Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Debate resumed.

6.54 pm

Ms Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to join in the debate. It is indeed an honour for me to be here today. I am indeed privileged to be the first representative of the newly included people and civic sector with my own platform of environment and heritage. I pay tribute to previous NMPs, Mr Edwin Khiew and Dr Geh Min, who had also during their tenure as NMPs spoke up on various environmental concerns. I especially pay tribute to the organisation and the people who nominated me, the Nature Society Singapore. It is the credit to the integrity of the Nature Society Singapore built up over the last 30-odd years that I am here today at all. It is also a testimony on the part of the Government, the Government agencies and the Society for being able to engage in a more meaningful conversation with each other over the years.

However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not here just to represent only the Nature Society or environmentalists or heritage or nature lovers. To limit myself to those roles would be an injustice to the wide range in which the natural environment and heritage impact on all of us, regardless of race or religion, income or social status. I believe the sector I represent has relevance to all Singaporeans, including the people who are specially mentioned in Budget 2012.

Yesterday and in the course of today, we heard Members of the House share their perspectives on the Budget. We heard a few Members yesterday wonder what is it about our education system – whether the ITE, the polytechnic or the university – that perhaps may not have prepared our citizens with the necessary skills for the workforce. In fact, Mr Zainudin Nordin also mentioned that school-leavers seemed to be "book-smart", he said, but not "work-smart". We also had Members emphasising self-reliance. Allow me now to expand on the discussion and present my own personal perspectives.

Page: 1532

I believe there is one element that we have missed. Sir, I do believe that an inclusive society, a stronger Singapore, can and must include placing emphasis on the intangible value of the natural world. In this regard, I am thrilled to hear the words "values-based education" spoken by our Education Minister some time last year. A cynic may wonder what then has our education been based on all this while. Be that as it may, I believe this is where nature comes in. Nature itself is already a values-based educator.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have worked with students from as young as 10 to young adults of 22 for some years now. While for the most part I have found these young people intelligent, in the words of Mr Zainudin Nordin, "book-smart", I am also struck by how disconnected they are from nature and the environment as they revealed to me that either they have never been or have seldom been to nature areas or even when they have, these are usually for the purposes data collection for a school curriculum or hurried post-examination trips meant to get them out of the way of teachers marking examination papers. More importantly, I am struck by the impact this disconnect has on their relationships with other people and the world around them. And what is worse, their relationship with their own selves.

It is no longer news that Singapore is a very wired nation. We only need to look around when travelling in the MRT to see how almost everyone is plugged onto their gadgets. It is easy enough to blame technology. That would be disempowering. Blame only makes us victims. Technology is a tool and a very useful tool it is, too. The question is whether we see a problem with over-dependence on technology, the consequences of that and what we can do about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the course of my work, taking young people for nature walks where they are encouraged to touch, to feel, to hear, sometimes even to taste what is around them, here is what I found: not distracted by laptops, encumbered by worksheets or the goal of data collection, they are free to experience as their senses take them. It is said that the ultimate state of learning is when you are open to what you see, what you touch, and what you hear. Stopping to focus to really observe, to really listen, these young people learn that this is really what being connected is all about. Imagine the value of this when young people step into the working world. With some music students that have been taken only to walks as a prelude to their music composition classes, they have even found that nature walks help them become more creative with their music.

Yesterday, we have heard many times the words "innovation" and "creativity", today as well. From my reality, nature and environment education is what will lead us there. I am struck, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by the number of times these young people use the word "awe" and a "sense of wonder" at the end of such experiences. These are words we rarely hear anymore in the cynical blase world of many young people these days. It seems to me that what is happening is that young people are remembering something they have forgotten – once again, they are beginning to feel.

Sir, while in Nature is indeed all the things we need to study − science, geology, ecology and geography − I suggest that this is not giving Nature a chance to teach us more. I suggest that here are some of the answers to the questions raised by Members yesterday and today.

