要新思維、新方法來應對：人工智慧（AI）；新加坡的能源安全；以及維繫新加坡社會的凝聚力。
關於人工智慧。不到兩週前，就在副總理兼財政部長黃循財發表2024年預算陳述前，世界另一端有一項宣佈。一個已經改變世界的科技公司——OpenAI，曾推出ChatGPT，不久前宣佈了一個新的AI平臺，名為Sora。Sora允許你輸入文本提示，生成的影片與好萊塢或小型工作室製作的影片無異。
就在一年前，2023年4月總統致辭辯論期間，我在議會談及AI時代及其快速變化——像ChatGPT、GPT-4和Midjourney V5這類軟體不到一年便進入市場。
能與你對話、幫你寫文章的AI是ChatGPT。能參加美國高中高階課程考試並超越許多人的AI是GPT-4。能創造逼真照片級別虛構事件影像的AI是Midjourney V5。
一年前，我談到隨著計算能力提升，從每秒生成一張虛構影像到每秒30張，你將從AI生成照片邁向AI生成影片。2023年4月時，我預計這項技術還需兩三年才會實現。結果發生得比我想象的更快。不到10個月，OpenAI就宣佈了Sora平臺生成AI影片。
這就是今天的世界——技術變革迅速，挑戰無處不在，意外成為常態。我們無法迴避這些變化。沒有國家、沒有經濟體能躲避AI帶來的變革。即使一個國家試圖阻止AI進入，其競爭對手也會採用。因此，我們必須接受現實，照顧、支援、賦能並提升我們的人民。
這就是為什麼預算中為40歲及以上新加坡人提供攻讀全日制文憑的新補貼如此重要。因為它認識到，在快速變化的世界裡，你20歲時學到的知識，到了40歲可能已被新世界取代。它認可這種變化，支援中年及年長工作者。
中年工作者與年輕人一起學習新技能——中年人和18、19、20歲以上的年輕人共同學習，這也將改變我們高等教育機構的教育體驗。年長者帶來生活經驗、生活技能和智慧，同時與年輕學生一起學習新技能。學生們通過相互合作，彼此提升。他們將改變課堂，同時促進新老工作者建立新友誼、新網路和新機會。
關於能源安全。
新加坡面臨的另一重大挑戰是能源。我們的電力供應不僅僅是為了家中照明，也不僅僅是為了工作場所和醫院的運轉。它還維持著我們的供水。
我們的能源供應使得NEWater廠能夠耗能淨化水質，使水重新變得新鮮可飲用。我們的能源供應使海水淡化廠能夠逆鹽度梯度生產淡水，去除海水中的鹽分。我們的能源供應和能源安全支撐著我們的水安全。我們都知道，如果我們的水供應受到質疑，對新加坡意味著什麼。因此，我們必須同樣重視能源安全。
兩年前，在2022年預算辯論中，我談到為何需要多元化能源來源；為何95%依賴天然氣發電對未來時代來說不夠；為何95%存在集中風險？我還談到為何不能僅依賴從海外通過電纜進口低碳電力——因為在充滿各種危險的複雜世界中，電纜可能斷裂，可能發生技術故障，世界任何地方都可能發生意外。展望未來，我們必須考慮新的低碳技術，如氫能，甚至下一代核能技術。
我呼籲政府領先市場，特別是在氫能領域，發揮新加坡作為氫能樞紐的潛力。展望未來，在氫能樞紐可能有限的市場中，先行者、後行者或遲到者的地位至關重要。這對我們新加坡意義重大。
因此，今年預算中的未來能源基金——初始注資50億新元，是一項重要且果斷的舉措。它將資金投入實際行動，使新加坡能夠迅速行動，抓住能源領域的機會，尤其是新低碳技術，這些技術未來將幫助我們保障能源供應，進而保障下一代的水安全。
擁有更強大的低碳能源供應也將助力新加坡實現我們的人工智慧（AI）抱負。如今，資料中心雖然耗能巨大，但對人工智慧至關重要。商業領域的雲端計算可以將資料中心設在海外。但在一個主要經濟體有時關係緊張的世界裡；在一個有時出現去風險化或脫鉤的世界裡，在新加坡本土擁有更多資料中心和計算能力是合理的。擁有低碳能源——更綠色的能源未來——更安全的能源供應，對實現人工智慧抱負同樣關鍵。
關於社會凝聚力，議長先生，如果我們作為新加坡人民某種程度上變得分裂、支離破碎或分崩離析，那麼無論財政實力多強大，無論政策方案多完善，都無法持續或實施。我以前說過，如果我們分裂，我們在世界上將不值一提。
世界上存在著深刻的力量，推動人們分裂，這些力量改變社會，因為數字化、數字世界越發普及，意味著人們自然面對面交流的機會減少。幾乎每個人手機上的社交媒體演算法和應用程式，很多演算法會向你推送你之前看過的內容，帶你聽更多你之前聽過的東西，導致迴音室效應，進而有時導致社會極化。
此外，境外也會有搗亂者試圖破壞我們的團結、凝聚力和社會和諧。在當今世界——我們已經看到許多遠離新加坡的案例，也有一些較近的案例——衝突的第一波衝擊可能不是動武，而是破壞社會團結和信任的行動。看看其他國家，某些勢力如何試圖極化和分裂社會。在人工智慧時代，這種挑戰將更加嚴峻。
當深度偽造技術能夠製造從未發生過的事件影片時，會發生什麼？當你看到議會任何一方的公眾人物的深度偽造影片，說著他們從未說過的話，做著他們從未做過的事，會怎樣？
如果出現不同社群人士爭吵甚至打鬥的深度偽造影片，這種從未發生過但可能被廣泛傳播、破壞社會和諧與團結的影片，會帶來什麼後果？
當深度偽造變得與現實極為相似，以至於人們即使面對可靠來源的資訊也不再相信自己所見所聞，會怎樣？
當人們無法分辨真假、事實與謬誤時，這對社會、對全球民主制度有重大影響。
在任何人都能獲得製造深度偽造所需計算能力的世界裡，沒有簡單的解決方案。
但新加坡足夠小，我們有機會抗爭。新加坡足夠小，我們可以讓人民更緊密地團結起來，增加面對面交流，深化人際關係。我們能做到這一點，而地理範圍更廣大的國家難以做到。新加坡協調能力強，我們擁有國家能力和政府機構協同合作的能力，這是許多國家難以做到的。我們在疫情期間見證了這一點，這對我們面臨的未來挑戰至關重要。
因此，我們必須不斷增強這種團結感，使得在不同觀點、不同背景、不同性格的人群中，每個人都視彼此為同胞、同胞兄弟姐妹，共同追求新加坡夢，共同認同新加坡的理念。
這意味著政府在城市設計和社會政策上必須積極推動，鼓勵人們在日常生活中面對面交流。所有這些都有助於維護社會信任、凝聚力和團結，即使在人工智慧和即將到來的深度偽造浪潮中。
因此，當一個新的組屋發展專案建成時，如果沒有傳統的組屋底層空地，且設計形狀使鄰居及其子女難以自然相遇、自然玩耍，無論是上班、上學還是回家途中，我們都需要問：與舊有的組屋底層空地設計相比，我們是否不可避免地削弱了社會儲備？是否存在不增加財政負擔的設計方法，使人們更有可能自然地相遇、聯絡、和睦相處？
當一個新鎮建設鄰里中心時，我們的規劃者是否傾向於儘早引入更多小販中心、咖啡店，儘快啟用這些設施？
當我們設計教育政策和教育體系時，是否鼓勵年輕一代除了母語外，還學習另一新加坡社群的語言？這不僅是為了考試科目，也不僅是因為東南亞經濟機會，更是為了增進理解，深化我們作為新加坡人的身份認同？
這些問題不僅要在這些政策中提出，更應貫穿政府未來的所有政策。因此，我建議政府設立“新加坡團結辦公室”（SG Togetherness Office，簡稱SGTO）。我知道這聽起來像是更多的字母縮寫，但SG團結辦公室可以作為總理辦公室戰略組（PMOSG）的一部分，後者以協調的全政府方式處理重大議題，如氣候變化。
SG團結辦公室可以設立跨部委指導委員會，由內閣高階成員擔任主席，如協調部長或副總理，利用其部門經驗和聯絡推動議程。辦公室應設有秘書處，由一支公務員團隊組成，積極評估政府各項政策和計劃對社會團結的淨影響。
加強社會團結和社會凝聚力、強化和保護我們的社會儲備的理念，必須以我們對財政底線和新加坡財政儲備的同等紀律、審慎和關注來對待。因為正如財政儲備一樣，我們的社會儲備需要幾代人積累，需要大量努力維護，但在危機來臨時極為重要。未來世界將面臨諸多挑戰。
議長先生，2016年我在本院的首次發言中，八年多前，我說過，我引用：“……想象這樣一個完美風暴：全球經濟長期低迷，種族、語言、宗教、社會階層、不平等和文化的分裂。國家共識破裂，政治分裂。同時還要面對重大危機——國內恐怖襲擊、疫情，或是兩個老朋友要求我們在他們之間選邊站的地區衝突。”
先生，我們無法選擇下一場危機何時來臨，也無法選擇危機的性質。但我們可以選擇如何加深團結，如何今天做好準備。我們可以選擇如何加強和深化社會團結，強化新加坡的社會儲備，使得在充滿挑戰的世界裡，無論發生什麼，沒有任何力量或任何人能夠擊倒新加坡。我支援本預算案。[掌聲]
議長先生：李顯龍先生。
下午3時09分
李顯龍先生（提名議員）：議長先生，作為歷史學學生及現任亞洲文明博物館主席，我深受博物館藏品啟發，這些藏品揭示了過去文明的遺產。羅納德·賴特的《進步簡史》和阿諾德·湯因比的《歷史研究》等著作強調了歷史教給我們的重要教訓，即不受控制的進步風險曾導致文明崩潰。
理解文明為何崩潰是複雜的，沒有普遍認可的單一原因。然而，已有若干關鍵因素被確定為導致文明衰落的原因。
第一個因素是氣候變化和環境惡化。這些因素在包括阿納薩齊人、瑪雅文明和羅馬帝國等古代社會的衰落中起了關鍵作用。第二個因素是不平等。它導致社會動盪，侵蝕社會凝聚力，削弱社會有效應對社會、生態和經濟問題的能力。第三個因素是複雜性。隨著社會為解決新問題而變得更復雜，複雜性的成本可能超過其收益，最終導致崩潰。
在2024年預算案背景下，這些歷史教訓強調了平衡發展的重要性。僅僅追求增長是不夠的，我們必須確保增長是可持續的、包容的，且能經受時間考驗。
這就是為何預算重點推進企業和工人能力建設、未來建設和社會關懷如此關鍵。對綠色創新、可再生能源投資和建設能抵禦氣候變化挑戰的韌性基礎設施的承諾，確保我們今天的進步不會以犧牲後代利益為代價。
首先談談推進企業和工人能力。企業支援計劃，包括50%的企業所得稅減免和最低2000元現金回饋，表明政府認真支援中小企業應對成本挑戰。
通過永久提高中小企業營運資金貸款額度至50萬元，提供有針對性的支援。為中年工人提供的SkillsFuture補貼、SkillsFuture提升計劃和SkillsFuture企業信用延長，是提升新加坡勞動力長期技能儲備的積極舉措。
其次，未來建設。向金融業發展基金追加20億元，以及新的可退還投資稅額，將使新加坡在金融科技和綠色金融等新領域建立能力，吸引高價值和實質性經濟活動投資。
我特別喜歡加強的能力轉型夥伴關係（PACT）。PACT將支援企業在能力培訓、國際化和企業風險投資方面合作。與大型企業的合作將幫助中小企業成長，成為行業領導者，為未來提供更多優質就業崗位。
第三，關懷社會。加強的保障計劃將為中低收入家庭提供急需的援助。改善幼兒園和特殊教育學校的負擔能力，增強退休支援計劃，推出新的失業支援計劃和ITE進階獎，將促進社會流動性，創造一個人人能貢獻、人人有歸屬感的新加坡。
議長先生，地球上許多沙漠和叢林中的偉大遺蹟，是進步陷阱的紀念碑，是文明因自身成功而覆滅的墓碑。然而，崩潰並非絕對，歷史顯示社會韌性可能延緩或防止崩潰。全球證據表明，“經濟多樣性”——一個國家出口的範圍和複雜性——與其人口技能水平相關，表明更有技能的人口更能應對新興危機。
新加坡商界認識到集體努力推進“前進新加坡”願景和加強社會韌性的重要性。
讓我簡要介紹新加坡企業聯合總會（SBF）所做的工作。作為SBF理事，我親眼見證2019年SBF發起了一項由企業主導的倡議，提出六項建議，支援僱傭老年人、弱勢群體和麵臨就業風險者。
這項可持續就業倡議匯聚了50多位企業領袖、行業協會代表、政府、高等院校、非政府組織和基金會，展現了全國範圍內提升弱勢工人的努力。如今，SBF管理漸進工資標誌認證計劃，並與餐飲專業人士協會、新加坡時裝理事會、新加坡餐館協會和新加坡環境管理協會等行業協會合作，鼓勵企業加入這一運動。我自豪地分享，已有近4500家公司獲得認證。
2022年，SBF成立了商業領導力發展行動聯盟（AfA），旨在為新加坡人才培養全球領導力。該聯盟匯聚200多位企業領袖、人力資源專家和年輕專業人士，釋出了針對個人、企業和政府的建議報告，推動下一代領導者培養。
本月，SBF內的人力資本行動委員會被委託落實這些建議，確保報告見解得到有效執行。
最後，行業協會現已提供100多個職業轉換計劃，獲得新加坡人力部支援，涵蓋建築、海事與離岸工程、電子和製造業，以及國際化和可持續發展等專業領域。
為了實現未來十年2%至3%的年增長率，我們的經濟和企業必須持續關注生產力、創新和勞動力增長，同時保持競爭力的經營成本。我有四項總體建議，議長先生，我用中文表達。
（中文發言）：[請參閱中文發言稿。]政府通過大力投資SkillsFuture提升生產力，旨在培養技能型勞動力。與此同時，針對製造業2030願景，急需更多本地製造人才。我們的第一項建議是，培訓應超越入門主題，涵蓋高階技術領域和行業特定模組，確保滿足工人、企業和經濟的實際需求。
為進一步提升就業能力和培養技能勞動力，應更加重視職場培訓。應將工作場所資格認定為高等院校的延伸，使學習更具實踐性和應用導向。SkillsFuture成功不僅需僱主負責，工人也必須具備正確態度，自願提升技能。此舉將使工人獲得超越基礎和通用技能的深層行業技能，提升長期就業能力。
下一項建議聚焦推動中小企業在人工智慧和可持續發展新領域的創新。
2024年預算中為國家人工智慧戰略2.0撥款10億元，為未來能源基金撥款50億元，彰顯政府推動新興行業發展的努力。最近推出的ESG/IMDA人工智慧沙盒，計劃吸引300家中小企業參與，確保中小企業保持創新前沿。
為進一步支援中小企業採用這些技術，政府應考慮實施分級補助模式。該模式允許企業在不受現金流限制的情況下，超越基礎“即插即用”解決方案，進行創新。
此外，必須為中小企業提供技術訪問之外的支援，特別是在制定治理框架和人工智慧負責任使用的倫理指南方面。
為支援中小企業的可持續發展努力，需提供更多援助和教育。我們敦促政府與行業協會合作，建立和完善可持續發展專案。提供諮詢、實施和培訓補助，幫助中小企業有效管理和報告排放，符合行業標準。
第三項建議是持續呼籲負責任的勞動力增長，以支撐新加坡的增長目標。根據新加坡2030願景和更新的產業轉型地圖，我們計劃在製造業創造8400個崗位，物流業2000個，環境服務業1600個，等等。去年本地勞動力減少了1800人。
鑑於人口老齡化和持續低生育率，企業繼續對本地勞動力進行再培訓和技能提升，我們可以與政府緊密合作，識別並開發未充分利用的人力資源。通過利用較小的勞動力群體，如希望轉回傳統經濟崗位的零工經濟工作者、願意重返職場的女性和老年工人，以及可能被激勵從事相關兼職或獲得可計入學分的實際工作經驗的學生，我們可以共同擴大勞動力，支援經濟增長目標。
然而，實現我們的增長目標需要本地和外籍勞動力的協調一致。商界持續倡導通過有控制的外勞增長，針對特定行業和職位，戰略性地增加勞動力，以應對本地人才或勞動力參與度不足的情況。這種有針對性的補充對於推動產業轉型和確保新加坡的長期經濟繁榮至關重要。
（英文原文）：議長先生，閣下，在我演講開始時，我強調過，社會可能因自身複雜性而陷入困境。
我最後的第四項建議是，政府應與商界密切合作，與各政府機構和工會共同努力，旨在減少官僚複雜性，加快效率，共同打造有利於提升企業競爭力的環境。
我想以提及兩個我之前未曾提及的導致文明崩潰的額外因素作為結尾。
首先是外部衝擊，常用“末日四騎士”——戰爭、自然災害、饑荒和瘟疫——來象徵。其次是隨機性，或者說純粹的壞運氣。
新加坡今天的有利地位，得益於我們豐厚的儲備，使我們具備獨特能力來緩解這些外部衝擊和隨機性帶來的不確定影響。
觀察2024年預算案，我對其審慎和平衡的性質感到安心，它深思熟慮地避免過度消耗我們的儲備，而是增強了我們保障新加坡人未來韌性和繁榮的能力。
議長先生，閣下，我們有獨特優勢，可以從過去社會的廢墟中學習。社會韌性可以防止崩潰，而2024年預算案正是朝著這一方向邁出的一步。
讓我們繼續從過去汲取靈感——一個從泥灘和沼澤中誕生的國家，如今成為閃耀的大都會。讓我們共同鼓起勇氣，確保新加坡不會僅僅是曇花一現，不會成為一個始於轟鳴而終於低語的國家。讓我們共同自信地創造一個可持續進步和包容繁榮的燈塔，惠及子孫後代。議長先生，閣下，我支援預算案。
議長：秩序。我提議現在休息。我將暫停會議，下午3時45分繼續主持。
會議因此暫停
下午3時25分至3時45分。
會議於下午3時45分恢復。
[副議長（Christopher de Souza先生）主持]
年度預算案辯論
[(程式文本)辯論繼續。(程式文本)]
副議長：Wan Rizal博士。
下午3時45分
Wan Rizal博士（Jalan Besar選區）：副議長先生，我支援該動議。今天，我將不談心理健康，而是聚焦於預算如何為建設一個有韌性和包容性的社會奠定基礎，重點是教育和終身學習，作為社會流動的載體。
這些不僅是政策領域，更是推動國家前進的生命線，確保每位新加坡人——無論其人生起點如何——都能在逆境中茁壯成長。在我看來，教育超越傳統學習，它是賦予青年能力和靈活性，以應對我們只能想象的未來複雜性。終身學習是我們對每位工作者的承諾，確保他們的技能保持相關，能夠在不斷演變的經濟中保持競爭力和韌性。
在追求社會流動的過程中，我們重申對每位公民的承諾：他們的夢想、抱負和努力——而非出生環境——將決定他們的未來。
通過SkillsFuture的提升推動終身學習。在這個不斷變化和顛覆的時代，通過戰略性投資技能發展和生產力提升來保障就業能力，是首要任務。鑑於此，2024年預算推出了SkillsFuture升級計劃，對我而言，這是一個旨在為勞動力未來做好準備的遠見舉措。SkillsFuture學分的大幅增加凸顯了持續培訓和技能提升在應對當代就業市場複雜性中的重要性。受益者之一是Thomas Tan先生，他目前在一家飲料公司工作，最近完成了商業分析證書課程。聽說學分充值後，他渴望重返校園，完成更多模組以獲得文憑。但令他最興奮的，不僅是獲得文憑，更是學習可應用於工作的全新技能。2024年預算支援新加坡人追求另一項受補貼的全日制文憑課程，並提供中年職業培訓津貼，以進一步兌現這一承諾。
我回憶起自己曾決定請兩年假全職學習的經歷。當時我已婚，且即將迎來第一胎——那年出生——我不得不動用儲蓄並謹慎花費。更有壓力的是，社會存在一種偏見：他怎麼能去學習，給家庭帶來負擔？
因此，我很高興——我很高興這次預算設立了最長24個月的津貼，這代表了對中年專業人士的實質投資。我也相信，這項津貼和兩年全日制學習對心理健康有積極影響。尤其是對那些感到倦怠、想轉行的人來說，重返校園往往能讓他們煥然一新，準備好分享新想法並應用於新工作。
儘管有這些提升，個人和企業仍有顧慮。個人需要指導，瞭解哪些課程適合自己，哪些能助其未來發展。企業則希望確保員工所受培訓能惠及公司，進而促進生產力和創新。為解決這些問題，需要多方面方法。我們應繼續通過諮詢小組和反饋機制，與各行業領導和企業密切合作，進一步完善SkillsFuture課程以滿足新興需求。
我們還可以加強職業諮詢服務，幫助個人選擇最適合其職業發展的課程。或許還需轉向我所稱的“結果導向培訓模式”，以就業率、職業晉升和薪資增長等實質成果衡量培訓專案成效，確保課程為參與者帶來真正價值。
最後，我建議繼續探索創新方式，進一步提升課程和專案的靈活性與可及性，以滿足多樣化學習者需求，包括兼職、線上或模組化選項，便於平衡培訓、工作和家庭責任。解決這些問題將顯著提升終身學習參與度和僱主認可度。
接下來，我想談談ITE進階獎，閣下。ITE進階獎的推出標誌著新加坡教育和勞動力發展領域的重要里程碑。這不僅僅是財政激勵，更是對傳統上與技能教育相關的汙名的有力宣告，重申其在經濟中的價值和不可或缺性。
副議長先生，我在議會多次提及工資差距擴大問題。工資差距不僅反映經濟差異，也反映對不同教育和技能型別的價值評估。ITE畢業生的起薪中位數有所提升，顯示積極勢頭，但與大學或其他高等學府畢業生相比，差距仍顯著。
長期以來，獲得學位被視為成功的唯一途徑，忽視了技術人才的巨大貢獻。ITE進階獎挑戰這一過時觀念，為ITE畢業生創造更穩健的職業路徑，確保他們的職業發展不受不公平限制。
隨著新加坡經濟多元化和專業化，對先進製造、資訊科技和醫療保健等領域技術人才的需求日益增長。憑藉實踐培訓和行業相關技能，ITE畢業生具備滿足這些需求的良好條件。認可這些價值對縮小工資差距、確保經濟擁有所需技能勞動力至關重要。
因此，我歡迎ITE進階獎，這是朝正確方向邁出的一步。但其成功依賴於所有利益相關者共同努力，擁抱並落實這些變革。迄今為止，我許多理工學院的學生來自ITE，他們詢問該獎是否適用於他們。我告訴他們我會在議會提問。這顯示了該舉措激發的興趣和積極反響。
受益者之一是Adil先生，他是兼職ITE學生，目前在一家披薩店擔任經理。得知此訊息後，他迅速查詢可選課程，認為這是學習自動化新技能的良機，充滿幹勁。
確保ITE畢業生擁有公平的職業晉升機會和合理報酬，標誌著社會價值觀向更包容的技能多樣性認可轉變。這種範式轉變不僅需要政策調整，更需僱主、教育者及社會整體心態的集體改變。為此，ITE不應再被視為“終點”，實際上，我們應將其重新命名為“進化”，反映學生個人和職業發展的演變過程及社群心態的轉變。我相信每個人都有自己的優勢，每個人都有成功之路，這反過來有助於我們的心理健康。
閣下，我曾多次強調學前教育的重要性，為每個孩子提供堅實基礎。在我的首次演講中，我強調早期兒童教育作為終身學習基石和社會流動載體的重要作用不可低估。鑑於其基礎性，今年預算大幅加強對學前教育的支援，確保來自各社會經濟背景的兒童都能獲得高質量的早期學習體驗。通過降低政府支援的幼兒園費用和增加低收入家庭補貼，預算旨在讓優質早教更易獲得且負擔得起。
儘管有這些積極舉措，仍存在一些擔憂。例如，如何保證教育質量？我們如何維持高標準？同時，也有人關心教師留任和培訓，確保有足夠且優質的教師。
但我一直關注的是學前教育的入學率及出勤率。因此，為解決這些問題，充分實現增加支援的益處，我提出以下建議。
首先，當然是加強質量保障機制。我們需要在幼兒園建立更健全的質量保障機制，依據標準化基準。同時，我們也需加強對教師的支援——通過全面專案和專業發展機會。最後，也是我一直強調的——推行學前教育義務制。原因很簡單，我們希望推動觀念轉變，只有讓其足夠嚴肅，才能讓人們認真對待。閣下，請允許我用馬來語表達。
（馬來語）：[請參閱方言演講。]在當今動態的經濟環境中，終身學習已成為社會流動以及個人和技能提升的跳板。
通過擁抱終身學習並不斷掌握新技能，尤其是在技術、綠色能源和生物醫藥等增長領域，個人能夠應對快速變化的就業市場挑戰，抓住新機遇。我承認，鼓勵個人繼續教育頗具挑戰，因為他們擔心年齡偏大或忙於照顧家庭。
因此，今年預算對終身學習倡議的支援，是鼓勵社會各階層，包括我們社群，持續成長並適應當前及未來勞動力需求的積極舉措。通過加強和擴充套件SkillsFuture計劃，今年預算為個人提供多條路徑，獲取和更新與當前行業趨勢相關的技能和專業知識。
2024年預算中的舉措包括針對40歲及以上人士的SkillsFuture學分充值，為該年齡群體提供學習新技能或進一步發展現有技能的動力。
例如，服務業員工可以選擇學習資訊科技，以提升數字能力。
其次，中年職業再培訓計劃，針對希望轉行或提升特定技能的個人。例如，製造業員工可參加綠色經濟專案管理課程，從而抓住這一快速增長行業的就業機會。
第三，全日制文憑課程補貼。該舉措為有志深造但經濟有限者提供機會。例如，助理幼兒教師可利用此補貼獲得幼兒教育文憑，增強專業資格，拓展職業機會。
為了促進終身學習，作為社會，我們需倡導重視和推廣終身學習的文化。這要求我們支援那些勇於再次學習的人，他們在進入新領域時需堅定和耐心。
我希望我們的社群能利用這些預算舉措，積極參與終身學習。
這不僅是自我提升，更是回饋社會、家庭和國家。藉助今年預算提供的機會，我們可以共同建設一個更光明、更包容的未來。
（英文）：總之，今年預算中提出的舉措代表了一種連貫且全面的方法，旨在打造一個未來，讓每位新加坡人無論起點如何，都能茁壯成長併為國家繁榮作出有意義貢獻。
從早期兒童教育的基礎性意義，到通過SkillsFuture提升終身學習的變革潛力，再到ITE進階獎提供的公平機會，這些措施緊密相連，共同目標是建設一個有韌性、包容且面向未來的新加坡。副議長先生，我支援該動議。
副議長：Dennis Tan先生。
下午4時01分
Dennis Tan Lip Fong先生（後港選區）：副議長先生，今天的預算辯論演講中，我首先想談談支援長者的相關問題，隨後是對殘疾成年人的支援問題，最後，像去年預算辯論一樣，我將繼續談論綠色轉型問題。
副議長先生，副總理兼財政部長黃循財在預算演講中提到，預防性護理對長者尤為重要，孤獨對長者傷害極大。他們需要保持活躍和社交聯絡。因此，政府將撥出35億新元啟動未來十年的“Age Well SG”計劃。該計劃包含多個組成部分，其中之一是擴大活躍老齡中心（AAC）網路，提供更廣泛的專案。
副議長先生，一如既往，細節決定成敗，我期待聽取負責部長關於AAC變革和計劃的更多細節，但與此同時，我有幾點評論和問題。
首先，我想問衛生部（MOH）目前AAC的人員配備和招聘情況如何？MOH將如何協助AAC招聘和維持額外人員，以應對更大規模AAC的人員需求？政府是否有針對AAC 2.0每個中心的人員配備指導方針，當然會考慮到不同叢集規模的差異？AAC由員工和志願者組成，員工人數因中心而異，志願者也是AAC不可或缺的一部分。但志願者不一定能完全替代AAC專業人員的角色、專業知識和職業素養。
接下來，對於那些不願意參與其老年活動中心（AAC）活動或不希望與其AAC保持聯絡的老年人群體，我想了解Age Well SG在外展和保持聯絡方面可能有哪些計劃？這將符合解決孤獨感和滿足老年人社交需求的目標，正如副總理黃循財所提到的。
我特別關心那些獨居、孤僻且與家人或鄰居關係不密切的老年人。除了增加更多或更多樣化的活動外，我們還需要研究採取何種方法，能夠更好地使AAC與這部分群體保持定期聯絡，至少在需要時提供支援。
還應進行研究，看看AAC如何吸引更多男性參與。
副總理黃循財在他的講話中還提到，將對我們的住宅區進行銀髮升級，通過諸如治療花園、無障礙坡道以及更適合老年人的家居設施（如更寬的廁所入口和淋浴座椅）等便利設施，使老年人能夠更獨立、更安全地生活在社群中。我期待政府提供更多細節，包括這些設施將如何在居民家中及公共空間中提供。
副總理黃循財還提到，將改善老年人的出行和安全基礎設施，如增加有遮蔽的連廊、配備老年友好設施的公交站點，以及更安全、更適合行人的道路。我對此表示歡迎。就在2022年8月，時任交通部長在回應國會質詢時表示，沒有計劃擴大陸路交通管理局（LTA）現有的有遮蔽連廊計劃，該計劃覆蓋主要交通樞紐（如地鐵、輕軌站和公交換乘站）400米半徑範圍內。我希望現在能重新考慮有遮蔽連廊的策略，特別是在LTA管理的土地或其他國有土地上。LTA應考慮至少將使用頻繁的公交站與附近的住宅區連線起來。例如，與市鎮理事會合作，將這些使用頻繁的公交站與組屋區內最近的有遮蔽人行道連線起來。
仍然關於老年人，預算將向所有1973年及以前出生的新加坡公民發放750新元的醫療儲蓄獎金，如果他們屬於Majulah一代且住所的年值不超過25,000新元，則獎金翻倍為1,500新元。
對於患有多種慢性疾病且需頻繁就醫的老年人來說，只要年度醫療儲蓄提款限額仍為每年700新元，這種醫療儲蓄補充並不會有太大幫助。政府能否考慮提高多重慢性病老年人的醫療儲蓄提款限額，以便這些老年人，尤其是退休且不工作或無法工作的老年人，在支付賬單時減少自掏腰包？我知道醫療儲蓄提款限額在2021年1月已調整。現在是否適合將限額提高，至少跟上通脹水平？
鑑於銀髮支援計劃的季度金額將提高20%，政府是否考慮將醫療儲蓄提款限額也相應提高，例如將普通限額從500新元提高到600新元，將慢性病限額從700新元提高到840新元，並且對患有多種疾病者按個案進一步延長限額？議長先生，請用中文。
（中文）: [請參閱方言發言。] 副總理兼財政部長黃循財在預算中強調，政府將加強對老年人的支援。我希望相關部長能分享更多細節。
副總理黃循財提到，將翻新和提升鄰里中的老年友好設施，使老年人能夠更獨立、更安全地生活在社群中。這包括擴充套件有遮蔽的人行道和配備老年友好設施的公交站點。2022年8月，時任交通部長表示，陸路交通管理局（LTA）沒有計劃擴大現有的有遮蔽人行道。目前，LTA的有遮蔽人行道覆蓋範圍僅限於地鐵站和公交換乘站400米範圍內。我希望政府能重新考慮這一策略，特別是在LTA管理或國有土地上。例如，LTA可以考慮與市鎮理事會合作，將組屋鄰里通過有遮蔽人行道與繁忙的公交站連線起來。
此外，預算還包括向符合條件的新加坡公民發放一次性醫療儲蓄獎金。金額根據年齡和個人住所的年值確定，範圍從700新元到1,500新元不等。
對於患有多種慢性疾病且需要頻繁門診護理的老年人，尤其是退休或無法工作的老年人，如果年度提款限額仍為700新元，這筆補充可能幫助不大。提款限額最後一次調整是在2021年。在物價上漲的情況下，政府是否考慮提高醫療儲蓄提款限額，以減少退休人員的現金支出？
銀髮支援計劃將提高20%。政府是否也考慮將醫療儲蓄提款限額提高同樣的20%？
（英文）：接下來我將談談對殘疾成年人的支援問題。
我歡迎副總理黃循財宣佈將為殘疾成年人提供更多支援。他表示將擴大庇護工場和日間活動中心的空間，讓他們接受技能培訓，並啟動更多賦能服務中心，為殘疾人士及其照顧者提供社群支援。我相信，作為社會，我們可以且應該為殘疾成年人，特別是有嚴重特殊需求的成年人及其照顧者，做更多事情。
本月初，我提交了一項國會質詢，詢問社會及家庭發展部（MSF）是否考慮增加為自閉症成年人士設立的日間活動中心和住宿設施數量。馬薩哥斯部長回覆稱，目前有八個日間活動中心為自閉症譜系障礙成年人士服務，註冊客戶超過300人，約有80人等待入學。他還表示，MSF資助的四個成人殘疾之家為自閉症譜系障礙成年人士服務，這些住宿設施約有50名自閉症居民，容量約100人，約有20人等待入學。
議長先生，我認為確實有必要增加我們的日間活動中心和住宿設施。我認為我們真的應該增加資源，為殘疾成年人提供持續培訓，包括但不限於特殊需求成年人，如中度至重度自閉症患者，超出特殊教育學校（SPED）的學習時間。在我看來，這有多重潛在好處。我們應繼續思考如何改善長期的特殊教育後教育或培訓，提供進一步的教育和技能培訓（如果可能的話）。
應進行更多研究，以擴大這些成年人可接受的工作培訓範圍及其在社會中可從事的工作種類。這將提升他們的生活質量，促進更好地融入社會。同時，參加日間活動中心而非呆在家中，參與結構化的專案、活動和與他人的互動，將提升這些成年人的心理健康。
我也非常關心年長的照顧者及其特殊需求的成年子女，擔心當他們健康狀況惡化時，子女的照顧問題如何解決。即使這些父母還有其他非特殊需求的子女，是否合適期望他們在父母去世後接手照顧兄弟姐妹？我們是否應提供足夠的住宿設施，為這些成年人提供更有結構的照顧和發展？我們是否也可以考慮讓這些住宿設施允許部分特殊需求成年人週末回家，平衡住宿照顧與家庭照顧，同時為家庭成員提供適當的喘息機會？
馬薩哥斯部長還表示，鑑於對自閉症的認識提高及診斷標準更明確，MSF一直與相關部門合作，制定更好支援自閉症成年人及其家庭的計劃，MSF將在未來幾個月分享更多細節。確實，我希望MSF能在社群發展委員會會議（COS）期間分享這些細節，包括最近進行的任何研究。
去年11月，我提交了一項國會質詢，詢問部長，社會及家庭發展部是否記錄目前照顧智障成年人的年長照顧者人數，以及是否考慮制定和實施早期識別和支援計劃。高階國務部長陳杰輝在回覆中提到，MSF並不直接追蹤照顧智障成年人的年長照顧者人數。
2023年12月，有新聞報道我所在後港區的一名特殊需求成年居民，在其年邁父親去世後，帶著父親的遺體在家中逗留五天，同時繼續參加日託中心的日間活動。雖然我非常感謝相關部門和利益相關者迅速協助並安排了對該男子的照顧，但此事件再次強調我們需要考慮制定和實施早期識別和支援計劃，幫助照顧特殊需求成年人的年長照顧者。
該計劃可採用多機構合作方式，涉及我們的老年活動中心、殘疾成年人日託中心、醫療服務提供者，甚至是律師等服務提供者（例如辦理持久授權書時與家庭成員接觸），以及綜合護理局（AIC）和社會及家庭發展部等利益相關機構，使各方能夠相互觸發，提供必要的檢查或支援。應研究如何由一個或多個利益相關者適當維持對年長照顧者及特殊需求成年人的聯絡和支援。
去年，我在預算辯論發言中提到，我們應努力使老年活動中心滿足老年人的不同需求，無論是社交、醫療，還是更專業領域如心理健康或殘疾老年人。即使涉及其他組織或子單位，這些中心仍應作為轉介中心。事實上，擴充套件後的老年活動中心也可以擔任殘疾成年人年長照顧者的協調或聯絡角色。
議長先生，接下來讓我談談綠色轉型的持續努力。去年，我在預算辯論中提到，隨著新加坡實現脫碳，我們需要一份詳細的再培訓路線圖。我詢問是否有足夠的可負擔時間和費用的可持續發展相關課程，供企業和員工參加。今天的發言中，我將繼續談論所提供教育的質量。
議長先生，能力建設是發展的核心理念。在氣候變化和可持續發展背景下，提升技能已成為確保公平轉型和不讓任何工人落後的必要條件。
自2015年技能未來計劃啟動以來，新加坡一直在大力投資終身學習和技能提升。政府支出已轉向成人教育和培訓，以加速國家的綠色轉型。高等教育機構（IHLs）是這一轉變的支柱，提供了大量課程，旨在提升現有勞動力在環境、社會及治理（ESG）以及碳服務和交易等領域的能力和技能。
然而，培養人才管道還必須包括對小學、中學和高等教育的投資。我很高興聽到新加坡國立大學（NUS）推出了氣候變化與可持續發展理學碩士（MSc）課程。NUS還開設了可持續發展資料科學碩士課程，培養能夠將知識和技能與可持續發展問題理解相結合的資料科學家。南洋理工大學（NTU）設有亞洲環境學院，提供環境與地球系統科學、公共政策專業，甚至可選修可持續發展第二專業。這些都是新加坡積極發展的例子。
但為了確保畢業生能夠滿足時代需求，所有此類課程必須經過充分的政策和行業驗證。例如，高等教育機構應（如果尚未做到）內化技能未來報告，評估這些領域的技能需求，並評估其可教授的本科生和研究生技能組合。我們還應鼓勵課程提供者確保所有課程充分關注新加坡，使學生真正理解如何實現新加坡的綠色轉型及其面臨的挑戰。
知識提供者是否擁有合適的人才來教授和傳授這些知識和技能？我們如何確保這一點？需要某種形式的影響評估，以跟蹤終身學習者的進展、理解和應用情況。
其次，高等教育機構的知識和內容提供者也需要獲得足夠支援，以完成提供勞動力所需知識和技能的重要工作。大學的招聘實踐需要反映對社會貢獻的重視，而不僅僅是傳統的出版物和影響因子。如果新加坡要在綠色轉型中取得成功，就需要更多強調招聘具有解決複雜可持續發展挑戰實際經驗的專家。
新加坡在幫助建設區域和國際能力方面的需求也在增長。總體而言，新加坡專家的需求日益增長，需要他們隨時準備傳授寶貴知識。為此，我們需要更多具備正確知識、技能和態度的新加坡人挺身而出，幫助培養本地、區域和國際的可持續發展人才。確實，我們需要積極擴大教育者隊伍。
氣候變化要求全社會各部門緊急行動。在我們專注於提升工人技能和能力建設的同時，也不能忽視對教育者的支援和培訓。我們需要快速擴大可持續發展教育者隊伍，以跟上2030年和2050年的目標，避免落後。
議長先生，最後，我期待對我提出的關切給予答覆。
議長先生：黃麗萍女士。
下午4時19分
黃麗萍女士（惹蘭勿剎選區）：議長先生，2024年預算是一項精心策劃的努力，旨在應對影響我們公民和企業的即時挑戰和長期問題。雖然它並非完美無缺，但確實體現了我們政府傾聽和理解基層現實的承諾。
我非常感謝我的居民、基層活動家、志願者以及中央區社群發展理事會（CDC）議員和合作夥伴與我分享他們對2024年預算的見解。他們中的許多人對預算中為個人、家庭、老年人、企業以及學前和特殊教育學校的家庭提供的全面福利表示讚賞。預算的積極方面得到了廣泛認可和讚賞。
在我的發言中，我希望聚焦三個關注點：第一，需審視2024年預算舉措的預期成果是否能夠實現；第二，社會發展成本不斷上升的可持續性；第三，需培育更強健的合作生態系統，使預算主題“共建共享未來”成為切實現實。
首先，關於確保預期成果實現的必要性。讓我舉一個我非常關心的例子。我讚賞政府對新加坡勞動力中兩個目標群體的大膽且可能具有變革性的投資：一是30歲以下的ITE畢業生；二是中年新加坡人。
然而，細節決定成敗。例如，雖然為30歲以下的ITE畢業生提供了有吸引力的財政激勵以繼續攻讀文憑課程，但仍有幾個問題未解答。我不清楚有多少人符合這些針對性文憑課程的資格，潛在的放棄工作機會成本是否會阻礙他們，以及他們是否會獲得足夠的職業指導，以確保與其優勢和就業市場需求相符？
同樣的問題也適用於針對40歲及以上新加坡人的中年再培訓計劃。這一群體同樣需要被鼓勵參與再培訓計劃，以提升未來的就業能力。
因此，我敦促對目標群體——工藝教育學院（ITE）畢業生和中年轉業的新加坡人——的反應進行仔細研究，以進一步提高政府這項潛在改變遊戲規則的投資成功的機會。政府可以考慮採取更積極的措施，專門接觸低技能的零工經濟工人，例如，以及其他因技術（包括人工智慧）而面臨行業或工作被淘汰風險的人群。
對我們年輕的工藝教育學院畢業生和中年轉業新加坡人的投資並不是唯一需要仔細審視並在必要時調整的專案。一些舉措，如對所有人的企業所得稅和個人所得稅減免、幼兒園和特殊教育學校（SPED）的費用降低，是政府關懷和同情的直接體現。然而，這些措施可能並非所有新加坡人都需要或認可。應考慮為那些不需要的人提供將其福利重新分配到一個公共資金池的選項，以幫助更需要的人群。就像未使用的社群發展理事會（CDC）代金券被引導至具有公共機構（IPC）資格的慈善機構一樣。
因此，我敦促政府採取積極的緩解策略，確保2024年預算中善意舉措的有效執行和成功。
接下來，我想談談國家開支上升的令人擔憂的趨勢，特別是在被歸類為“社會發展成本”的方面。超過50%的預算總撥款用於社會發展。獲得最大份額的是衛生，約佔17%，約190億新元；教育佔13%，約150億新元；國家發展佔8.1%，約90億新元。這些對社會發展的投資反映了政府的優先事項和改善所有新加坡人生活質量的承諾。
然而，在增加這些關鍵領域的支出時，我們也必須考慮創新方式來維持這項投資。我們的新加坡社會由於各種原因不習慣於較高的個人和企業所得稅。這與澳大利亞和北歐國家不同，後者通過高稅率的稅收制度資助高水平的公民福利。
因此，人民行動黨政府採用的一種創新方式是利用國家投資回報貢獻（NIRC）來資助開支，在過去七個財政年度（從2018財年至今）的預算中，這種依賴日益增加。這種資金模式的可持續性尚待觀察。必須不斷尋找支付不斷增加開支的方法。我與一些人交談時，他們呼籲將更多資源引導至政府投資公司（GIC）和淡馬錫控股（Temasek Holdings）進行投資，以擴大NIRC的基礎。這兩家投資機構多年來提供了不錯的中長期回報。還有人呼籲更多的公私人民夥伴關係，以實現更具創新性和靈活性的融資。
無論如何，對當前資金模式可持續性的擔憂不應被低估或忽視——這是我的第二點。
最後，需要培育一個更強健、更有凝聚力的夥伴關係生態系統，使預算主題“共建共享未來”成為切實現實。副總理黃循財通過“前進新加坡”（Forward Singapore）和2024年預算發出的“共建共享未來”的號召，是對社會各界的重要行動呼籲。新加坡已經在社群醫院（包括臨終關懷）、特殊教育和其他社會服務領域與合作伙伴合作。
我提到尊敬的議員Dennis Tan對殘疾成年人的關切。我想分享的是，我們每個人都有角色。例如，在我的甘榜格南選區，我們過去兩年與人民協會（PA）基層組織和CaringSG合作，試點了一個名為“紫心”（Purple Hearts）的特殊需求家庭網路。該網路由20多名志願者組成，由一些基層領袖和我帶領。我們定期訪問、結交朋友，瞭解這些200個家庭的需求，並將需求轉介給不同機構，其中一些是政府機構，一些是非政府組織。近兩年來，我很高興與Dennis Tan議員及其他有興趣的議員分享，至少讓他們在自己的選區推動類似專案。
新加坡在這一領域已經與許多合作伙伴合作。但讓我提出一些建議，政府如何更好地領導，確保共建共享未來，特別是在我積極參與志願服務的非營利慈善部門。我要宣告，這個部門充滿愛心，但相當分散。
首先，政府可以在促進這一生態系統方面發揮關鍵且更有幫助的作用，確保更明智的決策和更有影響力的成果。近年來，已投入大量資源用於合作伙伴的治理，這當然至關重要——審計、治理等。
然而，捐贈者和受助者都需要更深入地瞭解整體格局——識別關鍵的基本服務、事業、受益群體、主要缺口和期望，以及明確政府在這些缺口中的參與程度和其他人如何有效貢獻。例如，新加坡的主要捐贈者，如義安公司（Ngee Ann Kongsi）和各類基金會，可以獲得更好的支援，以可持續地投資於關鍵領域。
第二，支援後臺功能。任何有效社會服務生態系統的後臺都依賴其運營能力。目前，許多社會服務機構和慈善組織因治理、採購、風險管理和內部控制支援結構分散而面臨挑戰。這並非他們的錯；只是他們資源有限，不是政府，無法承擔一位議員所稱的“官僚複雜性”的成本。
因此，這些慈善機構和合作夥伴在資源有限的情況下，往往難以建立符合政府運營和審計標準的系統。因此，改善這些領域的支援至關重要。例如，使具有公共機構資格（IPC）的組織能夠訪問政府採購網路，如GeBiz或需求聚合供應商；這可以顯著減輕慈善機構的運營負擔。例如，邀請由陳振聲部長髮起的“為善公共服務運動”中的資深公務員與關鍵行業領導者坐下來，幫助制定合理標準並安裝成本效益高的後臺功能——這是實現共享未來的一個途徑。
接下來，支援非營利慈善部門的人力需求，政府可以通過對致力於非營利合作伙伴的勞動力保持敏感和支援，發揮關鍵作用。例如，我剛訪問的多佛臨終關懷中心（Dover Hospice）面臨的人力挑戰，儘管醫護人員經驗豐富，但面臨任期限制；合作的養老院、護理院、住宿院舍等也面臨員工流失，員工轉向公共部門等其他行業，因後者提供更具吸引力的聯絡計劃或薪酬方案。所有這些都強調了政府需要建立一個更支援和敏感的框架，與合作伙伴共同努力。
第四，分層配對和稅收減免。政府應實施分層配對捐贈，併為對關鍵資源不足的社會部門的捐款提供更具吸引力的稅收減免。應仔細識別關鍵和新興需求，並給予更多支援。這些包括醫療保健、終身教育、成人護理設施（Dennis Tan議員也提到過，我在議會內外多次提出）以及對殘疾人士及其家庭，尤其是成年殘疾人士的支援，還包括支援促進弱勢群體（如神經多樣化者、殘疾人和低學歷新加坡人）就業的社會企業。雖然我讚賞現在對海外捐款提供稅收減免，但我敦促優先考慮本地投資，並給予比海外捐款更具吸引力的稅收激勵。
第五，賦能社會企業。慈善機構作為政府的合作伙伴，不應僅依賴捐款和補助，而應被鼓勵“授人以漁”，實現長期自給自足。社會企業通過商業解決方案在應對社會挑戰中發揮關鍵作用。但社會企業是最難經營的企業之一，必須同時實現財務和社會效益底線。通過優先考慮社會企業的採購流程、提供設立援助以及更多稅收減免和補助，可以放大其影響力，特別是那些由慈善機構運營的社會企業。資金流入慈善機構，而非個人口袋。因此，這種方式不僅促進社會創新，還能以有意義的方式促進經濟發展。支援社會企業的公共採購政策可以創造更具包容性的經濟，推動社會價值創造。
先生，我提出了五種方式，政府可以在社會發展領域與利益相關者共建共享未來的願景中表現得更敏感和受歡迎。我期待政府對我分享的這五項內容進行深入探討，以便我們共同建設共享未來。當然，我也期待政府在本預算季節給予審慎回應。
總之，先生，2024年預算不僅僅是一個財政計劃。它是一個富有同情心、包容性和韌性的社會藍圖。有些出色的專案應進一步審查，以確保其善意目標得以實現。社會發展成本無論在金額還是比例上都在上升。只有擁有充滿活力的生態系統，每個人才能發揮最佳作用，實現“前進新加坡”和2024年預算的精神。
2024年預算呼籲我們每一個人——政府、政府官員、企業領袖、慈善家、社會服務機構、公民、居民，所有人——為共享未來貢獻力量。儘管我提出了意見，我仍強烈支援該預算。
副議長先生：葉漢榮議員。
下午4時34分
葉漢榮議員（耀祖康選區）：副議長先生，閉上眼睛，想象一下阿媽，一位銀髮小販，當她看到食材成本上漲威脅到她的生計時，笑容逐漸消失。再想象一下阿里先生，由於通脹，他在必需的雜貨和藥物之間掙扎選擇。這些並非孤立的故事，而是相當數量的新加坡人——無論年輕還是年長——每天面臨生活成本上漲壓力的真實寫照。我在耀祖康的居民見面會上遇到過一些這樣的居民。
雖然2024年預算的優先事項值得肯定，但負擔能力危機投下了長長的陰影，不僅威脅到我們老年人的財務安全，也威脅到我們多元社會的根基。讓我們在負擔能力成為所有新加坡人機會和福祉的障礙之前採取行動。我們可以做更多工作，使新加坡成為一個負擔得起的居住地，特別是在交通、住房、公積金和社會支援計劃方面。
首先，副議長先生，我們需要確保新加坡人擁有負擔得起且可及的交通。雖然我們的公共交通網路持續擴充套件，但汽車擁有權仍是許多新加坡人生活的重要方面。擁有年幼子女的家庭、老年人、行動不便者和有特殊需求的人通常依賴私家車進行日常通勤。
儘管我們的公共交通系統效率世界一流，但大多數時段仍然擁擠。高峰期情況更為嚴重，弱勢乘客的座位有限。雖然私家車租賃（PHV）提供了替代選擇，但其費用和等待時間都在上升，更不用說高峰時段的附加費。春節等節日期間出現的30分鐘等待時間引發了對其可靠性的擔憂。當然，這可以理解，因為PHV司機也有家庭，也會參與節日慶祝。但這也意味著PHV網路存在一定的市場失靈，可能需要一些干預。
飆升的配額證書（COE）價格威脅將汽車擁有權推向普通新加坡人難以承受的地步。這不是豪車問題，而是家庭用車問題。最近議會關於此問題的辯論顯示瞭解決負擔能力問題的緊迫性。
正在進行的點對點出行審查令人鼓舞。我敦促政府認真考慮為PHV設立單獨的COE類別。我已多次在議會提出此問題。該問題核心在於將PHV和個人買家置於同一COE池的公平性和影響。首先，需求模式顯著不同。PHV公司通常擁有更強的財務資源，能更積極競標，最終將成本轉嫁給乘客。其次，對於PHV來說，汽車本質上是商業工具。公司可能優先考慮更高的競標價，而個人買家購買私車則是個人用途，且知道未來可以收回成本。因此，設立單獨類別可解決企業與個人買家之間的不平衡，確保系統更公平合理。
第二，議長先生，我們需要保護老年人免受看似不公平的物業稅上漲影響。雖然最近調整了估值（AV）區間和物業回扣，這是積極的步驟，但其延遲實施對退休老人構成緊迫關切。政府能否提前實施這些變更？
此外，許多退休人員“資產豐富但現金短缺”。他們幾十年前購置了私人房產，並長期居住。物業稅的急劇上漲可能對這些缺乏收入以吸收成本的退休人員造成毀滅性打擊。我們需要一個更公平的系統來保護老年人。他們沒有充足的現金流來承擔與估值上升相關的物業稅大幅增加。我認識的一位退休人員告訴我，她的物業稅幾乎增加了三倍。也許政府應為沒有收入且擁有唯一自住物業的退休人員提供更多援助。對於擁有第二套、第三套物業的人，當然應徵收更多稅。政府目前的做法實際上是在要求那些住在自己家中、無法支付物業稅的退休人員出售房屋，離開他們熟悉的環境。這將給老年人帶來壓力，影響心理健康，甚至可能導致痴呆症提前發作。
我們還需要實施一個更公平的物業稅系統，考慮居民的獨特情況，尤其是自住物業。我們能否鼓勵銀行和金融機構推廣反向抵押貸款？將房屋租賃部分貨幣化，但允許在房屋最終繼承時償還。這可能創造市場，促進價格發現和競爭。
我們還需要更清晰地瞭解計算房屋估值時考慮的相關物理屬性。稅務局（IRAS）如何評估位於高價值地區但多年未裝修的私人和組屋？此外，政府能否考慮引入物業稅年度漲幅上限，例如最高50%？
第三，副議長先生，我們需要更清晰的溝通和針對性的公積金（CPF）變更支援。雖然關閉特別賬戶（SA）並將資金轉入退休賬戶（RA）簡化了系統，並可能提供更高利率，但我希望澄清那1%無法將SA儲蓄轉入RA的成員情況。部長能否詳細說明哪些人屬於此例外？從普通賬戶（OA）轉入RA是否自願？成員將如何獲知此選項、其利弊，並在需要時獲得協助？
此外，SA即將關閉引發許多居民，尤其是已達到全額退休金的50多歲居民的擔憂和困惑。許多居民表示，由於此變更，他們不得不重新規劃退休。基於SA較高利率多年的財務規劃被打亂，調整時間有限。RA的有限提款選項引發了對緊急資金訪問的擔憂，而SA則更靈活。相反，資金留在OA意味著利息較低，影響老年人的長期財務安全。我敦促部長關注這些居民的擔憂，探索減少SA關閉對55歲及以上成員影響的方法，特別是在提款靈活性方面。
此外，雖然我認可提高緊急退休金（ERS）以讓成員受益於RA高利率的舉措，但我強調需要關注難以達到基本退休金（BRS）的低收入者。部長能否詳細說明幫助他們增加退休儲蓄的具體措施？
最後，副議長先生，我們需要完善基本計劃的經濟狀況審查程式，以確保包容性。雖然銀髮支援計劃（Silver Support Scheme，SSS）旨在幫助那些工作期間收入較低、退休後收入減少的長者，但以住房型別來決定銀髮支援的發放，可能會不公平地影響那些與家人共住的長者。我建議取消這一標準。住在較大組屋的長者可能面臨其他經濟限制。他們可能與許多家庭成員同住，且沒有選擇縮小居住面積或變現房屋的選項。因此，將住房型別等同於財富可能並不合理。
同樣地，針對醫院賬單和補貼，目前基於住房和家庭收入的經濟狀況審查，可能無法準確反映所有長者的真實經濟狀況。隨著晚婚和單身趨勢的增加，許多年輕新加坡人住在父母家中，努力實現經濟獨立或等待購買組屋。基於這些情況拒絕補貼，進一步不利於年輕新加坡人，並影響他們的婚姻和家庭規劃決策。這也使長者因擔心給子女帶來負擔而不願尋求必要的醫療服務。因此，我們需要考慮取消住房型別作為標準，完善經濟狀況審查程式，以更全面地考慮個人和家庭收入。
總之，副議長先生，讓我們睜開眼睛。讓我們把新加坡看作一棵古老而宏偉的大樹，深深紮根於我們的價值觀和傳統，為所有尋求庇護的人提供遮蔽和養分。正如我們珍惜和關愛長者一樣，我們也必須確保他們免受不確定性和困苦的風暴侵襲。他們培育了這棵樹，現在是他們享受它應有庇護的時候了。顯然，我們需要採取行動，解決新加坡人面臨的負擔能力挑戰。
我在發言中提出了若干建議。
首先，在交通方面，我們必須確保無障礙和負擔能力，特別是對家庭和弱勢群體如長者。我們需要探索為私人租車（PHV）設立獨立的車輛擁車證（COE）類別。
其次，關於住房，必須建立更公平的物業稅制度，考慮居民的獨特情況。量身定製的政策和限制增幅可以減輕長者和房主的負擔。
第三，在公積金（CPF）方面，提高政策變更的認知度和針對性支援至關重要，幫助長者增加退休儲蓄，尤其是那些難以達到基本退休額的低收入者。
最後，在社會支援方面，完善銀髮支援和醫療補貼等基本計劃的經濟狀況審查程式，確保全面考慮個人和家庭收入。
我敦促政府優先考慮這些措施，確保所有人，尤其是我們的長者，都能負擔得起生活。讓我們不要等到不斷上漲的成本成為新加坡各年齡層居民難以逾越的障礙。通過共同努力，我們可以建設一個更具包容性和公平性的社會，讓每個人都能茁壯成長，無論其處境如何。讓我們攜手使新加坡成為一個真正負擔得起的居住地，一個人人都能追逐夢想而不被經濟困難所困擾的國家。我支援預算案。
副議長：陳雪玲女士。
下午4時45分
陳雪玲（東海岸）：副議長先生，一個國家的命運歷經歲月，要麼興起，要麼衰落，要麼停滯。我們很幸運，新加坡在巨大困難面前依然表現出色。2024年預算作為“前進新加坡”運動的一部分，旨在保持向上的發展軌跡。但即使我們發展經濟，不變的事實是資源永遠有限，而需求無限。
我們的需求隨著每一代人增長，他們對更光明、更進步未來的期望意味著我們必須不斷適應和進化。我們需要採取有意識的行動，最大限度地利用每一分錢，確保繼續滿足公民日益增長的期望，並以全面的方式擴大經濟。因此，加強關鍵領域，防止不必要的資源浪費，同時確保我們的財富和社會平等在社會不同群體間保持同步，是必要的。
在2024年預算宣告中，有四個方面令我印象深刻。首先，我同意我們的經濟需要保持健康的增長速度，但不能不計代價。
我讚賞政府為經濟未來規劃方向，確定未來十年或二十年後支撐這個小紅點的產業和就業崗位。然而，我們必須小心，不被潛在的、看不見的結構性和社會成本矇蔽。我們必須以全面和審慎的方式規劃這些經濟活動，最重要的是，作為政府整體努力的一部分，確保考慮每項計劃的各個維度。
例如，在追求新的高價值活動如研發時，我們不應忽視加強基礎工程能力，或繼續鼓勵我們的高附加值製造業基礎。疫情顯示，全球供應鏈核心部分的過度依賴存在弊端。
將部分工作外包海外不僅影響我們的藍領勞動力，也可能使新加坡失去將創新有效轉化為市場產品的能力。從長遠看，這限制了新加坡作為創新部署“一站式”服務中心的能力。
通過新推出的SkillsFuture Level-Up計劃，精心規劃終身學習和職業轉型路徑，將幫助我們的勞動力在新的經濟增長領域提供產品和服務。然而，我們必須繼續支援工藝和部分藍領領域的能力發展，確保擁有全面的勞動力推動經濟計劃。
我對新的工藝教育學院（ITE）進階獎感到高興，該獎項支援學生在更實用和動手領域提升技能。我希望類似計劃能繼續支援和提升我們的勞動力，在推動新加坡增長基礎的關鍵技能上達到精通。
