Mr Speaker, sir.
1 I see Budget 2012 as a response to new economic, social and political realities facing Singapore. The Government should be congratulated for taking these changes into account, and with Budget 2012, we are better placed to address concerns of many Singaporeans, particularly those in the lower income brackets. I wish to focus my current comments, and those that I intend to make during the Committee of Supply debates, on this latter group of Singaporeans - those from the lower income and less skilled groups.
2 This new, inclusive approach of the Government in budgeting is a positive move. By allocating more funds to help the elderly, the needy and the less able, the Government is acknowledging that some groups of Singaporeans need special attention. I hope that in our upcoming debate, we will continue with this approach, and allocate the government's budget to address current and immediate concerns of less fortunate Singaporeans.
3 To start with, I am deeply concerned about the plight of older, less skilled workers. I accept the Government's argument that the best and most sustainable way to raise incomes is by improving productivity. And this comes through up skilling and use of technology. This approach is well and fine for many workers, but perhaps not so applicable to those in the lowest rungs of our workforce. Let me give you an example. Recently, I was approached by an elderly man, in his late fifties. He works as a cleaner in a small company. To his credit, he said that he had heard a news report that his income could go up if he could improve his productivity. Then he asked me how he could go about improving his productivity. Honestly, I was at a loss, because while I could tell him to attend a course to upgrade himself, or learn to use cleaning machines, I knew that his company was not going to send him for any courses, or buy any machines. So, for him, there was no way up. At close to sixty years of age, he struggles and is unlikely to learn a new trade. Realistically, he is unlikely to find a new job, even in more progressive cleaning companies. So, the Government's call for workers to improve productivity was irrelevant to him. This is not an uncommon view among workers in the service sectors like cleaning, health care, F&B, retail etc. To these workers, it’s all good and well to throw a big word like productivity at them but they still struggle to come to terms on how it will really make an impact in the way they work, the salary they earn and their career progression.
4 Sir, this is just one example - given workers in many small companies in Singapore may be in the same situation - and my point is that at the macro level, it is reasonable to talk about improving productivity as a way of improving incomes. But at the micro level, we must have a more meaningful discussion about how individual workers can hope to raise their incomes, so that they too can benefit from the fruits of Singapore's progress.
5 I believe that we have not fully recognised the plight of low income workers. And particularly so, the plight of older and less skilled workers. I urge the Government to place some emphasis, using the power of whole of Government, to look at how we can improve the lives of this group. While I am sure that they appreciate the rebates, vouchers and so on that the government offers from time to time, I think there is a need for a closer examination of where each dollar that a low-wage worker earns goes to. A question that I would like answer is: How much of the earnings of the low wage worker goes to paying direct and indirect government related taxes, fees, charges and the like? If we do have some sense of the reality, we could consider options that are more effective in helping them cope with the challenges that they faced. Like, what scope exists to reduce these charges? My logic is that a low wage worker's standard of living can be improved not only by increasing his income, but also by reducing his living cost. I believe that now is the most opportune time to look at this issue - since our Minister of Manpower is also the Minister of Finance!
6 Sir, I accept that the issue of housing our low income workers is a complex one. I have previously suggested that the HDB look at managing the sale of 3-room and smaller flats differently, so that poorer households can buy or rent homes at an affordable price. Today, I would like to suggest even more bolder and radical ideas to the government. One idea is for HDB to consider selling homes on shorter leases (e.g. 60 years) for Singaporeans with lower incomes and limited financial resources. HDB can put further restrictions like recovery of subsidies on sales and buy them back at a cost-plus basis This can remove speculation of 3-room or smaller flats, and revert the HDB to its original mission of housing a nation. If we make enough effort, I am confident we can think of a scheme to reduce the start-up burden on low income families and young families, and they can be assured of a roof over their heads at a reasonable price. This would be another way to reduce the burden of cost on low income workers and young Singaporeans.