Yesterday, the hon Member Mr Yee Jenn Jong shared his experience walking in the forest of Sabah, I believe.

Page: 1533

Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Sarawak.

Ms Faizah Jamal: Sarawak, my apologies. He noticed how the little trees were overshadowed by the big ones. Far from being a competition and contrary to all that we have been taught in school, it turns out that Nature is actually collaborative. When we understand that Nature is collaborative, not competitive, we learn that we too can do the same as we respect and celebrate all views, all perspectives and all differences. In short, "an inclusive society, a stronger Singapore".

When we understand that in Nature, the greater the diversity of species, the stronger the forest, we recognise and appreciate that each one of us is unique with our own individual gifts. We are not just economic digits to be boxed into whatever the changing economic demands of the day may be, good though it is to fill an economic need. In short, "an inclusive society, a stronger Singapore".

When we see how in Nature, there are no straight lines; rather, it is twists and turns, and curls and twirls, we too understand that we need not expect our lives to be one linear path. Our young people need not beat themselves up when they have stepped off the path, in despair that they are "not good enough". It is all right to turn back and choose another path, and start again. This allows young people to know that they do not have to be perfect. Imagine the value of this as they leave the safe confines of school and into the stressful world juggling personal needs, family and work.

Sir, yesterday, a Member of this House mentioned the word "passion" for the work that we do. Many years ago, I was a corporate lawyer specialising in intellectual property law. I have since given it up to pursue my passion for nature and environment education. Many people think I am crazy. It was a risk, as my two daughters were very young then. However, I have learnt that when we understand that to be out in wild nature, with all the risks, perceived or real, which to many young people in Singapore is really a big step out of their comfort zone, we realise that it is at the end of our comfort zone that the real learning begins.

Imagine the value of this as our young people navigate the changes in their lives where the only thing that does not change is change itself. Imagine this being the answer to the feeling amongst some quarters that our young people are "risk averse", as reported in the press recently.

When we understand that in Nature, all things are interconnected, we understand that this teaches us humility. In the words of Chief Seattle, the great Native American leader: "Man does not weave the web of life; he is but a strand in the web of life. What he does to the web he does to himself."

In case, Sir, if what I have shared is not convincing enough, allow me to expand on what some Members in the House have mentioned – Mr Chen Show Mao as well as Miss Penny Low – the emphasis on "human capital". Allow me to introduce the idea of Nature as "capital", which Miss Penny Low has also mentioned briefly in her speech today.

Last week, I attended the World Oceans Summit where experts discussed at length the meaning of this term and why it is important to include this in economic growth. As an aside, the irony is not lost on me that here we are hosting the first World Oceans Summit with luminaries like World Bank President Mr Robert Zoellig and Mr Peter Seligman, the CEO of Conservation International, which incidentally has an office in Singapore. Singapore does not even have its own marine conservation laws! But that is a debate for another day.

Page: 1534

One of the speakers at the Summit is well-known Mr Pavan Sukhdev, Founder and CEO of GIST Advisory and Lead Author of TEEB of United Nations Environment Programme, who pointed out that the tendency of governments is to focus on the "built economy" and to under-estimate the "natural capital".

So, what is this "natural capital"? According to the definition of the International Institute of Sustainable Development in Canada, "natural capital" is land, air, water, living organisms and all formations of the earth's biosophere that provide us with ecosystem goods and services imperative for survival and well-being. In short, the basis for all human activity. Some people call it "eco services".

Sir, we have not emphasised enough in our economy that it is the natural world that has given us these services, without a fee, without which our economy cannot function. Mr Peter Seligman, the CEO of Conservation International, at last week's World Oceans Summit had this to say: "A society cannot survive if it does not value its natural resources."