明確地說，我完全支援未來的經濟重點，如為數字和綠色轉型做準備，持續提升價值鏈，並尋找我們能在全球競爭中脫穎而出的細分領域。
但在推動創新前沿的同時——這至關重要——想象新加坡經濟未來的能力，為所有勞動力群體帶來希望和可能性，這將保持我們的經濟活力。
第二，我很高興我們將為支援向清潔能源轉型的關鍵基礎設施建設撥款，通過未來能源基金實現。這些支出對於確保新加坡作為全球氣候行動的積極參與者，並可能成為其他國家向清潔能源轉型的典範，至關重要。
然而，這些基礎設施建設成本高昂；鑑於能源格局不確定，存在被擱置的風險。審慎分配這些資金必須超越資本評估。政府領導人需對投資風險做出明智判斷，考慮維護這些基礎設施在規定壽命內的高額經常性成本和維護方式，以防止現在和未來的浪費。
同理，我們在開發任何基礎設施專案時應遵循這一理念，確保每一分錢都用得其所。例如，許多有頂棚的連廊為市民提供便利，尤其在炎熱和雨天時帶來舒適。然而，一些連廊建在客流量不大的區域，使用率低。
為了夜間使用保持明亮，所需的照明也增加了電網負荷，而這些區域已有路燈照明。確保這些結構安全，尤其是跨路的連廊，建設和維護成本高昂。我們是否考慮過如何減少維護這些資產數十年的高額經常性開支？是否有可能調整這些連廊的用途，服務更廣泛的社群，或採用其他創新且更廉價的遮蔽方式？這些決策確實需要一定的判斷力。
鑑於資源有限，且未來可能缺少外勞滿足日常需求，公共工程法規是否會發展，允許公民志願貢獻專業知識或技術設計？
第三，我歡迎幫助應對即時生活成本和增強援助計劃（AP）的舉措。根據2022年《世界經濟展望》，我們的GDP人均約為9.11萬新元，位列全球前三。
作為一個年輕國家，收入中位數相對較高，有些人難以理解我們中間存在低收入工人、夾心中產階級以及可能無足夠財力支援退休的長者或退休人員。面對可能不利於經濟的全球逆風和人口老齡化，我對這部分公民的未來感到擔憂，尤其是其帶來的不確定性。國家繁榮的同時，我們必須正視財富和社會平等是否在社會不同群體間同步發展。
過去一年，必需品和服務價格上漲，社群發展理事會（CDC）和U-Save代金券的發放在一定程度上幫助許多新加坡人緩解了不斷上升的成本負擔。雖然這些計劃能即時應對當前的通脹挑戰，但長期實施同樣給政府帶來財政壓力。需要持續跟蹤這些方案的影響，並定期與方案或政策的初衷進行對標。
隨著新加坡持續投資於新的高價值經濟增長領域，並支援勞動力升級以承擔更高價值的工作，我希望新加坡人的實際工資能持續增長。我並不反對為有需要且無法自助的特定群體提供財政支援，或真正需要援助的人伸出援手。
我想問政府，是否計劃將部分支援計劃，如CDC代金券和援助計劃，設為永久性？我們打算如何為此籌資？人人都喜歡“免費錢”，但重要的是，我們始終優先考慮可能需要更多幫助的同胞，並作為一個國家家庭繼續支援他們。
這引出了最後一個方面，即以有針對性的方式幫助需要更多支援的人。我對增加對特殊需要人士家庭的支援感到非常鼓舞。
我相信包容性是我們社會結構的重要支柱，我們應繼續努力，動員更多新加坡人支援並最大程度地將特殊需要人士融入社群。降低特殊教育（SPED）學校的月費，增加對特殊需要人士就業和融入的支援，是正確的方向。
照顧特殊需要者不僅是經濟成本問題，也對整個家庭造成影響，因為他們的生活方式完全改變，從關注負擔能力轉向如何最好地幫助特殊需要者生活。
最近一位居民向我求助，涉及其女兒申請交通優惠卡的問題。未獲批准的原因是殘疾定義和評估標準。事實上，她女兒自幼被診斷為不同程度的殘疾。現年20歲的她狀況未見改善，面臨社會挑戰和缺乏就業機會。她父母關心的，不僅是交通優惠卡的價值（低於消費稅券或CDC代金券），更關心的是女兒餘生可選擇的機會取決於他人願意提供的支援，而支援決策依賴於規則手冊，這些規則往往缺乏理解和同情。
我想知道我們作為社群還能做些什麼來支援這些人。我欣慰地看到越來越多商業設施預留空間並調整運營程式，使環境更歡迎特殊需要人士。
例如濱海灣花園計劃為自閉症人士設立安靜時段和包容性兒童遊樂場。其他企業如Frasers Property及其租戶成為首批“包容冠軍”。此類社群及商業主導的努力對最終將特殊需要人士的包容性融入新加坡人日常生活至關重要。
我希望政府擴大對這些自發努力的支援，無論是在商業還是社群領域，幫助特殊需要人士。
副議長，最後總結，我對新加坡未來增長持樂觀態度，儘管全球面臨逆風。2024年預算展示了我們如何塑造經濟以迎接新需求，同時確保勞動力更好地適應未來就業。
政府為國家規劃的同時，我也呼籲新加坡人積極參與我們的前進道路。這個國家只能從我們的集體智慧、努力和成功意願中受益。成功不僅僅是成為最好的定義，更是讓我們感到自豪和安慰，因為我們的成功包括社會中需要幫助和脆弱的人。基於此，先生，我支援預算案。
副議長：陳潔儀女士。
下午4時57分
陳潔儀（東海岸）：副議長，2024年預算內容豐富。它應對了即時的生活成本挑戰，為家庭和長者提供支援，支援個人和企業為未來增長和就業做好準備。引入措施以吸引優質投資，投資新經濟領域，以及大規模推動經濟脫碳，值得歡迎，但也需要大量資金。
我們的支出需求持續增長。問題是，我們能否繼續承擔如此鉅額資金。副總理黃循財指出，我們的中期財政狀況緊張，但保證只要支出增長保持在預計範圍內，我們應有足夠收入維持預算平衡。
因此，我希望我們能繼續在具體舉措上共享成果。我的發言將聚焦四個方面：更好的增長；就業和機會；醫療保健和長者護理；以及物業稅調整。
鑑於持續的地緣政治局勢、經濟增長放緩和實際收入下降，新加坡人和企業在應對通脹、更高生活成本和經營成本方面面臨挑戰。為援助計劃和企業支援方案宣佈的現金支援和補助，將幫助家庭和企業應對當前成本和通脹壓力。
但我們確實需要關注增長和優質增長。這對提升新加坡人的生活質量和企業繁榮至關重要。這一點去年在樟宜實美區的預算對話中一位居民表達得很恰當。
當我們討論支援生活成本壓力的預算措施時，他提醒我們，雖然需要支援措施，但我們也必須“擴大蛋糕”。如果不增長，長期來看我們將更糟，因為我們依賴的是一個不斷縮小的蛋糕，依靠的東西會越來越少。這是嚴峻的現實，也是及時的提醒。
我們不能一味重複過去。全球不確定性、技術和氣候變化驅動的結構性轉變，要求我們做出根本性轉變和創新，實現良好且可持續的增長。新加坡需要繼續保持作為企業投資高質量專案的有吸引力的樞紐，因為這帶來尖端能力、知識和技術，更重要的是創造優質就業。
引入可退還投資稅額、對人工智慧的投資、升級全國寬頻網路，以及進一步推動2025年研究、創新與企業計劃（RIE2025），是2024年預算為保持新加坡競爭力和吸引企業投資的重要舉措。
[議長在主席臺]
但要實現增長的全部潛力，我們的企業，包括中小企業，必須具備參與增長的能力。擁有強大的本地企業也將提升新加坡對投資的吸引力，因為尋求投資的企業需要有強大的合作伙伴基礎。我們的本地企業必須轉型以保持相關性，這一點至關重要。我們必須認識到，這些變化不會輕鬆實現，因為它們需要採用新的經營方式、利用技術、培養新技能以及採用節能解決方案。預算中的措施和增強將支援本地企業的轉型努力。但最終取決於本地企業是否願意承諾並投資於轉型，同時繼續經營現有業務。
當我在跨國企業工作時，我親眼見證了跨國企業與本地企業，尤其是中小企業之間協作的協同效應和益處。中小企業可以藉助跨國企業的技術專長、專業知識、財務實力和市場渠道實現升級。許多跨國企業都有發展本地企業的計劃，因為他們理解與本地企業合作並建立強大網路的重要性，以提供本地市場洞察、挖掘本地市場潛力並彌補不足。這對跨國企業和本地企業都是雙贏。因此，本地企業必須進行必要的投資以實現轉型，準備好成為跨國企業價值鏈中的關鍵合作伙伴。
能力轉型夥伴計劃及副總理黃循財在預算中宣佈的增強措施將促進跨國企業與本地企業之間的合作。但本地企業只有具備能力才能實現這一點。
現在讓我談談同樣重要的一點。為了實現增長，企業需要人才，需要具備相關技能和知識的人來承擔工作。結構性變革正在影響企業，進而影響就業崗位。
在我於2022年提出的關於老年人就業能力的休會動議中，我分享了人民行動黨老年人小組為更好理解工作和老年人就業能力所做的研究成果。
我的一項建議是需要對支援學習和組織工作的方式進行結構性干預。隨著人們壽命延長且健康狀況改善，我們持續學習、保持生產力，並希望隨著年齡增長繼續工作。
但我們的人生階段發展並非線性。正如我們允許年輕人在正規教育中有不同路徑，我強調需要重新思考如何為在職人員構建學習結構，以實現持續學習和工作。個人和僱主都知道持續學習的價值。挑戰在於機會成本和投入大量時間。由此形成了人才缺口和技能相關性問題，影響企業和個人。我曾建議每隔幾年允許幾個月的與工作相關的學習時間，這樣我們才能真正培養技能。
預算中宣佈的SkillsFuture提升計劃意義重大。它將支援所有40歲及以上的新加坡中年職業人士，提供4000新元的SkillsFuture學分，用於選定行業的課程，這些行業有良好的招聘機會；補貼理工學院、工藝教育學院和藝術院校的全日制文憑課程，並提供最高每月3000新元、最長24個月的培訓津貼，終身有效。這些措施旨在抵消學習期間的收入損失，也表明政府認識到結構性就業變化的影響，認識到中年職業人士需要適當支援，主動提升技能，以應對就業變化，做好準備迎接新的優質工作機會。
SkillsFuture提升計劃確實是支援中年職業人士的結構性變革。它將緩解再培訓成本，我相信這將鼓勵個人承諾並主動掌控自己的技能提升和職業發展。這需要心態轉變，以及僱主、教育機構和家庭的支援，幫助再培訓、工作和過渡管理。所有利益相關者，包括中年職業人士，都需要調整，因為多年後重返正規教育可能令人望而生畏。還有其他考慮因素，比如尋找和選擇適合的課程以提升就業能力和獲得更好工作，以及非全日制課程學習者如何兼顧工作和學習。但歸根結底，為使SkillsFuture對工人有意義，再培訓必須與企業需求相符，確保最終獲得更好的工作。
如果我們成功實現SkillsFuture提升計劃所倡導的再培訓轉變，我希望學習能像正規教育中的年輕人一樣，成為職場工人的系統性行為。
現在讓我談談醫療保健和老年護理。
面對家庭成本壓力和醫療費用上升，我歡迎政府修訂按月人均家庭收入（PHCI）作為醫療和相關社會支援補貼的資產測試標準。正如所述，修訂後，超過一百萬人將受益於更高的補貼。
我想澄清衛生部和社會及家庭發展部長期居住和非居住護理的修訂門檻和補貼。提供的細節未提及評估價值（AV）。評估價值不再作為標準了嗎？對於沒有PHCI的退休人員，是否會使用評估價值作為資產測試標準來確定資格？如果評估價值稍高於門檻，他們是否將無法獲得任何補貼？
我在去年的預算辯論中呼籲審查和完善老年人長期居住和非居住護理的資產測試標準。如果評估價值仍作為確定資格的資產測試標準，冒著重複囉嗦的風險，我請求政府審視如何支援新加坡家庭照顧老年人，就像去年預算宣佈支援所有新加坡家庭照顧幼兒一樣，無需資產測試。
我並非要求取消資產測試，而是希望完善評估價值在確定資格中的使用方式。老年護理服務費用不菲。無補貼情況下，日託服務每月費用在945至1430新元之間。痴呆症護理服務每月費用在1260至1575新元之間。對於同時照顧幼兒和老人的家庭，這些開支相當可觀。對退休人員影響更大。
最後，我感謝副總理認識到2024年業主自住住宅物業稅因評估價值大幅上漲而帶來的挑戰，並調整了業主自住物業稅的評估價值區間。這意味著如果評估價值保持不變，業主在2025年及以後年度將繳納更少的物業稅。
正如CBRE研究所分享的，評估價值區間調整將最大程度惠及低端和中端物業，物業稅減少約20%-30%。該調整將幫助業主，尤其是可能經濟狀況不佳的退休人員。加上24個月無息分期付款計劃，將幫助無法一次性支付物業稅的退休人員。
2024年預算是全面的預算。它為我們共同建設未來奠定了新基礎和構建塊。實現預算中提出的大膽目標需要政府、企業、個人和社群共同積極參與，發揮各自作用。議長先生，我支援預算。
議長：賈拉德·賈姆先生。
下午5時08分
賈拉德·賈姆·彥松（阿裕尼）先生：議長先生，新加坡工人渴望獲得良好收入，參與有意義的工作，不僅提升自己家庭，也提升社群、國家乃至世界。
工作的一個不可避免的現實是競爭。
新加坡一直擁有非常競爭的文化。這在許多方面對我們有利，從學生在學校的優異表現，到我們在全球排名中的努力，以及從反腐敗感知到商業友好度等各方面。然而，競爭也有陰暗面。
新加坡人並不指望政府保護他們免受全球競爭影響。但我們厭惡不公平競爭，即那些不遵守規則或本地規範的人卻仍然領先。例如，當新加坡工人看到同事因經理偏好與其文化背景相同的人而被錄用和晉升，而非基於能力或努力時，這會在他們心中產生深刻的不和諧感。
為什麼？因為新加坡人從小被教育相信功績主義是我們社會的指導原則。我們希望新加坡獎勵基於能力和努力的工人和專業人士，而非關係或部落忠誠。
然而，儘管我們努力塑造理想的新加坡，我們只是大海中的一滴水。我們必須教導我們的孩子和學生面對現實世界，而非理想世界。他們必須在家庭和學校中被教導在有貢獻時發聲，而非默默無聞。他們必須被鼓勵爭取應得的權益，而非無條件接受他人決定。他們必須願意與來自不同文化和國籍的人廣泛交流，理解他們的動機。
新加坡常被視為卓越之國。用本地話說，我們做事“swee swee”（一絲不苟）。交給新加坡人任務，當他們說完成時，我們可以信賴其質量。我們絕不能讓這種卓越文化滑落。這是我們在日益競爭激烈的世界中的優勢。
近年來，生成式人工智慧和自動駕駛汽車的推出使人工智慧和機器人技術進入主流視野。這些技術可通過提升任務和流程的速度、準確性和效率，為新加坡提高生產力提供路徑。
有許多關於人工智慧對生產力可衡量影響的研究。例如，波士頓諮詢集團與哈佛大學聯合研究發現，使用GPT-4的顧問完成的商業任務比未使用人工智慧的對照組多12%，速度快25%，質量高40%。
這些都是新加坡可以利用的絕佳機會。政府可以推動人工智慧和機器人技術的更廣泛應用，不僅面向科學家和企業，也面向普通公民的通用用途。
2023年11月，我曾詢問政府是否計劃發展本土人工智慧基礎模型能力，包括建立國家基礎模型研究院。
2024年2月，我提出建立國家人工智慧醫療基礎模型的建議，該模型可用於預測和干預多種疾病。我願在此重申這些呼籲。
這些不僅是國家級舉措，也可能成為更大區域科學合作的前奏。新加坡需要合適的機構和機會，以吸引和留住最優秀的人才，包括有才華的新加坡學生、科學家和企業家。
我對這些新技術可能導致的失業風險毫不抱幻想。這就是為什麼2024年1月，我詢問政府如何主動再培訓最易受人工智慧影響的工人。我們需要干預措施，保護公民免受人工智慧引發的失業風險。我們最好成為自身變革的設計師，而非任由技術帶來負面改變。
我們可能會傾向於採用舊有方案，投入資金培訓專案，鼓勵工人參加課程。但這種方法可能無法成功提升整個勞動力在新興技術中的技能。
我們還必須擁抱默會學習，即通過實際操作人工智慧和機器人來學習。默會學習是通過實踐學習。使用人工智慧工具或機器人應像使用網頁瀏覽器搜尋答案或操作電視遙控器一樣簡單和普及。機器人應更廣泛部署於環境中，讓公眾每天都能看到和使用。
讓每位新加坡人親身實踐人工智慧和機器人，將更好確保這些技術的收益惠及所有人，包括體力工人和知識工作者、公務員和企業家、跨國公司和中小企業。
SkillsFuture也必須支援默會學習。2024年2月，在我關於全球人工智慧領導力的休會動議中，我呼籲用SkillsFuture學分補貼前沿人工智慧工具的訂閱費用。
人工智慧工具提升工人生產力，我們應給予更多機會讓民眾使用。我們必須努力讓新加坡社會各階層都能接觸到最先進的人工智慧模型和機器人。只有作為先行者嘗試，並願意接受和從失敗中學習，我們才能獲得和保留無師自通的寶貴知識。
副總理黃循財在預算陳述中正確指出，我們正處於武裝衝突、對抗和恐怖主義時代，大國優先考慮國家安全而非國際合作，解決全球問題的意願減弱。這是嚴峻現實。我們必須在新世界秩序的現實中工作，舊秩序可能短期內難以迴歸。
副總理黃表示，我們將追求更好的工作和更好的增長。他承諾提升各職業的工資水平。特別是，他指出工藝教育學院畢業生的工資和職業前景不應遠遠落後於理工學院和大學畢業生。我完全支援這一點。我希望技術工人的工資能更接近知識工作者，因為他們為經濟和社會帶來的價值。我將在人力部預算委員會辯論中進一步闡述。
SkillsFuture提升計劃注入額外4000新元學分，令人歡迎。副總理黃表示，這些學分將用於選定的培訓專案，這些專案具有更好的就業前景，包括兼職和全日制文憑及本科課程。此外，40歲及以上工人將有機會以補貼價攻讀另一全日制文憑。
請問部長，政府如何得出這些文憑和學位課程具有更好就業前景的結論？是否有實證資料支援？如果有，更好就業結果是因為畢業生獲得了更高技能，還是因為本地僱主仍然重視學歷而非技能和經驗？
事實上，公認最有效的獲得就業技能方式之一是通過在職培訓（OJT）和學徒制。因此，我建議政府對在職培訓和學徒制專案給予與文憑和學位課程同等的補貼。
副總理黃在預算陳述中簡要提及政府將通過失業臨時財政支援計劃，更多支援因失業而受影響者。他表示政府將在今年晚些時候制定細節。先生，該計劃幾乎在去年8月國慶集會上宣佈，何時能落實？
更重要的是，該計劃的財政可持續性如何？是否包含保險成分，如工人黨提出的裁員保險計劃，確保經濟繁榮時期僱主和僱員繳納的保費可在經濟低迷、裁員增加時使用？
議長先生，社會包容必須成為我們所有經濟政策的核心。我很高興看到特殊教育（SPED）學校的最高月費將降至90新元，所有中心的費用上限也降低。然而，新加坡應朝著特殊教育學校與主流學校費用平等的方向邁進。雖然我理解兩類學校的教育成本不同，但學費應相同。
先生，主流小學學費僅為每月13新元，那麼特殊教育學校學費也應為13新元，而非目前平均120新元。即使降至90新元，雖值得肯定，但仍不公平。尤其考慮到特殊需求兒童家長在教育之外的其他方面承擔更高費用。特殊教育學校的額外成本應由社會分擔，以促進更具包容性和公平的社會。
校車費用仍是殘障群體的重大關切。截至2024年1月1日，教育部已將主流學校校車運營商的價格上限提高了13%。但我們知道，特殊教育學校學生的校車費用漲幅更大，因為能滿足其複雜需求的運營商較少。
我知道並且感謝有各種校車補貼援助計劃，比如教育部的經濟援助計劃（FAS）和交通補貼計劃（ETS）。雖然我理解保持校車運營商可持續發展的必要性，但生活成本危機的負面影響使得校車交通費用成為許多殘疾學生家長的額外負擔。許多學生嚴重依賴校車往返於家、學校和社會服務機構，參加諸如嬰幼兒早期介入計劃（EIPIC）、託兒所、庇護工場和特殊學生照顧中心等專案。
通常，這還涉及額外費用。例如，EIPIC是半天的課程，因此學生還需要從學校被送到該專案地點，造成交通費用的雙重負擔。
因此，我呼籲政府提高FAS和ETS的每月家庭收入上限，特別是針對有特殊需要成員的家庭。此外，可以提供更多補貼以應對校車票價的通脹。這將確保更多家庭能夠獲得並受益於這些補貼，以應對不斷上漲的生活成本。
總之，議長先生，在我們穿越快速變化的全球和技術環境時，我們的政策必須體現對公平、精英主義和創新的堅定承諾。通過培育一個倡導公平競爭、利用人工智慧和機器人技術變革力量，並將每個新加坡人的福祉和進步置於核心的生態系統——我們能夠確保一個強健且繁榮的未來。
讓我們繼續致力於建設一個機會均等、卓越文化和尊重每個人貢獻價值的社會，為未來幾代新加坡人的發展塑造道路。議長先生，我支援該動議。
議長：蔡凱德先生。
下午5時21分
蔡凱德先生（提名議員）：議長先生，感謝您給予我機會分享對今年預算案——“共建我們的共享未來”的看法。
我認為其中隱含的關鍵詞是“建設”、“共享未來”和“一起”。
在聽了王瑞傑副總理於2月16日的預算演講，並隨後多次重讀他的講話並反思後，我感到非常感激，儘管我們將面臨不確定性，但我們作為一個民族，已做好準備共同面對這些挑戰。
2024年預算案既解決了當前問題，也繼續構建我們的未來社會契約。2024年預算案啟動了約400億新元的新社會契約支出。2024年預算案繼續鼓勵和支援必要的經濟增長，儘管增速放緩。
我們的預算通常吸引金融和商業界的關注。但我希望更多新加坡人能抽時間完整閱讀2024年預算案。我希望即使金融和商業界從財政角度評估和辯論預算，他們也能在向更廣泛的群體傳達其核心內容方面發揮作用。
可能我們更廣泛人口對預算細節參與有限的一個原因，是歷史上對政府的隱性信任。然而，在這個資訊誤導的時代，每個新加坡人越來越需要理解事實和現實。如果我們要成為共同建設共享未來的一部分，就必須超越諸如政府發放補貼等簡單陳述。
議長先生，我想從三個主題或標題提出我的觀察。
首先，忠誠且負責任地管理小事，因此被託付更大責任。其次，持續關心人民福祉。最後，認識並欣賞我們的成功，並將其分享於國內外。
我們最近關於儲備和政府過去幾十年審慎財政管理的辯論中談了很多。但我們需要理解，我們是從一個假設較小的初始資金開始積累儲備，並在幾十年間顯著增長。就我們自身經濟而言，我們從一個充滿挑戰的基礎起步，如今已成功吸引大量國際投資，並發展出強大的本地商業部門。
2024年預算案承認當前挑戰，因此在多個領域為個人和企業提供支援。
本地商業部門的增長將自然發生，也將來自新舉措。我們需要確保中小企業持續繁榮。我們需要鼓勵創業精神保持活力和相關性。
創新創業可以通過有意支援新興社會企業家實現。也許預算案中一些新的或增強的資金，包括研發領域，可以分配給適合的社會創業專案，這些專案不僅追求商業回報，也實現社會影響和社會目標。
2024年預算案關注社群中更需要幫助和脆弱群體的福利。由於國內經濟和全球經濟的結構性轉變，一些工人將面臨非自願失業。
支援可能有助於傳達——他們並非孤軍奮戰，政府和社群都準備提供幫助。我也希望並請求，我們引入的支援方式是全面的。我鼓勵不幸受影響的個人積極規劃未來，保持積極態度。
一些人可能因身體或精神障礙而非自願失業。現有渠道可幫助這部分群體，但可能仍有部分人被遺漏。政府在制定支援框架時，是否會審視如何幫助除裁員或冗餘外的所有非自願失業者？
我們的社會部門必須繼續留住人才並吸引新人才，以準備支援當前和未來需求。隨著我們定義新社會契約下的成功，我希望會有更多人視該部門為有意義的職業。
我們的青年和長者需要多樣化的針對性支援和干預。預算案已概述支援長者改善退休保障等方面。在這方面，僱主需要加大力度，為希望繼續工作的長者提供機會。我們許多大型本地企業表現良好。此類企業是否會繼續發揮帶頭作用，促進長者的有意義參與和就業？
令人擔憂的是，青少年中毒品使用呈上升趨勢。雖然執法似乎是自然反應，但我們是否已識別出需要解決的系統性問題？最近有機會聽取內政部的彙報，我感到欣慰的是，幫助早期毒品濫用者康復的努力有所加強，希望我們能持續支援這一工作。
還有心理健康下降和青少年自殺率上升的問題。同樣，我們需要探討可能需要解決的系統性問題。
第三，議長先生，我們是經濟和物質成功的受益者。我們也是世界上最安全、最穩定的國家之一。許多人會形容我們是一個真正被祝福的國家。
擬議的幫助願意幫助他人的人計劃，是建設一個有凝聚力和慷慨社會的切實步驟。它使社群成員能夠共同為我們的共享未來貢獻力量。與新加坡社群基金會、社會及家庭發展部和社群 Chest 的合作是一個極好的起點。目標是通過協作專案和舉措提升社群中低收入成員的生活水平。
擬議的海外人道援助稅收扣除計劃是積極舉措，我們尋求將我們的福祉分享至海外。我想指出，作為一個國家，多年來我們在沒有稅收扣除的情況下已慷慨響應各種呼籲。政府正邁出支援人道援助行動的步伐，這應能提升我們對不幸事件的響應水平。
上週，我有機會參加由國家志願者與慈善中心（NVPC）主辦的“善城峰會”。一位主旨演講者談到了水資源問題以及許多欠發達地區持續面臨的清潔水挑戰。引用的統計資料顯示，大約7億人，即約十分之一的人口，無法獲得清潔水。許多社群可能終其一生幾乎無法獲得清潔水。
我們駐緬甸大使館幫助社群獲得清潔水。Lien Aid在柬埔寨發起了清潔水解決方案，我有機會訪問並學習。我還在新加坡國際基金會青年社會企業家活動中遇見了Wateroam團隊，當時他們處於創業初期。Wateroam由三名新加坡國立大學本科生於2014年創立。
當時Hyflux仍在運營，我曾推廣其行動式過濾系統用於農村社群。
談到水資源解決方案，我們還需認可Jack Sim博士的早期努力——他創立了自己的WTO。為議員們說明，這裡的WTO指的是世界廁所組織。Jack Sim博士在推廣清潔水和適當衛生方面做了大量工作。
議長先生，我們目前擁有由新加坡人開發的令人驚歎的水資源解決方案。Lien Aid服務於四個亞洲國家。Wateroam的產品和解決方案已覆蓋44個國家。由於各國獲得清潔水的途徑不同，全球還需做更多工作以解決這一問題並開發持久解決方案。
因此，我建議在我們計劃試點海外人道援助稅收扣除計劃時，也考慮啟動類似計劃，成為積極提供和擴大全球清潔水解決方案的關鍵參與者。是否可以為新加坡的慈善機構和社會企業家提供同樣的稅收扣除，以便他們籌集資金擴大為目前幾乎無法獲得清潔水的社群提供解決方案？
解決全球水資源挑戰將改變社群，解決健康問題，提高經濟水平，改善教育機會。新加坡可以發揮關鍵作用——匯聚現有和新興供應商，制定協調計劃，作為公共、私營和民間部門的合作伙伴，共同解決這一全球挑戰。
議長先生，儘管我們取得了顯著成就，但我們不能自滿。未來仍有挑戰——有些我們可以預見，有些則可能突然出現，如近期的新冠疫情。然而，正如王瑞傑副總理所言，我們過去幾十年已克服挑戰，且常常變得更強。
我們正著手建立一個將塑造未來幾代人的新社會契約。2024年預算案繼續支援我們共同的旅程。我們必須保持團結，建立集體韌性。議長先生，我支援2024年預算案。
議長：顏添寶先生。
下午5時34分
顏添寶先生（宏茂橋）：議長先生，我感謝預算案中各種代金券、補貼和回扣，幫助中低收入家庭應對不斷上漲的生活成本。根據我居民的反饋，這確實是令人歡迎的訊息。有了這些支援資源應對眼前挑戰，我們的家庭應能更好地利用長期專案進行升級和技能提升，從而繼續勝任好工作，賺取更高收入。
過去有人呼籲動用我們的儲備，以便發放更多補貼和援助。議會最近對此進行了辯論。我藉此機會表達我與許多議員的共識，即我們應謹慎使用儲備，為子孫後代繼續儲蓄，因為他們是我們的孩子和孫輩。議長先生，我用普通話說。
（普通話）：[請參閱方言發言。]我們的父母甚至我們自己，都會給孩子最好的食物。即使是我們自己喜歡的食物，我們也會告訴孩子我們不餓，或者不喜歡這食物，但這並非事實。所有父母都想給孩子和孫輩最好的，留最好的給他們。我們的年輕一代和未來一代是我們的孩子和孫輩，因此我們有責任給他們最好的，照顧他們。
關於儲備的全面披露，出於國家利益，政府需要防範那些心懷不軌、試圖從我們這裡謀取利益的人。閩南話有句俗語，“會不會做，試了才知道”。事實上，過去曾有不止一次惡意攻擊我們貨幣的企圖，但最終都失敗了。這是因為我們有強大的儲備來威懾他人攻擊。
（英語）：先生，正如總理所說，我們的儲備是寶貴資源，必須保護。我們必須在滿足當前需求和應對未來緊急情況之間取得微妙平衡。
目前，讓我們以此平衡為基礎，尋找提高生產力和擴大經濟蛋糕的方法，以便為我們這一代的需求提供資金，併為下一代留下一些餘力，正如我們的前輩為我們所做的那樣。
先生，我們仍面臨未來疫情和不確定性的威脅。烏克蘭戰爭、加沙衝突及紅海安全威脅擾亂供應鏈。無形的網路安全威脅已將威脅維度從陸地和海洋擴充套件至空中。
烏克蘭戰爭的教訓為戰爭提供了新的視角和定義。顯然，我們使用的技術也可能被用來對付我們自己。
因此，我們需要繼續投資研發並支援創新。應鼓勵新加坡的家族辦公室分配資源支援新加坡的研發和創新專案，包括吸引頂尖人才和科學家與我們的研究人員合作。
這些專案可能包括加強我們的食品和能源安全。我支援研究最新且更安全的核技術，如小型模組化反應堆，在近海部署，作為我們能源需求的額外綠色能源解決方案。事實上，就在我進來之前，我看到有國家已成功從國際水域平臺發射衛星。因此，我們可以考慮陸上及近海水域的方案，以滿足我們的能源需求。
接下來，關於年長員工的就業。我支援人力部決定繼續按計劃將55至65歲年長員工的公積金繳納率提高1.5個百分點。這將幫助我們的工作長者積累更多公積金儲蓄以備退休。
有人認為50歲以上人士找工作更具挑戰。根據人力部2023年新加坡勞動力報告，50歲及以上專業人士的失業率為2.6%，與40至49歲及30歲以下群體相當。非專業人士失業率為2.7%，是所有年齡段中最低的。
因此，我呼籲為希望繼續工作的年長人士提供更多求職支援和崗位匹配，尤其是被裁員者。過去兩年被裁員工的年齡分佈、求職時長及目前仍失業人數，政府是否掌握相關資料？50至55歲、55至60歲及60歲以上被裁員工在六個月內找到工作的成功率分別是多少？
雖然我很高興所有40歲及以上新加坡人將獲得4000新元的技能未來積分，用於指定培訓，但我希望政府不僅確保這些培訓提升就業能力。政府是否考慮與僱主（包括公共服務部門）合作，將完成相關培訓且符合崗位要求者安置到工作崗位？是否考慮為僱主提供激勵，鼓勵他們聘用長者？政府能否提供更多細節，說明如何幫助積極求職的工人，以及採取哪些措施檢測和減少招聘中的年齡歧視？
最後，關於組屋——一個我非常關心的話題。雖然令人鼓舞的是，預計在2023年至2025年間將完成約10萬個公共和私人住房單位，但是否可以做更多工作以縮短年輕已婚夫婦等待組屋的時間？公共租賃住房計劃（PPHS）下的補貼租賃住房以及為符合條件的家庭提供的一年期PPHS（開放市場）券以支援他們在開放市場租賃組屋，都是極好的計劃。然而，這些組屋只是臨時住所。搬家是生活中最具壓力的事件之一，難怪一些夫婦選擇推遲生育，直到他們搬進自己的組屋。生育時間推遲，夫婦往往最終生育的孩子較少。
因此，我呼籲政府審視其長期組屋政策，考慮提前建造更多組屋——一定數量的組屋——以便縮短夫婦，尤其是年輕家庭的等待時間至一年或一年半以內。藉此，我想以支援預算為結尾。
議長先生：Ang Wei Neng先生。
下午5時43分
Ang Wei Neng先生（西海岸）：議長先生，我支援本預算案。
我們對預算中支援新加坡企業的措施感到滿意，特別是13億新元的企業支援計劃以提升能力。當我與許多企業領導交流時，關鍵關切總是圍繞人力資源。鑑於我們的低出生率，很難招聘足夠的新加坡人來支援不斷增長的經濟。此外，許多企業領導表示，許多體力勞動崗位和非空調環境的工作不受新加坡人青睞。公司告訴我們，他們有時不得不僱傭外籍勞工。然而，嚴格的外勞配額和不斷提高的S準證續簽最低薪金要求對中小企業來說是痛點。
政府鼓勵中小企業投資技術，特別是在人工智慧和綠色倡議領域，這是值得稱讚的。對一些中小企業來說，生存至關重要。我想建議政府在三個方面協助我們佔新加坡勞動力71%的中小企業。在此之前，我宣告本人為Strides Premier的執行長，該公司租賃車輛並提供車輛服務，包括消防車、救護車和油罐車等專用車輛的維護。
首先，關於人力資源：一些新加坡人因零售業需要在辦公時間外及週末工作而回避該行業。我們希望新加坡人有更多時間約會、結婚、生育、陪伴家人或照顧親人。因此，零售業補充外勞人力非常必要。
同樣，在無空調環境下，新加坡人也不願意工作。鑑於這些因素，我呼籲人力部（MOM）在未來三年內不要維持或收緊不受新加坡人歡迎行業的外勞配額和外勞徵費，尤其是在全球經濟極不確定的時期。事實上，許多中小企業希望人力部增加大多數新加坡人不願從事崗位的外勞配額。
此外，我選區南洋的許多創業者抱怨他們在續簽S準證時不得不大幅提高技術外勞的薪酬。例如，一名在炎熱潮溼車間工作的汽車保險理賠專員，其薪資從約3400新元漲至4200新元，漲幅近24%。大多數新加坡人即使晉升，一年內也難以獲得15%的薪資增長。
外勞薪資的大幅增長不僅增加了中小企業成本，也在新加坡同事間造成不和諧。因此，我希望人力部能考慮對S準證持有者的最低薪資調整採取更溫和的措施。
第二，關於政府專案，許多政府部門已將採購職能集中化，值得稱讚。家庭團隊科技局（HTX）是一個好例子，警察部隊、新加坡民防部隊（SCDF）、監獄局和中央禁毒局的採購需求被集中管理，以實現更好的協同和透明度。
許多公務員在制定招標規格時勤勉保護政府利益。例如，一些政府招標合同規定，只有在昂貴物品、工具、專用車輛全部交付後才付款，或專案完成後才支付大額款項，不提供預付款或進度款。
雖然此做法保護政府免收劣質產品或減少專案未完成風險，但對中小企業非常困難。沒有預付款或進度款增加了中小企業的融資成本。在當前高利率環境下，中小企業競標此類政府專案將面臨挑戰。沒有預付款或進度款的專案招標通常有利於資金雄厚的大公司，尤其是跨國公司。因此，我敦促政府審視此類做法，為中小企業創造公平競爭環境。
第三，關於土地利用：感謝交通部，我們現在擁有更多地鐵線路。西部居民，包括南洋居民，對即將到來的裕廊區域線感到興奮。裕廊區域線不是地下線，將沿用類似南北線和東西線的大部分高架軌道。現有地鐵線路高架橋下的空間利用率不高，與日本等國不同。目前我們看到部分高架橋下空間被用作腳踏車道。但這些高架橋靠近地鐵站，土地寶貴，我們希望政府允許私人部門使用高架橋下空間，特別是為中小企業提供重要服務，如托兒和養老服務，方便居民。
議長先生，接下來我想談談社群發展理事會（CDC）券的話題。我之前在議會多次提及此話題。許多居民，包括南洋居民，對2024年預算宣佈的每戶新加坡家庭額外600元CDC券感到滿意。我之前提到，CDC券是幫助新加坡人緩解通脹影響的更好方式，主要體現在兩個方面。首先，CDC券必須在新加坡消費，主要惠及社群商鋪。社群商鋪從CDC券中獲益良多。與消費稅券發放現金不同，CDC券不能在海外使用，尤其是過關消費。此外，CDC券還有乘數效應，媒體報道廣泛。唯一缺點是CDC券按戶發放，不論家庭人數。
因此，我建議財政部考慮為每三名居住在組屋的註冊新加坡人，將CDC券金額翻倍。對於不需要CDC券的家庭，他們可以選擇捐贈給更需要的人，或不使用，讓政府將資源重新分配到更緊迫的需求。
最後，我希望衛生部和社會及家庭發展部考慮將通脹或消費者物價指數（CPI）納入確定各類政府財政援助計劃收入標準的公式中。CPI部分可類似能源市場管理局用於確定電價的價格指數，以及公共交通理事會在票價調整公式中使用的價格指數。
該價格指數至關重要，因為過去三年通脹高企，未來幾年可能仍將維持高位。事實上，2023年新加坡人的實際收入下降了2.2%，儘管名義收入有所增加。這對低收入新加坡人是雙重打擊。名義收入增加時，許多新加坡人不再符合財政援助資格，因為政府很少調整收入標準。與此同時，這些低收入家庭因實際收入下降，在高通脹環境下需要更多財政援助。
我瞭解到衛生部和社會及家庭發展部承諾定期審查藍色CHAS卡和財政援助的收入標準。過去幾年經驗顯示，“定期”意味著每隔幾年一次。在疫情前低通脹時期，這尚可接受。但在當前高通脹環境下，每隔幾年審查一次對低薪新加坡人非常不利。
因此，我呼籲衛生部和社會及家庭發展部將價格指數納入收入標準，以便為低收入家庭提供財政援助。簡言之，定期審查應每年甚至每季度進行，而非幾年一次。議長先生，儘管如此，我支援本預算案。
議長先生：Ng Ling Ling女士。
下午5時55分
Ng Ling Ling女士（宏茂橋）：議長先生，我歡迎2024年預算案中的綜合方案，重點是未來十年共同建設我們作為一個充滿活力、包容、公平、繁榮、韌性和團結的國家。
去年，我在預算辯論中提出三方面，呼籲政府加大力度：一是支援在職成年人；二是關愛長者；三是支援年輕夫婦和家庭。今年預算，我將繼續聚焦這三類佔我芽籠路選區大多數居民的群體的考慮和支援。
在芽籠路選區，最大群體年齡介於20至60歲之間。他們大多是工作成年人，可能剛開始第一份工作，或儘可能維持就業直至晚年，希望能舒適自信地退休。因此，預算中宣佈的可能影響他們職業軌跡和機會的方案對他們意義重大。
我很高興聽到政府推出新的技能未來升級計劃，更好支援中年職業人士。這包括五月發放4000元的技能未來額外學分，鼓勵更多中年職工更新技能，提升職業發展。
然而，我擔心迄今為止通過技能未來計劃嘗試提升技能或考慮轉行的個人參與率較低。根據技能未來新加坡（SSG）去年釋出的資料，所有年齡段中，有七成新加坡人自2015年計劃啟動以來尚未使用技能未來學分。
我從一些居民瞭解到，儘管技能未來學分慷慨，參加認可課程的時間是他們使用學分的主要障礙。因此，我想問政府如何進一步支援僱主，讓有意提升技能的員工獲得更多培訓假和時間，尤其是利用新學分攻讀另一文憑課程。
另一個考慮是有意利用額外學分保持就業能力的新加坡人的年齡。讓我分享一位居民李先生的故事，他64歲，正在找工作。李先生曾在新加坡理工學院獲得機械工程文憑，多年前還獲得製造技術高階文憑。他曾為工藝教育學院（ITE）學生教授課程。
李先生身體健康，希望繼續工作，但因年齡問題找工作困難。我與人力部合作進行推薦，協助他求職。他的案例凸顯了除技能提升外，我們需要對年長職工的職業延續採取更包容、靈活的方式。對於李先生這樣的案例，如果他投入時間攻讀另一文憑，技能未來升級計劃能在多大程度上幫助他找工作？這是我60多歲居民中一些人的心聲，他們渴望終身學習，健康狀況良好時願意工作至60多歲甚至70多歲。
接下來，我談談另一群重要的新加坡人——50多歲的年輕長者。在家訪和基層活動中，許多年輕長者表示歡迎政府推出的“前進計劃”，以更好保障他們的退休需求。其中包括每年最高1000元的“賺取與儲蓄獎金”，幫助年輕長者積累更多退休儲蓄。
然而，其中一部分人是全職照顧80多歲甚至90多歲體弱父母的家庭照顧者。他們告訴我，“前進計劃”對他們也會有幫助，但家庭照顧並未被視為正式就業。
政府是否願意調整“前進計劃”中“賺取與儲蓄獎金”的部分標準，例如確認家庭成員確實需要全職照顧及照顧時長，將這群年輕長者照顧者納入受益範圍？他們同樣關心自身財務需求，希望能享受該計劃。
我也歡迎政府將增強退休金從基本退休金的三倍提高至四倍，讓更多55歲及以上成員將更多公積金儲蓄用於退休時獲得更高公積金回報。然而，我想提出一個關注點：我在接待會中遇到一些55歲及以上的單身長者，他們尚未解決住房問題。
2023年最新人口趨勢顯示，2012年至2022年間，25至49歲各男女群體中單身比例上升。這意味著越來越多接近55歲的單身人士。
在接待會中，我遇到一些55歲及以上單身長者，他們終於通過抽籤獲得了自己的組屋兩房靈活單位，期待退休時擁有自己的家，但他們不知道當年滿55歲時轉入退休賬戶的普通賬戶和特別賬戶資金，不能用於支付購房款，超出組屋貸款部分。
他們對無法撤回轉入退休賬戶的額外資金感到失望。儘管他們嘗試向公積金局申請提取退休賬戶資金購房，但公積金局需確保退休賬戶資金維持以支援退休需求，申訴渠道有限。
雖然增強退休計劃對尋求更高公積金退休回報者有幫助，我敦促公積金局更清晰地說明轉入退休賬戶的政策，並與組屋發展局合作，提醒尚未解決住房需求者注意轉入退休賬戶的金額。
最後，我想談談年輕夫婦和家庭的願望，以及如何更好支援他們實現購房和組建家庭的夢想。我很高興政府在本預算中推出了為期一年的父母臨時住房計劃（PPHS）（開放市場）券，支援符合條件的家庭在開放市場租賃組屋。
我在接待會中遇到許多居民尋求幫助購買組屋以組建家庭。他們通常是尚未成功抽中新組屋（無論是建屋發展局組屋還是餘屋銷售）的年輕夫婦，但希望儘快有家可歸或即將迎來新生兒。
事實上，申請新組屋抽籤的求助請求通常佔我接待會向建屋發展局的主要訴求，尤其是在建屋發展局推出新組屋期間。政府是否考慮將新的PPHS（開放市場）券延伸至那些持續申請但尚未成功抽中新組屋的夫婦，尤其是期待首胎的夫婦？
最後，我也認為需要做更多工作，緩解因新加坡高生活成本而對生育的恐懼。根據2023年由亞洲新聞臺和YouGov進行的調查，52%35歲以下受訪者表示，新加坡養育孩子的負擔能力是他們不願儘快生育的主要原因。
隨著2024年預算著眼於支援我們生命各階段的家庭，我希望政府能考慮更加重視實施全面策略，例如為年輕夫婦建立一個社會支援生態系統，指導他們進行財務規劃和財務管理，以減輕他們在新加坡養育子女時的經濟焦慮。
議長先生，展望建設一個共享的未來，我們必須繼續適應和發展對人民多樣化需求的支援。從努力追求職業發展的在職成年人，到安享晚年的長者，再到夢想更光明未來的年輕家庭，我們的政策必須繼續包容、靈活且具有前瞻性，為下一個十年做好準備。
讓我們繼續攜手維護包容性、韌性和團結的價值觀，確保每位公民，無論年齡或生命階段，都能期待一個繁榮的未來，為今天的挑戰和明天的機遇做好準備。議長先生，我支援2024年預算案。
議長先生：穆拉里·皮萊先生。
下午6時05分
穆拉里·皮萊先生（武吉巴督）：議長先生，閣下，2023年4月21日，在本院就總統致辭的辯論中，副總理兼財政部長黃循財先生與反對黨領袖普里坦·辛格先生達成了一項重要的跨黨派共識。
他們雙方都同意，新加坡沒有民粹主義的立足之地。副總理黃循財這樣表述：“本院兩方，我們支援一個日益成熟的民主，一個嚴肅的政府和一個嚴肅的反對黨。但我們堅決反對民粹主義和政治機會主義在本院和新加坡紮根。”
這是一個值得稱讚的兩黨時刻，也承認了在民粹主義紮根的國家，社會變得分裂，人民極化，人民與政府之間的信任減弱。新加坡不應效仿。
然而，這項共識假設我們知道什麼是民粹主義。但我們真的知道嗎？大多數學者和評論員一致認為，民粹主義的核心特徵圍繞著“人民”與“精英”之間的分裂。
卡斯·穆德指出：“它是一種薄弱中心的意識形態，認為社會最終被分為兩個同質且對立的陣營，‘純潔的人民’對抗‘腐敗的精英’；民粹主義政治家主張他們代表‘全體人民’，而精英代表‘特殊利益’，無論事實真相如何。”
議題的框架通常是對抗性的、敵對的和情緒化的。這種民粹主義——一旦我們識破其作秀和姿態——其實並不難拒絕。它只是政治舞臺上的機會主義。這就是我所稱的“弱民粹主義”。
但民粹主義還有兩個進一步的要素。首先，識破作秀言辭並認清機會主義的真面目並不總是容易。其次，民粹主義不僅僅是言辭——它還滲透到具體政策行動中，採取我稱之為“愚人金”承諾的特定方式。
行動中的民粹主義以輕鬆賺錢、軟性妥協、零權衡的承諾來麻痺人民。這兩個要素——言辭與行動——構成了我所稱的“強民粹主義”。儘管議會達成了共識，但仍無法保證這種民粹主義不會在新加坡紮根。
從結構上講，我們始終脆弱。因為像所有現代民主國家一樣，我們實行代議制政府，少數人——即當選者——代表多數人民，擁有執政授權。對這種代表性的懷疑將永遠存在。
我們已見過多個例子，人民的恐懼，尤其是在危機期間，被鼓吹激進變革的民粹主義政治家利用。我舉兩個例子：一個來自右翼，一個來自左翼。
2023年11月，在荷蘭，極右翼政黨自由黨煽動伊斯蘭恐懼症和反移民情緒，承諾去伊斯蘭化國家，取得巨大選舉勝利，遙遙領先。該黨有望參與聯合政府。若成真，不難想象這將對國家跨種族和宗教的凝聚力產生影響。
讓我指出這裡的具體民粹槓桿——利用宗教和本土主義分裂和極化國家。
1998年，已故委內瑞拉左翼領袖烏戈·查韋斯憑藉承諾利用委內瑞拉豐富的石油財富減少貧困和不平等而上臺。任總統期間，他推出免費或高度補貼商品的專案。2013年他在任內去世，但其政策繼續推行。最終，儘管是產油國，經濟萎縮並出現惡性通貨膨脹。
同樣，讓我指出具體的民粹槓桿——利用扭曲價格的政策為人民提供短期表面利益，代價是國家長期經濟健康。
這兩種行為對我來說都是強民粹主義。根據我的研究，許多作者，尤其是西蒙·托米教授，觀察到近年來世界正面臨民粹主義起義。政治機會主義者在眾多國家贏得大量選民支援，表明識別民粹主義真相併非易事。
因此，作為一個國家，我們需要培養識別並堅決拒絕這種陰險且誘人的分裂政治形式的能力。如果不這樣做，作為一個小國，我們將面臨嚴重後果。
就在上週，我瞭解到我們首任外交部長已故拉賈拉納姆先生於1971年10月在聯合國大會上的一次演講。他大意是，小國需要保持自身秩序，才能在世界上佔有一席之地。換言之，小國需要確保長期保持社會凝聚力及政治和經濟穩定。
其含義明確。與大國不同，小國如新加坡，一旦成為民粹主義帶來的分裂政治的受害者，將成為易被侵蝕的物件，不再被鄰近大國認真對待。一旦如此，小國將無法在國際舞臺上保護和促進國家利益。換句話說，我們將遭遇國內外的“雙重打擊”。
因此，我們拒絕強民粹主義的承諾，必須伴隨教育全體新加坡人識別並指出民粹主義的責任。
這引出我的第二個警示：愚人金與輕鬆選擇。
拒絕強民粹主義意味著承擔一項特定責任，即做出艱難選擇，通過政治和實際解決方案對新加坡人民負責，解決國家的社會緊迫問題。
這種“艱難選擇”方法與民粹主義政策方法的關鍵區別有兩點。首先，應避免民粹主義常伴隨的戲劇化表現。我必須說，我支援對政治領導人提出的政策建議和表現進行更嚴格審查，無論是執政黨還是反對黨。但我反對的是那種胸脯拍打、揮舞軍刀的政治化問題，這阻礙了真正的分析性討論。沒有“噪音”，對實質問題的參與會更好。
最終，將清晰顯示各方同意與不同意的事項。這是我們應追求的。我認為這一提煉過程至關重要，否則表演性政治可能在本院根深蒂固。
其次，我認為細節很重要。我國發展已達到一個階段，大多數問題的解決方案複雜且有時微妙平衡。民粹主義政治家在倡導政策變革時通常缺乏細節。
我們兩黨政治家需要做功課，瞭解背景事實，理解現狀如何形成，突出政策建議中固有的權衡，分清事實與虛構，然後論證為何應作出某種平衡。
我還要補充一點。執政政治領導人應避免僅僅將政策貼上“民粹主義”標籤，儘管這些政策可能獲得廣大公民支援，而他們真正想做的是讓政策聽起來不合理、不理性。這是弗朗西斯·福山提出的觀點，我也贊同。
領導人有責任超越標籤，指出他們關切的政策具體方面。我尊重地認為，這種負責任的爭論和提煉思想與建議的過程，將成為防止強民粹主義在新加坡出現的堡壘。
通過這一過程，我們將更好地對人民負責。人民瞭解政治家在哪些方面達成共識，在哪些方面存在分歧，將更有能力通過投票選擇他們希望的未來。
讓我通過上次議會關於國家儲備的辯論來強調這一點。
在辯論開場時，非選區議員梁文韜先生指出了他所謂的“社會弊病”，包括生活成本、社會不平等、心理健康和總生育率下降。反對黨領袖在動議辯論中補充了醫療費用和代際公平。兩位議員都主張放緩儲備增長，以便更多資金用於這些領域。
我個人不認為這些人類狀況是疾病或“弊病”，而是當屆政府的緊迫任務，是我們應用最佳智慧和最大資源的道德方向。這些社會緊迫問題不可否認，但不能僅靠空嘆或揮霍開支解決。我們的責任是以我上述方式負責，通過嚴肅的政治承諾，投入時間、精力和資源制定並解釋政策。
重要的是，我們需要了解艱難選擇的引數，拒絕“愚人金”方法。
為解釋拒絕更多動用儲備收入的艱難選擇，政府表示儲備提供了大量“被動收入”用於年度預算開支，鑑於我們獨特的脆弱性，我們需要增長儲備，以確保有能力應對未來可能出現的挑戰。這些觀點在我尊敬的朋友黃順興先生今天早些時候的發言中表達得非常好。
暫且不談動用儲備資金，我認為兩位議員所提的觀點中有兩點能獲得本院兩黨共識。
第一，他們指出的社會緊迫問題是合理的。這些問題需要本院和政府關注。事實上，作為一名後座議員，我在選區為選民所做的許多工作都涉及這些問題。
第二，作為負責任的議員，兩黨都會拒絕僅為花錢而花錢。這體現了財政審慎。因此，要提出增加開支的理由，至少需採取以下步驟。
第一，審查政府現有針對該緊迫問題的專案。第二，計算政府在這些專案上的承諾或支出。第三，對專案進行績效評估或審查。最後，闡述增加開支的理由，必須包括應對政府關於儲備當前提供的“被動收入”的觀點，併為未來提供足夠的保障。
此時，我想回應反對黨領袖早前發言中提出的政府應提供更多資訊以作出更好預算決策的觀點。
恕我直言，這是轉移視線。已有足夠資訊。事實上，在上次會議中，尊敬的總理給我們上了一堂大師課。議員們可能記得，他讓我們拿出信封背面，跟著他算賬。他預測儲備回報率約為4%；他說如果預算開支為2%，那麼儲備增長為2%，大致與GDP持平。因此，我們大致知道國家投資儲備委員會（NIRC）的規模保持穩定，貢獻約五分之一的收入。
我們也知道運營收入和支出在大約正負4%的範圍內波動。當然，某些情況下，如市場狀況，預測可能受影響。例如，物業稅因估值上升而增加，這就是市場作用。
對於此類情況，我們只能做出最佳預測，並隨時調整。但這些將作為制定更多開支政策建議的輸入，確保其支援性和財政審慎。
反對黨領袖提到2024年2月19日《海峽時報》上的一篇文章，指出一些經濟學家也認為政府資訊披露不足。
值得注意的是，正如他所說，大多數經濟學家讚揚預算。一位經濟學家詢問了預先資助政府專案的使用情況，例如先驅一代計劃，建議對此計劃應更透明。但現實是，每年都會向議會提交經獨立審計的財務報表。所有議員都可提問，預算委員會也會審查，撥款亦受審計署監督。
另一位經濟學家認為應披露過去儲備金額。眾所周知，政府對此持有良心上的反對意見。但最重要的是，如我之前所說，NIRC金額可估算，這對預算規劃至關重要。
基於這些原因，我認為本院任何人都沒有真正障礙，全面闡述為何應為特定政策緊迫問題投入更多資金或資源。
我現在以生活成本緊迫問題為例，說明我建議的框架運作。
2022年10月，政府推出支援方案，幫助新加坡家庭應對物價上漲。該方案資金總額為15億新元，已為公眾所知。
副總理黃循財宣佈，該方案旨在完全覆蓋低收入家庭生活成本的上漲，並覆蓋中等收入家庭生活成本上漲的一半以上。
尊敬的議員若希望政府在應對生活成本問題上投入更多，可提出理由，認為中等收入家庭50%的覆蓋率不足，應提高至60%、70%甚至100%。
他們應闡述此舉如何符合新加坡人和新加坡整體利益。這樣就明確了從儲備或其他來源籌集資金支援該政策建議的具體金額及理由。
若政治官員不同意該建議，明智之舉不是簡單地貼上民粹主義標籤，而是正面回應，解釋為何現有開支水平足夠且應維持，考慮不僅是具體問題，還有大局。通過此過程，我們將清楚瞭解雙方同意與分歧點及各自理由。新加坡人將更好地理解辯論及政策建議實施或拒絕的影響。
當然，尊敬的議員們可將其計劃納入競選活動，即使政府可能拒絕。這是他們的特權。但他們必須首先有這些計劃。若沒有，只是向新加坡人承諾一塊選舉日後消失的金子。
我認為這是一種健康的政治，雙方將向人民陳述各自立場。最終，由新加坡人通過投票判斷和決定。這是防止民粹主義在我們政治中抬頭的方式，也是保持對人民高度負責的方式。
議長先生：穆拉里先生，您還有一分鐘。
穆拉利·皮萊先生：非常好，先生。如果是這樣，我就簡單說一句，社會的緊迫任務擺在我們面前。我們都知道這一點，指出這些並不是什麼大發現。如果我們真的要說我們有一個嚴肅的政府和一個嚴肅的反對派，正如副總理黃循財所鼓勵的那樣，重點必須放在為這些緊迫任務提出解決方案，並理性闡述為什麼這些解決方案能為我們的人民創造更好的結果，同時保持財政審慎。通過民主的認可，讓我們支援那些我們作為當選議員認為最有利於新加坡人民現在和未來的方案，從而以最強烈的形式拒絕民粹主義。我支援預算案。[掌聲。]
議長：普里塔姆·辛格先生。
下午6時25分
普里塔姆·辛格先生：謝謝議長，也感謝穆拉利·皮萊先生的發言。
我一直在仔細跟隨他所提出的觀點。我認為穆拉利·皮萊先生的總體論調，你不會真正反對。但關於民粹主義，我覺得我有必要具體說明一些細節。
他提到了我演講中引用的2月19日《海峽時報》的一篇文章。我在演講中指出的是，那篇文章顯示了議會外的新加坡人，在“前進新加坡”運動的背景下，也在關注財政可持續性、財政平衡、政府如何籌集收入及其支出政策。
在這方面，我的觀點是，我們提出了一個建議，以平滑這場對話，改善這場對話，以造福所有新加坡人。
我理解他後來談到了我們提出的一些建議，人民行動黨對此有良心上的反對。我想在這裡我需要他澄清一下。如果存在良心上的反對，那麼民粹主義的論點又如何？反對派提出這些觀點是否錯誤？
我第二個澄清是，再舉一個例子。在這場辯論中，人民行動黨議員談到了提前建造組屋。議員希望從任何反對派成員甚至他自己黨內的成員那裡聽到什麼樣的數字來支援這一論點？對此有些明確會很有幫助。
目前，我先提出這兩個澄清。
議長：穆拉利·皮萊先生。
穆拉利·皮萊先生：議長先生，感謝反對派領袖給我機會澄清我發言中的某些方面。
讓我先談談良心反對的問題。我想澄清的是，我演講中提到的是我們不公開披露儲備的全部價值。這就是我提到良心反對的背景。並且這是在引用反對派領袖提到的那篇文章中一位經濟學家的觀點。那位經濟學家說，我們應該知道全部金額，這樣我們才能知道支出是高還是低。
提到良心反對，實際上是政府在關於國家儲備動議中提出的論點，我相信反對派領袖對此很熟悉。但更重要的是，我指出的是，就預算而言，如果能計算出國家投資回報貢獻（NIRC），我還提到了總理的專題講座，關於儲備如何增長以及NIRC貢獻相對穩定的事實。
至於提到那篇文章的目的，我接受反對派領袖的觀點。我理解這實際上是為了對“前進新加坡”運動提供進一步反饋，我歡迎這些反饋。
最後，我的朋友提到的是關於建屋發展專案。如果我們按照我建議的分析框架，關鍵是反對派議員，比如說，主張建造比政府提議更多的組屋，那麼首先需要做的是確定該專案，明確並查明為建造某個數量的組屋具體花費或承諾了多少資金，然後在同一過程中明確表明他支援建造多少組屋，為什麼這很重要，然後通過參考預算中其他方面的支出分配來處理財政問題。