7 Next, beyond lower income workers, I wish to discuss workers in general, and whether our education and training system is preparing students for work life. Singapore brand and reputation on education is well known far and wide. Our schools and tertiary institutions are ranked among the best in the world, so it is only reasonable to expect that our young people, having attended these schools, should be highly productive. Yet, talking to many businesses, this does not seem to be the case. They find school-leavers to be book smart, but not street smart. They seem to know how to behave in a classroom, but not in a workplace. And, they seem to lack a hunger to excel and are demanding in their expectation. I am not sure what the cause of this apparent gap is. Is it because what we teach is not exactly relevant to what businesses want? Or is it because we teach theoretical principles, but not how these will be relevant in the workplace? Or does the issue lie with the students - after being told to study hard so that they can get comfortable jobs, they think that getting a degree means that they have arrived. Perhaps it is true that they have arrived, but they need to accept that they have only arrived at the start of the next phase of their lives - where they can only achieve their aspirations through continued hard work!
8 Another point that we must consider is the difficulties that some of our workers will face in retirement. I was very encouraged when the Government was discussing ways to improve the returns on CPF balances. It is good that the Government has decided to grant a higher interest rate for the first $60,000 of CPF balances. But I am asking if there is possibility for us to do more and give more whenever gains are good. We are all aware of the magic of compound interest. For example, a $1,000 balance, at an interest rate of 2.5%, over 30 years gives $2,098. But if the rate were to increase by 1%, to 3.5%, this amount increases to $2,807. And at 5%, the amount grows to $4,322. That's more than four times the original sum of $1,000. Now, imagine if we are able to achieve an appropriate interest rate that is viable and sustainable; this would means that our retiring workers can look forward to more resources at retirement and little more comfort, after helping Singapore grow and prosper. It would also mean that they would be less reliant on the government for their needs later in life. It may opportune for us to relook at the interest rates for CPF accounts of Singaporean workers for their long term benefits.
9 It is timely for Government as a whole to look at how we can maximise the economic contributions of all our workers. This means that many Ministries will have to work together - how to educate our students, how to socialise them so that they have a continuous desire to excel, to fight hard for their next higher achievement, how to learn on the job, and when they have done well, how to give back to the less fortunate.
[Mr Speaker Sir, in Malay: Tuan, mungkin sudah tiba masa nya untuk Pemerintah bekerja secara menyeluruh bagi memanfaatkan potensi dan kebolihan tenaga kerja rakyat Singapura agar kita mendapat sumbangan maksima kepada ekonomi negara. Ini bermakna, setiap Kementerian dan institusi pemerintah harus bekerjasama untuk mendidik pelajar-pelajar kita, memupuk semangat social yang mendalam untuk terus berjaya, berusaha and berkerja keras untuk mencapai taraf yang lebih tinggi, mempunyai keinginan untuk belajar sambil bekerja dan mudah-mudahan jika mereka berjaya akan terus menyumbang kembali kepada masyarakat dan orang-orang yang kurang berkemampuan. ]
10 Mr Speaker Sir, I think we must elevate our budget discussions, sweep the slate clean, and think from the overall macro perspective of how we can improve the lives of Singaporeans. While making routine cuts to address the issues of particular segments of our community has its place, we should spend more energy relooking at how the Government's budget is allocated. For example, if buying one less jet fighter means we can help hundreds of poor families take the first step out of the poverty trap, is it worth the sacrifice to our national defense? Or if we build one less national park, but can help hundreds of poor students learn some work-life skills, is it worth the sacrifice? This is just my layman way of thinking, but I think we in Parliament have a duty to examine our budget allocation, and assure ourselves that overall, we are doing justice to all Singaporeans.
11 Mr Speaker, Singaporeans can be justifiably proud of our many Number 1 or being among the TOP achievements. Our physical infrastructure rivals the best in the world, we have a Number 1 port and airport. Many tall and magnificent buildings grace our skyline. Now, with Budget 2012, we are presented with the opportunity for another, perhaps more important, Number 1 achievement. I would like to propose that we work towards being Number 1 in helping Singaporeans, particularly the most vulnerable amongst us, to achieve a better life. A better life through good education, a meaningful and fulfilling work-life, and a dignified and happy retirement. That would be a proud achievement indeed.
Thank you.