我認為通過這種框架的闡述，會產生一個值得稱讚的結果，那就是新加坡議會外的民眾會知道這是一個被提議的方案，方案是認真的，因為有事實和資料支援，然後你可以將政府的立場與該議員的立場進行對比。
議長：普里塔姆·辛格先生。
普里塔姆·辛格先生：對穆拉利·皮萊先生的澄清做一個簡短回應。以組屋建造為例，這是人民行動黨議員在辯論中提出的例子，那麼這個例子實際上不符合穆拉利·皮萊先生提出的框架。同樣，當對方其他議員說我們想引入一個計劃，比如“關懷補貼”，或者他們提到——雖然沒人說生活成本危機，但我今天聽到人民行動黨議員說是“負擔能力危機”。我假設在穆拉利先生的框架中，這種分析也必須遵循。僅作澄清。
議長：皮萊先生。
穆拉利·皮萊先生：感謝反對派領袖指出並詢問我提出的框架是否適用於兩黨議員。簡短回答是肯定的。這是對所有議員的勸勉，不僅僅是反對派領袖，實際上是兩黨議員。任何人如果想提出涉及額外支出的建議，都需要遵循這個分析框架，我認為這樣才能明確最終是否符合新加坡和新加坡人的最佳利益，是否應推進額外支出。
議長：普里塔姆·辛格先生。
普里塔姆·辛格先生：最後一個澄清。稍微再追問一下。如果政府承諾在本十年末前為“前進新加坡”計劃投入400億新元，這些是否也應該提前披露？
議長：穆拉利·皮萊先生。
穆拉利·皮萊先生：議長先生，我樂於接受反對派領袖的追問。我基本上會從原則上回答，雖然他可以聽取人民行動黨同事的建議，我也可以引用反對派議員提出的建議。我仍記得設立議會預算辦公室的例子，這是在議會中提出的建議，當時並沒有明確瞭解設立辦公室及其運營需要多少資金。
所以，我寧願我們不要模糊我提出的觀點。讓我們堅持原則，重點是確保民粹主義的醜惡頭顱不會在我們的政治中抬頭。幸運的是，這是一個跨黨派的觀點，我希望雙方都能有機會反思我在議會中的發言。
議長：詹姆斯·林副教授。你有對皮萊先生的澄清嗎？
詹姆斯·傑羅姆·林副教授（盛港）：謝謝議長，感謝給我機會澄清穆拉利·皮萊議員提出的幾點。我想指出兩點。
首先，我尊重地不同意他聲稱既然李總理提供了所有必要資訊，基於這些簡易計算，我們就理所當然接受他的計算結果。
讓我明確一點，我無意挑戰這位劍橋第一名數學高手的數學能力。但我認為他引入了許多關於儲備預期回報和GDP增長的假設，確實還有關於政府如何計算初級盈餘與國際貨幣基金組織建議之間差異的假設。
所以，我的問題是：如果議員接受這些假設不一定是顯而易見的，那麼在辯論中質疑這些假設是否合理？
第二點基於此，我想問議員是否認為政府會僅基於反對派目前能獲得的公開資訊來制定公共政策，還是政府實際上需要更多未公開的資訊？
議長：穆拉利·皮萊先生。
穆拉利·皮萊先生：謝謝議長先生。關於林副教授提出的第一個問題，即假設的合理性，這個問題已經被廣泛討論。讓我說的是，就預算而言，關鍵是國家投資回報貢獻（NIRC）的比例。即使我們暫且不考慮增長假設，事實是預算中反映的NIRC相對穩定，現在每花費一元，就有20分來自NIRC。因此，從任何提出增加支出的人角度看，這些事實很重要。
我承認對面我的朋友可能對所需資訊的程度有不同看法。但我要說的是，我們可以同意不同意，我謹慎地說，這其實是一個煙幕彈。因為計算收入所需的所有資訊都在，包括NIRC、運營收入和支出，這些大致在一個定義的變動範圍內。因此，基於這些原因，我認為我們並不處於劣勢。
至於第二點，我願意糾正，如果林副教授能澄清他的問題意圖，我會盡力回答。
議長：林副教授。
詹姆斯·傑羅姆·林副教授：是的，我的澄清很簡單。政府常規制定政策。我的問題是，議員是否認為政府會願意僅基於所有公開資訊來制定政策，還是認為政府只有在擁有額外專有資訊時才能制定政策？
議長：皮萊先生。
穆拉利·皮萊先生：謝謝，先生。我認為這個問題的前提是錯誤的，即政府在公開資訊方面受限。關鍵是，政府公佈運營收入，公佈擬議的運營支出，當然還有憲法要求確保預算平衡。基於此背景，我們可以分析提案是否符合新加坡和新加坡人現在及未來的期望和需求。所以，我認為這是一個錯誤的前提，因此我不會回答這個問題。
議長：林副教授。希望這是最後一個澄清。
詹姆斯·傑羅姆·林副教授：非常感謝，議長。我會很簡短。穆拉利議員多次提到這是煙幕彈，我們擁有所有必要資訊，因為NIRC份額穩定。我的問題很簡單，他是否認為這種穩定份額與預期回報或GDP增長的假設無關？
議長：皮萊先生。
穆拉利·皮萊先生：議長先生，關於穩定性問題，這是一個經驗事實，已在預算宣告中列出。關於貢獻，當然有一定的預測，是基於某個框架做出的。因此，除非框架中內建的假設有問題，否則這不是憑空捏造的數字。
議長：我們繼續。黃華漢先生。
下午6時40分
黃華漢先生（提名議員）：議長，謝謝您允許我參與這場辯論。
先生們，2024年預算案由副總理黃循財呈報，是一個可持續且面向未來的預算。同時，它也旨在應對當前的生活成本壓力。我們能夠採取中長期視角，同時預計有8億新元的小幅盈餘，反映了我們優越的財政狀況。對此我深表感謝。
2024年預算案也是關於共同建設我們的共享未來。它關乎重新整理我們的社會契約。如果這些詞聽起來很熟悉，不僅是因為我們今天已經多次聽到它們，更因為它們是用來描述“前進新加坡”運動的同樣詞彙。換句話說，2024年預算案是將“前進新加坡”——我們國家未來願景——付諸實踐的第一步。
“前進新加坡”提到“包容性”是必須維護的共同價值。詞彙“包容”或“包容性”在議會中也被多次使用。當一個詞被頻繁使用時，它有失去意義的風險。我們上一次停下來思考“包容”真正含義是什麼，是何時？
在此背景下，我今天想把發言獻給談論新加坡殘疾人士的包容或社會參與。社會參與的核心是指個人積極參與社會各方面。
今天，我將涵蓋五個領域，從教育、交通、體育、住房到就業。為準備這次發言，我認為最好直接聽取年輕殘疾人士的聲音。我想了解他們如何通過獨特的視角和生活經歷看待新加坡。基於堅定的信念，理解這些將引導我們制定更包容、更有效的政策。因此，我通過為期數週的線上調查，收集了136名年齡在15至35歲的殘疾人士的經驗和想法。感謝那些認真參與的人，感謝你們包容我這未經打磨的反饋收集嘗試，以及你們寶貴的見解。今天我將分享你們的一些想法和期望。
對殘疾人士來說，社會參與不僅對他們個人福祉至關重要，也有助於培養歸屬感和社會包容感。社會參與包括與他人有意義的互動、進入共享的公共空間和服務，以及參與豐富且充實的活動。真正的融合豐富了社會結構，培養了同理心、多樣性和相互尊重的文化。因此，教育應作為社會包容的基礎，這並不令人驚訝。教育，尤其是在年輕時，賦予殘疾人士成功所需的知識、技能和機會。
例如，“過渡支援融合計劃”（TRANSIT）是積極將有行為困難的學生融入主流環境的好方法。為了確保順利過渡並促進真正包容的社會，也必須解決有特殊教育背景的殘疾人士所面臨的社會挑戰。
據教育部資料顯示，過去三年中，18%的自閉症特殊教育學校學生通過小學離校考試後繼續在主流中學就讀。另有18名自閉症特殊教育學校學生在中途被評估適合後轉入主流學校。我調查的自閉症人士中，有31%表示在學校活動中很少與非殘疾學生互動。校外，35%表示很少與非殘疾同齡人互動，15%則沒有此類互動。
下午6時45分
兩大常見原因是之前遭受過辱罵或欺凌，以及對被接受的擔憂。面對這種情況，我們必須問自己，我們能做些什麼來減少這些看似普遍的負面經歷。一個可能的途徑是彌合認知差距。學校環境是主流學生與殘疾同齡人進行有意義互動的絕佳場所。它打破了社會障礙，減少了日後生活中的尷尬。
有人建議將關於殘疾的認知課程納入學校課程。我們甚至可以更進一步，在體育課中自然地融入這類課程。我上學時，常常被預設託付保管同學們的手機，這是我年輕時被賦予的榮譽和責任。
不過，這個角色讓我處於邊緣位置。我清楚記得一個例外，是小學時第一次被我們最喜歡的體育和班主任老師邀請參加“毒球”遊戲。這是我與同學們在輕鬆環境中建立聯絡的難得機會，我很享受那些時刻。
為了促進對他人的認知和接納，玩耍時間是最佳時機。
我們如何能做更多這樣的事情，而不是依賴少數優秀教師的自發行為？教育部能否研究如何在主流學校制度化更多包容性的體育課程？
體育常被視為強大的社會平衡器；這是一個極好的機會，利用體育將包容性融入早期教育的結構中。先生，殘疾人士（PwDs）能夠自由參與共享空間，也取決於我們確保全面無障礙和無縫公共交通的承諾。在新加坡嚴格的汽車擁有政策下，這一點尤為重要。殘疾人士確實欣賞我們公共交通網路中的無障礙設施。
有人與我分享過的包括：公交車和地鐵中的輪椅區，設計良好的地鐵站，以及顯示公交到站時間的MyTransport.SG應用程式。作為一名地鐵常客，我也認同這些積極的觀察。
與世界上許多其他城市相比，我們很幸運擁有一個對輪椅使用者總體較為友好的地鐵系統。然而，這方面仍有改進空間。
在我的調查中，63%的肢體殘疾者表示他們每週使用公共交通的天數不超過兩天。該群體中有42%的人在高峰期很少或完全避免使用公共交通。使用公共交通時遇到的困難包括：地鐵站臺與列車之間的縫隙，公交車上滑溜的地板導致輪椅即使鎖定輪子也會滑動，以及唯一無障礙通道的意外關閉。
其他殘疾人士在乘坐公共交通時也面臨不同型別的問題。一位殘疾人士分享說，即使他們顯眼地展示了寫有醫療狀況詳情的黃色卡片，地鐵上也沒人主動讓座。另一位也表達了對隱形殘疾缺乏接受的擔憂——這位人士因手術導致神經性疼痛，有時需要坐下以減輕疼痛。
我瞭解到交通部（MOT）通過陸路交通管理局（LTA）一直在這方面努力，推出了優先車廂試點和隱形醫療狀況卡等專案。硬體解決方案如縫隙填充器，雖然不能完全解決站臺與列車地板的高度差，但有助於縮小縫隙並提升安全性。
鑑於對不明顯疾病的認知和接受仍然不足，交通部能否研究進一步提升隱形醫療狀況卡的可見度和理解度？
之前我簡要提到了教育環境中的體育。在更廣泛的背景下，體育和娛樂在促進殘疾人士的身心健康和社會融合中發揮著重要作用。特殊奧林匹克運動會和殘奧會等比賽，為殘疾人士提供了在全球舞臺展示才華和能力的機會。這些賽事不僅賦予殘疾人士追求熱情和成長的力量，也挑戰了關於殘疾的刻板印象和限制性看法。
我們的國家運動員在區域和世界級比賽中高舉新加坡國旗，是各自領域的精英選手。但那些以娛樂方式參與體育的人呢？由於缺乏包容性專案或設施、醫療狀況或這些因素的組合，許多殘疾人士在參與體育和娛樂活動方面仍面臨挑戰。
文化、社區及青年部（MCCY）在確保更多體育設施無障礙和包容方面取得了進展。例如，我瞭解到SportSG計劃在2026年前使所有27個ActiveSG健身房實現包容性。此外，SportSG正在開發包容性的ActiveSG健身房入門專案，鼓勵殘疾人士使用健身房，這是一個很好的舉措。
有趣的是，根據我的調查，67%的肢體殘疾者未使用過任何免費ActiveSG積分。自閉症者為59%，感官障礙者為58%。週末時，我在ActiveSG體育中心進行常規游泳鍛鍊——這是我多年來堅持的習慣。和往常一樣，我沒有看到其他輪椅使用者。儘管設施配備了無障礙坡道和廁所。
因此，除了改善基礎設施，我們還必須努力幫助更多殘疾人士感到有能力且安全地在共享空間鍛鍊和參與體育運動。提升殘疾人士體育參與度是我們應努力的方向，我將在文化、社區及青年部的供應委員會辯論中對此作更多闡述。
接下來談談住房，住房是新加坡夢的基石。對殘疾人士來說亦然。我調查的81%殘疾人士表示希望未來購買自己的房子。然而，48%的肢體殘疾者將購房可能性評為1到3分（滿分10分），自閉症者為34%。和新加坡所有人一樣，住房成本也是他們的共同關切。我們必須做更多工作促進殘疾人士的住房擁有權。殘疾人士購房面臨重大經濟障礙，因為他們一生中有額外開支和/或缺乏穩定就業。我們應致力於彌合這一差距。
有人向我建議為殘疾人士提供補貼租賃計劃。
由於獨立生活對一些人來說可能令人生畏，為什麼不降低入門門檻——讓殘疾人士及其家庭以經濟可承受的方式切實體驗可能性，同時努力實現購房目標？
獲得良好住房有助於培養社群歸屬感和對國家的認同感。我們必須探索創新方案，賦能殘疾人士，針對他們不同的獨立程度量身定製。我也將在國家發展部（MND）的供應委員會辯論中提出包容性住房政策的話題。
最後談談就業。
有意義的就業對任何成年人實現經濟獨立至關重要，也增強成就感。然而，殘疾人士通往有意義就業的道路常被挑戰和障礙阻礙，限制了他們的潛力和機會。一位殘疾人士分享說，面試時面試官認為他們無法工作，儘管他們有多年不同的工作經驗。
另一位分享了其極低的收入水平。許多殘疾人士也從事兼職工作，往往非自願。根據人力部（MOM）資料，殘疾專業人士（PMETs）與非殘疾者之間的中位薪酬差距為13%。殘疾人士兼職與全職就業比例約為1比4。殘疾人士在就業方面常遇到的主要障礙包括歧視、缺乏合理便利和培訓及職業發展機會有限。
我理解政府接受三方委員會的最終建議，初期即將出臺的《工作場所公平法案》（WFL）不包含合理便利條款，但這一決定引發重大疑問。
理解政府確保殘疾人士獲得必要合理便利以參與勞動力市場的策略變得至關重要。我們必須解決如何防止合理便利被個別僱主主觀決定，避免偏見。
在工作場所，殘疾人士的福祉也不容忽視。我調查中39%的人表示經常或總是在工作場所感到孤獨。一些殘疾人士希望得到同事更多支援，對另一些人來說，僅僅被邀請共進午餐就很重要。
我們在工作上花費大量時間。每個人多一點關注和努力，就能為周圍人帶來積極變化。
在2024年預算中，技能未來（SkillsFuture）被定位為新加坡社會契約的關鍵支柱。換言之，它是新加坡的社會平衡器。為確保其真正發揮作用，我們必須確保所有新加坡人群體，包括殘疾人士，都能獲得技能未來的機會。
根據殘疾人協會（DPA）新加坡收集的反饋，殘疾人士在獲取技能未來系統時仍面臨重大障礙，包括課程材料無無障礙格式，培訓提供者不願提供合理便利等。
我瞭解到技能未來新加坡與啟能學院及殘疾組織如DPA合作，幫助培訓提供者提供合理便利，但實施並非強制。啟能學院也為殘疾人士特別策劃課程作為替代。
儘管出於良好意圖，這些課程的範圍遠不及技能未來系統內廣泛的課程。這不僅限制了殘疾人士的機會，導致他們進一步落後，也有可能使他們與更廣泛社會進一步隔離。
鑑於此，我強烈敦促政府在2024年預算中深化對包容性的承諾，確保技能未來對所有使用者均可及。正確利用技能未來，不僅能提升殘疾人士的職業機會和專業發展，還能促進更大的社會融合，強化我們的社會結構。
先生，請允許我結束髮言。
在準備這次發言時，我想起美國作家馬克斯·埃爾曼（Max Ehrmann）的話：“你是宇宙的孩子，與你身邊的樹木和星辰一樣有權利存在。”
議長先生，包容不僅僅是無障礙或便利的事；不僅僅是讓人保住工作、謀生。不是——它關乎茁壯成長。關乎確保每個人，無論能力或殘疾，都有機會充分參與社群，享受生活，追求理想。
社會必須賦予每位新加坡人勇氣去夢想。
通過打破障礙，挑戰刻板印象，在各領域營造包容環境，我們可以創造一個所有人——包括殘疾人士——都能成為更大整體一部分並有意義貢獻的社會。
讓我們攜手共建一個更包容的新加坡，讓每個人都有機會發揮最大潛能。讓我們讓“前進新加坡”成為所有人的現實。
先生，我支援這項預算。
英文原文
SPRS Hansard · Fetched: 2026-05-02
[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16 February 2024] [1st Allotted Day], (proc text)]
[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.
11.33 am
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, it is not mere coincidence that the slogan of Forward Singapore is "Building Our Shared Future", while that of Budget 2024 is the substantially similar "Building Our Shared Future Together". The Government intends for Budget 2024 to be a step towards Forward Singapore.
The Forward Singapore exercise has three major goals for the decade and the next. Singapore must: first, have a strong and growing economy; second, develop a fairer society; and third, deepen our sense of unity. In doing so, the shared future that was distilled from various engagement sessions with the public was a Singapore that will be vibrant, fair, resilient, inclusive, thriving and united.
Sir, it would be fair to say that these are broad strokes that capture the Singapore that all of us seek. In the way it fleshes out the direction of the Government, Budget 2024 is not objectionable, and so the Workers' Party (WP) supports the Budget.
The real challenge to the People's Action Party (PAP), however, is for it to be open, and the extent to which it is prepared to accommodate the diverse views of Singaporeans on how to journey towards the destination envisaged by Forward Singapore. No doubt, PAP has asked for diverse views by demanding that the Opposition come up with alternative proposals, although one suspects they do so rhetorically. WP has responded sincerely and we have not been short of proposals that have ultimately been accepted by the Government in some shape or form, albeit after initial and sometimes significant resistance.
Indeed, this year's Budget includes WP proposals; the announcement by the Finance Minister of a temporary financial support scheme for our workers is a case in point. While the details may differ, the philosophy of supporting our involuntarily unemployed is one which WP championed.
The same can be said for the WP proposals for anti-discrimination legislation to better protect our workers. Unlike PAP, WP clearly stated these proposals in our election manifesto, and our Members of Parliament (MPs) have systematically and repeatedly raised these points along with others in Parliament.
Mr Speaker, let me now put forward five points which form the basis of my response to the Budget.
First, the Government needs to be more forthcoming with information so that Singaporeans can participate more actively in policy discussion. Second, there is a growing mismatch in Singapore between aspirations and reality, which must be addressed. Third, the Government must improve retirement adequacy. Fourth, employers need to show more support for employees. And fifth, we must work towards further strengthening unity among Singaporeans in this uncertain world.
My first point is that the Government needs to be more transparent and forthcoming with information so that there can be meaningful participation by Singaporeans in the most critical matters affecting us. This is a recurring theme in my speeches, but I am by no means the only Singaporean to hold this view.
The Straits Times carried an article dated 19 February 2024 titled, "Economists applaud 2024 Budget but some worry about sustainability." The economists quoted were concerned about the combination of large cash handouts with the lack of information about the sources of Singapore's fiscal strength. In the report, one former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) called on the Government to provide more information on how it funds its expenditures.
Another economist noted that Singapore is unique and does not follow standards set by global bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with regard to the difference between revenues and expenditures in the management of the fiscal balance. Yet another economist was quoted as saying, "As a society, we now have some very important choices to make and, unless we are well-informed, we will not be able to make those choices well." Sir, the latter point was about the Reserves, a subject which we debated earlier this month and where WP set out its five points of principle.
On 20 February, an opinion piece in The Straits Times was titled, "It's getting harder to project future Government revenue". The author noted that it would become more difficult to achieve Budget marksmanship as there could be variations of 17% to 27% in specific tax collections. His view was that gone are the days when Budget marksmanship of 2% was normal.
Two Budgets ago, I asked what the total estimated amount collected by the carbon tax would be. The Government did not tell us, even though the preliminary numbers would not have been difficult to estimate and probably had already been tabulated by the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, in 2016, the Government announced a $4.5 billion industry transformation roadmap. No proactive update on how monies were spent on these programmes was provided until Parliamentary questions were put to the Government. Surely the Government can do better here.
I have spoken about the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Sharing regime, or BEPS, for some years now. The Finance Minister has laid out two possibilities that could affect us: one, of more corporate income tax being collected; and another of some multinational enterprises (MNEs) leaving Singapore. Both could happen at the same time, if recent media reports are anything to go by: one, predicting the move of more MNE headquarters to Singapore from Hong Kong; and another reporting on the move of Electrolux's regional headquarters from Singapore to Bangkok.
In view of the implementation of Pillar 2, what are the estimated collections in either an optimistic scenario or a conservative scenario?
At the first Budget debate of this term, WP called for the setting up of a Parliamentary Budget office, which was rejected by PAP as an idea that would only benefit the Opposition. In the spirit of Forward Singapore and in view of a greater need to track the effectiveness of Government policies and their expenditure outcomes, such institutions should be a feature of our democracy and the Singapore that the Forward Singapore report demands.
One economist quoted in the 19 February The Straits Times article said that Singaporeans outside this House desire to analyse and understand to a deeper degree what the Government is doing. These examples I shared put into relief the types of differences we can expect between the political Opposition in this House and non-politician Singaporeans outside of it on the one hand, and the PAP Government on the other. Such calls for information cannot be set aside as red herrings. If the Government was doing well on this score, we would not have private sector economists making the arguments and the points they do.
These calls represent a desire to shape a political environment that is fit for Singapore's purposes. Singaporeans need to know how much there is to spend and where the money comes from. These are basic requirements for having rational discussions on fiscal matters and for realistic alternative visions to emerge. In any democratic society, the Government must facilitate such discussions and it should do so proactively by declassifying more information if necessary. Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member Ms He Ting Ru will speak on the themes of deliberative democracy, transparency and accountability in her speech.
Coming back to the financing of Forward Singapore's goals, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that $5 billion of this Budget has been set aside for Forward Singapore policy moves, with around $40 billion to be used by the end of the decade. Will the Government spell out these initiatives in view of the commitment made in the Budget Statement, since some thought appears to have been applied to how much it will take to fund Forward Singapore plans?
Sir, PAP must tell us how the Government will deploy the $40 billion for Forward Singapore policies so that Singaporeans can understand what PAP believes the social compact of tomorrow requires. Just as PAP calls on WP to lay out its alternatives, surely PAP must lay out its proposals, too.
Mr Speaker, my second point is that there is a growing mismatch between the aspirations of Singaporeans and the reality facing them. Steps must be taken to address this. A reference in the Forward Singapore report to the 5Cs of decades past was scrutinised by some in the media. The 5Cs captured the aspiration to have cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club membership. The Forward Singapore report calls on Singaporeans to move beyond the 5Cs towards wider definitions of success. Surely, that is an admission, perhaps unintended, that a fair number of the 5Cs are unattainable for most Singaporeans today.
But I would go further. The reality is that things are very difficult for not a small number of Singaporeans, regardless of what definition of success one deploys. A Business Times article from late 2023 reported the findings of an OCBC financial wellness survey. Fewer Singaporeans can comfortably spend on things beyond the basics. And more do not have sufficient emergency funds or savings to meet their families' needs. Just 40% of Singaporeans can afford to spend beyond the basics most of the time, down 8% from 2022; and 23% can only afford the basics; while 79% of Singaporeans either do not have a retirement plan or are not on track with their retirement plans. This was a rise from 71% in 2022.
If the sentiments captured in this survey are anything to go by, there is a likelihood that the social compact may be precarious and uneven, particularly if the middle of society feels insecure about their financial future. To address this possibility, the structural moves to invest more in the future, particularly through SkillsFuture, are important and critical, even as the temporary cost of living support with the Budget are acknowledged and welcomed.
The WP foresees a need for even greater investments in our human capital in future, especially in view of how rapidly the workplace landscape is changing and with more well-paying jobs requiring high-order skillsets, a point that will be further expanded by Sengkang GRC Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
The $4,000 SkillsFuture credit, which is ringfenced for selected programmes with better employability outcomes, can be used for part-time diploma, post-diploma and undergraduate courses as well as PWM-specific courses. The WP sees the deployment of SkillsFuture credits towards economically productive courses with employment outcomes as an important policy initiative of this Budget. But we believe that many of the courses are likely to cost more than $4,000.
To further facilitate skills training and help Singaporean workers, the Government should introduce an interest-free SkillsFuture education loan. The WP put this proposal front and centre in our General Election 2020 manifesto. To start with, these loans can be calibrated towards courses, in either high-growth industries that lack Singaporean manpower or in other economically important areas.
Sir, my third point, is that the Government must improve retirement adequacy. The changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Special Account (SA), announced by Deputy Prime Minister, will be addressed by Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua.
However, I speak of retirement adequacy more broadly and as an ongoing concern for the decades to come. It did not escape many Singaporeans, that all three core components of the Majulah Package: the annual earn and save bonus, the one-time retirement savings bonus and the one-time MediSave bonus, for Singaporeans born between 1960 and 1973, involved CPF top-ups. The Merdeka and Pioneer Generations will also get them. In total, 1.4 million Singaporeans will see CPF top-ups.
From the vantage point of the WP, Sir, these moves make it clear that sufficiency of CPF balances for retirement is a serious and ongoing concern. The moves to raise employer's CPF contributions through to the year 2030, must also be seen by employers in this light – of ensuring that all the workers are not left behind when retirement beckons. Employers will have to redesign jobs, so that seniors can continue to work for far longer if they wish to. The real risk of more redundancies in the years to come, arising from job displacement, adds impetus to the need for job redesign.
Recently, in a social media post, the Minister for National Development celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Home Ownership Scheme. History shows that the reception to the HDB Home Ownership Scheme, per se, was initially lukewarm. The popularity of HDB flats exploded only when the CPF Act was amended in 1968, allowing Singaporeans to use their CPF funds for down payments and mortgage instalments of HDB flats.
It would not be hyperbole to say: that the CPF changed from a statutory board in charge of Singaporeans' retirement to a subsidiary of the HDB, with the aim of helping Singaporeans purchase property. Of course, many aspects of CPF policy have evolved since then.
But what is clear, is that Singapore is in a far different place compared to where it was in the early years of Independence. Specifically, younger Singaporeans cannot expect the same home equity appreciation that Singapore experienced from the 1990s. Today, HDB affordability continues to remain an ongoing concern in the minds of many Singaporeans, in spite of the new Build-To-Order (BTO) classification system – which adds new restriction and increases subsidies for new flats.
In substance, the Government appears to acknowledge the point that affordability is an ongoing concern. A point made by the WP in our speeches during the Housing Motion that was debated in Parliament last year, when we sought to bring focus to the People's Action Party's (PAP's) amended Motion.
It was not coincidental that the Prime Minister in his 2023 National Day Rally, referred to the now infamous $877,000 five-room BTO flat in Ang Mo Kio as an example of a BTO flat that should become slightly less expensive under the new Standard, Prime and Plus BTO classification system – thanks to added taxpayer subsidies.
More money set aside for HDB flat purchase means less funds available for retirement, notwithstanding options to downgrade. If property prices and general inflationary trends rise faster than wages, plans for retirement will have to start later for many – since they would have less to set aside for their nest egg, with mortgages to serve today.
It is time to closely examine how much CPF money should be set aside for housing. But if HDB prices continue to escalate, any move to reduce the CPF funds that can be set aside for housing, in favour of retirement adequacy, may backfire.
The Government may then have to commit itself to making HDB flats even more affordable by increasing subsidies further. Make no mistake, direct subsidies for HDB flat purchases do not make HDB flats cheaper. They merely transfer the cost to current taxpayers. The WP will continue to closely monitor PAP's moves on this point. We will be sure to hold it to account, if it allows HDB flats to continue to rise in price beyond wage growth and if it allows the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans to be compromised. My colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Mr Faisal Manap, will make some related points covering housing and low-income households in his speech.
Mr Speaker, my fourth point, is that employers need to show more support for employees. Business groups have expressed concerns about the new Local Qualifying Salary cap of $1,600, which is widely considered as the de facto minimum wage.
However, if Singapore really wishes to embrace the philosophy of Forward Singapore, then we need to show stronger support for our financially vulnerable workers. This is such an important ingredient of the future social compact. Increases of the de facto minimum wage, should be seen as a step towards an inclusive and fair Singapore. If we have a shared future, where there is a lack of support for paying our lowest-paid workers in step with economic fundamentals, that would reflect very poorly on Singapore.
When the economy grows or when support measures are extended to companies, workers must also benefit. But consumers too, must be prepared to pay more for goods and services and it cannot solely be left to businesses to absorb the additional cost of wages.
The strongest social compact promised by Forward Singapore, also offers an opportunity to think about protections for our workers beyond wages. Much has been said about the lack of recognition in Singapore for all blue-collar workers who use their hands to perform skilled work. As the next step, Singapore should legislate retrenchment benefits or introduce redundancy insurance for these workers. I will speak more about this in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for the Ministry of Manpower.
But there are areas where some employers have done well and displayed solidarity with the Singaporean worker. For example, by implementing Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) in concert with the demands of a more modern Singaporean workforce. But FWAs are just one area. We must also improve workplace culture and change attitudes towards skills upgrading and training, if Forward Singapore is to become a reality.
In a recent Ipsos survey titled "What Singapore thinks, feels and does", it was revealed that three in five Singapore employees – or 60% of Singapore employees – said that they were proud to work for their employer. But this was some 14 to 19 points below the global average; 29% said that they plan to leave their current employer in under two years – nine points more than the global norm.
While pay is one reason, feeling unrecognised and a lack of career progression, are the two additional factors that drive employees to leave. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to improve productivity, this is as good a time as any to significantly review HR policies: to align them with national imperatives and the lived experience of Singapore workers. Member for Aljunied GRC Mr Gerald Giam, will speak more about productivity improvements in his speech.
A citizens panel on employment resilience concluded, as part of Forward Singapore, noted that many workers did not proactively manage their careers until a need arose – due to a lack of awareness of resources for upgrading; or to there being too much information that is too daunting to navigate.
The SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit aims to encourage employers to invest and enterprise, and workplace transformation. It covers an array of programmes, including support for job redesign under the Productivity Solutions Grant. These initiatives can be superimposed on the key HR workplace pain points identified by employees – particularly older workers. Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim will speak more on this subject.
This year's Budget sees the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit extended for another year. As in previous years, the WP calls on the Government to report on the success, or otherwise, of these enterprise schemes that cause huge amounts of money. Reporting on outcomes is a fundamental requirement for accountability. Please give us information on what outcomes, if any, have been achieved on an industry-wide level. Please let us know so that this House and industry experts outside this House can give inputs on how these schemes can be improved, if necessary.
Sir, I move to my final point. In this uncertain world, Singaporeans need to be committed to being united even as we must remain multiracial and multicultural.
The Budget speech By Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, sought to put into focus an important message that many of us overlook as we remain peaceful and far removed from the prospect of conflict. The segment of the Finance Minister's speech that stood out for me was the assessment of the uncertain outlook for Singapore. Some language was particularly strong. These include, and I quote: the international outlook has darkened dramatically; the post-Cold War era that fostered three decades of peace and stability is over; we are now in a new era of conflict and confrontation and there is no turning back; what can we expect in this new world? It will be more violent, it will be more fragmented, it will be messier and more unpredictable.
At the same time as the world is seeing rising political polarisation and disenfranchisement, due to economic displacement, the world continues to struggle with common global problems, such as climate change, a subject Hougang Single Member Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan will touch on.
If Forward Singapore seeks to refresh the social compact to keep our society strong and united and to prepare for a difficult road ahead, all of us in Singaporeans – regardless of our political persuasion – will have to be our siblings' keeper. More so than ever before.
But this will not be easy. Immigration and integration are good examples of where potential challenges lie. Earlier generations of immigrants had little choice, or less choice, but to integrate. They could not live hermetically sealed off from their host population. Only 30 years ago, it was prohibitively costly to make an international phone call.
Current immigrants can easily stay connected to their networks and countries of birth. One can be a new Singaporean or PR physically present in Singapore, but removed from Singapore society. Better integration between the races and communities must be an important feature of the new social compact. We ignore this social objective at our peril, given how immigration is a permanent feature of Singapore's society.
The prospect of constant information operations undertaken by state and non-state actors, is an acute threat facing all multicultural societies. As a multiracial and multi-religious society that relies on immigration to top-up the population, our bonds as one united people may be severely tested in the years to come.
The reality of online misinformation of foreign interference, particularly if framed in nationalistic terms, or in the form of identity politics, can be insidious and highly damaging to Singapore.
Even as we seek more space to passionately advocate our views, including those on race and religion, we should be mindful lest we denigrate another group. More communication is certainly needed, but we should never forget our common humanity. None of us chose to be born into our race or religion, so kindness and empathy must be a dominant feature of the multiracial Singapore spirit.
As an opposition party with elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in Parliament, the Workers' Party will not self-censure but commit ourselves to bring up matters responsibly. Once mistrust between communities take root, we will not know what hit us.
The WP agrees with the posture taken by the Government, that polarisation must not happen in Singapore. And as a society facing an unpredictable world, we should not dismiss this potential reality. We must gird ourselves against this prospect by deepening our commitment to fellow Singaporeans and representing them and their views faithfully.
A potentially more volatile outlook also reinforces the importance of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team and the importance of National Service. Our security agencies may be tested or challenged in ways that may not just be kinetic, but asymmetric, and we cannot afford to fall short. All Singaporeans must give our men and women in uniform our full support.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there is broad agreement on the outcomes sought by Forward Singapore.
But the call for a fair, inclusive and united Singapore must also accommodate and respond to citizen demands for greater transparency and civic participation. Otherwise, Forward Singapore could easily fall victim to political cynicism.
The WP has, on numerous occasions, proposed how these calls for greater transparency can be better addressed. Such calls will not grow softer and they are not inconsistent with the findings and the desired outcomes of the Forward Singapore exercise.
Some of the differences between the PAP and the WP are of methods and approaches, and we must agree to disagree. But there may be a few issues where there is consensus on the final outcomes, and yet, others where there is none. This is how a parliamentary democracy works. A Singapore with a contested and balanced Parliamentary system, with a robust opposition presence playing its role in making for a fair and inclusive society, and ultimately, what it does is that it makes us a better, more confident and an authentic Singapore. Sir, the WP supports the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
12.01 pm
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang) : Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget sets out the first instalment of policy moves to remake Singapore's social compact, as envisioned by the Forward Singapore exercise.
We can see the imprints of Forward Singapore in many aspects of this year's Budget, including the various fresh approaches and moves to provide assurance to Singaporeans. There are major initiatives to develop our people, to invest in medium- and longer-term capabilities and security, to support families and seniors, and to build a fairer and more equitable society.
We are moving forward amidst a more uncertain, more contested and more volatile world. To adapt and thrive under this environment, we need to keep on reassessing our propositions and norms, but also, critically, to stay cohesive and united.
Sir, let me start with the Budget measures to tackle the immediate challenges. And in keeping with one of Forward Singapore key thrust that we are in this together and that we have got each other's back, this Budget continues to enhance the packages to help Singaporeans cope with the cost of living.
The $1.9 billion enhanced Assurance Package (AP) may come across as "more of the same", but this is a much welcomed "more of the same", where it is actually more than "more of the same". Even though there are other measures and tools to help mitigate rising costs; nothing beats having more direct payouts and assistance from the Government. And fortunately, we continued to have the fiscal capacity to dish out such upsized packages.
For the businesses, while the 50% corporate tax rebate and the Enterprise Financing Scheme, among others, may also come across as more of the same, the minimum cash payouts of $2,000 to all companies that employed at least one local employee is clearly a new feature and, if I remember correctly, first of its kind in our Budgets. It will go some way to provide relief to the small enterprises and helping to mitigate some of the incremental costs.
In addition to the AP, there are also other helpful features in this year's Budget that help Singaporean households and businesses cope with rising costs, such as the Workfare Income Supplement, the Silver Support, the preschool fee caps, the Progressive Wage Credits Scheme and so on.
So, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister for his continuing assurances to help Singaporeans to manage the cost pressures.
Besides the annual Budget measures, in September last year, the Deputy Prime Minister also came up with an additional off-budget $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package. In that package, there was also an additional one-off public transport subsidies of $300 million to moderate the fare increase in 2023. And this is over and above the $2 billion annual subsidy that the Government provides to keep public transport affordable.
I hope that that the Government would continue to monitor the costs situation, including keeping an eye on the public transport fare; and to consider another one-off assistance to moderate the fare increase if the Budget position permits.
Sir, let me now speak on the part of the Budget that I am most delighted with – that is developing our people.
Our people must be at the centre of any policy formulation and intent; whether it is to grow the economy, to build capabilities, to strengthen our securities and even why we manage our finances prudently. We want our people to live a full and happy life. A major part of our life's pursuit is livelihoods. We work to earn income to provide for our families and ourselves; to live good lives and to have the financial means for contingencies and retirement.
As a Government, nothing can be more of a priority and worthy than to help provide good and fulfilling livelihoods to our people. That must be the foremost key performance indicator (KPI) for the Government. However, with the rapid technological advancements and a more competitive and disruptive economic environment, long-term job security will be an increasing and ongoing challenge. The skills set that we acquire in schools and in the workplace now has a shortened shelf life. Some old jobs will become obsolete, while new jobs that require new skills will be created. And coupled with that, on the labour supply side, with an increasing healthy life span, we can now have a longer career runway. We are living longer and we have more healthier years in our life; thanks to the quality of life that we enjoy today.
Singaporeans understand this imperative and know that there may a time in their career where they need to do a pivot, in response to the changing landscape. The introduction of SkillsFuture 10 years ago opened up our mindset about continuous learning throughout life. Budget 2024 provides a major boost and a significant funding upsize to the SkillsFuture movement; with the aim to nudge Singaporeans in their forties, fifties and even sixties to embrace career resilience and to stay up to speed on their employability.
The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, with various subsidies, can greatly help to reduce the economic costs for training, a perennial pain point for the working mid-careers. The monthly training allowance, equivalent to 50% of one's average income, capped at $3,000 and over 24 months, helps to significantly buffer the economic costs for workers when they embark on career transition programmes.
The $4,000 top-up of the SkillsFuture Credit for Singaporeans aged 40 and above is a sizeable uplift and a clear signaling in the way forward. It is now more targeted in scope; and would only apply to programmes that can achieve the desired employability outcomes.
Sir, another notable shift in Budget 2024 is the change in our education subsidy policy; where Singaporeans aged 40 and above can pursue another diploma at our polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) at subsidised fees. The Deputy Prime Minister called it "another bite" of the education subsidies. I hope this new subsidised back-to-school full-time diploma programmes can also help produce more professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs); and hence, reduce the future need for more S Passes and Employment Passes (EPs).
Sir, these are substantial moves. Committing the funding is just first step and, of course, a critical enabler. The real heavy lifting is in operationalising the entire value chain, where workers seek training that the employers sought; the educators being deeply plugged into the needs of industries and businesses and curate the skills proramme that matters; and the work unions and Government closely monitoring, facilitating and anticipating the next few bounds ahead.
Sir, I welcome another shift that was mentioned in the Budget, with details to be provided later this year; and that is the temporary financial support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed. This is in keeping with the current reality, where we will see more disruptions that will impact businesses and jobs. I am glad that we are now ready to move on this. It is very much part of what we meant a functioning, social compact and that we have got each other's back. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] There is a saying that people have no fixed position and water has no constant form. The rapid development of technology today has led us into an era of constant change in the workplace. The transformation of economic operations has directly impacted the workplace, changing the employment model and shortening the value and lifespan of skills and knowledge. In response to this situation, this year's Budget has also strengthened a response strategy, enhancing and introducing new policy measures.
In addition to the enhanced SkillsFuture subsidies of up to $4,000, the Government has also adjusted education subsidies, allowing middle-aged Singaporeans to re-enter educational institutions to pursue professional diplomas and enhance their employment potential.
Workers who wish to attend qualified full-time work courses, can also receive training allowances of up to $3,000 per month. From these measures, we can understand the Government's intention to enable Singaporeans to maintain employability, expand employment opportunities and have a better future.
Learning and upskilling is a challenging endeavour, with economic cost and personal time commitment. This is why the Government is investing significant financial resources and strengthening policy measures to alleviate this burden on the individual.
Ultimately, whether we can achieve results depends on whether workers have that willingness and passion to seek skills and knowledge, and whether employers have a flexible, rewarding and long-term mindset to support this.
In this process, we also need to curate more courses that can be applied to enhance employment opportunities. This will be a very difficult road, but we have no choice. I can see the Government's determination, and in the future, it will require everyone and the entire system to work together to implement these enhanced upskilling policies.
(In English) : Sir, on the economy, I fully agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we need to continue growing the economy, so that we can improve the collective well-being of Singaporeans.
And given the inherent constraints stacked against us, such land, labour and carbon, our next phase of growth has to be productivity and innovation driven. It is not going to be easy, as bigger countries that are better resourced and with the scale of domestic economy are also doing the same.
The strategy that we have adopted to overcome our limitations and which has placed us among the top economic value-add country per capita in the world, is by continuously attracting high quality and high value investments to Singapore.
Attracting such investments help us leapfrog the riskier and the capital-intensive build-up phase; and enable our economy to always stay at the frontiers of cutting-edge technology. Hence, anchoring high value and innovative MNEs to base and hub here continues to be a compelling strategy for an economy like ours with minimal scale.
And thanks to our best-in-class investment attracting agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG), we have been able to attract these high-quality investments, despite the intense competition.
I often read the annual reports of EDB, to get a sense of how much investments we are attracting each year. Besides reporting the fixed asset investment (FAI) commitments and the total business expenditure per annum (TBE), EDB would also report the jobs expected to be created and the value added to the economy.
For example, in 2023, the EDB attracted FAI of $12.7 billion, TBE of $8.9 billion and these are expected to create more than 20,000 jobs with a projected value-add of $26.7 billion. I am heartened that our economic investment agencies never lose sight on the ultimate motivation on why we bring in investments, which is to create good jobs and to contribute to our gross domestic product (GDP).
Sir, we have to keep strengthening our propositions; among others, to always be a business-friendly destination of choice, having a diverse talent pool, excellent infrastructure and connectivity, trusted jurisdictions, strong financial standing and, of course, an able Government and political stability.
How could our local enterprises benefit from the presence of MNEs? The key is in finding ways for our local firms to be the suppliers and servicers of the MNEs; and playing a part in their value chain.
The enhanced Partnership for Capability Transformation aims to increase the range of modalities for MNEs and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to collaborate and to help the SMEs up the game. This could be the pathway for our local enterprises to break out of the size trap, level up to be the emerging regionals or niche champions.
Sir, besides attracting high quality investments and developing our local enterprises, we have also got to invest in our capabilities and build longer-term competitiveness. The Deputy Prime Minister announced a series of significant investment into our capabilities in this year's Budget; for example, the $3 billion in Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025), $2 billion in the Financial Sector Development Fund, $100 million to upgrade our Nationwide Broadband Network.
To enhance our longer-term energy security, the Government will also inject an initial $5 billion to set up the Future Energy Fund. These are massive funding commitments. Sir, I look forward to the details in the upcoming COS debate.
On AI, I am glad that Singapore has a head-ups in developing AI capabilities with our National AI strategy. It has not gone unnoticed internationally.
Last December, I happened to be in Taiwan for the holidays, with my family. At that time, the Taiwanese Presidential and the Legislative election campaign were in full swing. And out of curiosity, I popped into a couple of election rallies in Taipei and watched the local news there, to hear what are the issues that the candidates were talking about.
It is not uncommon in Taiwanese elections, to hear opposition politicians there using Singapore as an example to criticise their government for not doing as well as Singapore. So, in this election there, it was again not surprising that Singapore got a few mentions. One of them was where the opposition politicians ridiculed their government on why tiny Singapore can be listed as the top 10 countries in the world, leading in AI research and technology; and Taiwan is not there. They lamented that Taiwan is losing out in this AI race and will severely impact its overall competitiveness.
Sir, I am pleased that we are now into version 2 of our National AI Strategy; and in this Budget, the Government has committed to invest $1 billion per year for the next five years. The investments will be used to work with leading companies to set up AI Centres of Excellences in Singapore as well as secure the much needed advanced chips for AI development.
Sir, we need to keep up with the momentum in our AI development; and I support the additional funding announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my final point is with regards to the adjustments to the corporate income tax; to incorporate the BEPS 2.0 Pillar 2 changes. Under Pillar 2 of BEPS, a global minimum effective tax of 15% is required to be applied to large MNEs. Many jurisdictions including Switzerland and Hong Kong has announced their plans to implement it in 2024 and 2025.
BEPS 2.0 will reset the level playing field for global competition for investment and that is why it is critical that we keep improving our overall offerings such as introducing the Refundable Investment Credit to strengthen our competitive position.
One issue of considerable interest is the revenue impact from introduction of Domestic Top-Up Tax.
In the near term, it is expected to provide additional revenues to the Government. In an OECD report released in January 2024, OECD provided estimates that imply a revenue gain of around 15% to 40% in corporate income tax for investment hubs. Using our revised FY2023 corporate tax revenue base of $28.4 billion, this would mean an additional $4 billion to $11 billion of revenue.
In February 2024, Hong Kong which will introduce Pillar 2 in 2025 has estimated its own revenue impact to be around HKD 10 billion, or S$1.7 billion. There was another estimate by Switzerland in August 2023 which estimate the impact for Switerland as CHF 1.6 billion, or S$2.4 billion. Both the Hong Kong and Swiss estimates seem to be point to a lower revenue impact than what the OECD estimates would imply, which is up to about S$10 billion for Hong Kong, up to about S$15 billion for Switzerland.
Of course, OECD has cautioned that there is a wide range of uncertainty in their estimates.
Sir, Pillar 2 is an unprecedented change in tax policy and there are significant limitations in the extent to which previous experience and studies can inform on the "behavioural reactions" by governments and MNEs and therefore the revenue impact.
Furthermore, the OECD report does not factor in the impact of Pillar 1, which will have a negative revenue impact for Singapore. When both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are taken together, it would be difficult to pin down on the net revenue impact.
The more important point is BEPS 2.0 is a key challenge for Singapore which we must navigate carefully.
And which is I why, I support the Budget 2024 measures to enhance our investment promotion toolkit through the Refundable Investment Credit; as well as the various investments in our workforce, in innovation and in infrastructure.
Sir, to conclude, a good Budget is not defined by just about how we spend, how big we spend, how many more areas we spend but also how we fund our expenditures on a sustainable basis. This discipline about a balanced Budget is of critical importance especially where the trajectory of our spending is heading higher.
Often, commentators would like to use characterisations such whether the Budget is left-leaning or right-leaning or centre-left or centre-right to describe a Budget. But it may not be that straightforward for this year’s Budget.
Rather than to characterise the budget as being more left or right-leaning, I would say this is a budget that is forward moving and upward progressing. We have every determination to move Singapore forward; and in this forward journey ahead to ensure that there will be upward social mobility and cohesion and importantly upward progress for everyone. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Ms Foo Mee Har.
12.20 pm
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast) : Mr Speaker, Budget 2024 is a budget notable for its wide-ranging support measures. These include generous assistance to meet cost-of-living pressures to taking forward-looking steps to ensure Singapore and Singaporeans continue to thrive in a fast-changing economic and social environment.
Sir, I wholeheartedly support this year’s Budget and I thank the Government for listening and being responsive to needs on the ground. There are significant progressive moves announced in this Budget, such as the SkillsFuture Credit top up of $4,000 for those 40 years and above to level up; as well as moves to better calibrate policy such as easing of property tax burden for many home owners who saw their tax bills spike.
We even see policy innovation where the Government provides Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Vouchers for families to rent an HDB flat in the open market for one year, to supplement the strong demand for temporary housing whilst families wait for their BTO completion.
Sir, I would like to focus my speech on three key areas where Budget 2024 helps with cost pressures, sharpens Singapore’s competitiveness as well as addresses retirement adequacy.
First, on cost pressures. Sir, riding on the better-than-expected Government revenue in Financial Year (FY) 2023, individuals and families stand to benefit from a mix of cash, vouchers and rebates under the $1.9 billion boost to the Assurance Package.
Companies, especially SMEs, also stand to benefit from the $1.3 billion Enterprise Support Package with a slew of support measures, including the generous corporate income tax rebate of 50%, capped at $40,000 in the year of assessment FY2024.
Those with less will receive more, but there is something for everyone.
Sir, I applaud the Government for their concerted attempt to shore up individual and company cash flows. However, we must be very careful to calibrate handouts to ensure that these are sustainable, as people may grow to rely on them over time. It may become a challenge to wean them off expectations of such broad-based support in the future.
Also, the generous direct transfers to cushion residents from elevated inflation may, ironically, add to further demand and reverse early signs of moderation on inflation.
Last year, I had raised similar concerns about Government handouts increasing demand and creating a vicious escalation in prices. Helping people cope with rising costs is a worthy policy but it must be balanced against the risk of prolonging inflationary pressures. After all, it would be unsustainable to dole out assistance to fight inflation if such help ends up keeping inflation higher for longer. So, I call on the Government to keep a close eye on this.
Next, sharpening Singapore’s competitiveness. Mr Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced an ambitious target of two to 3% GDP over the next decade. The economy grew by only 1.1% last year, down from 3.8% growth the previous year. Real income declined 2.2% for the first time in over 10 years. Singapore’s continued growth in the new era of global development is not guaranteed.
We face challenges in an international tax environment where global minimum tax regulations are upon us, and where countries around the world are fighting for high-quality investments.
Sir, Singapore has evolved from a trading port to a global finance hub, logistics, and also for manufacturing. In order to succeed in our next phase of growth, we need to pivot towards high-value, innovative economic development.
This shift necessitates a profound change in our skills and capabilities, far beyond what has brought us success in the past.
In an era dominated by rapid technological advancements, our focus must pivot towards nurturing skills in innovation, research and development (R&D), digitalisation and AI. These fields have transformative potential to boost our economy, but require a new breed of industries and professionals who are adept in these cutting-edge domains. The magnitude of this transition cannot be understated. We are not simply adopting new technologies; we are required to reshape our economic fabric.
So, Budget 2024 rightly earmarked a substantial sum of $13 billion towards capability development – these include boosting productivity, research and innovation, green transition and AI transformation.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced the launch of a refreshed incentive toolbox with new fiscal schemes, such the new Refundable Investment Credit scheme and top-up of existing funds to further advance capabilities. This is 10 times the amount set aside to help companies cope with near-term challenges.
However, Sir, many of the initiatives will only be effective to the extent they are taken up. Significant effort must be directed to boost usage in order to achieve the intended outcomes of the respective schemes.
For example, even though SkillsFuture has been launched for close to 10 years, only three in 10 Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture credits. The number of companies tapping into R&D grants is insufficient, and SMEs still struggle to decipher the multitude of schemes and the complexity and onerous application process.
Sir, even as I persist in urging the Government to intensify its efforts to stimulate adoption – a topic I will delve into during my COS speeches – it is ultimately incumbent upon companies and workers to seize these opportunities and to forge a brighter future for themselves. The support schemes available to us is a springboard, but the impetus to leap forward lies within us.
Embarking on a journey of transformation is akin to preparing to scale new and uncharted mountains. This journey compels us to traverse unfamiliar terrain and to overcome obstacles that are inherent in scaling any worthy peak.
We are comforted by the knowledge that, in this journey, we are not alone. The support schemes available are akin to tools, maps and safety gear, provided to ensure that our climb, our ascent is not only successful but also safe and secure.
These resources are designed to assist us in navigating the complexities of change, offering guidance, training and support at every step. But, ultimately, it is only we who scale the mountain; the gear alone cannot do it for us.
Next, retirement adequacy. Mr Speaker, Budget 2024 contains excellent initiatives to further boost retirement adequacy, such as the Majulah Package, enhanced support for Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, Silver Support Scheme Enhancement and others. But, unfortunately, the announcement to close the CPF SA for those aged 55 and older attracted the most attention.
Whilst I support the rationale behind the Government's move, the sudden closure of SA accounts affects many middle-income seniors. Based on established CPF rules, they have systematically saved and trusted this scheme to build up their retirement nest-eggs.
Many rely on CPF savings as a key source to fund their retirement. This sudden unexpected change disrupts their retirement planning. As a policy move, it may be fairer if the Government could grandfather the SA scheme for existing 55 and older CPF members.
Sir, the most exciting development within the CPF framework for me is the increase of the Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS) to four times of the Basic Retirement Sum, reaching $426,000 in 2025.
Over the years, I have advocated for a higher ERS, enabling CPF LIFE to better cater to the retirement needs of middle-income Singaporeans, especially for those considering CPF as their primary source for retirement planning. This is really important that the CPF serves middle-income Singaporeans.
The rule of thumb for the income level required to maintain a similar lifestyle in retirement typically involves replacing a certain percentage of your pre-retirement income. It is commonly suggested that retirees will need approximately 70% to 80% of their pre-retirement income to sustain their lifestyle. This estimate of 70% to 80% as what they need in retirement, assumes the decrease in certain expenses, such as commuting, work-related expenses or mortgage payments, while anticipating an increase in others like healthcare or leisure activities.
If we consider the current median monthly income of about $5,200 for full-time working residents in the middle-income group, the estimated monthly payout under the new ERS would be approximately $3,300. This represents a 63% replacement income versus the 70% to 80% recommended for middle-income earners. This is a significant increase from the current monthly payout of $2,530, which only replaces about 49% of our median wage earner's income.
Sir, the introduction of the new ERS is a significant step toward closing the retirement adequacy gap for the middle-income earners, an issue I have persistently lobbied for over many years.
While CPF LIFE should not be tailored to meet the needs of the affluent, it must and it must serve as a primary source of retirement income for our low- and middle-income seniors, ensuring they have financial security and peace of mind in their golden age.
Finally, Sir, fiscal space and top up funds.
Sir, in examining the budgetary position for FY2022 and FY2023, I would like to seek clarification on several fronts.
Firstly, with regard to the Government's accountability on fiscal marksmanship. The final financial outcome for FY2022 diverged notably from the initial projections, going from an anticipated deficit of $2 billion into a surplus of $1.7 billion.
For FY2023, despite a revenue increase exceeding expectations by 7.9% and surpassing $104 billion, the fiscal deficit for this year is, in fact, revised to $3.6 billion deficit. This represents a significant widening from the earlier projection of $0.4 billion deficit.
In the light of these developments, I would like to ask how the Government projects revenue and expenditure to ensure a level of predictability that informs crucial decisions, such as the need to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Secondly, a significant amount of funds totalling $24.3 billion for FY2023 and $20.4 billion for FY2024 are allocated towards topping up endowment and trust funds.
While I appreciate the fiscal discipline demonstrated by setting aside funds that are committed for future programmes that we promise the people without burdening future budgets and generations, I want to seek clarification on several aspects.
Firstly, the rate of drawdown of the various funds. Secondly, how the Government determines whether expenditures should be funded from funds and endowments, as opposed to operating budget. Additionally, I am interested in understanding how undrawn amounts are treated and how drawdowns are optimised across funds to smoothen out expenditures. Sir, with that, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Ms Hazel Poa.
12.36 pm
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the most noteworthy thing about this year's Budget Statement was the amount of support measures provided to Singaporeans without any additional major tax increases announced. This will come as a great relief to many Singaporeans who are still struggling to cope with the high costs of living and an uncertain job environment.
I will first address the support measures and how we can take bolder steps to support Singaporeans in coping with the rising cost of living. I will then discuss Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) views on the proposals in the Budget to support lifelong learning and develop the full potential of Singaporeans.
Sir, those of us who walk the ground will know that the rising cost of living is the number one concern for Singaporeans and we have debated this issue at length in this House last November. Many Singaporeans are feeling that their wages are unable to keep up with rising prices, leading to feelings of anxiety and insecurity. This feeling is borne out in the wage statistics. After taking into account inflation, real wages rose by only 0.4% in 2022, but fell by 4.5% in the first half of 2023.
Furthermore, the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, which measures inflation, does not take into account loan repayments. This means that the higher interest rates which resulted in higher mortgage payments and other loan payments are not taken into account in the calculation of inflation and real wage growth.
The Government's response has been to provide subsidies and rebates that help households in the short term, for instance, the Assurance Package. While these short-term support measures are welcome, PSP has always maintained that these are not long-term solutions that address the root causes of the rising cost of living.
While it is true that rising prices are subject to global forces like oil prices, food prices, disruption to supply chains due to pandemics, wars or climate change, there are also domestic factors driving prices. These domestic factors include our property prices, Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, population policy and Government taxes.
Today, I will only talk about property prices and Government taxes and leave the discussion on COE and population policy to another day. Suffice to say that COE increases our transportation costs and population policy affects the overall demand for all goods and services, thus putting pressure on all prices.
One root cause of the rising cost of living is rising rents.
In the retail sector, rent constitutes about 30% of the business costs. This means that when you walk into a shop to buy a product, 30% of the cost of that product is due to the shop's rental and this has not yet taken into account the suppliers' rental costs which had been built into the cost of goods sold. Similarly, in the food and beverage (F&B) sector, rent forms about 27% of business cost. Rent therefore has a big impact on the cost of living of most Singaporeans.
PSP once again calls on the Government to take action to moderate excessive commercial rent increases in Singapore. For a start, guidelines on reasonable annual rent increases can be issued, similar to how the National Wage Council (NWC) issues guidelines on wage increases.
If the rate of rent increases can be moderated, it will not only be beneficial for Singaporeans but it will benefit businesses as well.
In addition, Government is the largest landowner in Singapore and yields significant influence over the property market. If it has the political will, it can push outcome in the direction it wants.
Another root cause of rising cost of living is home prices. For most of us, buying a house is the single largest expenditure of our lifetime. PSP has proposed the Affordable Home Scheme in which HDB flat prices do not include the land cost component for home buyers upon first purchase, but deferred if and when they sell their flats. This will greatly ease the burden of housing costs on young people and allow them to more easily build up their retirement savings. It might even provide some with the leeway to take risks with their careers and pursue any entrepreneurial dreams without being shackled by large mortgage payments.
Government taxes form part of the cost of living, with the most obvious being the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
In Budget 2022, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said that healthcare expenditure is increasing due to the ageing population and is expected to hit $27 billion in 2030. GST therefore needed to be raised to fund the expected increase in healthcare expenditure. If healthcare expenditure hits $27 billion as expected and the increase is fully funded by GST, then GST would have to be raised by another 3.5% approximately by 2030, to reach about 12.5%.
Will the Government share whether there are any further plans to raise taxes to fund the increase in healthcare expenditure?
Currently, the Government helps Singaporeans cope with GST increases and cost of living increases by giving cash grants, rebates and vouchers, resulting in a situation whereby the bulk of the population are now in regular receipt of Government handouts.
In any society, there will always be people with different income levels and it is normal for Government to give grants to the lower-income families. But if the bulk of the population need Government handouts to cope with cost of living, then that cannot be a healthy situation. We should also be circumspect about the fact that the bulk of the population is getting used to the idea that it is a norm to receive Government handouts.
It may be the easier route to provide handouts to cope with the cost of living, but we must focus on taking steps to keep costs in check.
For a start, we ask the Government to reconsider exempting a list of basic necessities from GST. We can list specific products rather than broad categories to minimise classification issues and limit price levels to those generally consumed by lower- and middle-income families. The need for this measure will become more pressing as GST rate increases.
The way that the Government currently treats land sales proceeds and prices HDB flats is also adding to taxpayers' burden. HDB must pay Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for the land used to build HDB flats. These land sales proceeds are then locked away in past reserves and are paid for by large Government grants. These Government grants must be paid by taxpayers. So, in effect, taxes are being collected to be locked away in the reserves.
Further grants are given to HDB flat buyers in order to make flats more affordable. These grants must also be paid by taxpayers.
I have previously proposed that land sales proceeds be treated as revenue divided over the duration of the lease. It is heartening to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is not an unthinkable proposition during the Public Finances debate earlier this month. As this measure can relieve the tax burden on Singaporeans, I hope the Government will consider it seriously.
Apart from containing costs, another way to cope with rising cost of living is through raising wages and ensuring that they keep pace with the rising cost. One major way of doing so is through education and training.
Before I talk about education, I wish to declare that I own a private education company.
PSP supports the introduction of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, which consists of a $4,000 credit, subsidies for another full-time diploma and training allowance for full-time trainees. We believe that full-time training will be more effective in enhancing the employability of our workers. These policies will also enable our middle-aged workers to switch careers more easily and move into areas with better or more job opportunities.
We are, however, disappointed that details of the temporary financial support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed are still not ready.
Retrenchments are becoming increasingly common. Temporary financial support would be greatly beneficial to retrenched workers seeking a new job. Any delay in the implementation of this scheme has real consequences on the retrenched employees. We hope the Government can finalise the scheme as soon as possible.
In addition, if a retrenched worker decides to enter full-time training a few months after they were retrenched, we hope that the size of their training allowance will not be impacted by their period of unemployment. We seek the Government's confirmation that their training allowance would be based on their last drawn pay when they were employed.
In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced his intention to ensure that the wages and career prospects of our ITE graduates should not be too far below their polytechnic- and university-going peers. He then announced a new ITE Progression Award, which provides a $5,000 top-up to the Post-Secondary Education Accounts of ITE graduates who enrol in a diploma programme; and a $10,000 CPF top-up for ITE graduates when they attain polytechnic diplomas.
We whole-heartedly support the intention of helping our ITE graduates, but feel that the ITE Progression Award does not quite fully meet that objective.
Today, about 4,000 ITE graduates – or about 28% of the annual ITE graduating cohort – qualify for polytechnics each year and about 4,000 ITE graduates enrol in the polytechnics each year. Since most of those who qualified already chose to progress into diploma courses, the Award has limited scope to encourage more to do so.
The $5,000 top-up to the education accounts does help to ease the financial burden of ITE graduates enrolling for diploma courses; but the $10,000 CPF top-up less so and, furthermore, is actually going to a group who are no longer just ITE graduates, but a specific group of diploma holders.
An issue of parity amongst diploma holders arises here. Giving $10,000 to some diploma holders, but not others, based solely on the route they took to enter polytechnics can get controversial.
We are of the view that a better way to help ITE graduates would be: one, help more ITE graduates qualify for polytechnics. Entry requirements can be reviewed to recognise the value of relevant work experience rather than just grade point average (GPA). Those who decide to take the "O" levels in order to qualify for polytechnics should also be supported. This can be done through promoting or expanding the ITE General Education course; or providing education grants to those doing so as private candidates.
Two, help those who enrolled in diploma courses successfully complete their programme by conducting bridging courses to cover the gaps between ITE programmes and "O" level programmes. A TODAY article in July last year, cited students who expressed the need for such courses in areas, like mathematics and essay writing.
The above support measures should also be extended to those who had dropped out of school even before completing ITE, but now wishes to return to the education system to upskill or upgrade themselves.
PSP hopes that the Government will consider our suggestions so that together, we can find a more permanent solution to the challenges faced by Singaporeans in coping with the rising cost of living.
Sir, the Progress Singapore Party supports Budget 2024.
Mr Speaker : Ms Joan Pereira.
12.50 pm
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the measures in the Budget to assist our households so that they can tackle immediate challenges and face the future with more assurance.
With global tensions and conflicts exacerbating shortages of supplies and disrupting logistic chains, prices of goods and services have risen substantially and are expected to increase further. Unfortunately, it is challenging for our workers' wages to keep up with the pace of price increases and inflation.
In the face of an uncertain global operating environment, competing priorities and the need to balance our budget, I welcome the Ministry's decision to provide greater assistance for the lower-income group and bigger households with elderly and children.
Lower- and middle-income households would be heartened that the $6 billion top-up to the GST Voucher Fund will secure the permanent defrayment of GST expenses for them. Many will receive further support from the Cost-of-Living Special Payment, the U-Save rebates and Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates; the additional $600 in Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers coming on the heels of the $500 recently disbursed, are appreciated.
On this note, I would like the Government to consider pegging this or future batches of vouchers to the number of persons per household. If three or four generations or an extended family live at one address, it could be due to financial limitations. Hence, all the more reason for a headcount-based CDC Voucher system. On the other hand, if the reason to stay together is to facilitate mutual care and support, the household should similarly not be penalised for this.
Today, I would like to take the opportunity to appeal for more middle- and long-term support for the sandwich generation – whom I would refer to as the group that has to provide for the care and expenses of children and elderly parents, while having to prepare for their own retirement needs. We have to factor in longer lifespans, which mean that they have to support their parents over a longer period even as they themselves become senior citizens. As family is the most important unit of society, we need to continue providing the relevant support needed by this group in order to safeguard our families and our society.
The raised per capita household income thresholds for healthcare and associated social support subsidy schemes, will be greatly welcomed by our families as more will be able to benefit from subsidies. I also appreciate the increase in the Silver Support Scheme, which provides quarterly payments to seniors who had low incomes during their working years and have less family support. I hope a similar scheme can be introduced for elderly with similarly low incomes during their working years but who are living with their family members, albeit in the lower- and middle-income brackets. Such a support programme will also help to alleviate the burden on the sandwich generation.
I would also like to speak about our families with genuine needs to ferry young children and elderly parents at this stage in their lives – who need cars but find car ownership difficult to afford. Would the Government also consider recalibrating our vehicle COE system to take into account the changing car usage patterns, including the rise in car-sharing services and yet continue to keep car ownership affordable for families who need it?
Finally, I would like to surface feedback regarding retirees living in landed properties. In recent years, their property taxes have been increasing, which affects this group of senior citizens living off their savings. While the annual value bands will be raised and they will be allowed to pay via a 24-month instalment plan without interest, some of them may still face financial issues. Hence, I would like to propose for an arrangement where IRAS will review, discuss with and advise affected landowners the various payment options and alternative solutions appropriate to their specific cases. Sir, in Mandarin.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] I would like to surface feedback regarding retirees living in landed properties. In recent years, their property taxes have been increasing, which affects this group of senior citizens living off their savings. While the annual value bands will be raised and they will be allowed to pay via a 24-month instalment plan without interest, some of them may still face financial issues. Hence, I would like to propose for an arrangement where IRAS may review, discuss with and advise affected landowners the various payment options and alternative solutions appropriate to their specific cases.
( In English ): This is a forward-looking Budget that is focused on steering the whole nation ahead while not leaving anyone behind. Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
12.57 pm
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member) : Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his Budget that, in my view, puts money in the right places, including investing in Singaporeans in the long term.
My speech today is in two parts. First, I will speak about the culture of work in Singapore. Second, I will speak about uplifting the wages of workers in the professions of the hands.
Let me begin by saying that I am heartened by the investments the Government is making in our workers – through the enhancements to the SkillsFuture Credit scheme and the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Allowance as well as the subsidy for mature workers to take another full-time diploma. This will help to ensure that our workers are able to keep themselves relevant and future-ready.
But these schemes will not bear fruit if our workers do not have the correct mindset and our culture of work is not conducive.
The culture of work in many countries, including in Singapore, is changing. I welcome some of these trends, like flexible working hours and working from home, as they can help to create work environments that are conducive to an ageing population and supportive of couples having more children. I am more cautious of other trends and suggestions – like a very short workweek and a right to disconnect from work.
Many of these trends originate and emanate from developed economies. Singapore is, of course, also a developed economy, but we are very different from many of these other countries – some of which have natural resources or hinterlands that they can tap on. Singapore's sole resource is our human resource, upon which all our success has been built. As the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "You know the Singaporean. He is a hardworking, industrious, rugged individual; or we would not have made the grade." The quote, of course, continues to say that he is also a champion grumbler. But that it is fine if he has worked hard, then he has earned the right to grumble.
Therefore it falls to reason that if our workforce weakens, our competitiveness and attractiveness as an economy weakens and this threatens our continued ability to sustain our way of life. As such, we should be very careful when we look adopting some of these trends and we should determine their sustainability for Singapore and the consequences of implementing them in legislation and in policy.
Take for example, the right to disconnect legislation recently enacted in Australia. Amendments made to the Fair Work Act will allow workers to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact from their employer or a third-party outside of their working hours, without penalty. Let us look at the practical effect of this legislation.
First, there will always be some workers who decide to forego their rights and to remain connected. These are people who simply do not want to disconnect for various reasons. And among these people, we may be likely to find the future leaders of organisations, future entrepreneurs, inventors, young lawyers who aspire to become senior counsel, workers who want to go the extra mile to delight their customers, administrative service officers who want to get their promotions. There is simply no alternative to hard work, putting in the hours, putting in the steps. And being in a global city in a super-connected world, a contactable and responsive worker is invariably a more valuable worker.
Second, while the worker that refuses to be contacted would not be penalised, the worker that remains contactable may get a boost in his performance evaluation. He may be more likely to get the increment and the promotion because an organisation must reward those that are more valuable to it and that are more willing to do more than they have to.
Third, there may be tensions that arise because the worker who exercises his rights strictly may have expected that he would have had spots as the worker who forewent his rights, who would in turn expects that he does better precisely because he had put in more work than is expected.
The legislation in Australia gives the worker an actionable right to disconnect. So, this means more litigation, more labour discord on something that may ultimately not be easy to prove. Such legislation creates more questions, more tension that could be disproportionate to any good that could conceivably come out of it. I hope that such legislation does not come before this House.
We should be careful as to what trends and fads we decide to champion in this House. They may have severe consequences on the productivity and competitiveness of our workforce. Let us not forget how the Great Resignation came and went as fair as doomed.
There is a trend promoting an aversion towards material success, as if it was some form of scarlet letter, in favour of a more relaxed attitude to work. Being overly materialistic is, of course, not a good thing. But I hope that this does not trickle down to become an aversion to hard work, ambition or the pursuit of success because we have to face it that many successful people are motivated by material success, and that that pursuit of it may lead to the creation of successful companies and jobs and opportunities for Singapore.
So, let us encourage those who want to work hard and who want to work more, in pursuit of whatever their dreams are and let us avoid a culture against work from forming in Singapore.
On a related note, at the last Sitting, we had a lengthy and very important debate on mental health. I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister Wong has stated that mental health is a national priority and that there will be an expansion of mental health services. I am, however, troubled with some narratives that suggest that mental health and hard work are on polar opposites and that they are mutually exclusive. I have heard people say things like: "I'm not going to put too much effort into this job because I am prioritising my mental health". Yes, excessive work stress can lead to mental health issues. But I am sure that there are also many people who work very hard, who take on a lot on themselves professionally, who have difficult working hours – and who also have good mental health. I imagine that there are many Members in this House who would fall into this category.
We should therefore avoid giving paid to such narratives even as we tackle very real mental health concerns amongst our workers.
I am concerned that the Singapore worker may be becoming complacent in believing that our way of life is a given. Singapore is not invincible. In fact, as Deputy Prime Minister pointed out in his Budget speech, we cannot afford to become complacent. We are vulnerable – if we have slow growth similar to what we saw in the previous year, Deputy Prime Minister said, we would be in trouble, and we would not be able to improve our collective well-being, and our standard of living would be affected. So, we must constantly work at it and we must guard against trends and ideas that can negatively affect our competitiveness.
But at the same time, there is no point working hard to maintain the lead and then not enjoying it ourselves. So, we need to achieve that balance. We cannot just live well in vacuo. We should not just work hard. And it is not about working well either. It is about working hard and living well. This is the work culture we should seek to promote amongst Singaporeans.
So, perhaps we can aim for our workers to have it all – and to put that forward as the ideal for our Singapore workers. My vision of a Singapore worker is someone who works hard and tries to do his best at his job. He is proud of his professional achievements and confident that he has the skills to take on future roles and to compete with foreign talent. He is compensated adequately to have a good Singapore standard of living, including spending quality time with his family and pursuing his personal interests. He is physically and mentally healthy. This is a vision of a holistic Singapore worker – one who does his best to work hard and is able to live well.
In fact, I would like to encourage our workers to use this as a mantra and a hashtag online: #workhardlivewell. You do not have to fell "pai seh" posting about your leisurely pursuits or holidays with your family, or just having gotten or bought something nice for yourself. Why? Because you worked hard, you achieved it, and you deserve it. #workhardlivewell.
Sir, all this having been said, and moving on to my next point, there are yet workers amongst us who work hard but who do not live as well as they should, primarily because they do not earn enough, and also for some, because of longer working hours and working conditions. They are in what may be called the professions of the hands, that is, jobs that are manual in nature and that do not have a high academic criterion for entry. Many of these are in Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors like cleaning, retail, F&B, security and waste management. I declare at this juncture, Sir, my interest as the President of Security Association Singapore, a trade association in a PWM sector.
In the first instance, Sir, I think that we need to recognise that these jobs require that workers have certain skills. We must recognise and accept that these are skilled jobs. Last week, there was some online chatter about a SkillsFuture course on washing toilets, which is part of the mandatory training for workers in the cleaning industry. A post that was widely circulated commented that these skills could be learnt during National Service or at home. I think this misses the point. Just because one can grow a cactus on their office table does not make them an arborist or horticulturalist.
This course teaches workers on how to clean toilets on a commercial basis. And there are many things that go into it, from safety elements like putting up a sign outside the toilet while it is being washed and when to remove it, to the use of various types of cleaning equipment, and chemicals, some of which may be dangerous if not used properly. It goes into basic custodial checking and time management because these workers have to manage the cleanliness of several washrooms in a day. So, let us not ridicule the work that people do or the training that they undergo.
The second thing that we should recognise is that these are jobs that are physically demanding. I would challenge naysayers to wait tables at a restaurant. It is not easy. I have done it myself. You are on your feet throughout your shift, walking from tables to kitchen or to the bar, carrying food and drink that can be heavy. There is a public relations element to the job because you should be pleasant with patrons and there may be some amount of entertaining that you may have to do as well. It is not as simple as some may make it out to be.
Third, there are significant shortages in the manpower supply for these jobs. In the security industry there is an estimated shortage of between eight and 18,000 officers at any one time. The shortages become worse when there is a surge of demand for security officers during major events, like the Formula One (F1) Race. We therefore need to be able to attract more Singaporeans to enter these professions and to pay them well.
Fourth, these jobs are important jobs that have integral contribution to what Singapore is and what Singapore aspires to be. If we look at the trademark physical attributes that Singapore is famous for – clean, green and safe. All of these are managed by PWM sectors. We are a food paradise. We want to be a shopping destination. All PWM sectors. The workers in these sectors may not hold very high academic qualifications but they are doing their part in the Singapore miracle and it is not a small part, and they need to be recognised and rewarded accordingly.
I was very encouraged when I read Deputy Prime Minister Wong's speech at the IPS Singapore Perspectives Conference in January last year. Amongst other things, the Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies, instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said it is not just about re-shaping the labour market, but also about shifting perceptions about work.
I was further encouraged to see the Forward Singapore report include "respecting and rewarding every job" as one the objectives we would seek to achieve. It is important that we not only reward workers in these jobs, but that we also build respect for their professions, so that we can equalise how all jobs are viewed. The report also called for a further reduction of wage gaps across professions including through the PWMs.
In this Budget, there are also measures to bolster the PWMs through the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme as well as to support Institute of Education (ITE) graduates through the Progression Award. It is quite clearly a Government priority, which I applaud, to achieve a mindset change so that all jobs in Singapore are viewed as good jobs, and that the gap in the compensation for workers of different professions is made smaller.
The current PWMs look at closing the gap between lower-wage workers and the median income. I would like to call on the Government and the tripartite partners to go further so that we can achieve both the twin aims of reward and respectability. I ask that they consider setting as a long-term objective that the average wage of workers in each PWM sector rise to be on par with the average wage of fresh university graduates.
I make this suggestion because although the Forward Singapore report addresses the matter of increasing rewards, it does not touch much on how to improve respectability, aside from encouraging it through some form of moral-suasion. Pegging average wages of professions of the hands with that of academically-inclined fresh graduates could provide a more tangible indication that both these categories of jobs are equally worthy of respect and hopefully, trigger a cultural shift in how our society views these jobs.
I would also like to ask the Government and the tripartite partners to also accelerate the PWM wage increases so that our lower-wage workers can also live well and enjoy the fullness of the standard of living that Singapore should provide for its citizens. While the PWMs have achieved very significant wage increases that would have not occurred but for the PWMs, my view is that they need to go further.
We can look at, for example, the prescribed entry-level security officer wage in 2024, which is $2,650. For, say, a 40-year old officer, after deductions for CPF, he would take home about $2,120 – a sum that would go into supporting his family and himself. I am not going to go into the various calculations, that have been aired in this House before, of what is a minimum living wage in Singapore. But let us just be honest with ourselves and ask ourselves if $2,120 a month is this sufficient. Will such a wage entitle that security officer to live the life of a Singapore worker that I envisioned earlier? Will he enjoy the good Singapore standard of living? If we are honest with ourselves, I think we know that it would not be sufficient.
But the silver lining is that security officers will in fact see fairly rapid wage increases over the next four years. By 2028, an entry-level security officer will earn a minimum basic wage of $3,530 or more; security supervisors will earn $4,130 and senior security supervisors at least $4,430. I hope that the tripartite partners negotiating the security PWM beyond 2028 will consider my suggestion to peg the average wage of security officers across all the ranks with the average wage of fresh university graduates.
While my proposal may be seen as bold in the Singapore context, it is in fact a norm in many advanced economies. My research reveals that the average wages of cleaners, security officers and waste management personnel are not far from the average wage of a fresh university graduate in Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and Australia. In fact, the average wages of waste management personnel and security officers, in particular, tended to be higher than that of fresh university graduates.
So, it does appear that Singapore is somewhat of an anomaly amongst comparable advanced economies in the wages we pay our workers in these sectors.
Finally, Sir, I would also like to ask the Government to make further effort to persuade consumers to support wage increases by being prepared to pay more for the services that the PWM sectors provide. As Deputy Prime Minister Wong said at the IPS Conference, consumers must be willing to pay more for certain goods and services to uplift the wages of those who provide them.
I am on all fours with Deputy Prime Minister's observation that, and I quote, "We cannot demand for services delivered by our fellow citizens to be priced cheaply and in the same breath lament that their wages are too low. It is completely inconsistent."
But another observation is that the initial few PWM sectors were all in the facilities management sector and were servicing mainly private condominiums and commercial buildings. The buyers of these services actually can afford the increases in prices, but unfortunately, many of these buyers still retain the mentality that these services are manual services and therefore ought to be cheap. They have therefore been reluctant to increase prices in recognition of value and have largely continued to adopt a cheap-sourcing approach.
In this regard, I hope the Government will do more, in partnership with the respective trade associations and trade unions, to change buyers' mindsets.
Hence, Sir, to summarise. I hope that our workers will continue to have a mindset that is cognizant of our innate vulnerability. We have to put in effort in order to maintain our way of life. The corollary is that those who are working hard, including in professions of the hands, are able to get their just rewards. I hope that we will collectively be able to enjoy the Singapore standard of living, regardless of our professions and educational background. The reality of maintaining Singapore’s competitiveness and our prosperity is that, if we want to continue to live well, we must be prepared to work hard. And those who work hard should expect that they will get the rewards and respect that enable them to live well. Sir, I support the Budget .
Mr Speaker : Mr Louis Chua.
1.16 pm
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang) : Mr Speaker, as I have shared in my Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill speech on Budget Day itself, FY2023 did turn out to be another year of record tax collections, after significant increases in IRAS’ tax collections over the last two years, a jump of around 38% to $68 billion in FY2022.
Overall operating revenues increased by $13.3 billion in FY2023 compared to a year ago to $104.3 billion, and this is also $7.6 billion higher than projected operating revenues first revealed in Budget 2023 last year. What is noteworthy is that this is not solely on the back of volatile revenues such as stamp duties or vehicle quota premiums, but on the back of record levels of corporate income tax, personal income tax and of course, GST revenues, all of which continued to break new record highs. What was most impressive was the 23% jump in corporate income taxes in FY2023, even after a sharp jump of 27% the year before, with corporate income taxes set to be sustained at record high levels of around $28 billion. This was not surprising, given news of record profits from some of the larger Singapore corporates, from DBS Bank to Sembcorp Industries.
Positive revisions to FY2022 data also meant that instead of a revised deficit of $4.2 billion, FY2022 saw a surplus of $1.7 billion instead. While the overall fiscal position for FY2023 is still projected to be in deficit, this was largely due to an increase in special transfers, chief of which is the recent inclusion of the $7.5 billion Majulah Package Fund, without which FY2023 would have seen a $3.9 billion surplus instead.
It is important to put into context the record operating revenues and improved fiscal position of the Government against the challenging economic environment that we faced in 2023. GDP growth slowed to a mere 1.1%, while inflation was a source of consternation for many Singaporeans, which was what led the WP to raise the cost-of-living Motion in Parliament late last year, to share ideas and possibilities of reducing cost of living pressures by way of policy change, many of which are structural.
In line with the theme of providing constructive feedback and ideas, I have two revenue measures for the Government to look into, after studying the revenue and expenditure trends over the past years. This would be in addition to revenue raising moves that my colleagues and I have shared in past Budget debates, such as the issue of wealth taxes which I have raised previously, where even though we may have raised the highest personal income tax bracket and property taxes, the likes of wealthy individuals earning dividends and capital gains income from their vast wealth while renting luxury apartments in Singapore will still not be taxed directly.
Firstly, looking at revenue collections as a percentage of GDP from FY2018 to FY2024 in Table 3.2b, over the years, customs and excise taxes is one of few categories which has seen a decrease in contribution as percentage of GDP over the years, despite higher tobacco excise duties from last year and the inclusion of carbon taxes in this category. In line with the spirit of wealth taxes, there is room to study the potential to have liquors being taxed on an ad valorem basis, in light of our suggestion of raising so-called “sin taxes”. This need not result in any increase in duties on everyday alcoholic beverages, but it would be much more equitable if the so-called “atas” wines of the world, which easily cost thousands of dollars a bottle, incur a higher excise duty compared to the $20 a bottle wine found in the supermarket.
Second, I note that casino taxes were raised in 2022. In spite of this, betting taxes as a percentage of GDP have been flat in past years at around 0.5%. Given that gambling duties have been unchanged since 2014, there is room to look into raising the relevant gambling duties, which could also serve a deterrent function.
Moving on to the main body of my speech today, I will touch on the importance of structural changes compared to one-off handouts, where I will highlight the need for structural improvements to personal income taxes and corporate income taxes to better support individuals and businesses while keeping our tax system progressive and up to date, and also touch on the urgent and important topic of retirement adequacy.
Conceptually, I believe that: one, it is important to put in place structural levers in our system as opposed to relying on one-off schemes, which may either be new or have to be refreshed year after year, incurring a lot of administrative costs and resources to operate on the part of the Civil Service, and creating much uncertainty on the part of Singaporeans; two, it is also important to direct our resources to those who need them the most, rather than broad-based handouts to everyone, which could lead to allegations of Budget measures being part of an "Election Budget."
Take the CDC Voucher scheme, for example. While I am sure all Singaporeans appreciate cash handouts amid the cost-of-living crisis, the CDC Voucher scheme evolved from one aimed at helping Singaporean lower-income households defray their cost of living in 2020 to one where all Singaporean households are eligible. The amounts given have also varied quite significantly over the years, and it remains a question whether the scheme will be a permanent one, or if so, whether all households will continue to qualify and just how much are the vouchers going to be worth.
Moreover, as opposed to the existing GST Voucher scheme, there appears to be many operational challenges faced by Singaporeans when trying to claim the CDC Vouchers, such as those who are renting their flats and sharing the same address with other households, those living in shelters and also those who no doubt may belong to the same household but are facing difficult familial relationships.
On personal income taxes, I note a tax rebate worth 50% of tax payable, or up to $200 was introduced in YA2024, similar to YA2019. However, instead of a one-off rebate, we are better off raising the bottom-end of marginal resident personal income tax rates and increasing the tax-free threshold for the first $20,000 of chargeable income to reflect inflation over time. This was what I raised in a Parliamentary Question back in 2022.
Similarly, on corporate income tax (CIT), a CIT rebate of 50% of the corporate tax payable will be granted to all taxpaying companies, whether tax resident or not, for YA 2024. In my speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2021, I suggested raising the level of progressivity in our corporate income tax regime to better support our local SMEs.
Even as other support for companies to build capabilities is being strengthened, I hope the Government would consider providing greater tax relief to our SMEs, such as by raising the tax exemption limits or by introducing schemes similar to the two-tiered profits tax rate regime in Hong Kong, which they introduced in 2018 to relieve the tax burden for SMEs in particular.
This is important given that in Budget 2018, the Government announced tighter restrictions around our tax exemption schemes. For an SME making $300,000 in chargeable income for example, total corporate income tax paid before any rebates would be close to $34,000 or an effective tax rate of 11.2%, compared to around $25,000 or an effective tax rate of 8.4% based on prior rules.
Having such corporate income tax reforms built into the tax regime would also provide for greater certainty, as opposed to the current CIT rebates which significantly vary year after year from 20% to 50% in terms of the rebate, to a cap of $10,000 to $40,000 in the last decade from YA2013 to YA2024.
It is critical to ensure that we continually re-invest in our local SMEs, the backbone of our economy representing 99% of all enterprises here and responsible for the jobs of 71% of employees, to enable Singapore to stay competitive in a post-BEPS world. Otherwise, we could well see a reduction in our tax base and employment levels, should our local SMEs shift more of their activities to other jurisdictions in response to the new business environment.
Touching on the topic of BEPS2.0, which I have also spoken about in past Budget debates, the time for introducing adjustments to our tax system is finally before us. Deputy Prime Minister Wong has also announced the introduction of two components of Pillar 2, the Income Inclusion Rule and the Domestic Top-up Tax.
As I have asked last year, while precise numbers may not be feasible, does MOF not have a range of blue sky and grey sky projections as to the impact of the implementation of a domestic top-up tax? Especially when we are looking at the Income Inclusion Rule and the Domestic Top-up Tax taking effect in less than a year’s time, for businesses’ financial years starting on or after 1 January 2025?
To put into context my question, the OECD has published a working paper earlier this year, which finds that the global minimum tax “can raise between US$155 to US$192 billion of additional CIT revenues per year, with revenue gains accruing to all jurisdiction groups”. Moreover, estimated participating countries categorised as “investment hubs,” which includes Singapore, would have the largest expected gains from the reforms, with corporate income tax revenues rising from 14% minimum to up to 34%. If this is factually incorrect, given that the MOF will have a better basis to make its own estimates, then I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can correct this in his round-up speech.
Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister shared in his Budget speech that he does not expect the new moves to generate “net revenue gains,” due to the “significant spending required to stay competitive.” To say so is just akin to saying any forms of tax rate increases, from personal income tax, stamp duties to the GST, is not going to generate net revenue gains due to higher spending needs.
I understand that this could be due to the introduction of Refundable Investment Credits and the net effect of BEPS 2.0 and the Refundable Investment Credit is to an extent also dependent on just how generous the EDB and ESG are in awarding these Refundable Investment Credits to companies.
I agree that only time can tell when it comes to the actual revenue gains, as we await the roll-out of Pillar 2 globally, but it would be a sad day if countries go against the spirit of the reforms in the first place.
The BEPS 2.0 reforms were introduced to stop the race to the bottom when it comes to sovereign tax policies, and to facilitate international collaboration to end tax avoidance. Let me repeat that the OECD has shared that with the two-pillar solution, all economies will benefit from extra tax revenues – all economies. I hope the additional tax revenues from BEPS 2.0 will not simply be in substance returned to MNEs through other forms.
Finally, let me touch on a topic which is close to my heart – and that is retirement adequacy. It is also a pressing issue which requires urgent and decisive action, given our rapidly ageing society. While there are several good moves to improve retirement adequacy, like raising the ERS and enhancing the Silver Support Scheme and MRSS, I am concerned about the closing of the CPF SA after the age of 55, and the lack of longer-term measures to help Singaporeans grow our retirement nest egg sustainably.
In itself, I do not have qualms about the closing of the SA. However, this is a step backwards when it comes to ensuring the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, and much needs to be done to truly strengthen retirement adequacy for the seniors today and tomorrow.
When the compulsory annuity scheme CPF LIFE was introduced, the SA continued to provide flexibility to CPF holders to access or “touch” their retirement savings, while providing a decent interest rate floor of 4%.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong said in his Budget speech, “The remaining SA savings will be transferred to the Ordinary Account (OA). Of course, members can voluntarily transfer their OA savings to the Retirement Account (RA) at any time, up to the revised ERS, to earn higher interest and to receive higher retirement payouts.” Is this the full picture, though?
Singaporeans will know that funds in the RA will be used to pay the premiums for their CPF LIFE plan, meaning to say we can no longer withdraw the funds as we wish. It is also true that from the age of 55 to, say, the payout age of 65, these RA funds continue to earn the same interest rate floor of 4% as with the SA. So far, so good. But unbeknownst to many, from the moment payouts commence, any interest earned will not accrue to the CPF holder, but it is pooled together under CPF LIFE for all members.
An FAQ by the CPF Board says it best, that interest earned on CPF LIFE premium is not included as part of the amount paid to beneficiaries when one passes away. I understand that this is the concept behind annuity schemes to enable members to get lifetime payouts. But it also means that even though the stated interest rate of the SA and the RA is identical, the actual yield that is earned by the two accounts could not be more different. And that based on the latest average life expectancy of Singaporeans, it is unlikely that the effective yield for RA savings will exceed that of funds that would have been in the CPF SA.
Moreover, whenever I raise the issue of CPF interest rates in Parliament, the response by various political officeholders has been to stress the attractiveness of prevailing risk-free interest rate floors of 2.5% for the OA and 4% for the Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts (SMRA) over the past two decades of protracted low interest rate environment. The closure of the SA from age 55 takes the shine out of such counter-arguments, in my view.
As Deputy Prime Minister Wong reminded us, we are facing a change in environment from very low interest rates to a more normalised period where interest rates will be higher for longer and the era of easy money is over. It is in the context of this sea change that we should look at CPF interest rates going forward. How then should we allow the laws of mathematics and compounding to work for our seniors’ retirement funds?
I continue to stick by what I spoke about in the Reserves Motion earlier this month, and that is to enable all Singaporeans, not just our reserves, to directly participate in the long-term returns from the Government's fund manager, GIC, with adequate safeguards in place. This is especially pertinent when we consider the source of funds for the GIC in the first place, a part of which is indirectly derived from CPF savings via the Singapore Savings Bonds (SSGS bonds).
As I have shared, based on the 20-year nominal returns of the GIC portfolio of 6.9% and the CPF-OA rate of 2.5%, based on a simple rule of 72, the number of years it takes for our CPF monies to double goes from about 10 years based on GIC’s returns, to 29 years based on the prevailing OA rate. The effects on our ability to save for our own retirement is tremendous.
I listened to Minister Indranee Rajah's explanation that in 2014, then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman explained in Parliament at great length how we set our CPF interest rates and manage CPF proceeds. I went to do a bit of research on this into the Hansard and realised I was far from being the first to bring this up. Then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's explanation was in response to PAP Member of Parliament Mr Inderjit Singh, who also questioned whether our 2.5% interest rate paid out to the CPF OA is fair compensation for Singaporeans who have left their savings locked up for so long.
In fact, if I go back further in time, many MPs from the PAP, WP, NMPs, have all suggested allowing regular Singaporeans access to better investment returns from the Government's investment entities like the GIC. PAP MP, Dr Lily Neo, called on the CPF Board to work with GIC, and perhaps peg the interest rates at two percentage points below GIC's returns. NMP Mr Siew Kum Hong quoted an academic paper which stated that: "To the extent that the GIC's return on investments has been higher than the return actually credited to CPF members, a recurrent, highly regressive, largely implicit tax on the CPF wealth has been borne by CPF members." PAP MPs Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Sim Boon Ann called on the Government to share with CPF members surpluses it makes on CPF monies. And Mr Ong even said, "I cannot understand how the Government can say it will not be responsible for providing for my retirement, but I must lend the Government my retirement savings for investments and any gains earned on my money is not my money." Finally, Ms Sylvia Lim from the WP also called on the Government to do more to boost CPF returns while managing the risks, especially after the 2002 Economic Review Committee's recommendations to do so via private pension plans.
These are all words of wisdom by those who came before me, and two decades on, continue to resonate so deeply with me. How many more Singaporeans today could have met their retirement sums, compared to the four in 10, five in 10 today, had we implemented these suggestions back then?
If for some reason the Government is still adamant that we are unwilling or unable to allow Singaporeans to share in the fund management expertise and returns of the GIC, then the least we can do is to urgently implement the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LIRS), something which I have been repeating in each of the last three years so that we can better support Singaporeans' retirement needs.
Let us remember that eight years ago, in 2016, then Minister for Manpower Mr Lim Swee Say, had then on behalf of the Government, accepted the recommendations within part two of the CPF Advisory Panel's report, which included the introduction of the LIRS as an additional investment scheme. To quote then Minister Lim: "These additional options will help address the concerns some Singaporeans may have with regard to the rising cost of living in retirement and the desire for higher expected investment returns for those who had to take on some investment risk."
One of our fellow MPs today, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, was a part of the CPF Advisory Panel too, where Chairman Prof Tan Chor Chuan articulated the limitations of the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) and put it so aptly, that "the Panel believes that there is a need to provide an additional investment avenue that can better help such CPF members earn higher expected returns than the CPF interest rates in a simpler way than CPFIS."
The big question I have is, when will the Government finally be ready to roll this out? Is it still prepared to do so? I hope the Government is cognisant that the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Government providing for one off goodies and handouts to Singaporeans and Singapore companies, on the back of yet another record high operating revenues, which were $13 billion higher compared to a year ago. However, it is important that we put in place structural levers in our system as opposed to relying on one-off schemes and I have suggested changes to our personal and corporate income tax systems to illustrate this point. And finally, we are all aligned with the urgent need to strengthen Singaporeans' retirement adequacy, so let us not shut Singaporeans out of attractive, sustainable and practical solutions to boost our retirement funds.
Mr Speaker : Mr Darryl David.
1.34 pm
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio) : Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a budget that is set against major global uncertainties. Singapore continues to remain vulnerable to macro forces that are beyond our control and influence. While we continue to keep an eye on global developments with trepidation, I am glad that this year’s Budget has reflected the Government’s commitment to the Forward Singapore movement by introducing specific and targeted support to areas of concerns highlighted by Singaporeans.
Sir, I will be focusing my speech on three main areas: (a) how the Government could refine the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) scheme for Singaporeans below 55; (b) SkillsFuture and Continuing Education and Training (CET); and (c) how the Ministry of Education (MOE) could enhance the personal learning device (PLD) scheme to cover more students, specifically those in primary school.
First, supporting “young seniors” and enhancing ABSD. I am particularly glad that the Government is providing additional support to seniors on ageing, healthcare and retirement during such times of uncertainty and rising cost. This is an assurance to seniors, including young seniors like myself, that the Government will provide older Singaporeans a social safety net during their silver years, particularly when senior Singaporeans are facing the twin challenges of ailing health and reduced incomes.
Many Singaporeans aspire to own a private property because in some ways, it is an investment with high potential returns that could be unlocked during their silver years. I am glad that the Government now allows senior single Singaporeans above the age of 55 years old to claim for a refund of the ABSD on a second private property when they are downsizing. I had asked a Parliamentary Question on this topic in July 2023 and I am grateful to the Government for responding with this policy change.
This would give senior single Singaporeans more flexibility to unlock the value of their initial larger properties, or more valuable properties during the later years of their lives, without having to bear the financial burden of ABSD, which under the previous policy would have reduced their retirement nest egg by a significant amount.
I believe that this this is an important policy change, assuming that single Singaporeans are unlikely to have the same level of economic support that married senior Singaporeans with children would have. Allowing a refund on their ABSD would help them to better meet their retirement needs.
In the same vein, I would like to ask if the Government would consider extending the same ABSD refund scheme to younger single Singaporeans who are buying a smaller second private property to stay in, if they sell their first property within six months of acquiring their second private property. I believe this policy will give younger single Singaporeans more flexibility in their housing options if they wish to unlock the value of their private properties, especially to meet unexpected financial needs.
The refund policy for younger single Singaporean could be scoped more tightly than that for senior single Singaporeans to prevent abuse and profiteering. For example, the younger single Singaporeans must hold their first property for a specific number of years before they are entitled to the ABSD refund on their second smaller property and, perhaps, such refunds can only be claimed once or a maximum of twice in their lifetime.
My next topic will focus on SkillsFuture and continuous education training (CET). Apart from supporting senior Singaporeans with their ageing, healthcare and retirement needs, I am heartened to learn that the Government is also putting increased emphasis on our middle-aged Singaporeans with the SkillsFuture Level-up Programme. In particular, I welcome the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up and the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy for another publicly funded full-time diploma programme.
Sir, with the shelf life of skills declining rapidly, it is paramount that the skills that Singaporeans have can keep up with rapidly evolving industry needs. Having once spent many years working in Temasek Polytechnic, I am confident that our polytechnics and IHLs are equipped to design and develop CET courses that can help upskill our mid-career Singaporeans.
That said, with industry needs evolving at such a rapid pace, our educators at the polytechnics and IHLs might not be fully equipped with the latest industry knowhows and insights to design and conduct courses that meet industry demand entirely. At present, there are very few courses offered at polytechnics and IHLs that are co-developed, co-taught and co-certified with industry partners.
I would like to urge MOE to consider how we can incentivise our polytechnics and IHLs to work more closely with the industries to conduct co-certified Pre-employment Training (PET) and CET courses. Co-taught and co-certified CETs are especially important for mid-career Singaporeans in equipping them with the latest knowledge that can positively impact their career. After all, having attended a co-certified programme with a leading industry player sends a strong signal to employers that their employees have learned from the best in the industry, not just from the staff at the polytechnics.
On the same note, I strongly urge our polytechnics to co-create new diploma courses with industry partners to take advantage of the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy. Rather than have mid-career Singaporeans join an existing diploma programme with PET students, specific industry-oriented programmes with different teaching methods, pedagogies and learning outcomes should be created for them.
It is important for us to recognise that adult learners have very different learning needs and learning styles from teenagers or younger adults. Putting adult learners on the same diploma programmes is unlikely to help them to acquire the skills needed for a career switch or career step-up, since both groups of learners have very different levels of industry experience and cognition. Similar to how the teaching methods and teaching styles must differ between in a Masters programme and an undergraduate programme, for example, the diploma programme for mid-career Singaporeans must be designed and taught differently as well.
I would also urge the Government to extend the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy to part-time diploma courses as well, not just full-time ones. I believe this would encourage more mid-career Singaporeans to take up such courses since they can still be employed full-time while undergoing upskilling and retraining.
Sir, my final area will focus on Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) for primary school students. Almost four years ago, in June 2020, I made a speech that urged MOE to consider extending the provision of PLDs to all students in Singapore, particularly those in primary school. While MOE committed to providing PLDs to all secondary students by end-2021 to be used in tandem with the national e-learning platform Student-Learning-Space (SLS), would MOE now not also consider providing PLDs to children in primary schools as well?
I think it is timely for MOE to consider providing PLDs to our students in the primary schools given how the education technology landscape has changed significantly in the past four years.
With the procurement framework of PLDs for secondary schools in place, it is now a matter of extending the same procurement framework and financial support schemes to students in our primary schools as well.
To reiterate some of the arguments that I have previously made: the ownership of PLDs for all levels of learners in Singapore is a bold and ambitious step in realising Singapore’s ambition to embrace smart learning. Such a device will enable students from across all levels of education to learn everywhere and anywhere and is the textbook of the future where all forms of education and submissions can be made on a single unified platform.
Introducing the ownership of PLDs at an early age would help induct our students, our younger students, to the notion of self-directed e-learning, encouraging them to take ownership of their own learning pace and performance at a younger age. This undoubtedly, will have a knock-on effect when they are older, especially when e-learning and continuous learning on-the-go become second nature to them.
Mr Speaker, this year’s Budget has continued the trajectory of the previous Budgets, with the Government providing targeted support to assist specific groups of Singaporeans, especially to navigate this uncertain space, this uncertain world that we are facing. While a significant portion of the Budget is focused on providing near term support to cope with the cost of living in the form of CDC Vouchers, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC), U-Save and income tax rebates, the Budget is also forward looking in providing support for seniors and mid-career Singaporeans.
With Singapore due to become a super-aged society by 2030, ageing in dignity is one of the foremost concerns for many Singaporeans. I am heartened to know that the Government is taking active steps to address this concern early through the Forward Singapore movement and the following policies that it is rolling out.
I hope the Government can accelerate the pace in which support programmes for seniors are being rolled out and to consider how to better cater to the needs of this group of Singaporeans who have contributed tremendously in early years to Singapore. Beyond providing top-ups to Medisave and direct financial support through the Silver Support Scheme, I also hope that the Government can also work towards building robust localised ecosystems that allow our seniors to age with dignity. With that, Sir, I end my speech in firm support of the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Mr Henry Kwek.
1.44 pm
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget. Today, I would like to speak about two things: how to help our people thrive in their jobs; and how to support our seniors to age with purpose and dignity. I will also speak briefly about the cost of living.
We spoke about unemployment support in this House for years. Based on my conversations with my residents in Kebun Baru, it is not yet a top-of-mind concern for them. To give some context, four in 10 of my residents live in private estate homes. Why? Because the residents trust that the Government will support them if things get tough, as during COVID-19. I also want to point out that major insurance companies do sell unemployment insurance, but the take-up is not high.
But conceptually, I believe Singaporeans, including myself, are open it to if it is properly designed, as the world and the job market are changing at breathtaking speed. Two weeks ago, OpenAI stunned the world with their text-to-video capability, Sora. Sora was able to generate life-like one-minute videos from text prompting, where everything in the video obeyed the law of physics! Imagine that! Being able to ensure that every interaction in the animation abides by physics. This has some veteran Hollywood producers suggesting that in three to five years, generative AI can do the bulk of small screen television series production.
Great possibilities. But what happens to creative professionals globally, including in Singapore? The same story can be replicated across many industries, many countries.
We need to be prepared. We want our people to lead in this new wave of change. Most people do agree with the central idea, but yet, there are also many questions. Who will pay for it? Do we buy an insurance. Can we opt out? If the Government pays for it, how much tax do we all have to pay? Will they get abused? What will happen to personal responsibility?
To address this concern, we should be clear on what we want and what we do not want. Of course, we want our people to be confident in the face of change. We must focus on the central issue, which is an unanticipated cash flow challenge that most people face when they lose their jobs. We want this kind of support to be different from those who fall below the poverty thresholds.
Right now, we support Singaporeans only when they have exhausted their wealth and their familial support. But moving forward, when Singaporeans lose their jobs, we want them to focus on reskilling and upskilling by providing them with some financial peace of mind. Unemployment support should not only come when their savings have been wiped out.
Now, what we do not want? We do not want abuses or the shirking of personal responsibility. We do not want our people to make uninformed career reskilling decisions.
Factoring in the views of my residents, I propose a multi-tier approach towards unemployment support that balances three critical pillars of social support: one, a strong sense of personal responsibility; two, efficient risk-pooling through insurance; three, sufficient Government support, which is largely, let us not forget, largely funded by our taxes.
Let me first speak on efficient risk-pooling through insurance. I hope we can see a basic and not gold-plated unemployment payout for several months with an upper limit on one's lifetime, funded by unemployment insurance and, hopefully, we can pay for this insurance through the CPF.
Some of my residents also want the freedom to opt out. Of course, we have to think through this carefully. It will be easier to persuade people to join in in this insurance if the premium is affordable.
Two, we must preserve a strong sense of personal responsibility. As the cost of living differs widely, we should give our people a choice in how to manage their lifestyle in the event of a major cash flow disruption. To do so, we can offer them these options: fully or partially freezing housing loans and majority of healthcare, insurance premiums, taxes and fees, for a limited time to help with their cash flow, providing Government transfers, such as GST rebates ahead of schedule, that means, they can take their subsidies and transfers ahead of other Singaporeans and allowing them to borrow against their own CPF monies for those Singaporeans with healthy CPF balances already. The Government can also work with financial advisory associations to provide affected people with free financial advisory.
The third point is to provide sufficient Government support which is largely funded by tax. I hope the Government can offset some of the cost of the insurance and get things started. If there are specific industries or large companies that are going through a major downsizing, I hope the Government can step up to top up the monthly assistance, perhaps through a larger or longer payout, because when there is a large number of people exiting one industry, not everybody can quickly move into another industry.
In short, in implementing unemployment support, Singapore, we, must find our own way forward. We must do so by ensuring personal responsibility, risk pooling among our people, and Government support complement and not undermine one another.
To ensure support, I also hope we can actively consult the silent majority before rolling this out and move carefully, start with a modest programme and review that over time, because if we are to fund this programme through a further tax increase, there might be some fatigue amongst our taxpayers.
Let me switch now to Skillsfuture. There is broad support amongst people for the enhancement of Skillsfuture. Singaporeans are deeply appreciative of the monthly support for adult Singaporeans to go back to school full-time. This is something that Members of this House, including myself, have advocated over the years. It fills a critical gap in our efforts to upskill and reskill our people. Of course, our Government must also do our level best to ensure that the skills training in most industries is relevant and useful.
Now, let me move to my second topic, caring for our seniors. On behalf of PAP Seniors Group, I would like to thank the Government for delivering an A-plus Budget for seniors and for taking onboard many of the suggestions from PAP SG MPs.
I am also heartened that the Government is moving decisively on issues that I have spoken about over the years: seniors' CPF contribution rates, making our estates more senior-friendly and encouraging home-care services. Now, we must quickly implement these services as we are facing a silver tsunami. In addition, I hope the Government can consider the following.
First, quickly scaling up Age Well SG's caregiving home-care sandbox. The idea is straightforward. I hope the Government can support not just foreign manpower quota but also set aside spaces in HDB estates, so that the professional caregivers can be sited there comfortably, respond to our seniors quickly, without incurring too much transportation cost.
Second, even as we level up our Active Ageing Centres (AACs), I hope the Government can consider funding senior-related services in trusted nodes where our seniors gather, such as places of worship: mosques, churches and temples.
Third, to ensure that our nation's ecosystem of senior-related services always has a focus on serving our private estate residents as well. Our private estate seniors have caregiving and emotional support needs, even though they are better off financially. But through them, we can also get a preview of the needs of future Singaporean seniors.
Before I end my speech, I would like to speak briefly about cost of living.
First of all, I hope to see the Government provide more cost-of-living offsets in the next Budget, not just in this, especially to help our seniors and families, including those who are asset-rich and cash-poor, especially retirees living in the private estates.
I also hope that the Government can actively identify supply-side solutions and fixes, which can bring down the cost of doing business and, therefore, the cost of living. Let me give Members a few examples.
One, to reduce the manpower shortage, can we allow our companies to hire more foreigners, at a reasonable levy, in exchange for them creating even more flexible work arrangement opportunities, which will benefit our seniors, stay-at-home mums and caregivers? Can we increase the number of purpose-built dormitories and, in the meantime, allow for more onsite dormitories to ensure that our foreign manpower housing cost is manageable?
Also, once we implement the special economic zone with Johor, can we improve the connectivity of our more manpower-intensive operations and industries with our immigration facilities, so we can tap on more manpower from Johor to come over to work and go back to Johor daily?
Can we further re-energise our pro-enterprise panel to identify areas of red tape that cost the private sector time and money, so that we can reduce the cost of transacting with the Government?
Lastly, I hope the Government and my fellow Members in the Chambers can think through the cost-of-living implications when we pass new laws, regulations or ask for more enforcements. For many of us in business, we instinctively know that a higher quality or service level usually means higher cost. It is true for many governments, too.
Enforcement fairness costs money, too. Let me give an example using the upcoming rental fairness framework.
Yes, the law is more precise but it is also more complicated. Moving forward, most landlords will need lawyers to do contracting rather than let agents and landlords handle the drafting of lease as it is now. Moving forward, every time there is a change in the areas being surveyed, the landlords will need to hire a surveyor. These will cost landlords at least a few thousand dollars. What does it mean? Yes, it is harder for errant landlords to disadvantage the tenants, but all consumers will have to pay for the higher cost-of-living associated with higher rents.
Finally, I hope we can have a real conversation within our Chamber on how the issues we debate on and the solutions we propose have contributed to the higher cost of living, higher taxation or lower Government efficiency. I hope we can all be more measured when we call for more rules, additional studies and Parliamentary Questions, if it is only because we want to be seen conveying moral outrage after a tragedy or to signal virtue to a more particularly vocal part of our electorate.
I am fully aware that we speak up in Parliament to voice the views of our people. But let us remember that there is a real cost to society, through higher cost of living that the silent majority must bear when we pile on excessive regulations and enforcement.
In fact, I hope that when we speak about laws in Parliament in the future, we can speak clearly of the regulatory and enforcement cost imposed on society, businesses and our people. With that, I stand in strong support of the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Mr Leong Mun Wai.
1.56 pm
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a big Budget because the Government had a bumper year in 2023. Operating revenue in 2023 was larger than the original estimate by $8 billion because of the tax increases announced in 2022, high inflation and high property prices. This $8 billion excess revenue, together with the $23.5 billion Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) for 2024, contributed to surplus Budget resources of more than $30 billion to be allocated in this Budget.
As a result, the Government was able to make a record capital transfer of more than $30 billion to top up existing endowment and trust funds and create some new ones. Because of this, Budget 2024 will give some benefits to almost every Singaporean.
However, the monies in the endowment and trust funds will fund social spending over many years into the future and only a small amount will be spent this year. PSP has explained the workings of the endowment and trust funds during the Public Finance Motion three weeks ago and why capital transfers to these funds should not be considered as current-year spending.
Hence, Budget 2024 falls short on immediate spending in the current year. While we welcome the $1.9 billion Assurance Package and the effective reduction of the owner-occupier residential property tax increase announced in 2022 by the revision of the annual value bands of the properties, these supports are hardly enough for cash-strapped Singaporeans to cope with the current cost of living crisis.
The Government has also decided to close the SA for CPF members above 55 years old. This will impact the retirement plans of many Singaporeans who can no longer enjoy a higher CPF interest rate and withdrawal flexibility of their CPF funds at the same time. Can the Government tell us how much interest it is paying these SAs currently and how much will it save in interest payments?
On the other hand, we are pleased to note that Budget 2024 has addressed some of the issues that have been regularly raised by PSP in this House.
Firstly, the Government will now provide a Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) (Open Market) Voucher for one year, to support eligible families in renting HDB flats on the open market while waiting for their BTO flats. This will be a great help to young Singaporeans looking to form their own families and PSP strongly supports it.
Since Budget 2021, we have pointed out that the long waiting times to get a BTO flat is among one of the major factors pulling down our total fertility rate. As it is not possible to ramp up the BTO supply fast enough, PSP has always urged the Government to increase the number of rental flats and improve the quality of rental flats to enable young Singaporean couples to get a place to stay while waiting for their BTO flats.
While we support the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher, we are concerned that this scheme may negatively impact other groups of Singaporean tenants who are not eligible for PPHS. We urge the Government to go further to establish rental flats as a viable housing option going forward. During the COS debates, I will explain why the PSP’s Millennial Apartments Scheme is a superior and more all-rounded policy compared to providing vouchers under PPHS.
Secondly, the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) for full-time workers will be raised from $1,400 to $1,600 from this year. We recognise this increase in LQS as a step closer to the Minimum Living Wage concept that PSP has proposed.
PSP has long advocated for a Minimum Living Wage of $2,200 per month for all Singaporean workers, which translates into a take-home pay of $1,800 per month. While we support the increase in the LQS, we are mindful of its negative impact on SMEs which need Singaporean headcount in order to employ foreign workers. We hope the Government will introduce complementary measures to minimise the impact of the LQS increase on the business viability of our SMEs, which are operating in a rising high-cost environment.
Thirdly, a new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will be introduced to support mid-career workers with a $4,000 credit. My colleague, Ms Hazel Poa has already affirmed our support for it. It is good that the Government has now tied SkillsFuture training programmes to better employability outcomes. PSP has long argued that the SkillsFuture programme, which costs about a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money a year, has contributed little to the employability of Singaporean workers.
Much more still needs to be done to ensure Singaporeans have a larger share of good well-paying jobs. To that end, we would also suggest a level-up for the Skills Development Fund so as to co-opt employers into the process, thereby ensuring that the training undertaken by workers are relevant to raising productivity in their current jobs.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 has continued with the traditional "handout approach" by the Government. The handout approach is characterised by the existence of around 60 support schemes and services, each offering short-term handouts for a targeted segment of Singaporeans. It is not uncommon, however, that multiple schemes are applied to solve one particular socio-economic problem for one recipient, which often, and very understandably so, makes it very confusing to the recipient.
For example, during Budget 2022, the Minister for Manpower presented an example of a low-income 65-year-old landscape worker who enjoyed a total income of $27,570 a year. While this figure works out to be about the same as the Minimum Living Wage that PSP has proposed, the total income was not paid from one source, but consisted of a base income of $17,400, presumably paid by the employer, and $10,170 paid by the government through seven different schemes, namely the Special Employment Credit, the Annual Progressive Wage Model Bonus, the Workfare Income Supplement, the Workfare Special Payment, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies, the Care and Support Package and the U-Save and GST Vouchers. Hence, seven schemes were applied to achieve the one socio-economic objective of ensuring that the worker had more to cope with the cost of living.
Furthermore, such a system may contribute to lower self-esteem among lower-income workers because their basic pay is still very low and there are little incentives in the schemes to motivate them to improve themselves.
The handout approach also comes with a high administrative cost because needy Singaporeans usually need external help to navigate through the maze of eligibility rules to qualify for a particular support. For example, to deliver welfare benefits to a Singaporean, very often the Social Service Office (SSO), the People’s Association, the Silver Generation Office and many other private charity groups are involved at the same time.
Slightly more than half of the 60 schemes also require applications. Many needy Singaporeans are already struggling. They may not have the time or energy to pay attention to what schemes they qualify for, even if these schemes can help them. They also lack the English language proficiency to understand these rules.
Hence, despite the good intentions of the Government, the complexity of the handout approach means that many needy Singaporeans may not enjoy the benefits of the many schemes. Some of them may also not get the help they need fast enough, and this can be especially troubling when urgent help is required.
PSP is a strong advocate for more support for Singaporeans, but the taxpayer’s money spent must motivate Singaporeans to strive for higher goals and not breed dependency in handouts.
The PAP under the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew always sought to avoid breeding dependency. In contrast, the PAP Government of today is relying on a patchwork scheme of vouchers, rebates and top-ups that lower-income Singaporeans are increasingly dependent on, instead of pursuing systemic economic reforms such as reducing rent-seeking in the property market, strengthening labour protections, or introducing a Minimum Living Wage. Is this system dragging Singaporeans into a social trap rather than providing a social trampoline that allows Singaporeans to bounce back?
This may be the reason why although the PAP Government has increased social spending very significantly since about 2011, it did not seem to have improved the financial well-being of Singaporeans proportionately.
The main weakness of the handout system developed by the PAP Government, is that it does not empower the individual.
The objective of empowerment is to give the individual the means to take initiative to better his or her own life. PSP believes this begins with providing the individual with a minimum level of support and then incentivising him or her with attainable goals.
Once the individual has reached these goals, he or she will be motivated to strive for more. This whole process requires a "permanent scheme" approach and not a handout approach.
PSP’s permanent scheme approach will streamline and consolidate the Government’s 60 over schemes into a few permanent, national schemes which are easy to understand, provides a minimum level of support and an incentive mechanism for Singaporeans to work towards bettering themselves.
I have been advocating this permanent scheme approach since my first Budget debate in 2021, but my proposals were completely ignored by this Government. I shall repeat three of those that I have recommended repeatedly.
First and foremost, I have recommended the deferment of land cost from HDB flat pricing under the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS). In our opinion, the AHS will be the beginning to many potentially positive socio-economic outcomes. For a start, it will immediately reduce the cost-of-living pressures on Singaporeans and allow them to have enough CPF savings without downgrading their HDB flats when they reach retirement. Most importantly, this peace of mind for housing and retirement will also apply to all future generations of Singaporeans.
With the AHS, we will not need to enhance the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans through schemes like the Matched Retirement Saving Scheme and the occasional top-up of CPF accounts. The resources in all these schemes can be consolidated into one permanent scheme namely the AHS.
Secondly, we have recommended the Minimum Living Wage which provides a minimum level of support to every working Singaporean permanently. As PSP have said in our manifesto 2020, anyone who puts in an honest day’s work should have enough to live with dignity.
The Minimum Living Wage is a social standard that we should establish that is not completely linked to the productivity of the worker. Thus, we have proposed the Minimum Living Wage to be co-funded by the Government. The co-funding can come from many handout schemes as mentioned before.
After ensuring a minimum gross monthly wage of about $2,200, we would like to recommend the Government to put in a permanent Progressive Wage Scheme to incentivise all Singaporean workers to continuously upskill towards higher gross monthly wages.
Thirdly, we have urged the Government to set up a National Health Insurance Scheme funded by it rather than having Singaporeans pay for their MediShield and CareShield premiums. To minimise moral hazards, Singaporeans will have to co-pay healthcare expenses from their Medisave accounts. The Government can supplement the Medisave accounts with a Healthier SG bonus every year. For Singaporeans who practise healthy living, this bonus will become excess MediSave balances which can be transferred to their Retirement Account to boost their retirement income.
PSP envisages that with the majority of Singaporeans covered under a few permanent schemes, the Minister for Finance will not need to distribute handouts to millions of Singaporeans during every annual Budget.
Our social welfare and security structure can also be streamlined and consolidated to focus on a much smaller group of needy Singaporeans. This is especially important as it ensures that this smaller group, who still need further help beyond that provided under the permanent schemes, receive the assistance they need expeditiously.
Mr Speaker : Mr Leong, you have a minute left.
Mr Leong Mun Wai : Mr Speaker, Sir, I have presented the "handout" approach of the PAP Government versus PSP's "permanent scheme" approach. The latter empowers Singaporeans with the certainty of help when they need it and encourages them to strive for higher goals with incentives.
PSP estimated that the shift to the permanent scheme approach will not consume significantly more fiscal resources – because the Government already has more than 60 schemes in place and has locked away tens of billions of dollars in endowment and trust funds.
PSP believes that we can do a lot more to improve the well-being of our citizens, work to combat future challenges, such as climate change and, provide support to worthy humanitarian causes abroad.
As owners of one of the largest sovereign wealth in the world, Singaporeans deserve better policies that can lead to better lives and a more secure future. We must be aware that we have the ability and responsibility to do more for ourselves, for Singapore and also for the world.
Sir, we support the Budget in hope that it is a step in the right direction. For country, for people.
Mr Speaker : Just for your information, I gave you an extra 30 seconds.
Mr Leong Mun Wai : Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker : Kindly keep to the time that is allocated to everyone. Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
2.17 pm
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh) : Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a fair and progressive, Forward SG budget and continues the same overarching theme in the Budgets of recent years – to further improve socioeconomic equality but without stunting economic growth.
This ambition is easy to state but it is tricky to strike the right balance. There are mutual trade-offs in pursuing equality and growth together. It is also important to ensure that no one slips through the cracks.
While I have heard and read some opposing viewpoints, the general feedback from my residents is that the Budget payouts are generous and they can see that the Government is trying to transfer more from the well-to-do in our society to give to the lower- and middle-income segments in Singapore. But the message is clear. To paraphrase Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong from two Budgets ago, "those who have less, get more".
However, I am also aware of our budget constraints and, most importantly, we need to be aware of our sustainability issues going forward – especially in terms of our revenues and how we intend to spend going forward.
I will speak on three selected areas on our move to enhance equality in our economy and social space, which reinforces each other. First, enhancing transport welfare and supporting the middle and upper-middle group. Second, protection of vulnerable segments. Third, on our two-pronged approach to sustain our economic growth – attracting investments and talent to Singapore; and boosting our local enterprises.
Mr Speaker, in Malay please.
( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] This year, the Government continues its efforts to make Singapore a more equitable society. Just like the previous years, those who are successful will contribute a little more for the less well-off and less able. Deputy Prime Minister Wong's announcement for young ITE graduates to pursue diploma qualifications through the ITE Progression Award and the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, is something that is welcomed. Support for preschool expenses and a one-year Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Voucher for eligible families who rent a HDB flat in the open market are also significant and welcomed.
However, one important aspect of daily expenses that has not received the targeted attention is transportation and health costs. I will focus on the cost of transportation in my speech. The cost of owning and maintaining private vehicles in Singapore is recognised as one of the highest in the world. Even for public transport, fares have risen by 10 cents to 11 cents per trip in September 2023 and similar increases can be expected in the coming years. However, our transportation cost is still quite low compared to other major cities, with the Government providing support to reduce the impact of fare increases on commuters and ensuring that our infrastructure and transport network remain up to date.
May I ask whether the Public Transport Voucher (PTV) that was announced in December 2023 would be able to help their recipients offset 100% of the fare increase in 2023? More importantly, may I suggest that the Government consider extending targeted support for public transport, beyond those whose per capita household income (PCHI) is $1,600 or less? Can we further extend PTV as part of our budget transfers, such as CDC vouchers, in the future to help more Singaporeans?
Public transport assistance is more likely to benefit the lower and middle income groups, compared to the higher-income groups who generally use less of our buses and trains. However, if such assistance will encourage higher-income individuals to use public transport rather than private transport, that will still help us in our sustainable transport objectives. I have a resident at Toa Payoh who needs help in terms of public transport vouchers to go for job interviews and also to work in a location that is far away. There are some middle-income earners who were retrenched and are now looking for work but need temporary assistance in terms of transportation cost. So, I hope that the Government will introduce transport cost assistance in the form of a temporary financial support scheme for those who are retrenched and are now looking for jobs, for example.
( In English ): We must also support the upper-middle income group, not just the low income. They are also experiencing the same rising costs but may not be getting as much in benefits compared to the lower- and middle-income groups.
One of the things in Budget 2024 that is also made available to the upper-middle income group, is the SkillsFuture enhancements. That must be correct, if we want continuous skills upgrading to be a key pillar in our social compact.
However, how likely will the upper-middle income group utilise the specific enhancements, in which are targeted at pursuing a diploma, degree or certification after age 40? Do we have data on the utilisation of SkillsFuture credits by income deciles? What do those trends tell us and will we be refining our approach to ensure that upskilling becomes a whole-of-society movement?
We must also ensure that schemes like SkillsFuture is not abused. Among other reasons, we do not want to allow those who are not in need to exploit and profit off these programmes, diverting away the help that should have gone to those who need it. It is scary to think that a criminal syndicate fraudulently made away with almost $40 million in grants between April and October 2017. While the more involved participants have each been sentenced to 13 to 17 years' imprisonment, are we still doing anything today to recover the $21 million that is still lost?
I also welcome the revision of the Annual Value (AV) bands of the owner-occupied residential property tax rates. When this property tax was raised in early 2022, it was not foreseeable that market rents would soar to the extent it did. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Rental Index for private residential properties, saw a 35.3% surge from Q1 2022 to Q4 2023. As a result, more of our upper-middle income homeowners saw the AV of their properties and their property tax bill increase.
For owner-occupied residential properties, these homeowners would not have directly benefited from the bullish market rents since they are not renting their properties out. They were thus left poorer as a result as they had to pay property tax up to a higher bracket. Would there be more frequent and periodic reviews of our property tax structure, considering the volatility of market rents in Singapore? More fundamentally, is it time to stop pegging property tax for owner-occupied residential properties to AVs which are, in turn, pegged to market rent levels?
Second, our quest for socioeconomic equality must obviously include the protection of vulnerable segments. I will just focus on two such groups of vulnerable individuals.
First, our seniors, present and future. I thank Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong for the continued emphasis on the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans – especially after I dedicated almost the whole of my Budget speech last year to the topic as well as my 2022 Budget speech too. Among other things, the Government-supported increase in our seniors' CPF contribution rates, the raising of the ERS and the enhancement of support schemes, like Silver Support and Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS), which will boost the nest eggs of our seniors to retire and age with dignity.
In relation to the removal of the Special Account for those above age 55, I understand that such a move will get rid of a "shielding" hack – where wealthier CPF members are able to keep an amount that is more than their ERS in their Special and Retirement Accounts and earn the higher 4% interest on the whole of that amount. May I ask, prior to this year, how many percent of CPF members had balances in their Special plus Retirement Accounts that were more than their ERS?
But now that the Special Account will be closed, any excess funds above the ERS will be deposited back into the OA that only earns an interest rate of 2.5%. We note that. Would the Government be willing to reconsider relooking at the OA interest rate mechanism?
One suggestion would be to include some of the qualifying full banks, in addition to the three major local banks that are now being referenced. That may potentially shift the needle and is more reflective of funding conditions in Singapore. Another suggestion is to take into consideration the promotional interest rates that are offered by the banks instead of just the board rates. While it is true that a consumer might have to meet certain conditions to qualify for the promotional interest rates, that may not be a good reason to deny CPF members higher return on their OAs – especially given the cumulative size and certainty of the funds that the CPF Board is given to invest.
The Government can, of course, subsequently apply some negative credit spread or a slight discount to the interest rate – to reflect the lower risk of putting money in the CPF, as compared to bank risk. But my general point is that given the significant change or potential rapid changes in the global interest rate conditions recently and going forward, the longstanding calculation mechanism may be quite stale and no longer fit for current conditions.
For those who are unemployed – not by choice – I am supportive in principle of the temporary financial support scheme that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had announced for the involuntarily unemployed. However, we will need more details to scrutinise if the scheme can be implemented without eroding our work ethic and design ways to mitigate the moral hazard of financing unproductivity. When does the Government expect these details to be announced and when do we expect the scheme to be implemented? Can Deputy Prime Minister and MOF share a bit more on how this scheme will be funded over time?
I await more information on this eagerly, as it is truly a big shift in principle by our PAP Government to help our Singaporean workers. I am heartened that this Government will not shy away from slaughtering "sacred cows", if it considers it to be in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. There is no shame in walking back if the circumstances so require.
While on the note of income volatility from unexpected unemployment, I would like to resuscitate my proposal again and again to give Singaporeans the option of assessing personal income tax on a current-year, pay-as-you-earn basis. As opposed to a preceding-year basis, this system can help taxpayers better manage their cash flow by matching tax payments with contemporaneous income.
Mr Speaker, in my next segment of attracting investments and talent. Our push for greater equality cannot come at the expense of our growth. To help Singaporeans cope with rising costs in a sustainable manner, we must focus on growing their opportunities and wages instead of relying on one-off distributions.
So, part two of my speech – therefore – turns to our two-pronged approach to sustain our economic growth: attracting investments and talent to Singapore; and boosting our local enterprises.
As a resource-scarce nation, our economic miracle has been built on attracting businesses to build up a base or some part of its operations here, even if it may service foreign markets or conduct substantial operations abroad. These inbound businesses and investments create employment opportunities and also downstream or partnership opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies.
So, I am glad to hear the moves to enhance our competitive advantage in the semiconductor and finance industries, but why is there no mention of our entrepot trade and transshipment hub and specific initiatives to defend or stretch our lead? Possibly, it could be discussed in the COS.
But I note that Changi Airport's cargo flows dipped 6% compared with 2022, while other airports, like Incheon, are closing the gap to Changi, in terms of passenger flows. On the other hand, our seaport reached an all-time high in arriving ship traffic, recording over three billion annual gross tons in vessel arrivals in 2023. I will be filing related cuts during the COS debates and I look forward to hearing the Transport Minister's plans to preserve and enhance our status as an international aviation and shipping hub.
The implementation of Pillar 2 of BEPS 2.0 will also cause some loss of attractiveness as an effective corporate income tax floor is put in place across different jurisdictions. So, which of the financial incentives offered by the EDB and other agencies to draw foreign companies can we continue to offer under the global base erosion rules?
The new Refundable Investment Credit, based on the presently available information and announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, will be consistent with the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules for Qualified Refundable Tax Credits. Companies will be able to receive up to 50% of support of each qualifying expenditure category, including capital expenditure, manpower and training costs, freight and logistics costs. This would help with the relatively higher land, manpower and transport costs in Singapore.
As the specific support rates for a project will be commensurate with the economic or decarbonisation outcomes that the project is expected to bring, what will happen if it eventually transpires that the project outcomes were never close to what was expected? Will there be a lookback period where support can be clawed back from those who can pitch and market a project much better than they can implement them?
More fundamentally, have we landed on a system of measuring and verifying decarbonisation outcomes? More than two years after we debated the "Low Carbon Society" Motion in this House, I do not think that any carbon measurement standard has achieved ubiquitous or common usage in this part of the world yet. Is there any preliminary indication of support from other countries for the playbook that is currently being developed by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS), Gold Standard and Verra?
To attract businesses and investments, we must also maintain our attractiveness as a liveable city for foreign talent. It would be too parochial to assume that we know everything and have nothing to learn from others. That is why other countries have been taking some big steps to woo foreign talent to their shores.
Take the United Kingdom (UK), for example. In May 2022, it launched a High Potential Individual (HPI) visa which allows a young person who graduated from a global top 50 university to go to the UK with their family for two years to just "explore, work, study and invent". Thereafter, the UK government announced a £118 million skills package that includes a new visa scheme for AI researchers to be brought to the UK at the early stages of their career, as well as grants to help AI workers meet the costs of relocating to the UK.
How has our Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass fared in attracting top global talent to live and work in Singapore since it was launched in August 2022? How does it compare, given the heated global competition, to woo talent through a mix of easier visa routes, relocation grants and other benefits?
It is well-known that we are also one of the most expensive cities in the world for expatriates. Besides the issue of soaring rents, foreign expatriates also do not enjoy the substantial healthcare subsidies and utilities support from the Singapore Government. Hence, there is a limit to how much we can tax these higher-income expatriates before they flee to a different country and we lose their tax base, their assets and their expertise. How does our taxation of expatriates compare to other talent hubs, such as London, Frankfurt, New York or Dubai?
Finally, Mr Speaker, in boosting our local enterprises, I suspect a number of my colleagues in this Chamber will have more to say about this, but I just have a narrower focus. As part of our $1 billion effort to develop AI computation, talent and industry in the next five years, will there be grants for Singapore companies adopting AI-based solutions or engaging in AI-related research in the near future? What are the concrete next steps following the publication of our National AI Strategy 2.0 in December 2023?
We cannot forget that AI goes hand in hand with data. Would we extend our AI-catalysing initiatives to activities that are data-centric, even though they might not be AI-centric? For example, research into large volume data processing or sustainable data collection and processing would be key enablers of our AI objectives. So, what are we doing and what are we planning to do for our data sector?
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have alluded to in many of my previous speeches, we are in a new normal. The circumstances that we see today combine high inflation, high interest rates and possibly for longer, in an increasingly uncertain world featuring frequent shocks. This is not even considering COVID-19, which, today, seems more like a bad dream than a lived two-to-three-year experience.
But through the Forward Singapore exercise, we know where Singaporeans want to head. Help involuntarily unemployed jobseekers bounce back stronger, supporting families and seniors, empowering and uplifting those in need, this Budget hews closely to Singaporeans' aspirations to build a more equal society while not compromising on the economic growth that underpins our security. Sir, I support Budget 2024.
Mr Speaker : Mr Shawn Huang.
2.35 pm
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong) : Mr Speaker, how do we value life? In Singapore, in the 1960s, those born then had a life expectancy of 64 years. In the 1980s and 1990s, it improved to 70 to 75 years. Today, we have a life expectancy of 84 years.
Over the last 60 years, our life expectancy in Singapore has increased by 20 years, a 31% increase. How do we value a year of good health? How do we value 20 additional years? Singapore has continued to invest more into healthcare, to take care of Singaporeans, from $789 per capita in 2011, to $2,674 per capita today, a 338% increase over the last 10 years.
How is this made possible? These consistent investments in building up capabilities of our healthcare workers, of our infrastructure, it is a complex and long-term commitment. These capabilities require a confluence of investments in infrastructure, equipment, training and education. There must be sound and sustainable healthcare policies, coupled with a culture of excellence and a spirit of innovation, pushing the edge and frontier of medical research and technology. What does it mean for all of us?
Five of Singapore's hospitals are in the top 150 in the world, with Singapore General Hospital being the top 10. A remarkable achievement. So, imagine, whenever our grandparents or parents are in need of medical care, a surgery or emergency medical treatment, have comfort that there is a team of highly competent and motivated healthcare workers who are one of the best in the world doing their best to deliver world-class care. For ophthalmology, Singapore National Eye Centre is ranked third in the world, and Singapore Eye Research Institute is ranked fifth in the world.
Today, Singaporeans continue to age well and are healthier than before. More can be done and the results are clear. In 2010, there were 700 centenarians and, in 2020, there are more than 1,500, more than double.
Today, most of our five-year-olds can expect to live up to the age of 100. And by 2050, living up to 100 will become a norm for our newborns. The question then again is: how do we value life? What would you do to have an additional year of good health, an additional 20 years of good health to do the important things in life?
If you have an extra dollar, where will you place it? How about the next dollar? And the next? Every marginal and incremental dollar, how would you spend, manage and invest it? How do we get the incremental dollar to live longer, better, healthier and more meaningful lives?
In 2022, ASEAN's foreign direct investments (FDI) have reached a high of $224 billion. Singapore comprised two-thirds of that, at $141 billion. I repeat: two-thirds of all the FDIs in ASEAN.
Singapore ranks eighth globally for inward FDIs and first in the Asia-Pacific. So, what are FDIs? It refers to investments made by a company or individual from one country, investing and having business interests in another. And how much advantage and wealth does that generate for Singapore?
In 2022, Singapore's FDI equals to 31.7% of Singapore's nominal GDP. That is particularly important for Singapore, as it displays the forward-looking economic trajectory. FDI creates quality employment, facilitates and encourages technology transfer. It spurs infrastructure development and increases our export capacities.
Singapore's economic achievement today is built over decades, with leadership, bonus and collective teamwork. This requires a confluence of economic and social factors, balance for sustainable future for all.
It is not by sheer luck that we could earn that one incremental dollar. It matters deeply. It matters because we must understand the difficulty and the amount of collective effort, as a nation, to be in a position of strength.
The investment climate, how connected and coherent is our infrastructure? How skilled and nimble is our workforce? Our legal frameworks, technology and innovation, our international agreements? How accessible are our market and trade?
How ambitious and energetic are our citizens? There are also social factors that are equally important: our social and political stability, our healthcare systems, education and quality of life. All these factors are what attract companies and individuals to invest time and resources here in Singapore. It remains attractive because of what we have been doing for decades. It must be so for the next 50 years and it must be so for the next hundred years.
How do we value our future and our future generations? The lifespan of a country is 158 years, whilst an empire is about 250 years. This is historic data, and we are at our 59th year mark and approaching our 60th.
On this land that we stand and live upon for the last 700 years, it has been tumultuous. From the 13th century, starting with history from Palembang, the Srivijaya empire to Majapahit, to Melaya then to the British, then to the Japanese, back to the British, Malaysia and then Singapore – all these in the last 700 years.
And we must remember our vulnerabilities as a nation-state. History is replete with lessons to be learnt and relearnt. The ancient Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, Carthage, Sparta, the Byzantines – where political fragmentation and external pressures eroded state powers and the Hanseatic league .
How determined are we, that after a hundred or 200 years, that we are still a sovereign and independent state, against all odds and statistics, to surpass beyond the average lifespan of empires and countries?
Some estimate that our Reserves are just below $2 trillion. To put things in perspective, assuming that our estimation is accurate, our Reserves are worth less than Apple. It is worth less than Microsoft. It is worth less than Google and, more recently, Nvidia decided to be more valuable than us. So, when you make your next purchase of an Apple product, Microsoft or Google, or the next graphics card with Nvidia, remember that their market capitalisation is higher than our entire national Reserves.
Our Reserves are worth less than the companies that I have mentioned. It is worth reflecting on how we plan to save, invest and allocate our resources for the future. We are fortunate to have the Reserves that can power a Budget that we have today. It is made possible because of the prudence and the value of our founding and past generations. It is this consistent act over numerous decades that enabled us to take care of all Singaporeans, for all to lead a longer and better life.
How do we value the lives of our children? Save the Children ranked Singapore the best place to grow up. We give our very best to our children and our future generations. In 2013, Singapore spent and invested $8,550 for every primary school student. In 2020, the Government invested $13,350.
Everyone has access to quality education. We have the basis to debate about education every now and then because we have gotten the basics right. Remember that we are of that generation 20 to 30 years ago where we had much less resources and knowledge. It is not perfect, but we progress and make relevant.
We embark on lifelong learning, instil adaptability and self-learning to ride the tides of changing technological advancements and build resilience to our relevance of skills and competencies. In the past, work was more linear and the pace of change was gradual. We saw how we restructured again and again, securing one generation after the other and building on one another's success.
Today Singapore's workforce stands amongst the most proficient in terms of management, vocation and technical skills. According to INSEAD's annual Global Talent Competitiveness Index, Singapore ranked number one in global knowledge and skills, which included management and communication abilities; and third in vocational and technical skills. And this is out of 134 countries.
This year ITE celebrates its 32nd anniversary and it continues to build strength to strength. We do not say that we are doing well, that we have accumulated enough capabilities and that we can invest less in our education system. We do not say that we are too high in our rankings and that we can afford to drop a little, because this is insidious.
Is there space for a city state to be a bit lower in our commitment to the future – to our future generations?
We cannot.
We cannot because as Singaporeans deep within our core, we know what it takes to be relevant and we know what it takes to take care of our future generations.
How do we value life? More importantly, how do we cherish it, respect it and be good stewards of the life given to us?
Gaza has one of the youngest populations in the world. Forty percent of Gaza's population is 14 years and below. The median age is just 18 in 2020. Those age 65 years and above are less than 3% of the population. In Ukraine, the male life expectancy has decreased from 67 years before the war to 57 years after, or right now. For women, it has declined from 76 to 70 years.
And it is not just about war and conflict alone. Countries with high levels of violence experience lower levels of life expectancy more than peaceful ones, estimating a gap of around 14 years – between the least and the most violent countries. It is not just conflict related, but also many other factors – homicide, violence, quality of life, education and all. We are building version 1 and version 2, just like how internet browsers and applications evolved, with progressive and improving versions. We must do so and build better versions ourselves and for Singapore.
We cannot expect to be perfect in all we do. But we try. And we try harder, in delivering better capabilities for better life every day. It is called building – building for the future. Today's capabilities were built by past generations. And as we build for today and for future generations – a life that is longer, healthier, more meaningful, more fulfilling and inclusive for all.
Just like our shining examples – Singapore Airlines and Singapore Changi Airport. It is not an achievement of probability. It was not a rare occasion marked by a cosmic alignment of constellations. It requires effort – collective effort from all Singaporeans.
So, let us all build together for a better tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Dr Tan Wu Meng.
2.49 pm
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong) : Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget and may I also stand in support of the speech by my immediately preceding Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC) colleague, Mr Shawn Huang.
Just the other day, I met a young Clementi family – daddy and mummy with their little girl, just a few months' old. We talked about how the world has become more dangerous; more uncertain; full of challenges – a dangerous world. A world where big countries bully small countries and sometimes invade them – invasion and occupation. A world where small nations and small communities can come under siege, have their water supply cut off; electricity supply cut off; food and access to medicine blocked. A world where climate change is accelerating, where sea levels are rising and that means a world where some islands in 50 to 100 years' time, will be underwater; a world where some island-nations may not exist by the end of this century.
And as we were talking – this Clementi family and I – we realised that their little girl and her children and her grandchildren will know whether our generation today made the right choices. And the choices before us will require much imagination and resolve.
Eleven years ago, in the TODAY newspaper, I wrote about how we need to imagine the unthinkable before it happens – not just bigger versions of yesterday's challenges, but new challenges which did not exist before. Today I will speak about three of these challenges. Challenges which in our time, will require fresh thinking – a fresh approach: artificial intelligence (AI); Singapore's energy security; and keeping Singapore's society together as a people.
On artificial intelligence. Less than two weeks ago, just before the Budget Statement 2024 by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong – our Finance Minister, there was another announcement, halfway across the world from Singapore. A tech company which is already changing the world – a tech company called OpenAI, which brought you ChatGPT not too long ago. That company announced a new AI platform, called Sora. Sora allows you to key in text – type in some text, a prompt – and it can produce videos, which are indistinguishable from what Hollywood can produce today and what smaller studios can produce.
Just one year ago, during the Debate on the President's Address in April 2023, I had spoken in Parliament about the age of AI and how fast things were changing – how software, like ChatGPT, GPT-4 and Midjourney V5, had appeared in the market within less than a year or so.
AI which can hold a conversation with you and can write an essay for you – that is ChatGPT. AI which can take high-school exams, advanced placement exams in the United States curriculum and outperform many humans – that is GPT-4. AI which can create photo-realistic pictures of events that never happened – that is Midjourney V5.
Just one year ago, I had spoken about how with increases in computing power, once you go from generating one make-believe image to 30 images a second, you go from AI-generated photos to AI-generated video. At the time April 2023, I had expected the technology to take another two to three years. As it happened, it took place faster than I had imagined. Within 10 months, OpenAI had announced the Sora platform-produced AI-generated video.
So, that is the world today – technology disruption happening very quickly. New challenges everywhere. The unexpected, increasingly the norm. And so, we cannot hide from these changes. No country, no economy can hide from these changes in the world with AI. Even if an entire country tries to prevent AI from entering its borders, other economies will do so – your competitors will do so. So, we have to accept the world as it is, the way the world is going to be and look after, support, empower and uplift our people.
This is why the new subsidy for Singaporeans age 40 and above to pursue another full-time diploma in higher education – this new subsidy in the Budget, that is why it is so important. Because it recognises that in a world that is changing so quickly, what you learn in school – in education – at age 20, may have changed, transformed and have been replaced by a new world by the time you are age 40. It recognises that change and supports middle-aged and older workers.
And having mid-career workers learning new skills alongside younger workers – a middle-aged mid-career worker alongside someone who is 18, 19, 20-plus years' old, learning together, that will also transform the education experience in our IHLs because older workers bring life experience, life skills and living wisdom into the classroom. Even as they bring that into the classroom, they also learn new skills, together with the younger students. These students, by working with each other, they lift up one another. They will transform the classroom even as it allows the older and younger worker to form new friendships, new networks and new opportunities together.
On energy security.
Another major challenge for Singapore is energy. Our electricity supply today does not just keep the lights on at home. It does not just keep our workplaces and hospitals going. It also keeps our water supply going.
Our energy supply is needed, so that our NEWater plants can expend energy to purify water and make it fresh and consumable again. Our energy supply is needed, for desalination plants to work against the salt gradient and produce fresh water without the salt that comes with the seawater. Our energy supply, our energy security underpins our water security. And all of us know what it means for Singapore if our water supply is ever called into question. And that means, we have to consider our energy security the same way too.
Two years ago, in the 2022 Budget debate, I had spoken about this: why we need to diversify our energy sources; why 95% energy generation from natural gas is not good enough for the future era; why 95% can be a concentration risk? I also spoke about how we need to go beyond looking at importing low-carbon electricity through a cable from overseas – because in a challenging world with all kinds of dangers, a cable may break down; a cable may have a technical incident; many things can happen to a cable anywhere in the world. And looking beyond to the future means that we have to consider new low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen or even the newer next-generation of nuclear technology as well.
I called upon the Government to look at moving ahead of the market – especially for hydrogen – and for Singapore's potential as a hydrogen hub. Looking ahead, because in a market where you may not have room for too many hydrogen hubs, it matters whether you are first mover, second mover or too late to move. It matters in that market. It matters for us in Singapore.
So, the Future Energy Fund in this year's Budget – the Future Energy Fund, with its initial injection of $5 billion is a significant decisive move. It puts money where the mouth is. It will allow Singapore to move quickly and seize opportunities in the energy sector, especially new low-carbon technologies – that in the future will help us secure our energy supply and, in turn, secure our water security for another generation.
Having a stronger supply of low-carbon energy will also help Singapore with our AI ambitions. Today, data centres are energy-intensive yet so essential for AI. You can keep a data centre offshore for cloud computing in the commercial sector. But in a world where major economies sometimes do not get along; in a world where, sometimes, you have derisking or decoupling, it makes sense to have more of those data centres, more of that computing power onshore in Singapore. And having low-carbon energy – a greener energy future – more secure energy supply will be key for that AI ambition as well.
On social togetherness, Mr Speaker, no amount of fiscal firepower, no amount of policy prescriptions, is going to be sustainable or implementable, if we, as a people in Singapore somehow become divided, fragmented or splintered. I have said this before. If we are splintered, we are going to be less than a dot in the world.
And there are deep forces around the world, driving people apart, forces that change societies because with digitalisation, more digital world, it means people are less likely to meet, face-to-face naturally. The social media algorithms that almost everyone has on their handphones, the social media apps; many of these algorithms feed you more of what you have seen before. They bring you to listen more of what you have heard before, leading to echo chambers and, as a result, sometimes, leading to polarisation in society as well.
Also, there will be troublemakers outside Singapore, trying to undermine our unity, cohesion and togetherness. In the world today – and we have seen many case studies far away from Singapore, some a little bit nearer – the first shock in a conflict may not be kinetic. It may be an op to undermine the social unity and trust in a society. see how in other countries, certain players are trying to polarise and divide societies. It will be even more challenging in the age of AI.
What happens when deepfakes are able to create videos of events which never happened? What happens when you have deepfake videos of public figures on any side of the House, saying things they never said, doing things they never did?
What happens if there is a deepfake video of people from different communities arguing or even fighting, a deepfake video of something that never happened but which has the potential to be spread widely and undermine our social harmony and social togetherness?
What happens when deepfakes become so similar to reality that people no longer trust what they see or hear even when it comes from a reliable source?
What happens when people can no longer tell the difference between what is true and untrue, what is fact, what is falsehood, its big implications for societies, big implications for democracies around the world?
There are no easy solutions in a world where anyone has access to the computing power to create a deepfake.
But Singapore is small enough that we have a fighting chance. Singapore is small enough that we can bring our people more closely together, build more face-to-face interactions, deepen human relationships. We can do this in a way that larger geographically spread countries are not quite able to do. Singapore is coordinated enough. We have the state capacity, governmental capacity for agencies to work together in teamwork, in cohesion, something that many other countries cannot quite do. We saw that during the pandemic and it will be essential for this next challenging future that we face.
So, we must keep building that sense of togetherness so that amidst different views, different backgrounds, different dispositions, everyone in our community sees ourselves as fellow citizens, fellow brothers and sisters, in that Singapore dream, in the idea that is Singapore.
That means, across Government, urban design and social policy must actively lean in, to encourage people to meet face-to-face in day-to-day life. All this can help maintain social trust, cohesion, togetherness, even amidst a wave of AI and the deepfakes that will come.
So, we must ask ourselves, when a new HDB development is built without the traditional void decks and in a shape that makes it harder for neighbours and their children to naturally meet one another, naturally play with one another, on the way to work, to school and coming back, we need to ask, are we inevitably weakening our social reserves, compared to the older HDB void deck designs? Are there revenue-neutral ways of designing an HDB block differently, so that people are more likely to meet, connect, get along, in a very organic and natural way?
When a neighbourhood centre is being built in a new estate, do our planners lean in favour of having more hawker centres, more coffee shops and getting these amenities to start up and activate sooner rather than later?
When we design our education policies and education system, do we encourage our younger generation, in addition to their Mother Tongue, to learn the language of another Singaporean community, not as an examination subject, not just because of the economic opportunities near us in Southeast Asia, but also because it builds understanding and helps deepen our identity as Singaporeans?
These are questions that have to be asked not just for these policies but in every policy in Government, moving ahead. And so, I suggest for this Government to set up an SG Togetherness Office (SGTO). I know it sounds like more alphabet soup, amidst many acronyms, but SG Togetherness Office, the SGTO – I suggest for this Government to set up the SG Togetherness Office which can be part of the Prime Minister's Office Strategy Group (PMOSG), which has approached major issues, like climate change, in the same coordinated, whole-of-Government way.
The SG Togetherness Office could have an inter-ministry steering committee, chaired by a senior member of Cabinet, a Co-ordinating Minister or a Deputy Prime Minister, with that experience of Ministries and connectivity and links to help drive the agenda. It should have a secretariat, a team of public officers actively looking at the net impact on social togetherness for every policy and every programme across Government.
This ethos of strengthening social togetherness and social cohesion, strengthening our social reserves, safeguarding our social reserves, has to be looked at with the same discipline, deliberation and attention that we give to the fiscal bottom line and to Singapore's financial reserves. Because just like fiscal reserves, our social reserves can take generations to build up, much effort to maintain and yet, are so important when a crisis hits. And the world ahead will have more than its fair share of troubles.
Mr Speaker, in my maiden speech in this House in 2016, more than eight years ago, I said and I quote: "… imagine this perfect storm: a global downturn lasting many years, divisions of race, language, religion, social class, inequality and culture. A fractured national consensus with divisive politics. And at the same time having to face a major crisis – a terrorist attack at home, a pandemic, or a regional conflict where two old friends ask us to choose between them."
Sir, we do not get to choose when the next crisis will hit or for that matter, what the next crisis will be. But we can choose how we deepen our togetherness, how to prepare today. We can choose how we strengthen and deepen our social togetherness, strengthen Singapore's social reserves so that in a world of troubles, no matter what comes, nothing and no one will ever knock Singapore down. I support this Budget. [ Applause. ]
Mr Speaker : Mr Mark Lee.
3.09 pm
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, as a student of history and currently chairing the Asian Civilisation Museum, I am inspired by our museum's artifacts that reveal the legacies of past civilisations. Insights from works like Ronald Wright's "A Short History of Progress" and Arnold Toynbee's "A Study of History" underscore the vital lessons history teaches us about the risks of unchecked progress that had collapsed civilisations.
Understanding why civilisations collapse is a complex matter, with no singular cause universally recognised. However, several critical factors have been identified that contribute to such declines.
The first factor is climate change and environmental degradation. These elements played crucial roles in the decline of various ancient societies, including the Anasazi, Maya and the Roman Empire. The second factor is inequality. This factor contributes to social unrest, erode social cohesion and weakens a society's ability to effectively tackle societal, ecological and economic issues. The third is complexity. As societies become more complex in their attempts to solve emerging problems, they may reach a point where the costs of complexity outweigh its benefits, ultimately precipitating collapse.
In the context of Budget 2024, these lessons from history underscore the importance of a balanced approach to progress. It is not enough to pursue growth for its sake. We must ensure that our growth is sustainable, inclusive and even resilient to the tests of time.
This is why the Budget's focus on advancing business and worker capabilities, building for the future and caring for society is so crucial. Commitment to green innovation, renewable energy investments and the development of resilient infrastructure that can withstand the challenges of climate change ensures that our progress today does not come at the expense of future generations.
Let me start with the advancing of businesses' and workers' capabilities. The Enterprise Support Package, with the 50% Corporate Income Tax (CIT) and minimum $2,000 cash payout signals that the Government is serious about supporting SMEs through its cost challenges.
Targeted support for SMEs is provided for through the permanent increase of the SME Working Capital Loan, capped to $500,000. The SkillsFuture top-up for mid-career workers, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, and extension of the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit are positive moves towards building up the long-term skills stock of our Singaporean workforce.
Second, building for the future. The $2 billion top-up to the Financial Sector Development Fund and the new Refundable Investment Credit will enable Singapore to build capabilities in new areas like FinTech and green finance and attract investment in high-value and substantive economic activities.
I particularly like the enhanced Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT). PACT will provide support for companies to partner each other on capability training, internationalisation and corporate venturing. Such partnerships with large companies will help our SMEs grow and become industry leaders in their own right, providing more good jobs for the future.
Third, caring for society. The enhanced Assurance Package will provide much needed relief for lower- and middle-income households. Improving the affordability of preschools and special education schools, enhancements to retirement support schemes, introduction of a new unemployment support scheme and the new ITE Progression Award will enable us to advance social mobility and create a Singapore that everyone can contribute and belong to.
Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the great ruins that grace the deserts and jungles of the earth are monuments to progress traps, the headstones of civilisations which fell victim to their own success. Collapse, however, is not absolute and history has shown that societal resilience may be able to delay or prevent collapse. Evidence from around the world indicates that "economic diversity", the range and complexity of a country's exports, is linked to the skill level of its population, suggesting that a more skilled populace is better equipped to tackle crises as they emerge.
The Singapore business sector acknowledges the importance of collective efforts to advance the Forward Singapore vision and strengthening societal resilience.
Let me just say a few ideas of what the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) has done. As a Council Member at the SBF, I have seen first-hand how in 2019 SBF launched a business-led initiative, proposing six recommendations to support the employment of the elderly, the less well-off and those at risk of job disruptions in Singapore.
This Sustainable Employment initiative engaged over 50 business leaders, representatives from trade associations, Government, IHLs, non-government organisations (NGOs) and foundations, showcasing a nationwide effort to uplift disadvantaged and vulnerable workers. Today, SBF manages the Progressive Wage Mark accreditation scheme and has partnered trade associations and chambers (TACs), like the Association for Catering Professionals, the Singapore Fashion Council, the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Environmental Management Association of Singapore, to encourage companies to be part of this movement. I am proud to share that close to 4,500 companies have since been accredited.
In 2022, SBF established the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Leadership Development, aiming to prepare Singaporean talents for global leadership roles. Engaging with over 200 business leaders, human resource (HR) experts and young professionals, the AfA produced a report with recommendations for individuals, businesses and Government to foster the next generation of leaders.
Just this month, the Human Capital Action Committee within SBF has been tasked to implement these recommendations, ensuring that the report's insights are effectively put into practice.
Lastly, TACs have now offer over 100 Career Conversion Programmes, supported by Workforce Singapore, targeting various sectors, such as construction, marine and offshore engineering, electronics and manufacturing, alongside specialisations in internationalisation and sustainability.
To achieve our annual growth rate of 2% to 3% over the next decade, our economy and businesses will have to keep focusing on productivity, innovation and labour growth while keeping business costs competitive. I have four broad recommendations for this. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] The Government is boosting productivity by significantly investing in SkillsFuture, aiming to cultivate a skilled workforce. At the same time, in addressing our Manufacturing 2030 vision, there is a pressing need for more local talent in manufacturing. Our first recommendation is that training should extend beyond introductory topics to include advanced technical domains, and sector-specific modules, ensuring it meets the real needs of workers, businesses, and the economy.
To further enhance employability and cultivate a skilled workforce, more emphasis on workplace training is needed. Workplaces should be qualified as extensions of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), so that learning can be more practice-based and application-oriented. For SkillsFuture to be successful, not only employers should be responsible, workers must also have the right attitude and upskill voluntarily. This approach will enable workers to gain deepened industry skills beyond basic and general skills, boosting employability for the long term.
Our next recommendation is centred on driving innovation in new areas of AI and sustainability within our SMEs.
The allocation of $1 billion for National AI Strategy 2.0 and $5 billion for the Future Energy Fund in Budget 2024 highlights the Government efforts of fostering growth in these new sectors. The recent introduction of the ESG/IMDA AI Sandbox, which aims to involve 300 SMEs to participate, is a testament to ensure SMEs remain at the forefront of innovation.
To further support SMEs in adopting these technologies, the Government should consider implementing a tiered grant model. This model will enable businesses eager to innovate beyond basic level ‘plug and play’ solutions to do so, without being constrained by cash flow issues.
Additionally, it is essential that we provide SMEs with support beyond technology access, particularly in developing governance frameworks and ethical guidelines for the responsible use of AI.
To support SMEs in sustainability efforts, more assistance and education are essential. We urge the Government to collaborate with sectoral TACs to create and improve sustainability programs. Grants for consultancy, implementation, and training can help SMEs effectively manage and report emissions in compliance with sector standards.
Our third recommendation is a continual call for responsible labour growth to sustain Singapore's growth ambitions According to the Singapore 2030 vision and updated Industry Transformation Maps, we aim to create 8,400 jobs in manufacturing, 2,000 in logistics and 1,600 in environmental services, among others. This is against the backdrop of a declining resident labour force, which saw a reduction of 1,800 last year.
Given our aging population and persistently low birth rates, while businesses continue to reskill and upskill our local workforce, we can work closely with government to identify and unlock untapped manpower pockets. By harnessing smaller labour pockets, like gig workers looking to transit back to traditional economic jobs, women and older workers who are keen to re-enter the workforce, and students who might be incentivised to take on relevant part-time jobs or acquire real work experience that can count as academic credits offsets, we can collectively expand our labour force to support our economic growth targets.
However, pursuing our growth objectives necessitates a harmonised alignment of both local and foreign labour forces. The business community continues to advocate for strategic augmentation of our workforce with controlled foreign labour growth, tailored to specific sectors and job roles, where either local talent or local workforce participation is scarce. Such targeted augmentation is crucial for driving industry transformation and ensuring the long-term economic prosperity of Singapore.
( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the beginning of my speech, I have highlighted that societies can falter under the weight of their own complexity.
My final and fourth recommendation is for the Government to engage with the business community closely, working together with various Government agencies and unions with the aim to reduce bureaucratic complexity and expediting efficiency towards co-curating a conducive environment that fosters business competitiveness.
I wish to conclude by drawing to two additional factors contributing to the collapse of civilisations, which I have not previously mentioned.
First, external shocks. Often symbolised by the metaphorical "four horsemen" – war, natural disasters, famine and plagues. Second, randomness or just simply bad luck.
Singapore's advantageous position today, bolstered by our substantial reserves, grants us a unique capacity to mitigate the impacts of these external shocks and the uncertainties of randomness.
Observing Budget 2024, I am reassured by its prudent and balanced nature, which thoughtfully avoids excessive depletion of our reserves, but rather strengthens our ability to secure a resilient and prosperous future for Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the unique advantage of being able to learn from the wreckages of societies past. Societal resilience can prevent collapse and Budget 2024 is a step in that direction in building this.
Let us continue to take inspiration from the past, a country born from mud flats and swamp and now a shining metropolis. Let us muster the will together to ensure Singapore will not simply fade out of existence and not be a nation that began with a bang and end with a whimper. Together, let us be confident to create a Singapore that stands as a beacon of sustainable progress and inclusive prosperity for generations to come. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Order. I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.25 pm until 3.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
Debate on Annual Budget Statement
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker : Dr Wan Rizal.
3.45 pm
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar) : Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Today, I will shift away from talking about mental health and focus on discussing how the Budget lays the foundation of a resilient and inclusive society, focusing on education and lifelong learning as a vehicle for social mobility.
These are not just policy areas, these are the lifelines that will propel our nation forward, ensuring that every Singaporean – regardless of their starting point in life – can thrive in the face of adversities. In my vision, education transcends traditional learning. It is about equipping our youth with the ability, the agility to navigate the complexities of a future that we can only imagine. Lifelong learning is our commitment to every worker, ensuring that their skills remain relevant, that they are capable and robust in an economy that is perpetually evolving.
In our pursuit of social mobility, we reaffirm our promise to every citizen that their dreams, aspirations and hard work – not their circumstances at birth – will define their future.
Lifelong learning through SkillsFuture enhancements. In this era of relentless change and disruptions, safeguarding employability through strategic investments in skill development and productivity, enhancement is a paramount concern. Recognising this, Budget 2024 introduces the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, to me, it is a visionary initiative aimed at future-proofing our workforce. The substantial increase in SkillsFuture credits highlights the imperative of ongoing training and upskilling in navigating the complexities of a contemporary job market. A person who stands to gain from this opportunity is Mr Thomas Tan. He is currently working in a beverage company and has recently completed a certificate in business analytics. On hearing about the top-up, he is now eager to get back to study and complete a few more modules so that he can obtain a diploma. But what excites him most is not just getting that diploma, but the chance to learn new skills that he can apply in his work. Budget 2024 supports Singaporeans aiming to pursue another subsidised full-time diploma and a mid-career training allowance to further this commitment.
I recall my own endeavours, when I decided to take a two years leave to pursue my studies full-time. I was already married and I was about to have my first child – to be born that year – and I had to use my savings and spend money prudently. To add to the pressure, there was a stigma that goes along with it: how could he go and study and burden his family like that?
So, I am glad – I am glad that this Budget has set an allowance for up to 24 months, which represents a tangible investment in mid-career professionals. I also believe the allowance and two years of full-time studies could positively impact one's mental health. This is especially so for those who may feel burnt out and want to move to a new sector or industry. Those who come back are often refreshed and ready to share new ideas that they would like to apply in their new job.
Despite these enhancements, concerns persist among individuals and businesses. Individuals need guidance on what is the right programme for them: what could help them in the future, what could propel them further? On the other hand, businesses seek assurances that whatever training the individuals go to, they would benefit the company and, in turn, fostering productivity and innovation. To address these concerns, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. We should and must continue to engage industry leaders and businesses from various sectors through advisory panels and feedback mechanisms to further enhance the SkillsFuture courses with emerging demands.
We could also enhance career advisory services to help individuals select courses best suited for their careers. We also probably need to shift towards what I call an outcome-based training model, where the success of training programmes is measured by tangible outcomes, such as employment rates, career progression and salary increments. This ensures the courses deliver real value to participants.
Finally, I would like to suggest: continue to explore innovative ways to increase flexibility and accessibility to the courses and programmes further to accommodate the diverse needs of learners, including those who are doing it part-time, doing it online or through modular options that allow for balancing training with work and family commitments. Addressing these concerns can significantly shift lifelong learning participation and employer recognition.
Next, I would like to talk about the ITE Progression Awards, Sir. The introduction of the ITE Progression Award marks a significant milestone in Singapore's education and workforce development landscape. Now, this move is not merely about financial incentives. It is a profound statement against the stigma traditionally associated with skills-based education, reaffirming its value and indispensability in our economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have often mentioned the issue of the widening wage gap in Parliament. The wage gap, as in many parts of the world, reflects not just economic disparities, but also the value placed on different types of education and skills. The median gross starting pay for ITE graduates has increased – signalling a positive momentum – yet the gap remains significantly different compared to their university peers or from other Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
Far too long, pursuing degree qualifications has been seen as the only path to success – sidelining the immense contributions of those with technical talent. The ITE Progression Award challenges this outdated notion by creating more robust career pathways for ITE graduates, ensuring they are not unfairly capped in their career progression.
As Singapore's economy diversifies and specialises, the need for technically skilled professionals in advanced manufacturing, IT and healthcare, for example, is growing. With the hands-on training and industry relevant skills, ITE graduates are well-poised, well-positioned to meet these needs. Recognising these values is essential for us to narrow the wage gap and ensure our economy has the skilled workforce it needs to thrive.
Therefore, I welcome the ITE Progression Award as it is the step in the right direction. But its success will depend on the collective efforts of all stakeholders to embrace and implement these changes. So far, many of my students who are in the polytechnic came from ITE and have queried whether the award can be given to them. I told them I will ask in Parliament. But it just shows how much interest and positivity this move has generated.
One such person that would benefit from this award is Mr Adil. He is a part-time ITE student, who is also currently working as a manager at a pizza outlet. Upon hearing of this, he quickly checked what courses are available for him. He believes that this is an opportune time for him to pick up a new skill in automation and he is raring to go.
By ensuring the ITE graduates have equitable opportunities for career advancement and adequately compensated, we signal a broader shift in societal values towards a more inclusive appreciation of skills diversity. This paradigm shift requires not just policy adjustments but a collective change in mindset from employers, educators and society at large. To that end, ITE should no longer be stigmatised as "It's The End". In fact, we should now rename it, "It's The Evolution". It reflects the evolutionary process of personal and professional development the students undergo and a change in mindset in the community. I believe that we all have our strengths and there are pathways to success for each and every one of us and this, in turn, helps us in our mental health.
Sir, I had often brought up the importance of preschool education and providing every child with a strong foundation. In my maiden speech, I highlighted the pivotal role of early childhood education as the cornerstone of lifelong learning and a vehicle for social mobility that cannot be overstated. Recognising its foundational importance, this year's Budget significantly bolsters support for preschool education – ensuring that children from every socioeconomic background have access to high quality early-learning experiences. By lowering fees at Government-supported preschools and increasing subsidies for lower income families, the Budget aims to make quality early childhood education more accessible and affordable.
But despite these positive steps, some concerns still remain. For example, questions are asked about the quality assurance. How are we able to maintain high standards of education? At the same time, questions also arise about teacher retention and the training to ensure that we have quality teachers and we have enough teachers out there.
But for me, I have always questioned about the enrolment rate of preschool education and the attendance that comes with it. Therefore, to address these concerns and fully realise the benefits of increased support for preschool education, I would like to suggest the following.
Firstly, of course, we need to strengthen the quality assurance mechanisms. That means we need to establish a more robust quality assurance mechanism in our preschools, against standardised benchmarks. We also need to enhance support for teachers – through comprehensive programmes and professional development opportunities. But finally, and this is something I have always mentioned – the need for compulsory preschool education. The reason is simple. We want to force a mindset change. And this can only come if you make it serious enough for them to take it seriously. Sir, in Malay, please.
( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] In today's dynamic economic landscape, lifelong learning has emerged as a stepping stone for social mobility, as well as personal and skills upgrading.
By embracing lifelong learning and mastering new skills continuously, especially in the growing sectors such as technology, green energy, and bio-medicine, individuals can respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing job market and seize new opportunities. I admit that it is quite difficult for us to encourage individuals to continue their education because they are concerned about their advanced age or are busy taking care of their families.
Therefore, the support provided by this year's Budget towards lifelong learning initiatives is a proactive step to encourage all levels of society, and this includes our community, to continue to grow and adapt to the needs of the present and future workforce. Through the enhancement and expansion of the SkillsFuture programme, this year’s Budget offers various pathways for individuals to acquire and renew their skills and expertise that are relevant to current industry trends.
Among the initiatives in Budget 2024 are the SkillsFuture Credit Top-up specifically for those aged 40 and above. This provides specific impetus for individuals in this age group, to learn new skills or further develop existing skills.
For example, a worker in the service sector can choose to learn about information technology to further enhance his digital capabilities.
Secondly, the Mid-career Retraining Programme, which targets individuals who want to make a career transition or enhance their skills in certain areas. For example, an employee in the manufacturing sector can attend courses in the management of green economy projects, and thus enable him to take advantage of job opportunities in this rapidly growing industry.
Thirdly, subsidies for full-time diploma courses. This initiative provides opportunities for those who wish to pursue further education but have financial constraints. For example, an assistant preschool teacher may take advantage of this subsidy to obtain a Diploma in Early Childhood Education, strengthen her professional qualifications and see more career opportunities open up for her.
To harness lifelong learning, as a society, we need to promote a culture that values and promotes lifelong learning. This requires us to support those who are be bold enough to make the leap to study again, and they need to be steadfast and patient when embarking in a new field.
My hope is that our community will take advantage of these budget initiatives to actively engage themselves in lifelong learning.
This is not just about improving oneself but also about contributing back to society, family and country. By leveraging on the opportunities provided by this year's Budget, we can together build a brighter and more inclusive future for all.
( In English ): In conclusion, the initiatives outlined in this year's Budget represent a cohesive and comprehensive approach towards forging a future where every Singaporean, irrespective of their starting point, can thrive and contribute meaningfully to our nation's prosperity.
From the foundational significance of early childhood education to the transformative potential of lifelong learning through SkillsFuture enhancements, an equitable advancement of opportunities provided by the ITE Progression Award, these measures are intricately linked in their common goal to build a resilient, inclusive and forward-looking Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Mr Dennis Tan.
4.01 pm
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang) : Mr Deputy Speaker, for my Budget Debate speech today, I would, first, like to speak on certain issues relating to the support for our seniors followed by the issue of support for adults with disabilities and, finally, like in my previous year's Budget Debate speech, I will continue with the issue of green transition.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said in his Budget speech that preventive care is especially important for seniors, that loneliness can do great harm to a senior. They need to stay active and socially connected. Hence, the Government will set aside $3.5 billion to start the Age Well SG for the next decade. There are several components to this, and one component is that there will be an expanded network of Active Ageing Centres (AACs) providing a wider range of programmes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as always, the devil is in the details and I look forward to hearing more details from the Ministers in charge on the changes and plans for AACs but, in the meantime, I have several comments and questions.
First, I would like to ask the Ministry of Health (MOH) what is the current situation with the staffing as well as the recruitment efforts for our AACs? How will MOH assist our AACs to recruit and maintain additional staff to tackle the manpower needs for a bigger scale AAC landscape? Does the Government have a guideline in mind for the manpower staffing per centre under AAC 2.0, of course, taking into consideration that requirements for clusters may vary according to the size of the cluster? AACs have a mix of staff and volunteers while staff strength of AACs may vary from centre to centre and volunteers are also an integral part of AACs. Volunteers may not always be able to take over the roles, expertise and, indeed, professionalism of the professionals in our AACs.
Next, for the group of seniors who do not wish to be involved in their AAC activities or do not desire to keep in contact with their AACs, I would like to know what are the plans that Age Well SG may have for them as far as outreach and keeping in contact are concerned? This will be in line with tackling loneliness and addressing the need for seniors to be socially connected, as mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Wong.
I am especially concerned with those who live alone, keep to themselves and who are not close to their families or neighbours. Beyond having more or more varied activities, we need to study what approach can be taken to better enable AACs to keep in regular contact with this group, at least to provide support when it is needed.
Studies should also be done to see how AACs can attract better male participation.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong also mentioned in his speech of silver upgrades to our residential estates to enable seniors to live more independently and safely in the community by way of amenities, such as therapeutic gardens and barrier-free ramps and senior-friendly home fittings, such as wider toilet entrances and shower seats. I look forward to more details from the Government, including how these amenities will be made available to residents in their homes and in our common spaces.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong also mentioned that there will be improvements to infrastructure for seniors' mobility and safety, such as more sheltered linkways, bus stops with senior-friendly features as well as safer and more pedestrian-friendly roads. I welcome these. As recently as August 2022, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question, the then-Minister for Transport said that there were no plans to expand the criteria of Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) existing covered linkway programme covering a 400-metre radius of major transport nodes, such as MRT, LRT stations and bus interchanges. I hope that there is now a rethink about this approach for covered linkways, especially on lands administered by LTA or other state lands. LTA should consider linking at least the heavily utilised bus stops to nearby housing estates. For example, working with Town Councils to link up such heavily utilised bus stops with the nearest covered walkways within the HDB estates.
Still relating to seniors, the Budget will give all Singaporeans born in 1973 or earlier a MediSave Bonus of $750 and double this at $1,500 if they are part of the Majulah Generation and their residence has an annual value of not more than $25,000.
For seniors with especially multiple chronic illnesses and frequent medical appointments, this MediSave top-up will not help much as long as the annual MediSave withdrawal limit remains at $700 a year for patients with chronic illnesses. Can the Government look at increasing the cap for the MediSave withdrawal limit for seniors with multiple chronic conditions so that such seniors, especially seniors who are retired and not working or are unable to work, will be less out of pocket when paying their bills? I know that the MediSave withdrawal limit was revised in January 2021. Would it now be timely for the limit to be raised, at the very least, to keep up with elevated inflation?
Given that the quarterly quantum of Silver Support Scheme will now be raised by 20%, can the Government consider raising MediSave withdrawal limits from, say, $500 to $600 and from $700 to $840 for chronic cases as well and that those suffering from multiple illnesses be granted further extension of the caps on a case-by-case basis? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong emphasised in the Budget that the Government would strengthen its support for the elderly. I hope the relevant Ministers can share more details on this.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned that the refurbishment and enhancement of senior-friendly facilities in neighbourhood to enable the elderly to live more independently and safely in the community. This includes expanding sheltered walkways and bus stops with elderly-friendly features. In August 2022, the then Transport Minister stated that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) did not have plans to expand existing sheltered walkways. Currently, LTA’s sheltered walkway coverage is limited to within 400 metres of MRT stations and bus interchanges. I hope the Government can reconsider this strategy, especially in LTA managed or state-owned areas. For example, LTA could consider collaborating with the Town Councils to connect HDB neighbourhoods with sheltered walkways to busy bus stops.
Furthermore, the Budget also includes a one-time MediSave Bonus for eligible Singaporeans. The amount is determined based on age and the annual value of the individual's residence, ranging from $700 to $1,500.
For elderly individuals with multiple chronic illness would need frequent outpatient care, especially those who are retired or unable to work, if the annual withdrawal limit remains at $700, this top-up may not provide much help to them. The withdrawal limit was last revised in 2021. In times of rising prices, will the Government consider raising the withdrawal limit for MediSave to reduce the cash outlay for retirees?
The Silver Support Scheme is set to be increased by 20%. Will the Government also consider increasing the withdrawal limit for MediSave by the same 20%?
( In English ): I will next touch on the issue of support for adults with disabilities.
I welcome Deputy Prime Minister Wong's announcement that he will provide more support for adults with disabilities. He said he will expand spaces in sheltered workshops and day activity centres where they can undergo skills training and launch more enabling services hubs to provide community support to persons with disabilities and their caregivers. I believe that, as a society, there is a lot more we can and should do for adults with disabilities among us, in particular, adults with serious special needs as well as their caregivers.
Earlier this month, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will consider increasing the number of day activity centres and residential homes for adult persons with autism. Minister Masagos replied that there are currently eight day activity centres serving adults with autism spectrum disorder with over 300 clients enrolled in these day activity centres and about 80 referrals pending enrolment. He also said that there are four adult disability homes funded by MSF serving adults with autism spectrum disorder. There are about 50 residents with autism spectrum disorder in these adult disability homes which have the capacity to house about 100 residents, and about 20 referrals are pending enrolment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe there is such a need to increase our day activity centres and residential homes. I believe that we really should increase our resources to provide continuous training for adults with disabilities, including but not limited to special needs adults, such as those with moderate to severe autism beyond their time in the SPED schools. In my view, there are multiple possible benefits. We should continue to think of ways to improve long-term post-SPED school education or training, providing further education and skills training, if possible.
More studies should be done to increase the possible range of work training these adults can undergo and the range of work they can undertake in society. This will enhance their lives and promote better integration with society. At the same time, spending time at day activity centres rather than at home, with structured programmes, activities and interaction with others will enhance the mental well-being of such adults.
My heart also goes out to senior caregivers and their special needs adult children, wondering what is going to happen to the care of their children when their health gives way one day. Even when these parents may have other children who are non-special needs, is it appropriate to expect them to take over care of their siblings when their parents pass on? Should we not provide adequate residential homes for these adults with more structured care and development? And can we also consider for these homes to allow some of the special needs adults to be able to go home to their families on weekends, providing some balance between residential care and home care, allowing family members suitable respite in the process?
Minister Masagos also said that MSF has been working with the sector to develop plans to better support adults with autism and their families, given the increase in awareness of autism and in the clarity of its diagnostic criteria and that MSF will share more details in the coming months. Indeed, I hope that MSF is able to share such details during COS, including details of any studies undertaken recently.
In November last year, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking the Minister, among other things, whether the Ministry keeps a record of the current number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adult persons with intellectual disabilities and whether the Ministry will consider developing and implementing early identification and support programmes for such caregivers. Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How mentioned in his reply that MSF does not directly track the number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adults with intellectual disabilities.
In December 2023, news broke that one of my Hougang residents, an adult with special needs, stayed in his flat with the body of his elderly father after his passing for five days while continuing to attend day sessions at the day care centre. While I am extremely thankful that the authorities and stakeholders were commendably quick to assist and arrange for care for the son thereafter, this case reinforces the need for us to consider developing and implementing an early identification and support programme for elderly caregivers who are caring for adults with special needs.
Such a programme could adopt a multi-agency approach that involves our AACs, day care centres for adults with disabilities, healthcare providers and even service providers like lawyers who may have interactions with family members in the course of their related work, for example, doing Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), as well stakeholder agencies like Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and MSF, such that each party can trigger another party to provide necessary checks or support for the family concerned. Studies should be done to see how contact and support can be appropriately maintained by one or more stakeholders for both elderly caregivers as well as the special needs adults.
Last year, I said in my Budget debate speech that we should work towards AACs, which cater to the different needs of seniors, whether social or medical, or for more specialised areas like mental health or disabled persons who are seniors. The centres should still be referring centres even if other organisations or sub-units are involved. Indeed, an expanded AAC can also perform the coordinator or contact role for elderly caregivers of adults with disabilities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me know move on to ongoing efforts for green transition. Last year, I said in my Budget debate speech that we need a detailed roadmap for retraining workers in these sectors as Singapore decarbonises. I asked whether we have sufficient sustainability-related courses that businesses and workers can afford to attend, both in terms of time and money. In my speech today, I will go on to talk about the quality of the education to be provided.
Mr Deputy Speaker, capacity building is a core concept of development. In the context of climate change and sustainable development, upskilling is now necessary to ensure a just transition and that no worker is left behind.
Singapore has been investing heavily in lifelong learning and upskilling since SkillsFuture was launched back in 2015. Government spending has shifted towards adult education and training to accelerate the nation's green transitions. IHLs form the backbone of this shift and there exists a multitude of courses available to build capacity and upskill the existing work force in areas such as environmental, social and governance (ESG) and carbon services and trading.
However, growing our talent pipeline must also include investing in primary, secondary and tertiary education. I am pleased to hear of a new Master of Science (MSc) in climate change and sustainability programme at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The MSc programme in data science for sustainability was also launched in NUS to train data scientists who can integrate their knowledge and skills with an understanding of sustainability issues. The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has the Asian School of the Environment and offers majors in environmental and earth systems science, public policy and even a second major in sustainability. These are examples of positive development in Singapore.
But to ensure that graduates are well equipped to meet the demands of the times, all such courses must go through sufficient policy and industry validation. For instance, IHLs should, if they have not done so, internalise the SkillsFuture reports to assess SkillsFuture needs in these areas and assess what skill sets they have to teach undergraduates and graduate students. We should also encourage our course providers to ensure that all courses provide adequate time, emphasis and coverage on Singapore, so that students can really understand how to green Singapore and the challenges that Singapore face.
Do knowledge providers have the right people to teach and impart such knowledge and skills? How do we ensure this? Some form of impact assessment is necessary to track lifelong learners' progress, comprehension and application.
Second, knowledge and content providers across the IHLs also need to be given adequate support to do this important work of providing the knowledge and skills for the workforce. Hiring practices at university need to reflect contribution to society beyond traditional publication and impact factors. If Singapore is to succeed in our green transition, more emphasis needs to be placed on hiring experts that have real-world experience in solving complex sustainability challenges.
Demand is also growing for Singapore to help build regional and international capacity. Overall, there is growing demand for Singapore's experts to be ready and available to impart valuable knowledge. To do so, we need more Singaporeans to step forward with the right knowledge, skills and attitude to help grow our local, regional and international sustainability talent. Indeed, we need to actively grow our pool of educators.
Climate change demands urgent action from everyone, across all sectors of society. As we focus on upskilling and capacity building of workers, we must also not overlook the support and training we need to give our educators. We need to grow our pool of sustainability educators and we need to do so fast in this quick journey of manpower transition, so that we do not lag behind our 2030 and 2050 goals.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, I look forward to the replies to the concerns I have raised.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Ms Denise Phua.
4.19 pm
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar) : Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2024 is a well-stitched effort to tackle both immediate challenges and longer-term issues affecting our citizens and businesses. Whilst it is not flawless, it does stand as evidence of our Government’s commitment to listening and understanding ground realities.
I am very grateful to my residents, grassroots activists, fellow volunteers and my Central District CDC councillors and partners for sharing their insights on Budget 2024 with me. Many of them have expressed admiration for its comprehensive suite of benefits to individuals, households, seniors, businesses and families with children in preschools and special education schools. The Budget’s positive features are widely recognised and appreciated.
In my speech, I wish to focus on three areas of concern: firstly, the need to scrutinise if the intended outcomes of Budget 2024’s initiatives will be met; secondly, the sustainability of escalating social development costs; and thirdly, the need to foster a more robust ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality.
First, on the need to ensure intended outcomes are achieved. Let me provide one example that is close to my heart. I applaud the Government’s bold and potentially game-changing investment in two target groups within the Singaporean labour force: one, our young ITE graduates below the age of 30; and two, our mid-career Singaporeans.
However, the devil, as they say, is in the details. For instance, while attractive financial incentives are provided for ITE graduates below age 30, to pursue further diploma studies, several questions remain unanswered. It is unclear to me how many are eligible for these targeted diploma courses and whether the potential opportunity costs of not working will deter them, and if they will receive adequate career guidance to ensure alignment with their strengths and job market needs?
The same questions also apply to the mid-career reskilling plan for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. This is also a profile who similarly needs to be urged to undertake the reskilling initiative for better future employability.
I therefore would urge a careful study of the response of the target pool of ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans to further improve the chances of success of this potentially game-changing investment by the Government. Government can consider an even more aggressive move of specifically approaching the lower-skilled gig economy workers, for instance, and others whose industries or jobs are at risk of being obsoleted by technology, including AI.
The investment in our younger ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans is not the only ones that need careful eyeballing and tweaking if need be. Some initiatives such as the corporate income tax and personal income tax for everybody, the reduction of fees in preschools and SPED schools are blunt measures that signal Government's care and empathy. Yet, they may or may not be needed or appreciated by some Singaporeans. An option for those not in need to redirect their benefits for a common pool for those more in need should be considered. Much like how unused CDC Vouchers are channeled to charities with an Institution of Public Character (IPC) status.
I therefore urge Government to undertake a proactive mitigation strategy to guarantee the effective execution and success of Budget 2024's well-intentioned initiatives.
Next, I would like to touch on the worrying trend of rising national expenditures, especially in what is categorised as "social development costs". More than 50% of the total Budget allocation is dedicated to social development. Receiving the largest shares are health, about 17% or about $19 billion; education at 13% or about $15 billion; and national development at 8.1% or $9 billion. This investment in social development reflects Government's priorities and commitment to improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans.
Yet as we increase spending in these vital areas, we must also consider innovative ways to sustain this investment. Our Singapore society is not accustomed to higher personal and corporate income taxes for various reasons. And this is unlike countries such as Australia and the Nordic countries, where high levels of citizen welfare are funded by tax regimes with high tax rates.
So, one innovative way that the PAP Government has used is to tap on the National Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) to fund expenditure, which in the last seven Budgets from FY2018 to now, has been increasingly relied upon. How sustainable this funding model is remains to be seen. There must constantly be found ways to pay for the ever-increasing expenditure. Some people I have spoken to call for an even more resources, for example, to be channeled to GIC and Temasek Holdings for them to invest, so that the NIRC base can be enlarged. The two investors have, over the years, delivered decent medium- and longer-term returns. And others call for more public-private-people partnerships for more innovative and flexible funding.
Whatever it is, the concern over the sustainability of the current funding model for our ever-rising national expenditures should not be underrated and underestimated – and that is my second point.
Finally, the need to foster a more robust and cohesive ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality. Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s clarion call through Forward Singapore and through Budget 2024 to “build a shared future together” is an important call to action for every sector of society. Already, Singapore is working with partners in areas such as community hospitals, hospices included, special education and other social services.
I refer to hon MP Dennis Tan's lament about the adults with disabilities. And I just want to share that all of us have a role as well. In my Kampong Glam division, for example, we have tested and piloted in the last two years with the People’s Association (PA) grassroots and CaringSG, a special programme that is called "Purple Hearts". It is a special needs families' network, where more than 20 volunteers from the ground, led by some of our grassroot leaders and me. We regularly visited, befriended, tried to find out the needs and then referred and directed the needs of these 200 families to the different agencies, some of them in Government and some are non-government. And almost two years now. I am very happy to share with Mr Dennis Tan and also other MPs, if they are interested, to at least make this happen in their area.
Already, Singapore is working with a lot of partners in this space. But let me just propose some ways by which our Government can take a better lead in ensuring the building of a shared future together, especially in the non-profit charity sector, where I actively volunteer. I need to declare. This is a sector that is full of heart but is fairly fragmented.
First, the Government can play a crucial and more helpful role in facilitating this ecosystem to ensure more informed decision-making and impactful outcomes. In recent years, substantial resources have been allocated to governance of the partners, which is vital of course – audits, governance and so forth.
However, there needs to be a deeper understanding among both donors and recipients about the landscape – identifying the key essential services, causes, beneficiary groups, key gaps and expectations, as well as clarifying the Government's participation in these gaps and how others can contribute effectively. For example, major donors in Singapore, such as Ngee Ann Kongsi and various foundations, could be better supported to invest in the essential areas sustainably.
Second, support for back-end functions. The back-end of any effective social service ecosystem lies in its operational capabilities. Currently, many social service agencies and charities face challenges due to fragmented support structures in governance, procurement, risk management and internal controls. Not their fault; it is just that they are operating with very limited resources. They are not the Government. They cannot afford to pay for what one Member called “bureaucratic complexity”.
So, operating with limited resources, these charities and partners often find it very difficult to establish systems that meet Government operating and audit standards. Improving support in these areas therefore is crucial. For instance, enabling IPCs to access Government procurement networks such as the GeBiz or Demand Aggregated vendors; this could significantly reduce operational burdens for charities. For instance, having good senior public servants from the Public Service for Good movement started by Minister Chan Chun Sing to sit down with key sector leaders and help set reasonable standards and install cost-effective back-end functions – this is one way of moving forward for a shared future.
Next, on supporting manpower needs in this non-profit charity sector, the Government can play a pivotal role by being sensitive to and supportive of the workforce dedicated to its non-profit partners. The manpower challenges faced by organisations, for example, like Dover Hospice, which I just visited, where healthcare staff, despite their experience, face tenure limitations; and partner homes, nursing homes, residential homes, which see staff leaving for other sectors, for example, the public sector, due to more attractive connect plans or compensation packages. All these underscore the need for a more supportive and sensitive framework by the Government, together, working as partners.
Fourth, in tiered matching and tax exemptions. The Government should implemented tiered matching for donations and offer more attractive tax exemptions for contributions to essential under-resourced social sectors. Essential and emerging needs should be carefully identified and receive more support. These include healthcare, lifelong education, care facilities for adults which Member Dennis Tan has mentioned also, and I raised many times in the House here and outside, for persons with disabilities and their families, especially the adult ones, and also support social enterprises that lead to job creations for the vulnerable, such as our neuro-diversed, disabled and lower-educated Singaporeans. While I appreciate that tax exemptions will now be offered for overseas donations, I urge for local investments to be given priority and granted more attractive tax incentives over overseas donations.
Fifth, empowering social enterprises. Instead of relying only on donations and grants, charities as the Government's partners should be encouraged to fish rather than being fed in the long term. Social enterprises play a critical role in addressing societal challenges through business solutions. But social enterprises are some of the most difficult businesses to run, having to achieve both financial and social output bottom lines. Supporting these organisations by prioritising them in procurement processes, offering set-up assistance and providing more tax exemptions and grants can amplify their impact, especially for those that are run by charities. The money goes into the charity and not into any individual's pockets. So, this approach will not only foster social innovation but also contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Public procurement policies that favour social enterprises can create a more inclusive economy and drive social value creation.
Sir, I have proposed five ways by which the Government can be more sensitive and appreciated in its aspiration to build a shared future with stakeholders in the area of social development. And I look forward to the Government double-clicking on what I have shared on these five items, so that we can build a shared future together. And I also look forward, of course, to its considered responses in this Budget season.
In conclusion, Sir, Budget 2024 is not merely a financial plan. It is a blueprint for a compassionate, inclusive and resilient society. There are some brilliant programmes that ought to be further scrutinised to ensure their well-intentioned goals are achieved. Social development costs are rising in terms of dollars and proportion. Only with a vibrant ecosystem can each one play their role to the best and bring to reality the spirit of ForwardSG and Budget 2024.
Budget 2024 calls upon each one of us – the Government, Government officials, corporate leaders, philanthropists, social service agencies, citizens, residents, all of us – to contribute towards a shared future. Notwithstanding my inputs, I strongly support the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Mr Yip Hon Weng.
4.34 pm
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) : Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, close our eyes and imagine Ah Ma, a silver-haired hawker, her smile fading as she sees the rising cost of ingredients threatening her livelihood. Now picture Encik Ali, struggling to choose between essential groceries and his medication due to inflation. These are not isolated stories. They represent the daily struggles of a sizeable number of Singaporeans, both young and old, feeling the squeeze from rising costs of living across the board. I meet some of these residents at my Yio Chu Kang Meet-the-People Sessions.
While Budget 2024 deserves recognition for its priorities, the affordability crisis casts a long shadow, threatening not just the financial security of our seniors but the very fabric of our diverse society. Let us act before affordability becomes a barrier to opportunity and well-being for all Singaporeans. We can do more to make Singapore an affordable place to live in, particularly in transport, housing, CPF and social support schemes.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to ensure affordable and accessible transport for Singaporeans. While our public transport network continues to expand, car ownership remains a critical aspect of life for many Singaporeans. Families with young children, seniors, individuals with limited mobility and those with special needs often rely on private vehicles for their daily commutes.
Despite its world-class efficiency, our public transport system experiences sizeable crowds at most hours. During peak periods, the situation intensifies, with limited seating availability for vulnerable passengers. While private hire vehicles (PHVs) offer an alternative, their costs and waiting times are rising, not to mention that there are peak-hour surcharges. Recent experiences during festive periods like Chinese New Year, with reported waiting times of 30 minutes, raise concerns about their reliability. Of course, this is understandable as PHV drivers have families, too, and will join in the celebrations during this festive season. But this also means that there is a certain market failure in the PHV network which may require some intervention.
Skyrocketing Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) threaten to push car ownership out of reach for the average Singaporean. This is not a luxury car problem; it is a family car problem. The recent Parliamentary debates on this issue demonstrated the urgency of addressing the affordability issue.
The ongoing review of point-to-point travel is encouraging. I urge the Government to seriously consider separate COE categories for PHVs. I have raised this issue in Parliament on several occasions. This issue centres around the fairness and impact of placing PHVs and individual buyers in the same COE pool. Firstly, the demand patterns differ significantly. PHV companies often have access to greater financial resources and can be more aggressive bidders, ultimately, passing on the cost to passengers. Secondly, for PHVs, cars are essentially business tools. Companies are likely to prioritise higher bids, compared to individual buyers purchasing for personal use, knowing that they can recoup the money in the future. Hence, creating a separate category addresses this imbalance between corporations and individual buyers, ensuring a fairer and more equitable system.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to protect our seniors from seemingly unfair property tax increases. While the recent adjustments to AV brackets and property rebates are a positive step, their delayed implementation presents a pressing concern for our retired seniors. Can the Government hence implement the changes earlier?
Also, many retirees are "asset-rich and cash-poor". They have acquired their private properties decades ago and lived in them for a long time. A sharp property tax increase can devastate these retirees who lack the income to absorb the cost. We need a fairer system that protects our seniors. They lack the readily available cash flow to absorb any significant rise in property tax associated with increasing AVs. One retiree I know told me that her property tax has increased by almost three times. Perhaps the Government should provide more assistance to retirees with no income who possess a single owner-occupied home. By all means tax more for those with a second property, a third property and so on. What the Government is doing now is essentially asking retirees staying in their own home who cannot pay their property tax to sell away their home and uproot from the environment that they are familiar with. This will put stress on our seniors and affect their mental health. It might even cause dementia to set in earlier.
We also need to implement a fairer property tax system considering residents' unique circumstances, especially for owner-occupied homes. Can we encourage our banks and financial institutions to have reverse mortgages? Monetise some of the lease of the houses, but with the option of paying back when the house is eventually inherited. This may create a market and allow price discovery and competition, too.
We also need greater clarity on the relevant physical attributes that are being considered when calculating the AV of the home. How will IRAS assess the condition of houses, both private and HDB, that are located in districts with higher property value but have not been renovated in many years? Moreover, can the Government also consider introducing a maximum annual increase cap on property taxes, up to 50%, for example?
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need clearer communication and targeted support for CPF changes. While the closure of the Special Account (SA) and the transfer of funds to the RA simplify the system and offer potentially higher interest rates, I seek clarification on the 1% of members who cannot transfer their SA savings to RA. Can the Minister elaborate on who falls under this exception? Will moving funds from the OA to the RA be voluntary? How will members be informed of this option, its benefits and drawbacks, and receive assistance on this if needed?
Moreover, the imminent closure of SA raises concerns and confusion among many residents, especially those in their 50s who have reached the full retirement sum. Numerous residents have expressed concerns that they have to replan their retirement due to this change. Years of financial planning based on the SA's higher interest rates are disrupted, leaving them with limited time to adjust. The limited withdrawal options from RA raise concerns about accessing emergency funds, unlike the SA, which has more flexibility. Conversely, leaving funds in OA means lower interest earning and retirement savings, impacting our seniors' long-term financial security. I urge the Minister to address these residents' concerns and explore ways to minimise the impact of the SA closure on members aged 55 and above, particularly regarding withdrawal flexibility.
Furthermore, while I acknowledge the move to raise the ERS to allow members to benefit from the high interest rates in RA, I emphasise the need to focus on lower-income earners who struggle to reach even the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS). Can the Minister elaborate on specific measures to help them grow their retirement savings?
Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to refine means-testing processes for essential schemes to ensure inclusivity. While the Silver Support Scheme (SSS) aims to help seniors who have low incomes during their working years and now have less in retirement, using housing type to determine Silver Support payouts may unfairly disadvantage seniors who have shared their flats with their families. I would like to suggest the removal of this criterion. Seniors in larger flats may face other financial limitations. They may share the roof with many family members and do not have the option to downsize or monetise the house. Hence, it may not be right to equate housing type with wealth.
Likewise for hospital bills and subsidies. The current means-testing based on housing and family income might not accurately reflect the true financial situation of all seniors. With the increasing trend of later marriages and singlehood, many young Singaporeans live with their parents while striving for financial independence or waiting for their BTOs. Denying subsidies based on these further disadvantages young Singaporeans and impacts their decisions regarding marriage and family planning. It also deters seniors from seeking necessary healthcare due to the fear of burdening their children. We, hence, need to consider removing housing type as a criterion, refine means-testing processes to consider a more holistic view of individual and family income.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us open our eyes. Let us view Singapore as a grand, age-old tree, deeply rooted in our values and traditions, providing shelter and sustenance to all who seek refuge beneath its branches. Just as we cherish and nurture our seniors, so, too, must we ensure that they are sheltered from the storms of uncertainty and hardship. They grew the tree, and now it is their time to enjoy the shelter it should provide. It is evident that action is needed to address the affordability challenges facing Singaporeans.
I have made several suggestions in my speech.
Firstly, in transportation, we must ensure accessibility and affordability, particularly for families and vulnerable individuals like seniors. We need to explore separate COE categories for PHVs.
Secondly, regarding housing, a fairer property tax system, considering the unique circumstances of residents, is imperative. Tailored policies and capped increases can alleviate the burden on seniors and home owners.
Thirdly, in CPF, greater awareness of policy changes and targeted support are critical to help seniors grow their retirement savings, especially for lower-income earners who struggle to reach the Basic Retirement Sum.
Lastly, in social support, refining means-testing processes for essential schemes like Silver Support and medical subsidies is necessary to ensure a holistic view of individual and family income.
I urge the Government to prioritise these measures to ensure affordability for all, especially for our seniors. Let us not wait until rising costs become insurmountable barriers for Singaporeans of all ages. By working together, we can build a more inclusive and equitable society where everyone thrives, regardless of their circumstances. Together, let us make Singapore a truly affordable place to live in, and a nation where everyone can chase their dreams without being crippled by financial hardship. I support the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Miss Cheryl Chan.
4.45 pm
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast) : Mr Deputy Speaker, the fate of a country through the ages has been that it either rises, falls or stagnates. We are lucky that in Singapore – against massive odds – we have continued to do well. Budget 2024, which is a part of the Forward Singapore movement, aims to keep the upward trajectory going. But even as we grow our economy, the immutable fact is that resources will always be finite but wants unlimited.
Our needs rise with each generation and their aspirations for a brighter and progressive future imply we have to keep adapting and evolving. We need to take deliberate actions to stretch every dollar we spend to ensure we continue to meet the growing aspirations of our citizens and expand our economy in a holistic manner. Thus, strengthening key areas and preventing unnecessary resource wastage, while ensuring that our wealth and social equality keep pace across different segments in society, is necessary.
In this Budget 2024 Statement, there are four areas stood out for me. First, I agree with the need for our economy to continue growing at a healthy pace, but not at all costs.
I applaud the Government in planning for the future of economy and setting a direction of what industries and jobs will anchor this little red dot beyond a decade or two. However, we have to be careful not to be blindsided by the potential unseen structural and social costs that such development could bring. We have to plan for such economic activities in a holistic and calibrated manner and, most importantly, as part of a whole-of-Government effort to ensure we consider all dimensions of each plan.
For example, as we pursue new high value activities, such as R&D, we should not neglect strengthening our foundational engineering capabilities or to continue encouraging our high value-add manufacturing base. The pandemic has shown that over reliance for core parts of a supply chain globally has its downside.
Offshoring some of these jobs not only impact our blue-collar workforce, but it could also risk Singapore losing our ability to effectively translate innovation into market-ready products. On the long run, this limits Singapore's capabilities of being a "one-stop" shop for such innovation deployment.
Deliberate planning of lifelong learning and scoping career transition pathways through the newly launched SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will help develop our workforce to deliver products and services in the new economic growth areas. However, we must continue to support capability development in tradecrafts and some blue-collar domains, to ensure we have a holistic workforce to drive our economic plans forward.
I am happy about the new ITE progression award to support students to upskill in more practical and hands-on areas. I hope similar schemes would continue to support and enhance our workforce to develop mastery in key skills which are needed to drive some fundamentals in Singapore's growth forward.
To be clear, I am in full support of our future economic thrust, such as preparing for the digital and green transition, continuously moving up the value chain and finding niche areas where we can be globally competitive and differentiated.
But while we push the frontiers of innovation – and it is critical – it is the ability to imagine the future of Singapore's economy that presents hope and possibilities to all segments of workers that will keep our economy going.
Second, I am enthused that we will be allocating budget for key infrastructure development to support the transition towards clean energy through the Future Energy Fund. These spendings are important to ensure that Singapore remains a good participant of global climate action and potentially be a beacon to other countries in transiting towards cleaner energy.
These infrastructural developments are, however, costly; and could entail higher risk of being stranded, given the uncertain energy landscape. A prudent allocation of these funds must go beyond just evaluating the capital. It requires Government leaders to make good judgement calls on the risk of such investments and to consider the potential high recurring cost and approach to maintain such infrastructures for usability over a defined lifetime; so as to prevent wastage both now and in the future.
In the same vein, we should follow this philosophy when developing any infrastructure projects to ensure we can stretch every dollar spent. Take, for example, many sheltered linkways have been constructed to provide increased convenience to our citizens and give them the comfort during the hot and wet weather. However, some of the sheltered linkways are not built at areas with heavy footfall and they are under-utilised.
The lightings that are required to keep them bright for usage at night is also drawing more energy from the grid when it is already lighted by parallel streetlights. To ensure the safety of these structures, especially the ones spanning across the roads, are both expensive to construct and maintain. Have we considered how to minimise high recurring expenses to maintain these assets for decades? Were there options to modify the usage of these sheltered paths to serve a wider community, or other innovative and cheaper ways to provide such shelter? Such decisions do require some level of judgement.
Given our limited resources and the possibility that some day, we will have little foreign workers to serve our daily needs, will the public works regulatory evolve to allow citizens to volunteer their expertise or knowledge on potential technology and designs that can be used?
Third, I welcome the move to help address the immediate cost of living and to enhance the AP. Our GDP per capita stands at about S$91,100, according to the World Economic Outlook in 2022 and ranks amongst the top three globally.
For a young nation with relatively high median income, it is hard for some to apprehend that we have amongst us the low-income workers, a sandwiched middle-income group and seniors or retirees who may not have sufficient financials to support their retirement. With impending global headwinds that may adversely affect our economy and our ageing population, I am concerned for the future for this group of citizens, especially given the uncertainty it may bring. While the country prospers, a key topic we have to face squarely is whether our wealth and social equality is keeping pace across the different segments in society.
The prices of essential goods and services have increased over the past year and the provision of the CDC and U-Save vouchers would go some way to help many Singaporeans cushion a part of the escalating cost burden. While such schemes have instant effect to address current inflation challenge, the long-term deployment of such schemes, likewise places a fiscal burden on the Government. There is a need to continually track the impact of such packages and to regularly benchmark it with the intent of the package or the policy.
With Singapore's continued investments into new high value economic growth areas and as we continue to support upgrading our workforce to undertake higher value jobs, I am hopeful that the real wages for Singaporeans will continue to grow. I am not against the provision of financial support for targeted groups of individuals who have needs and are unable to support or manage without additional support or truly needs a helping hand in that manner.
The question I have for the Government is whether the plan is to continue making some of these support schemes, like the CDC Vouchers and AP a permanent one, and how are we intending to fund these. Everybody likes "free money", but it is important that we always prioritise our fellow Singaporeans who might need a bit more help and continue to support them as a national family.
And this brings me to the last aspect of helping those who need more support and in a targeted manner. I am very encouraged by the announcement of the increased support to be provided to families of persons with special needs.
I believe that inclusivity is an important pillar in our social fabric, and we should continue to aspire and rally more Singaporeans to support and integrate people with special needs into our community to the largest possible extent. Lowering the cost of monthly fees at special education (SPED) schools and increasing support for employment and integration of special needs individuals are moves in the right direction.
To be a caregiver for someone with special needs is not only a matter of financial cost, but it also takes a toll on the entire family as their lifestyle completely changes beyond one about affordability, to one that focuses on how best to enable the special needs person to live a life.
One resident who approached me for help recently had an issue with her daughter's application for a transport concession card. The issue of not getting the approval was one around definition of disability and the assessment criteria. The fact of the matter is her daughter has been diagnosed with varying degrees of disability since young. Now at 20, her condition has not improved, and she faces other societal challenges and the lack of opportunity to participate in the workforce. What her parents are concerned about is not merely about a transport concession card, which is lesser in value than GST Voucher or even the CDC Voucher support that were generously given. The concern they have is that the availability of options their daughter has for rest of her life is determined by what others are willing to provide and the decisions to support rely on rulebooks that are seldom exercised with a sense of understanding.
I do ask if there are more we can do as a community to support such individuals. I am heartened to see that there are more commercial facilities setting aside space and adjusting their operational procedures to make spaces that are more welcoming to those with special needs.
Places like Gardens by the Bay plans to have a quiet hour for people with autism and an inclusive playground for children. Other similar efforts are also taken by corporates, such as Frasers Property and its tenants, who chose to be the inaugural "Inclusive Champions". Proliferation of such community, as well as commercial-led efforts are essential to ultimately mainstream the inclusivity of special needs individuals into Singaporeans' daily way of life.
I hope the Government will expand its support for such ground-up efforts, both in the commercial and the community space to help those with special needs.
Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I am optimistic about Singapore's growth ahead despite the global headwinds. Budget 2024 provides a view of how we can shape our economy to embrace a new demand, which also ensures our workforce can be better placed for future job propositions.
While the Government plans for the nation, I also seek fellow Singaporeans to take an active role in our path forward. This country can only benefit from our collective wisdom, efforts and willingness to see it succeed. Success is not simply a definition of being the best, but one where we feel proud and comforted that our success includes those who are needy and vulnerable in society as well. And with that, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Ms Jessica Tan.
4.57 pm
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast) : Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in Budget 2024. It takes care of the immediate cost-of-living challenges, provides support for families and our seniors, supports individuals and businesses to be future ready for growth and jobs. The introduction of measures to anchor quality investments, invest in new economic sectors and major moves to decarbonise the economy, are welcomed but require large funding.
Our spending needs continue to rise. The question is, will we be able to continue to afford such large funding. Deputy Prime Minister Wong outlined that our medium-term fiscal position is tight, but assured that if we remain in the range of projected spending increase, we should have sufficient revenues to maintain a balanced Budget.
So, I hope that we continue to be able to share as we progress on our specific initiatives. My speech will focus on four areas: better growth; jobs and opportunities; healthcare and senior care and the property tax adjustments.
With the continuing geopolitical situation, slower economic growth and decline in real income, Singaporeans and businesses have been challenged in coping with inflation, higher cost of living and of doing business. The cash support and grants announced for the AP and Enterprise Support Package will help families and businesses cope with current cost and inflationary pressures.
But we do need to give focus to growth and quality growth. This is vital if we want better lives for Singaporeans and for businesses to be able to thrive. This point was aptly articulated by one of our residents in Changi Simei last year during our Budget dialogue.
As we were discussing budget measures to support cost-of-living pressures, he reminded us that while support measures are needed, we must also "grow the pie". If we do not grow, we will be worse-off in the long run as we will be relying on a shrinking pie and there will be less to count on. This is the stark reality and a timely reminder.
We cannot do more of the same. Global uncertainties, disruptions and structural shifts, driven by technology and climate change, require us to make fundamental shifts and innovate to achieve good and sustainable growth. Singapore needs to continue to remain an attractive hub for businesses to invest their high quality projects, as this brings cutting-edge capability, knowledge and technology, and more importantly, it creates good jobs.
The introduction of the Refundable Investment Credit, investments in AI, upgrading of our Nationwide Broadband Network, and the further boost to the RIE2025 plan, are some of the important measures that Budget 2024 is investing in for Singapore to continue to remain competitive and attractive for companies to invest in.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
But to realise the full potential of the growth will require our businesses, including SMEs, to have the capability to be part of that growth. Having strong local businesses will also improve Singapore's attractiveness for investments, as businesses looking to invest will require a strong base of companies to partner. It is critical that our local enterprises transform to remain relevant and the changes, we must realise, will not be easy as it will require new ways of doing business, harnessing technology, building new skills and adopting energy-efficient solutions. The measures and enhancements in the Budget will support our local enterprises in their transformation efforts. But it will come down to whether our local enterprises will commit and make the investment to do so while continuing to run their current businesses.
When I was working in MNEs, I personally witnessed the synergy and benefits of collaboration between MNEs and local businesses, especially SMEs. SMEs can level-up by tapping on the technical know-how, expertise, financial strength and access to markets of MNEs. Many MNEs have initiatives to develop local businesses as MNEs understand the value of working with and building a strong network of local businesses to provide local market insights, tapping on the potential of the local markets and address gaps. It is a win-win for both the MNE and local businesses. Hence, it is important that our local businesses make the necessary investments to transform and be ready to partner and play a key part in the value chain of MNEs.
The Partnership for Capability Transformation scheme and the enhancement that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced in the Budget will promote partnerships between MNEs and our local businesses. But our local companies can only do so if they have the capability.
Let me now touch on an equally important point. For growth to be possible, businesses need people, people who have the relevant skills and knowledge to take on the jobs. The disruptions are impacting businesses structurally and, in turn, jobs.
In an Adjournment Motion that I raised in 2022 on senior employability, I shared the findings of work that the PAP Seniors Group embarked on to better understand work and senior employability.
One of my recommendations was the need for structural intervention in how we support learning and organise work. As people live longer and healthier, we continue to learn, are productive and desire to be able to continue to work as we age.
But we will progress through our life stages in a non-linear way. Just as we allow for different pathways of our young in formal education, I highlighted the need to rethink how we structure learning for those in the workforce to enable continuous learning and work. Individuals, as well as employers, know the value of continuous learning. The challenge is the opportunity cost and making the time to substantially invest in it. Hence, the vicious cycle of talents gaps and skills relevancy affecting both businesses and individuals. I had asked that we find ways to allow a period of maybe a few months of work-related learning every few years. Then, we can really build skills.
The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme announced in the Budget is significant. It will support all Singaporean mid-career workers aged 40 years and above with $4,000 SkillsFuture credits for selected industry-oriented courses in sectors with good hiring opportunities; subsidise full-time diplomas at the polytechnics, ITE and arts institutions and give training allowance capped at $3,000 a month up to 24 months throughout one's lifetime. These measures are meant to offset income loss during the period. It also signals a recognition of the structural shifts impacting employment and the need for the right support for mid-career workers to proactively take the step to reskill and to enable them to deal with changes in employment by being future ready to take on new and good job opportunities.
SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme is indeed a structural change in supporting mid-career workers. It will cushion the cost of retraining and I believe will go some way to encourage individuals to make the commitment and take charge of their reskilling and career. This will require a mindset shift and support from employers, educational institutions and family for reskilling and work and managing the transitions. It will require adjustment to all stakeholders including the mid-career worker as going back to formal education after some years can be daunting. There will be other considerations, such as finding and deciding on suitable courses that will lead to better employability and better jobs and for those who are not taking full-time courses, the ability to manage work and study. But ultimately, for SkillsFuture to be meaningful for workers, reskilling must align to business needs so that the result is really indeed securing better jobs.
If we are successful in making the shift to reskilling, as advocated in the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, I am hopeful that it will make learning as systemic for workers in the workplace as it is for our young in formal education.
Let me now touch on healthcare and senior care.
With household facing higher cost pressures and cost of healthcare, I welcome the Government's revision of the monthly per capita household income (PHCI) criterion for means-tested healthcare and associated social support subsidy scheme. As stated, with the revision, more than one million will benefit from the higher subsidies.
I would like to seek clarification on the revised thresholds and subsidies for Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social and Family Development long-term residential and non-residential care. The details provided make no mention of AV. Is AV no longer a criterion? In the case of retirees who have no PHCI, will AV be used as the means-tested criteria to determine eligibility? If the AV is even slightly above the AV threshold, they would not be eligible for any subsidies.
I made this appeal in last year's Budget debate for a review and refinement of the means-tested criteria for senior long-term residential and non-residential care. If AV continues to be a means-tested criterion to determine eligibility, at risk of sounding like a broken record, I ask the Government to review how we support Singaporean families to care for their seniors, just as we support all Singaporean families with the care of their young children as announced in last year's Budget, without means testing.
I am not asking for no means testing but a refinement of how AV is used to determine eligibility. The cost of eldercare services is not insignificant. Without subsidies, daycare services can cost from $945 to $1,430 per month. Dementia care services range between $1,260 to $1,575 per month before subsidies. For families that have both young children and seniors to care for, these expenses do add up. For retirees, the impact is even greater.
Finally, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for recognising the challenges faced with the increase in property tax in 2024 for owner-occupied residential properties with the sharp increase in the AV and for making the adjustment to widen the AV bands for the property tax for owner occupied properties. This means homeowners will pay less property tax in 2025 and following years if AV remains unchanged.
As shared by CBRE Research, the adjustment to the AV bands will benefit the lower- and mid-tier properties the most with lower property tax payable in the range of 20%-30%. The adjustment will help homeowners, especially retirees, who may not be well-off. Together with the 24-month instalment plan without any interest, this will help retirees who are unable to make the lump sum payment for their property tax.
Budget 2024 is a comprehensive Budget. It lays new foundations and building blocks for us to build our shared future together. To achieve the bold ambitions set out in Budget 2024 will require everyone, Government, businesses, individuals and community to take an active role and play our part. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.
5.08 pm
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, Singaporean workers aspire towards making a good living and engaging in meaningful work that uplifts not only their own families, but also their communities, their nation and the world.
One inescapable reality of work is competition.
We have always had a very competitive culture in Singapore. This has served us well in many ways, from the excellent performance of our students in schools to our efforts the top global rankings and everything from corruption perceptions to business friendliness. However, competition also has a darker side.
Singaporeans are not looking to the Government to shield them from global competition. However, we detest unfair competition where people who do not play by the rules or follow local norms, still get ahead. For example, when Singaporean workers see colleagues getting hired and promoted not on the basis of their ability or hard work nut because their manager prefers working with people who share his cultural background, this creates a profound dissonance in them.
Why? Because Singaporeans have been brought up to believe that meritocracy is a guiding principle in our society. We want a Singapore which rewards workers and professionals based on their competence and hard work, not connections or tribal loyalties.
Nevertheless, while we strive to shape the Singapore that we desire, we are but a small drop in a vast ocean. We have to teach our children and students to deal with the world as it is, not how we wanted to be. They must be taught at home and in schools to speak up when they have something to contribute, not stay silent in the background. They must be encouraged to ask for what is due to them and not simply accept what others decide for them without question. And they must be willing to network with a wide spectrum of people from different cultures and nationalities and understand what motivates them.
Singapore is often viewed as a nation of excellence. In local parlance, we do things "swee swee". Give Singaporean a task and when they say they have done it, we can trust that it has been done well. We must never let this culture of excellence slip. It is our advantage in an increasingly competitive world.
AI and robotics both have both burst into mainstream consciousness in recent years, with the launch of generative AI and self-driving cars. These technologies could provide a path to boosting Singapore's productivity by enhancing the speed, accuracy and efficiency of various tasks and processes.
There are many studies of AI's measurable impact on productivity. For example, a joint study by BCG and Harvard found that consultants using GPT-4 completed 12% more business tasks 25% more quickly with 40% higher quality than a control group without AI-access.
These are amazing opportunities for Singapore to take advantage of. The Government can spur a broader uptake of AI and robotics, not only for our scientists and businesses, but also for general purpose use by ordinary citizens.
In November 2023, I asked about whether the Government plan to develop indigenous capabilities in creating and deploying AI foundation models, including establishing a national Foundation Model Research Institute.
In February 2024, I proposed the creation of a national AI Healthcare Foundation Model which can be used to predict and intervene in a broad spectrum of diseases. I would like to repeat these calls here.
These are not just national initiatives but possible precursors to greater regional scientific cooperation. Singapore needs the right institutions and opportunities in order to attract and retain the best minds, including talented Singaporean students, scientists and entrepreneurs.
I am under no Illusions about the potential of these new technologies to cause job losses. This is why in January 2024, I asked the Government for its plans to proactively retrain workers who are at most risk of displacement from AI. We need interventions to steel our citizens against AI-driven job redundancy. It is better for us to be the architects of our own disruption than to allow technology to change us for the worse.
It is tempting to pull out the old playbook or pouring money into training programmes and encouraging workers to attend courses. However, this approach may not succeed in upskilling an entire workforce in disrupted new technologies.
We must also embrace tacit learning, through the hands-on use of AI and robotics. Tacit learning is learning by doing. Using AI tools or robots needs to be made as easy and as commonplace as goggling for answers on a web browser or operating a television remote control. Robots should be deployed more widely in our environment so that the public get used to seeing and using them every day.
Giving every Singaporean hands-on practice with AI and robotics will better ensure that the gains of these technologies go to everyone, manual workers and knowledge workers, civil servants and entrepreneurs, MNCs and SMEs.
SkillsFuture must also support tacit learning. In February 2024, in my Adjournment Motion on global AI leadership, I called for the subscriptions to cutting edge AI tools to be subsidised by SkillsFuture credits.
AI tools make workers more productive and we should give our people more opportunities to use them. We must strive for the whole breadth of Singapore society to have contact with the best AI models and robots. Only by trying them out as a first mover and being willing to accept and learn from failure can we gain and retain the thousand points of knowledge that no instructor can teach.
In his Budget Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong rightly pointed out that we are now in an era of armed conflict, confrontation and terrorism, with major powers prioritising national security over international cooperation and that there is a diminished willingness to tackle global issues. These are stark realities. We must work within the realities of this new world order as the old order is probably not coming back anytime soon.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong said that we will pursue better jobs and better growth. He made a commitment to improve wages across professions. In particular, he said that the wages and career prospects of ITE graduates should not be too far behind polytechnic and university graduates. I fully support this. I hope the wages of skilled tradespersons will come much closer to par with knowledge workers, because of the value they bring to our economy and our society. I will elaborate further on this during the Committee of Supply debate on MOM's budget.
The introduction of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which injects another $4,000 into Singaporean SkillsFuture credit is welcome. Deputy Prime Minister Wong said it is to be used for selected training programmes with better employability outcomes, including part-time and full-time diplomas and undergraduate programmes. In addition, workers 40 years and above will have the opportunity to pursue another full-time diploma at subsidised rates.
Can I ask the Minister, how did the Government arrive at the conclusion that these diploma and degree programmes have better employability outcomes? Is there empirical evidence to support this and if there is, are the better outcomes due to the greater skills that these graduates have acquired or because local employers continue to emphasise paper qualifications over skills and experience?
In fact, it has been recognised that one of the most effective ways to pick up employable skills is through on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeships. As such, I would suggest that the Government subsidise OJT and apprenticeship programmes to the same tune as diploma and degree programmes.
In his Budget Statement Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned briefly about how the Government will do more to support those whose jobs are made redundant, through a temporary financial support scheme for the unemployed. He said the Government will be working out the details later this year. Sir, this scheme was announced almost one year ago at the National Day Rally in August last year. How much longer will it take to flesh out?
More importantly, how fiscally sustainable will the scheme be? Will it include an insurance component, like what the Workers' Party has proposed through its redundancy insurance scheme, to ensure that premium contributions from employers and employees during times of plenty can be drawn down during economic downturns when retrenchment levels are higher?
Mr Speaker, social inclusion must be at the heart of all our economic policies. I am glad to note that the maximum monthly fees at special education (SPED) schools will be lowered to $90, with lower fee caps at all centres. However, Singapore should move towards equalising the fees for SPED schools and mainstream schools. While I am aware that the cost of providing education at both types of schools is different, the school fees should be the same.
Sir, mainstream primary school fees are only $13 a month. Then SPED school fees should also be $13 a month not $120, which is the current average. Even lowering it to $90, while commendable, is still not equitable. This is especially so considering the higher costs that parents of special needs children incur in many other areas besides education. The additional costs of SPED schools, should be socialised in the interests of creating a more inclusive and equitable society.
School bus fares remain another significant concern for the disability community. As of 1 January 2024, the Ministry of Education has increased the price cap of school bus fares for school bus operators at mainstream schools by up to 13%. But we know that SPED school students face a higher increase in their school bus fares, due to the smaller pool of bus operators who are able to meet their more complex needs.
I am aware and appreciate that there are various school bus subsidy assistance schemes, like the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS). While I understand the need to keep the school bus operators sustainable, the adverse impact of the cost of living crisis has made the cost of school bus transport an added burden for many parents of students with disabilities. Many rely heavily on school bus transport to commute to and from home, school and social service agencies to attend programmes, such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), daycare centres, sheltered workshops and special student care centres.
Very often, there are additional costs involved. EIPIC, for example, is a half-day programme. So, the students also need to be ferried from their school to the programme, creating a double whammy in transport costs.
I would, therefore, like to call on the Government to increase the monthly household income limit for both the FAS and the ETS, especially for households with special needs members. In addition, more subsidies can be provided to match the inflation of school bus fares. This would ensure that more families can access and benefit from these subsidies to cover the ever-increasing cost of living.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we chart our cause through the rapidly changing global and technological terrain, our policies must embody a steadfast dedication to fairness, meritocracy and innovation. By nurturing an ecosystem that champions fair competition, leverages the transformative power of AI and robotics and places the welfare and progress of every Singaporean at its heart – we can secure a robust and flourishing future.
Let us remain committed to building a society with access to opportunities, a culture of excellence and the value of each individual's contributions shape the Singaporean journey for generations to come. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker : Mr Keith Chua.
5.21 pm
Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to share perspectives on this year's Budget – Building Our Shared Future Together.
Implicit, as I see it, are the key words – Building, Shared Future and Together.
In listening to Deputy Prime Minister Wong deliver the Budget on 16 February and subsequently reading his speech again, more than one time and reflecting, I feel very grateful that despite the uncertainties we will encounter, we are well-placed to face these together as one people.
Budget 2024 addresses immediate issues whilst continuing to structure our future social compact. Budget 2024 is the start of an estimated spending of about $40 billion towards our new social compact. Budget 2024 continues to encourage and support necessary economic growth, albeit at a slower pace.
Our Budgets typically attract the interest of the financial and business community. I do hope, though, that more Singaporeans will find time to read Budget 2024 in totality. I hope that even as the financial and business communities evaluate and debate the Budget from fiscal perspectives, that they will play a part in communicating the essence to a much broader constituency.
Possibly, one reason for the limited engagement in the Budget details by our broader population is a historical implicit trust in our Government. However in this age of misinformation, it becomes essential that every Singaporean increasingly appreciates facts and realities. It needs to be seen beyond simple statements, such as Government handouts, if we are to be a part of contributing toward our shared future together.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to offer my observations under three themes or headings.
Firstly, having been faithful and responsible in little and therefore being entrusted with much. Secondly, continuing to seek the welfare of our people and finally, recognising and appreciating our success and, in turn, sharing this both within and beyond our shores.
Much has been spoken in our recent debate on our reserves and the prudent fiscal stewardship exercised by our Government over the past decades. But we need to understand that we started building our reserves with what we can assume was a smaller initial sum and, over the decades, have grown this significantly. In terms of our own economy, we started our economy from a challenging base and today we have been able to attract significant international investments and also develop a strong local business sector.
Budget 2024 has acknowledged current challenges and has therefore provided support in a number of areas for both individuals as well as for businesses.
Growth in our local business sector will come organically and will also come from new initiatives. We need to ensure our SMEs continue to thrive. We need to encourage entrepreneurship to stay vibrant and relevant.
Innovative entrepreneurship can come from intentional support of budding social entrepreneurs. Perhaps some of the new and some of the enhanced funding provided under this Budget, including areas such as research and development, can be allocated to suitable social entrepreneurial initiatives that are not just seeking commercial return but also achieving social impact and social objectives.
Budget 2024 provides for the welfare of those in our community who are more needy and vulnerable. Owing to structural shifts in our domestic economy and also in the global economy, some of our workers will find themselves involuntarily unemployed.
Support may be helpful in conveying – they are not facing this alone and that both Government and the community are ready to help. I also hope and request that the approach we introduce will be wholistic. I would also encourage individuals who are unfortunately affected to try to stay positive in planning their future.
Some may become involuntarily unemployed owing to physical or mental incapacitation. There are some existing avenues to help this group. However, it is likely some will fall in the gaps. Would the Government, in developing this support framework, review how help can be delivered to cover as many individuals who become involuntarily unemployed besides through retrenchments or redundancies?
Our social sector must continue to retain talent and attract new talent to be ready to support both current and future needs. As we define success under our new social compact, I am hopeful that we will find many who will see this sector as a fulfilling vocation.
Our youths and seniors will need a variety of targeted support and interventions. This Budget has outlined support for our seniors to improve their retirement adequacy amongst other areas of support. In this area, employers need to step up and provide opportunities for seniors seeking to remain in the workforce. Many of our larger local companies are doing well. Would such companies continue to step up and lead the way to meaningful engagement and employment of seniors?
It is troubling that drug use is increasing amongst our youth. While enforcement may seem to be natural response, have we been able to identify what are the systemic issues that we may need to address? In a recent opportunity to hear from MHA, I am heartened that there is increased efforts to help early drug abusers rehabilitate and hope we can keep supporting this.
There is also the issue of decline in mental wellness and the recent increase in suicide rates amongst youth. Again, what are the possible systemic issues that we may need to address?
Thirdly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been beneficiaries of economic and material success. We are also a nation that is one of the safest and, largely, most secure in this rather troubled world. Many of us will describe this as being a nation that has been truly blessed.
The proposed plan to help those who desire to help others is a tangible step to building a cohesive and generous society. It enables those in our community to play a part in contributing together toward our shared future. Engaging the Community Foundation of Singapore, MSF and Community Chest is an excellent starting position. So is the objective, which is to uplift the lower income members within our community with collaborative programmes and initiatives.
The proposed Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme is a positive step, as we seek to share our blessings beyond our shores. I would note that, as a country, we have responded generously to appeals over the years without the tax deduction. The Government is stepping forward to support acts of humanitarian assistance, which should see increase in our levels of response should such unfortunate events occur.
Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the City of Good Summit organised by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC). One of the keynote speakers spoke on the issue of water and the continuing challenge of clean water in many less-developed parts of the world. Statistics quoted were about 700 million people – or about one in 10 – do not have access to clean water. Many communities could live their entire life with little or no access to clean water.
Our Embassy in Myanmar has helped communities access clean water. Clean water solutions have been initiated by Lien Aid in Cambodia, which I have had the opportunity to visit and to learn. I also had the opportunity to meet the Wateroam team in the Singapore International Foundation Young Social Entrepreneurs event, when they were in the early stages of startup. Wateroam was founded in 2014 by three Singaporean undergraduates while at NUS.
When Hyflux was still an operating business, I was able to promote their portable filtration system for use in rural communities.
When we talk about water solution, we also need to acknowledge the early efforts of Dr Jack Sim – founder of his very own WTO. For the benefit of Members here, WTO in this case is World Toilet Organisation. Dr Jack Sim has done a great deal in promoting clean water and proper sanitation.
Mr Speaker, we have an amazing array of water solutions currently developed in Singapore, by Singaporeans. Lien Aid is serving in four Asian countries. Wateroam products and solutions are in 44 countries. As access to clean water will require varied approaches across countries, much more will need to be done globally to resolve this problem and to help develop lasting solutions.
May I, therefore, propose that as we plan to pilot the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme, we give some thought to starting a similar scheme for being a key player in actively providing and scaling global clean water solutions? Could such a collective project also be given the same tax deduction for our Singapore charities and social entrepreneurs, who can raise grants to scale up solutions for communities currently having little or no access to clean water?
Solving the global water challenges will transform communities, address health issues, generate improved economic standards and improve access to education. Singapore can play a key part – bringing together existing and new providers and delivering a coordinated plan to solve this global challenge as a partnership of public, private and people sectors.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot afford to become complacent despite our significant achievements. There will be future challenges – some we may foresee while others may confront us suddenly, as with the recent COVID-19 pandemic. However, as Deputy Prime Minister Wong has mentioned, we have pulled through challenges over the past decades and often emerged stronger.
We are embarking on a new social compact that will shape future generations. Budget 2024 continues to support our shared journey together. It is imperative that we stay united and build collective resilience. Sir, I support Budget 2024.
Mr Speaker : Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
5.34 pm
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the various vouchers, payouts and rebates in the Budget to help middle- and lower-income households cope with the rising cost of living. It is welcome news, in fact, based on the feedback of my residents. With such supporting resources to tackle immediate challenges, our families should be in better positions to take advantage of the longer-term programmes to upgrade and upskill – so that they can continue to fulfil good jobs and earn higher incomes.
There were some calls to dip into our reserves in the past so that more handouts and subsidies can be distributed. The House had debated on this issue recently. I would like to take this opportunity to express my agreement with many of my Parliamentary colleagues that, we should be prudent with the use of reserves and continue to make savings for future generations because they are our children and grandchildren. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Our parents and even ourselves, will give the best food to our children. Even though it is food that we ourselves enjoy, we will tell our children that we are not hungry, or that we do not like this food, but this is not true. All parents would want to give the best and save the best for their children and grandchildren. Our young and future generations are our children and grandchildren. Therefore, we have the responsibility to give the best to them to take care of them.
With regard to the full disclosure of our reserves, it is in our national interest that the Government needs to guard against the ill-intended that may try to scheme away from us. In Hokkien, there is a saying, "capable or not, you will know once you try." In fact, in the past, there were more than one attempt by those with malicious intentions to attack our currencies. These attempts have all failed in the end. That was because we have strong reserves to deter attacks by the others.
( In English ): Sir, as Prime Minister had said, our reserves is a precious resource which must be protected. We have to strike a delicate balance between meeting present needs and future emergencies.
For now, let us work with this balance and find ways to increase productivity and augment our economic pie, so that we can finance the needs of our own generation and have some extra to contribute to the next generation, as our predecessors had done for us.
Sir, we continue to face the threat of future pandemics and uncertainties. The war in Ukraine, Gaza and the resulting security threats in the Red Sea, disrupt supply chains. The invisible cybersecurity networks have further extended the dimensions of threats from land and sea, and to the air.
The lessons from the Ukraine war have given a new perspective and definition of warfare. It becomes clear that we are vulnerable to the use of the technology that we have used to our advantage.
Therefore, we need to continue to invest in R&D and support innovation. The family offices in Singapore should be encouraged to allocate resources to support the R&D and innovation initiatives in Singapore, including attracting top talents and scientists to Singapore to work with our researchers and scientists.
They may include projects to strengthen our food and energy security. I am supportive of looking into the latest and safer nuclear technology, such as small modular reactors for deployment offshore as the additional green energy solution for our energy needs. In fact, just before I came in, I saw that one country has even successfully launched satellite from a platform in international waters. So, we can look at that – onshore and including in the waters offshore – to meet our energy needs.
Next, about the employment of older workers. I support the Ministry's decision to continue with the planned CPF contribution rate increase for senior employees, age 55 to 65, by an additional 1.5 percentage points. This will enable our working seniors to build up more CPF savings for their retirement.
There is a perception that persons age above 50 face greater challenges finding employment. Based on statistics released in the 2023 Labour Force in Singapore Report by MOM, the unemployment rate for PMETs age 50 and above, is comparable those age 40 to 49 and those below 30, at 2.6%. For non-PMETs – at 2.7% – it is the lowest of all age bands.
So, I would like to urge for more job search support and matching for older persons who wish to continue working, especially those who have been retrenched. Of the employees retrenched in the last two years, does the Government have the details of their age groups, the duration of their job searches and how many remain unemployed presently? What are the success rates of retrenched workers age 50 to 55, 55 to 60 and those age above 60 respectively, in finding employment within six months?
While I am delighted that all Singaporeans age 40 and above will receive a top-up in SkillsFuture Credit of $4,000 to be used for selected training, I hope that the Government will go beyond ensuring that these will bring about better employability. Will the Government consider tie-ups with employers, including the Public Service, to place those who have completed the relevant training to meet the job requirements? How about providing incentives to employers to offer jobs to seniors? Can the Government provide more details about how it is helping workers who are actively looking for jobs and what are the measures to detect and minimise age discrimination in hiring practices?
Finally, about HDB flats – a topic close to my heart. While it is encouraging to note that about 100,000 units of public and private housing will be completed between 2023 and 2025, can more be done to shorten the waiting time for flats for young married couples? Subsidised rental housing under the PPHS and the one-year PPHS (Open Market) Voucher to support eligible families who rent a HDB flat in the open market are both excellent schemes. However, these flats are temporary accommodations. As moving house is one of the most stressful life events, it is no wonder that some couples choose to delay having children until they have moved into their own flats. With later births, couples tend to end up with having fewer children.
Hence, I appeal to the Government to review its long-term HDB policy and see if it could consider building more flats – a certain number of HDB flats – ahead of time so that the waiting time for couples, especially the young families, can be shortened to within one year or one and half years. With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Mr Ang Wei Neng.
5.43 pm
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget.
We are pleased with the Budget measures to support companies in Singapore, particularly the $1.3 billion Enterprise Support Package to build capabilities. When I speak with many business leaders, the key concern always revolves around manpower. Given our low birth rate, it is difficult to hire enough Singaporeans to support the growing economy. Additionally, many of the business leaders say that many manual jobs and roles outside air-conditioned environments are not favoured by Singaporeans. Companies tell us that they sometimes have no choice but to hire foreign workers. However, the strict foreign worker quota and the continually rising minimum salary requirement for S Pass renewals are pain points for SMEs.
It is commendable that the Government is encouraging SMEs to invest in technology, particularly in the fields of AI and green initiatives. For some SMEs, survival is paramount. I would like to suggest three areas in which the Government could assist our SMEs, which employ 71% of the entire workforce in Singapore. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that leases out vehicles and provides services to vehicles, including the maintenance of specialised vehicles such as fire engines, ambulances and oil tankers.
Firstly, regarding manpower: some Singaporeans shy away from the retail sector due to the need to work outside office hours and on weekends. We would like Singaporeans to have more time to date, get married, to have children, to spend time with the families or care for their loved ones. So, it is very essential for this retail sector to supplement its manpower with foreign workers.
Similarly, in environments without air conditioning, Singaporeans are also reluctant to work. Given these factors, I would like to call on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) not to maintain and not tighten the foreign worker quota and foreign worker levy in sectors that are not favoured by Singaporeans, especially for the next three years where the world economy is very uncertain. In fact, many SMEs would like to appeal to MOM to increase the foreign worker quota for jobs that are not favoured by most Singaporeans.
In addition, many entrepreneurs among my constituents in Nanyang lament that they have to substantially increase the pay of skilled foreign workers when they renew their S Passes. For example, a motor insurance claims executive who consistently works in hot and humid workshops will see his pay increase from about $3,400 to $4,200 upon renewal of his S Pass and this translates to an almost 24%-pay increase. Most Singaporeans would unlikely experience a 15%-pay rise in a year, even with a promotion.
Such a significant increment for foreign workers' pay not only increases the costs of SMEs but also creates discord among their Singaporean co-workers. Thus, I hope MOM can consider a more moderate minimum salary adjustment for S Pass holders.
Secondly, on Government projects, it is commendable that many Government sectors have centralised their procurement functions across different departments. The Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) is one good example, where the procurement needs of the Police, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Prisons and Central Narcotics Bureau are centralised for better synergies and transparency.
Many civil servants are diligent in protecting the Government's interests when writing the tender specifications. For example, some Government tender contracts specify that payments will only be made upon the full delivery of expensive items, tools, specialised vehicles or only big payment on completion of projects, and they do not give any down payment or make progress payments.
While this practice protects Government from receiving substandard products or reduces the risk of incomplete projects, it makes things very difficult for the SMEs. It is difficult for SMEs because with no down payment or progressive payment, it adds to the financing costs of SMEs. Given the current high-interest-rate environment, it will be challenging for SMEs to bid for such Government projects. Project tenders that do not offer deposits or progressive payments typically favour the large companies with deep pockets, especially MNCs. So, therefore, I urge the Government to review such practices to level the playing field for SMEs.
Thirdly, on land use: thanks to the Ministry of Transport, we now have more Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines. Residents in the West, including those in Nanyang, are excited about the upcoming Jurong Region Line. The Jurong Region Line is not an underground line; it will run on MRT viaducts similar to most of the lines in the North-South and East-West MRT lines. The space below the MRT viaducts along the current MRT lines is not well utilised, unlike in other countries like Japan. Currently, we do see some of the spaces below the viaducts used for cycling paths. But these viaducts are near MRT stations and they are valuable land so we hope the Government can allow the space below the viaducts to be used by the private sector, especially for SMEs that provide important services such as childcare and eldercare services for the convenience of the residents.
Mr Speaker, Sir, next, I want to touch on the topic of CDC Vouchers. I have spoken on this topic several times before in this House. Many residents, including those in Nanyang, are pleased with the 2024 Budget announcement of the additional $600 in CDC Vouchers for each Singaporean household. I have previously mentioned that CDC Vouchers are a better way to help Singaporeans mitigate the impact of inflation on two aspects. Firstly, the CDC Vouchers are to be spent in Singapore, mainly benefiting the heartland shops. The heartland shops benefit from these CDC Vouchers a lot. Unlike cash given under the GST Vouchers, CDC Vouchers cannot be spent abroad, especially across causeway. In addition, CDC Vouchers also have multiplier effects, as reported in the press quite widely. The only setback is that CDC Vouchers are given to each household, regardless of family size.
Hence, I propose that the Ministry of Finance consider doubling the quantum of CDC Vouchers for every three registered Singaporeans residing in HDB flats. For households that do not need the CDC Vouchers, they can choose to donate the vouchers to those who need them more or simply refrain from spending, allowing the Government to redirect the resources to other more urgent needs.
Lastly, I would like MOH and MSF to consider incorporating inflation or the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, into the formula used to determine the income criteria for various Government financial assistance schemes. The CPI component could function similarly to the price index used by the Energy Market Authority to determine electricity tariffs and how the Public Transport Council uses the price index in the fare adjustment formula to determine the adjustment of public transport fares.
This price index is crucial, as inflation has been high over the last three years and is likely to remain elevated in the next couple of years. In fact, the real income of Singaporeans has declined by 2.2% in 2023, even though the nominal income has increased. This is a double whammy for low-income Singaporeans. When nominal income increases, many Singaporeans no longer qualify for financial assistance, as the Government only adjusts the income criteria very infrequently. At the same time, these low-income Singaporean families require more financial assistance as their real income has decreased in a high inflation environment.
I understand that MOH and the MSF have promised to review the income criteria for blue CHAS card and financial assistance periodically. From experience in the past few years, "periodically" means once every few years. This is acceptable when the inflation rate was low in the pre-pandemic situations. But in the current high inflation rate environment, where periodic reviews are done every few years disadvantage low-wage Singaporeans very greatly.
Hence, I appeal to MOH and MSF to incorporate the price index into the income criteria for determining financial assistance to provide for low-income families. In short, the periodic review should occur yearly or even quarterly, rather than once in a few years' time. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the above, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker : Ms Ng Ling Ling.
5.55 pm
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio) : Mr Speaker, I welcome the comprehensive packages in Budget 2024, with its focus on building our shared future together in the next decade as a nation that aims to remain vibrant and inclusive, fair and thriving, resilient and united.
Last year, I rose to speak on three areas in my Budget Debate speech to urge strong efforts by the Government to: one, support working adults; two, care for our seniors; and three, support our young couples and families. For this year’s Budget, I would like to continue focusing my speech on considerations and support for these three groups who made up most of the residents in my Jalan Kayu Constituency.
In the Jalan Kayu constituency, the largest segment is aged between 20 and 60 years old. They are mostly working adults who may be embarking on their first job to sustaining employment as far as possible in their senior years, all with the hope of retiring with comfort and confidence. As such, the Budget packages announced that can affect some of their career trajectory and opportunities are of great interest to them.
I am delighted to hear that the Government is introducing the new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to better support mid-career workers. This includes a $4,000 top-up SkillsFuture credit in May to encourage more mid-career workers to refresh their skills and progress in their careers.
However, I am concerned about the low take-up rate of individuals attempting to upskill or consider mid-career switches through the SkillsFuture Scheme so far. As data published from SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) last year showed, across all ages, seven in 10 Singaporeans have not yet used their SkillsFuture Credit since the scheme started in 2015.
I understand from some of my residents that despite the generous SkillsFuture Credit, time for attending approved courses is a major factor in them using up the credits. As such, I would like to ask the Government how it can further support employers to enable their employees who are motivated to upgrade, to be given more training leaves and time-off to pursue upskilling courses and more so, to embark on another diploma programme as the new top-up to the scheme will enable.
Another consideration is the age of the Singaporean interested to utilise the top-up credit to stay employable. Let me share the story of one of my residents, Mr Lee, who is 64 years old and looking for employment. Mr Lee came to my Meet-the-People Session and shared that he held a diploma in mechanical engineering from Singapore Polytechnic and an advanced diploma in manufacturing technology many years ago. He had also taught modules and given lectures to ITE students previously.
Mr Lee is healthy and hopes to continue working but he struggled in his job search due to his age. I worked with Workforce Singapore (WSG) to make referrals and tried to assist him in the journey. His case highlights the need for a more inclusive, flexible approach to career continuation for our older workers besides upskilling. For a case like Mr Lee, how likely would SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme help in his job search if he does invest time to take up another diploma? This is something in the mind of some of my residents in their 60s who are keen to continue to pursue life-long learning and to work well into their 60s and 70s, if they are in good health.
Next, let me move to another group of important Singaporeans, our young seniors in their 50s. During my house visits and grassroots events, many of these young seniors have shared with me that they welcome the move by the Government to introduce the Majulah Package to better assure their retirement needs. One of these is the Earn and Save Bonus of up to $1,000 annually to help young seniors accumulate more retirement savings.
A group of them are, however, full-time caregivers to their elderly parents who are in their 80s and 90s and who are frail. They shared with me that the Majulah Package would have been helpful for them too, but family caregiving is not recognised as a formal employment.
Will the Government be open to adjusting some of the criteria for the Majulah Package's Earn and Safe bonus, such as by establishing the family members' genuine needs for full-time caregiving, and the duration of caregiving provided, to include this group of young senior caregivers, who are also concerned about their own financial needs, so that they can also benefit from the package?
I also welcome the move by the Government to raise the Enhanced Retirement Sum from three times the Basic Retirement Sum, to four times, to allow more members, aged 55 and above, who wish to put more of their accumulated CPF savings to receive higher CPF payouts on retirement. Nevertheless, I would like to raise a concern for some single seniors, aged 55 years old and above whom I have met at my Meet-the-People Sessions, who have yet to settle their housing needs.
The latest Population Trend 2023 showed that the proportion of singles rose across all male and female groups aged 25 to 49 years, between 2012 and 2022 . This would inevitably mean that we would have more individuals who are approaching the age of 55 years old, who are still single.
During my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have come across cases where the single seniors, who are 55 years old and above, who have finally succeeded in balloting for their own HDB 2-room Flexi flat, and were looking forward to having a home of their own as they reach retirement, but they are unaware that the sums from their Ordinary and Special Accounts, that have been transferred into their Retirement Account when they reached 55 years old, could not be used when their house came, for payment beyond the loan they can get from HDB at that old age.
Some of them were disappointed that the extra sums transferred into their Retirement Account could not be reversed when they needed the amount to pay for these BTO flats. Even though they have tried to appeal to the CPF Board for the withdrawal of their Retirement Account for their flat purchases, the recourse for them is limited, as the CPF Board also needs to ensure that the Retirement Account amounts are maintained to support their retirement needs.
Although the Enhanced Retirement Scheme is helpful for those seeking higher CPF retirement payouts, I urge the CPF Board to highlight and explain the policies for transfers into Retirement Account clearer and to work with HDB to advise those who have not yet settled their housing needs, to be more mindful of the amounts to be transferred into their Retirement Account.
Lastly, I would like to speak about the aspirations of our young couples and families, and how they can be better supported to achieve their dreams of home ownership and starting their own family. I am glad that the Government has introduced the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme or PPHS (Open Market) Voucher in this Budget for one year to support eligible families to rent a HDB flat in the open market.
I have encountered many residents coming to seek help at my Meet-the-People Sessions to secure HDB flats to start a family. They are usually young couples who have not been successful yet in their balloting for new flats – be it BTO or Sales of Balance flats – but hope to have a home to start a family soon or have a baby coming on the way.
In fact, the request for assistance in balloting for new flats usually forms the majority of my Meet-the-People Session appeals to HDB for my young residents, especially during the BTO launch seasons. Could the Government consider extending the new PPHS (Open Market) Voucher also to couples who have been applying, but have yet to be successful in balloting for a new flat, especially those who are expecting their first baby?
Finally, I also believe that more needs to be done to alleviate the fear of having children due to the high cost of living in Singapore. According to a survey done by Channel NewsAsia and YouGov in 2023, 52% of those below 35 years old cited the affordability of raising a child in Singapore as the main reason for not wanting to have one soon.
As Budget 2024 looks towards supporting families at each stage of our lives, I hope that the Government can consider placing more importance on implementing comprehensive strategies, such as creating a social support ecosystem for mentoring young couples in financial planning, financial management, so as to reduce their financial anxieties associated with raising children in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, as we look towards building a shared future, we must continue to adapt and evolve our support for the diverse needs of our people. From working adults striving for career advancement, seniors navigating their golden years, to young families dreaming of a brighter future, our policies must continue to be inclusive, flexible and forward-looking as we prepare for the next decade.
Let us continue to work together to uphold the values of inclusivity, resilience and unity, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of age or life stage, can look forward to a thriving future, prepare for the challenges of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of Budget 2024.
Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.
6.05 pm
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) : Mr Speaker, Sir, on 21 April 2023, during the debate on the President's Address in this House, there was an important agreement reached across the aisle between the hon Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, and the hon Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
Both of them agreed that there is no place for populism in Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Wong characterised it as follows: "Both sides of the House, we stand for a democracy that is maturing, a serious Government and a serious Opposition. But we say no to populism and political opportunism ever taking root in this House and in Singapore."
This was a laudable bipartisan moment. It is also recognition of the fact that in countries where populism has taken root, societies have become divided, people have become polarised and the trust between the people and the Government weakened. Singapore should not follow suit.
The agreement, however, presumes that we know what populism is. But do we? Most academics and commentators agree that the core feature of populism revolves around the division between the "people" on one hand and "the elite" on the other.
Cas Mudde stated, "It is a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, "the pure people" versus "the corrupt elite"; populist politicians advocate that they represent the "whole people" whereas the elite represents "special interest", regardless of the truth of the matter.
The framing of issues is usually confrontational, antagonistic and emotive. This sort of populism – once we see it for the grandstanding and posturing – is really not very hard to reject. It is mere opportunism played out in the political arena. This is what I call "weak populism".
But there are two further elements to populism. First, it is not always easy to see through grandstanding rhetoric and recognise opportunism in its true face. Second, populism is not always mere words – it also reaches into real policy action with a specific approach, which I call a "fool's gold" promise.
Populism in action lulls people with the promise of easy money, soft compromises, zero trade-offs. These two elements – words and deeds – make up what I call "strong populism". And notwithstanding the forging of the agreement in Parliament, there remains no guarantee that this sort of populism will not take root in Singapore.
Structurally, we will always be vulnerable. This is because, as in all modern democracies, we have a representative government, where a minority – that is the elected – represents our people, the majority, and has the mandate to govern. The suspicion that this representation is imperfect will always be there.
We have seen several examples where people's fears, especially during crises, are capitalised by populist politicians espousing radical change. I will give two examples: one from the right and the other from the left.
In November 2023, in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party, a far-right political party that fanned Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments amongst its people, with promises to de-Islamicise the country, made huge electoral gains and was the clear winner by a wide margin. It is poised to feature in a coalition government. Should that happen, it would not be difficult to imagine the impact on the cohesion of the country across race and religion.
Let me identify the specific populist lever here – the use of religion and nativism to divide and polarise a country.
In 1998, the late Mr Hugo Chavez, a charismatic Venezualuan leftist leader, came to power after promising to use Venezuala's vast oil wealth to reduce poverty and inequality. As President, he launched programmes that offered free or highly subsidised goods. He passed away in office in 2013. His policies continued though. In the end, the country's economy shrunk and hyperinflation set in, despite it being an oil producer.
Again, let me identify the specific populist lever – which is to use price-distorting policies to give short-term, apparent benefits to people, at the cost of the country's long-term economic health.
Both these acts are forms of strong populism to me. From my research, I noted a number of writers, particularly Prof Simon Tormey, who have observed that in recent times, the world is facing a populist insurgency. The fact that such political opportunists have taken in so many voters across so many countries, shows us that it is no easy matter to see populism for what it really is.
We, as a country, therefore, need to develop the capability to recognise and emphatically reject this insidious and seductive form of divisive politics. If we do not do this, the consequences for us as a small nation will be serious.
Just last week, I learnt about a speech that our first Foreign Affairs Minister, the late Mr S Rajaratnam, made in the UN General Assembly in October 1971. He said to the effect that small nations need to keep their own houses in order, to be able to secure their places in the world. In other words, small nations need to ensure that they retain social cohesion and political, as well as economic stability for the long term.
The implication is clear. Unlike bigger countries, small nations like Singapore, when they fall victim to divisive politics that populism brings, they will be easy for the picking. They would no longer be taken seriously by their bigger neighbours. Once that happens, small nations would not have the ability to protect and promote their national interests in the international arena anymore. In other words, we will have a "double whammy", domestically and internationally.
Therefore, our commitment to reject populism in its strong form, must therefore carry a commitment to educate all Singaporeans to recognise it when we see it and call it out.
Which brings me to my second caution. Fool's gold and the easy choice.
The rejection of strong populism commits us to a specific duty. It is a duty to make hard choices, to be accountable to the people of Singapore, by way of political and practical solutions to the social imperatives of our nation.
The critical difference between this "hard choice" approach and a populist approach to policies is two-fold. First, this should be done without the histrionics that populism often attracts. I must say here that I am for even more scrutiny of policy proposals and performance from political leaders, from both sides of the aisle. What I am against here the chest-beating, sabre-rattling politicisation of issues that get in the way of true analytical discourse. Without the "noise", there will likely to be better engagement on the substance of the matter.
In the end, there will be clarity on what parties are agreed and what they are not. This is what we should aim for. I feel that this distillation process is essential. Otherwise, there is a danger of performative politics entrenching itself in this House.
Second, I believe details matter. We have reached a point in our country's development where solutions to most things are complex, and sometimes, finely balanced. It is characteristic for populist politicians to be short on details when advocating for a policy change.
We politicians, from both sides of the House, need to do the homework, understand the background facts, and also understand how the status quo was forged, highlight the trade-offs inherent in the policy proposals, separate facts from fiction and then, go on to make arguments as to why the balance should be struck one way or another.
I would also add one other point. Political leaders in office should eschew the tendency to just label policies as "populist", even though they may in fact receive broad support of citizens when what they really want to do is to make the policies sound unreasonable and irrational. This is a point that Francis Fukuyama made – and I agree with him.
It is incumbent on leaders to go beyond labelling, highlight the precise aspects of the proposed policies that they are concerned about. It is this process of responsible contestation and distillation of ideas and proposals which, in my respectful view, will serve as a bulwark against the emergence of populism in its strongest form in Singapore.
Through this process, there will be better accountability to our people. Our people, noting the areas where politicians are agreed and where they disagree, will be better placed to choose which future they wish to ascribe to through the ballot box.
Let me underscore the point by making reference to the debate at the last session of Parliament on the national reserves.
In opening the debate, the hon NCMP Mr Leong Mun Wai highlighted what he referred to as "social ills" that must be addressed. These included cost of living, social inequality, mental health and declining total fertility rate. To this list, the hon Leader of the Opposition, in his speech during the debate on the Motion added healthcare costs and intergenerational equity. Both hon Members advocated for the slowing of the growth of reserves so that more money can be spent on these areas.
I, for one, do not see these human conditions as diseases or "ills" but as imperatives for the Government of the day, as moral directions for us to apply our best minds and our utmost resources. These social imperatives cannot be denied, but they cannot be solved by mere handwringing, or by profligate spending. Our duty is to be accountable in the way that I have outlined above, by a serious political commitment and spending our time, energy and resources in formulating and explaining our policies.
Importantly, we need to be aware of the parameters of the hard choices at play and to reject the "fool's gold approach".
To explain its hard choice in rejecting even more spending of the income from the reserves, the Government has stated that the reserves provide substantial "passive income" for expenditure in the Annual Budgets and given our unique vulnerabilities, we need to grow the reserves to ensure that we have a chance of overcoming what future challenge that may come our way. These points were articulated so well in my hon friend, Mr Shawn Huang's speech which I heard earlier today.
Putting aside the use of monies from the reserves for the moment, I think there are two points arising from what both the hon Members have said that will find agreement on both sides of the House.
First, that the social imperatives identified by both of them are legitimate. These imperatives require the attention of this House and the Government. In fact, I would say, as a backbencher, much of what I do in my constituency for my constituents revolve around dealing, amongst others, with such issues.
Second, as responsible MPs, both sides of the House will reject spending for merely the sake of spending. This constitutes fiscal prudence. Hence, to make the case to spend more money will involve taking at least the following steps.
First, an examination of the existing programmes that the Government has for the imperative in question. Second, a calculation of how much the Government is committing or spending on these programmes. Third, a performance assessment or review of the programmes. And finally, the articulation of the case for more spending on the imperative which will have to include dealing with the Government's points on "passive income" that the reserves currently provide and having sufficient ballast for the future.
At this point, I would like to deal with the hon Leader of Opposition's point raised in his speech earlier that the Government should be even more forthcoming with information to make better decisions on the Budget.
With respect, this is a red herring. There is already sufficient information available. In fact, at the last Sitting, the hon Prime Minister gave us a Master Class. Hon Members may recall he asked us to take out the back of our envelopes and follow him in doing the sums. He projected that the returns from the reserves at about 4%; he then said if we were to spend 2% for the Budget, that means 2% for the reserves. So, the reserves will grow at a rate of 2% per year and that more or less, keeps up with the GDP. So, we roughly know what is the band of the NIRC which has remained stable and contributes about one-fifth of our revenue.
We also know that the variance of the operating revenue and the expenditures within a band of about plus or minus 4%. Of course, there would be situations where the predictability may be affected by, say, market situations. For example, for property tax, it went up because the AV went up and that is a function of the market.
For that kind of situations, all we can do is we make best predictions and then make adjustments as we go along. But these will be the inputs for which we would have available for the purposes of making sure that whatever we are articulating as policy proposals for more expenditure can be supported and fiscally prudent.
The hon Leader of the Opposition made reference to an article which appeared on 19 February in The Straits Times and he pointed out that some economists had also made the point about lack of information being forthcoming from the Government.
One point to note, as he had stated, is that most economists lauded the Budget. One economist had asked about the use of pre-funding Government programmes, for example, the Pioneer Generation package and he suggested that there should be more transparency in relation to this plan. But the reality is, every year, the statement of accounts is presented to Parliament. That statement of accounts is actually audited by the independent auditors. All MPs can ask questions and it is also subject to scrutiny of the Estimates Committee. And, of course, drawdowns are also subject to scrutiny of the Auditor-General.
Another economist felt that the amount of past reserves should be disclosed. This is something which, as we all know, the Government has a conscientious objection to. But most importantly, as I said earlier, the NIRC amount can be estimated and that is the important part for Budget planning.
For these reasons, I would say that there is no real obstacle for anyone of us in this House to articulate holistically why more money or more resources should be spent for a particular policy imperative.
I will now provide an illustration on the working of the framework that I suggested by dealing with the Cost-of-Living imperative.
In October 2022, the Government unveiled a support package to give Singapore households additional help to deal with rising prices. The amount of monies committed for these programmes is a matter of public knowledge – $1.5 billion.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong, in his announcement, said that the package was designed to fully cover the increase in cost of living for lower-income households and to cover more than half the increase in the cost of living for middle-income households.
It is entirely open to hon Members who wish the Government to spend more to tackle cost of living issues to make the case that the 50% mark is insufficient for middle-income households and argue that it should be higher, say, 60%, 70% or even 100%.
They should articulate how such a move would be in the better interest of Singaporeans and Singapore as a whole. What then this leads to is the crystallisation of a sum that is needed to fund the advocated policy proposal from the reserves or elsewhere with the accompanying reasons.
The political office holder responding to hon the Member's proposal, if he disagrees with the proposal, will be well advised not to simply shrug it off by labelling it as populist. Rather, he must tackle the proposal head-on and explain why the current spending levels are sufficient and should be maintained, having regard not just to the specific issue but the big picture as well. Through this, we will gain a clear understanding of the points of agreement and disagreement as well as the reasons in support of the respective contentions. Singaporeans will be better able to follow the debate and the implications of the policy proposals should they be implemented or rejected.
It is, of course, open to hon Members across the aisle to make their plans part of their election campaigns even if they may be rejected by the Government. That is their prerogative. But they must have such plans in the first place. If they do not, it is merely promising Singaporeans as a share of a piece of gold that disappears after election day.
I view this as healthy politics as both sides will then present their cases to our people. In the end, it will be fellow Singaporeans who will judge and decide through the ballot box. This is how we prevent populism from rearing its head in our politics. This is how a high level of accountability to our people will be maintained.
Mr Speaker : Mr Murali, you have a minute left.
Mr Murali Pillai : Very well, Sir. If that is the case, I will just end off by saying that the social imperatives are upon us. We all know this and it is no great epiphany to point these out. If we are to really say that we have a serious Government and a serious Opposition, as exhorted by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, the focus must fall on the generation of solutions to such imperatives and a reasoned articulation of why these solutions create better outcomes for our people whilst being fiscally prudent. And by democratic acclaim, let us stand behind the ones which we believe, as elected Members, most benefit the people of Singapore for now and the future and by so doing, reject populism in its strongest form. I support the Budget. [ Applause. ]
Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.
6.25 pm
Mr Pritam Singh : Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his speech.
I have been trying to follow very carefully what he has been suggesting. I think the broad strokes, typical of Mr Murali Pillai, you would not really disagree with them. But in terms of populism, I thought it would be important for me to just come down to some specifics.
He mentioned some references in my speech to the 19 February Straits Times article. I think the point that I made in my speech was that article showed how people outside of this House, Singaporeans, in the context of the Forward Singapore exercise, were also looking at fiscal sustainability, fiscal balance, how the Government raises revenue and its expenditure policies.
And in that regard, the point I made was we had put forth a proposal to smoothen that conversation, to better that conversation for the benefit of all Singaporeans.
I understand he moved on later to talk about certain proposals that we have made for which the PAP has a conscientious objection. I think that is where I would like some clarification from him. If there is a conscientious objection, then what happens to the populism argument? Is it wrong for the Opposition to bring up those points?
The second clarification I have is, again, bringing it down to an example. In this debate so far, we have the PAP Members speak up about building BTO flats in advance. What sort of numbers would the Member expect from anyone across the aisle or even in his own party, raising in Parliament, to substantiate that argument? Some clarity on that would be helpful.
For the moment, I will leave it at these two clarifications.
Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Leader of Opposition for giving me an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of my speech.
Let me just take the point about conscientious objection. I would like to clarify that what I was referring to in my speech was in relation to the fact that we do not disclose the full entirety of the value of our reserves. So, that is the reference to our conscientious objection. And it was in the context of referring to one of the economists featured in the article which the hon Leader of Opposition referred to. There, the economist said that we should know the full amount; then, we would know whether the spending is high or low.
The reference to conscientious objection is really the arguments made by the Government in the Motion on national reserves which I am sure the hon Leader of Opposition is familiar with. But more importantly, I made the point that for the purposes of the Budget, if one can calculate the NIRC already and I made reference to the hon Prime Minister's masterclass, in relation to how the reserves are projected to grow and the fact that the NIRC contributions are relatively stable.
As far as the issue of the purpose of referring to the article itself, I take the hon Leader of Opposition's point. I understand that it is really with the view to provide further feedback on the Forward Singapore exercise and I welcome them.
Finally, the point that my hon friend referred to is in relation to the building project of HDB. If we were to go through the analytical framework that I have suggested, the point is really about a Member of the Opposition, for example, articulating that even more houses should be built than what the Government is proposing, then what really needs to be done is to, first, identify the programme, highlight and find out how much exactly is being spent or committed for the purposes of building X number of flats, for example, and then also, in the same process, nail his colours to the mast and say exactly what he stands for in relation to the number of flats that is to be built, why is this important and then deal with the financial issues by reference to the allocation of the spend for the other aspects of the Budget as well.
What I think would happen through this articulation, using this framework, would be a laudable outcome, which is that the people of Singapore outside this House would know that it is something that is being proposed, there is seriousness in the proposal because the facts and figures are there and then you could juxtapose what is the Government's position on the matter against the hon Member's position.
Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh : Just a quick response to Mr Murali Pillai on his clarifications. In the case of the BTO example that was raised as part of this debate by a PAP Member, that example then would actually fail the test that Mr Murali Pillai has brought up. Similarly, when other Members on the other side say we want to introduce a scheme, such as Carefare, or they speak of — nobody said cost of living crisis, but I heard affordability crisis today by PAP Members. I am assuming that in Mr Murali's schema, that analysis would also have to follow. Just for clarification.
Mr Speaker : Mr Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai : I thank the hon Leader of the Opposition for pointing out and asking whether the framework I have applies to hon members from both sides of the aisle. The short answer is yes. This is an exhortation not specifically to the hon Leader of the Opposition, or rather, hon Members from across the aisle, but it is actually from both sides of the aisle. And for anybody who wishes to make a proposal that involves extra spend, then you need to go through the analytical framework and I think then there will be clarity as to whether or not, ultimately, it is in the better interest of Singapore and Singaporeans to proceed with the extra spend.
Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh : Just a last clarification. So, just to push the Member a little bit more. In the case of a commitment made by the Government, for example, to spend $40 billion up to the end of the decade for ForwardSG initiatives, should these also be laid out earlier?
Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to be pushed by the hon Leader of the Opposition. I think I will just basically deal with it on a point of principle, and while he can take suggestions from my colleagues from the PAP, I can also refer to suggestions made by hon Members from his party. I still remember an example of setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office and that was a proposal made in this House and there was really no understanding as to how much money that would entail in not just setting up the office but in terms of its operations as well.
So, I would rather that the points I made not be obscured. Let us stick on the principle and the focus is really to make sure that the ugly head of populism does not rear in our politics. And, thankfully, that is a bipartisan point and I do hope that, on both sides, there will be an opportunity to reflect on the contributions I made in this House.
Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. You have a clarification for Mr Pillai?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang) : Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to clarify some points made by the Member Murali Pillai. I would just point out two things.
First, I would respectfully disagree first that, with his claim that just because all the necessary information was provided by Prime Minister Lee with regard to this back-of-the-envelope calculations, it would be therefore reasonable for us to take his calculations as self-evident.
Let me be clear, far be it for me to challenge the first Wrangler in Cambridge for his Maths. But I believe that he introduced a number of assumptions about expected returns to reserves and GDP growth and, indeed, about the amount that would be returned to the reserves based on the way that the Government calculates the primary surplus vs the IMF recommendations.
So, my question is: if the Member accepts that these assumptions are not necessarily self-evident, is it reasonable, in a debate, for us to question these assumptions?
My second point builds on this and I ask if the Member would think that the Government would be comfortable with making the kind of public policies that they have proposed just based on the publicly available information that is currently available to the Opposition or whether the Government would actually require more information that is not made publicly available.
Mr Speaker : Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai : Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in reference to the hon Member Assoc Prof Lim's first question about the propriety of the assumptions, this is a point which has been discussed at length. Let me just say that what is relevant for the purposes of the Budget is the proportion of NIRC. Even if we were to put aside the assumptions of growth, the fact is that the NIRC, which is reflected in the Budget, has been relatively stable and it is now for every dollar that has been spent, 20 cents comes from NIRC. So, from the perspective of anybody proposing to spend more, these facts would be important.
I do accept that my hon friend across the aisle may have a different view about the extent of the information that is needed. But the point I am making, and I guess we can agree to disagree, and I said this advisedly, that this actually is a red herring. Because all the information needed to calculate revenue is there, in terms of NIRC, in terms of the operating revenue expenditure which falls more or less within a defined variance as well. So, for these reasons, I think we are not disadvantaged.
As far as the second point is concerned, and I stand corrected, I think my hon friend mentioned about whether the Government would be comfortable—I am sorry that I kind of stopped there, if the hon Member could just clarify the purport of his question, I will try my best to answer.
Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : Yes, my clarification is simple. The Government routinely makes policy. So, my question is whether the Member thinks that the Government would be willing to be comparably hamstrung in terms of only making public policy on the basis of all the publicly available information or they feel that the Government can only make policy when there is additional proprietary information.
Mr Speaker : Mr Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai : Thank you, Sir. I think there is a false premise in the question. It is about the Government being hamstrung in relation to public information. I mean the point is this. As far as the Government is concerned, it puts out the operating revenue, it puts out the proposed operating expenditure and there are, of course, constitutional requirements to make sure that the Budget is balanced and it is against that backdrop that we can do the analysis as to whether the proposals meet the aspirations or the requirements of Singapore and Singaporeans for now and the future. So, I see this as based on a false premise and, therefore, I will not answer the question.
Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Lim. Hopefully, it is the last clarification.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : Much obliged, Speaker. I will be very brief. So, the Member Murali has mentioned repeatedly that there is a red herring, that we have all the information that is required based on the fact that the share of NIRC is stable. My question to him is simple. Does he think that this stable share has nothing to do with the assumptions about expected returns or GDP growth?
Mr Speaker : Mr Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai : Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the issue of it being stable, that is an empirical fact. So, that is something that is being set out in the Budget Statement. So, as far as contributions are concerned, of course, there is a certain projection and is made by reference to a certain framework. So, there is no — I mean, subject to the assumptions inbuilt in the framework, it is not just plucking a figure out of the air.
Mr Speaker : Let us move on. Mr Ong Hua Han.
6.40 pm
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.
Sir, Budget 2024 as delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is a sustainable and forward-looking one. At the same time, it seeks to address immediate cost-of-living pressures. The fact that we can take a medium- to long-term outlook and yet expect a small surplus of $800 million reflects our privileged financial position. For this I am thankful.
Budget 2024 is also about building our shared future together. It is about refreshing our social compact. If these phrases sound familiar, it is not just because we have heard them many times today already, but because they are the same phrases used to describe Forward Singapore. In other words, Budget 2024 is the first step in bringing Forward Singapore, the vision of our nation's future, to life.
Forward Singapore mentions "inclusiveness" as a shared value that must be upheld. The word "inclusive" or "inclusion" has likewise been used many times in this House. When a word has been used so often, it runs the risk of losing its meaning. When was the last time we paused to think what "inclusion" really means?
In this context, I would like to dedicate my speech today to talk about inclusion or social participation of persons with disabilities in Singapore. At its core, social participation refers to the active engagement of individuals in all aspects of society.
Today, I will look to cover five areas, from education, transport, sports, housing, to employment. To prepare for this speech, I thought it would be best to hear directly from the voices of young persons with disabilities (PwDs). I wanted to know how they saw Singapore, through their unique lenses and lived experiences. Underpinning this is a firm belief that understanding this well will guide us towards more inclusive and effective policies. As such, I collected the experiences and thoughts of 136 PwDs between the ages of 15 and 35 through a public consultation in the form of an online survey over the course of a few weeks. To those who earnestly contributed, thank you for indulging in my unpolished attempt at gathering feedback and for your valuable insights. I will be sharing some of your ideas and hopes today.
For PwDs, social participation is not only essential for their personal well-being but also for fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion within society. Social participation encompasses the ability to interact meaningfully with others, access shared public spaces and services, and participate in enriching and fulfilling activities. True integration enriches the social fabric for everyone, cultivating a culture of empathy, diversity and mutual respect. It should not be surprising then that education should serve as the foundation for social inclusion. Education, especially at a young age, equips PwDs with the knowledge, skills and opportunities they need to succeed in life.
Programmes, such as the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT), is a great way to positively integrate students with behavioural difficulties into mainstream settings. To ensure a smooth transition from school and foster a truly inclusive society, it is also crucial to address the social challenges faced by PwDs with special education or SPED school backgrounds.
According to MOE, in the past three years, 18% of students with autism from SPED schools continued their education in mainstream secondary schools after passing the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). A further 18 SPED school students with autism transferred midway to mainstream schools after being assessed to be suitable. Thirty-one percent of the autistics I surveyed said they rarely interacted with students without disabilities during school activities. Outside school, 35% said they rarely interacted with their non-disabled peers and 15% had no such interactions.
6.45 pm
The two most common reasons given were previous experience of name-calling or bullying and concerns about acceptance. In the face of this, we have to ask ourselves what can we do to minimise such seemingly common negative experiences. One possibility may lie in bridging the awareness gap. School settings are a great way for mainstream students to benefit from meaningful interactions with their peers with disabilities. It breaks down social barriers and will reduce awkwardness later in life.
One suggestion that was shared with me, was to incorporate awareness lessons specifically about disabilities into the school curriculum. We could also go one step further and impart such lessons organically during Physical Education (PE). When I was in school, I was often – by default – entrusted with the role of safeguarding my classmates' mobile devices when they did their PE lessons. It was always my honour to be given such great responsibility at a young age.
This role, though, kept me on the sidelines. I vividly remember one exception, when I was first invited to play a game of poison ball in Primary school, by our favourite PE and form teacher. It was a rare opportunity for me to bond with my classmates in lighter settings. I enjoyed those moments.
To foster awareness and acceptance of others, play time is the best time.
How can we do more of this, rather than relying on the spontaneity of a few good teachers? Could MOE study ways in which we could institutionalise more inclusive PE programmes in mainstream schools?
Sports is often regarded as a powerful social leveller; this is a great opportunity to harness the same to weave inclusivity into the fabric of early education. Sir, the ability of PwDs to participate freely in shared spaces also hinges on our commitment to ensuring comprehensive access and seamless public transportation. In the face of Singapore's restrictive car ownership policies, this is doubly important. PwDs do appreciate the accessibility features in our public transport network.
Some that were shared with me include: wheelchair zones in buses and trains, generally well-designed MRT stations and the MyTransport.SG app, which shows bus arrival timings. As a regular MRT user myself, I share these positive observations.
Compared to many other cities in the world, we are blessed to have an MRT system that is generally quite accessible for wheelchair users. However, there is more that can be done in this area.
In my survey, 63% of those with physical disabilities said they use public transport two days or less in a week. Forty-two percent of this group rarely uses or totally avoids using public transport during peak periods. Difficulties encountered when using public transport include: platform gaps in the MRT system, slippery floors on buses that cause wheelchair sliding even when the wheels are locked and unexpected closure of the only accessible route.
Other PwDs also face different types of problems while taking public transport. One PwD shared that no one offers a seat on the MRT even when a yellow card with details about their medical condition is prominently displayed. Another also shared the same concern about the lack of acceptance of invisible disabilities – this individual has neuropathic pain due to surgery and sometimes needs to sit down to minimise pain.
I understand that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) through LTA has been working on this area, introducing programmes, such as the priority cabin pilot and the invisible medical condition card. "Hardware" solutions like gap fillers, while not able to fully solve for the height difference between the platform and train floor, helps to narrow the train gaps and enhance safety.
Given awareness and acceptance of less obvious conditions still fall short, could MOT study ways to further elevate the visibility and understanding of the invisible medical condition card?
Earlier, I made a brief mention of sports in the educational setting. In the broader context, sports and recreation plays a vital role in promoting physical and mental well-being among PwDs and promote social inclusion. Competitions like the Special Olympics and the Paralympic Games, provide opportunities for PwDs to showcase their talents and abilities on a global stage. These events not only empower PwDs to pursue their passions and flourish, but also challenge stereotypes and limiting perceptions about disability.
Our national athletes fly the Singapore flag high at regional and world level competitions and are elite performers in their respective fields. But what about those who do sports recreationally? Access to sports and recreational activities remains a challenge for many PwDs due to a lack of inclusive programming or facilities, their medical condition or a combination of these factors.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has been making progress in ensuring that more sports facilities are accessible and inclusive. For example, I understand that SportSG is on track to make all 27 ActiveSG gyms inclusive by 2026. On top of this, SportSG is developing an inclusive ActiveSG gym orientation programme, to encourage gym usage by PwDs, which is a good initiative.
Interestingly, based on my findings, 67% of those with physical disabilities have not used any of their free ActiveSG credits. This is 59% for autistics and 58% for those with sensory disabilities. During the weekend, I did my regular swim at an ActiveSG Sports Centre – a routine I have kept up for many years now. As always, I observed no other wheelchair user in sight. This is despite facilities being outfitted with accessible ramps and toilets.
Apart from improving infrastructure, we must therefore make the effort to help more PwDs feel empowered and safe to exercise and play sports in shared spaces. Boosting PwD sports participation is something that we should strive for and I will speak more about this during MCCY's Committee of Supply.
Moving on, housing is the cornerstone of the Singaporean dream. For PwDs, this is no different. Eighty-one percent of the PwDs I surveyed, said that they wish to buy their own house in future. Yet, 48% of those with physical disabilities rated the likelihood of purchasing a house between one and three out of 10, with 10 being the likeliest.
Thirty-four percent of autistics I surveyed rated the same. Much like everyone in Singapore, cost of housing is a common concern for these groups too. We must do more to facilitate home ownership among PwDs. There are significant financial barriers to PwD home ownership, because of additional expenses they incur in their lifetimes and/or lack of stable employment. We should look towards bridging this gap.
One suggestion raised to me is subsidised rental programmes for PwDs.
As independent living may be a daunting prospect for some, why not lower the barriers to entry – let PwDs and their families have a tangible experience of what is possible in a financially accessible way, while they work towards home ownership?
Access to good housing fosters a sense of community and a sense of having a stake in our country. We must explore innovative solutions that empower PwDs in this regard, tailored to their varying levels of independence. I will also raise the topic of inclusive housing policies during Ministry of National Development's (MND's) COS debate.
Lastly, on employment.
Meaningful employment is vital to economic independence for any adult and adds to the feeling of having achieved. However, for PwDs, the path to meaningful employment is often clouded by challenges and barriers that hinder their potential and opportunities. One PwD shared that during job interviews, interviewers did not think that they would be able to work. This was despite years of different job experiences.
Another shared about their very low income level. Many PwDs also work part-time, often not by choice. According to MOM, there is a 13% median pay gap between PMETs with disabilities and those without. The ratio of part-time to full-time employed PwDs in the workforce is approximately one to four. Some of the key barriers often encounter by PwDs in relation to employment is discrimination, lack of accommodations and limited access to training and career development opportunities.
While I acknowledge the Government's acceptance of the Tripartite Committee's final recommendations, which excludes reasonable accommodation provisions from the initial form of the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL), this decision poses significant questions.
It becomes crucial to understand the Government's strategy for ensuring that PwDs receive the reasonable accommodations they need to participate in the workforce. We must address how to prevent these accommodations from being left to the discretion of individual employers, which could lead to subjective biases.
At the workplace, the welfare of PwDs is also not something to be overlooked. Thirty-nine percent of those I surveyed said they were often or always experiencing feelings of loneliness at their workplace. Some PwDs hoped for more support from their teammates at work. For others, it is as simple as being invited for lunch.
We spend so much of our time at work. A little more attention and effort from each of us could go a long way to make a positive difference to those around us.
In Budget 2024, SkillsFuture has been presented as a key pillar of Singapore's social compact. In other words, it serves as a social leveller in Singapore. To ensure it truly serves its purpose, we must ensure it is accessible to all groups of Singaporeans – including PwDs.
According to feedback gathered from PwDs by the Disabled People's Association (DPA) Singapore, PwDs still face significant barriers in accessing the SkillsFuture system. This ranges from course materials not in accessible formats or training providers unwilling to provide reasonable accommodations.
While I understand that SkillsFuture SG works with the Enabling Academy and disability organisations, such as DPA, to help training providers offer reasonable accommodations, implementation is not mandatory. The Enabling Academy also curates courses specially for PwDs as an alternative.
Although well intentioned, these courses are significantly limited in scope compared to the extensive offerings available within the broader SkillsFuture system. This not only restricts opportunities available to PwDs, inadvertently causing them to fall further behind, but also risks further segregating them from wider society.
In light of this, I strongly urge the Government to deepen its commitment to inclusivity in Budget 2024 and ensure that we make SkillsFuture accessible to all users. Harnessed correctly, SkillsFuture has big potential to not only enhance career opportunities and professional enhancement for PwDs but also to cultivate greater societal integration and strengthen our social fabric.
Sir, let me now close.
In preparing for this speech, I recalled the words of American writer, Max Ehrmann, "You are a child of the Universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here."
Mr Speaker, inclusion is not just a matter of accessibility or accommodation; it is not merely about enabling one to hold on to a job, make a living. No – it is about thriving. It is about ensuring that every person, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, has the opportunity to fully engage in community, to enjoy life and pursue their aspirations.
Society must give every Singaporean the courage to dream.
By breaking down barriers, challenging stereotypes and fostering inclusive environments across various domains, we can create a society where all individuals – including PwDs – can be a part of a greater whole and contribute meaningfully.
Let us work together to build a more inclusive Singapore, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential. Let us make Forward Singapore a reality for all.
Sir, I support the Budget.