While it is indeed popular to say that Singapore does not have "natural resources", let us not forget that small though we may be, the biodiversity we have in places like Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Sungei Buloh and Chek Jawa is immense. Lesser known to most people, except to members of Nature Society, at least up until now, is the rich biodiversity in a place like Bukit Brown, a fact that more and more Singaporeans are beginning to appreciate only very recently.

These spaces offer more than just a sense of physical, mental and emotional well being. They offer us a safeguard against consequences of man-made activities of rapid urbanisation that we have seen especially in the last five years – activities which have definite impact on economic growth.

Sir, in my work with young people, I have found that they are weary of the message of extremes in weather and climate change and global warming. They feel helpless and disempowered. Imagine how much more positive our message to them will be if we tell them that in these changes is an enormous opportunity for creativity; a creative new way of life through new jobs, new businesses, new cities, new civilisations. Yesterday, the hon Member Mr Yee Jenn Jong mentioned the need for the Government to encourage what he called "home-grown green technology", green products, green businesses. We have an opportunity here.

There is an old Malay wisdom that says, tak kenal maka tak cinta . Loosely translated, it means "you cannot love what you do not know". Young people have told me that as a result of their experiences in Nature, they have discovered a new sense of love for the place. It would not be too much of a stretch to say that this can extend to the love of our country. Imagine what this can do for national identity, and to give reasons for staying when the going gets rough.

While I am inclined to be a purist, I must admit, and see Nature as inherently valuable in and of itself, I understand the need to put some kind of monetary value and to see the relevance of the word "natural capital", if this is the language that the Government and business understand and if this will jumpstart the Government and the private sector to start valuing the natural world, and to take this into account in economic growth.

Page: 1535

Sir, all that we discussed yesterday and today and all that is in the Budget will come to nothing if we do not recognise Nature not only as an educator but as a partner. Learning from nature though is not a linear process. It takes time, it takes people who know how to facilitate such learning; it takes civil society who know the value of such places to educate the public; it takes companies who know that when they value our natural spaces, they can continue to exist at all and be sustainable; it takes policymakers with the vision and foresight who are aware of the need to preserve and conserve such natural places over and beyond immediate economic needs. It takes the engagement of all three sectors – people, private and public – to make this work. In short, it takes an inclusive society. More importantly, it takes the very presence of such natural spaces in the first place.

Yesterday, Mr Zainuddin Nordin asked what if we have one less national park. I hope I have given him some reasons.

More importantly and really simply, Sir, I am a mother. I have seen for myself how my own teenage daughters' lives are made richer as a result of their exposure at a really young age to nature, the environment and a consciousness of this shared natural heritage.

Many years ago, at a time when we were ourselves undergoing some major life challenges, it is to Nature that we turned to, not the shopping malls. As a mother, I intuitively know that it is these experiences in the wild that has put us all in good stead, long after the experiences are over. It has kept us grounded, emotionally secure, and gives us a sense that it is not what happens to us, but how we respond to what happens that makes us empowered. Nature has been our best teacher. I suggest that this can be the same for many people in Singapore as well.

Singaporeans have been warned that the economic forecast is not good. When we are so used to rapid growth, this may sound scary. It is doom and gloom. I suggest that this is not so. I suggest that this quieter economic time is a great opportunity to take stock of who we are, where we come from, and the values that are important to us. It is a good time to start or maybe continue a conversation and start engaging in a real process between the Government and the voices on the ground that are getting louder and louder, and which cannot be ignored.

When Prime Minister Lee was interviewed in Davos last month about what we can expect from the Budget, he said, to expect a "qualitative transformation". I believe that what I have shared is one way to move towards that "qualitative transformation" that Prime Minister Lee talked about and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's well-chosen phrase of "an inclusive society, a stronger Singapore". Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

7.12 pm

Page: 1536

Mr Desmond Lee (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Budget has both "heart" and "resolve". "Heart", because it puts the interests of our most vulnerable at its front and centre. "Resolve", because it sends a clear signal on two fronts. First, that our economy needs to undergo painful restructuring to remain globally competitive and yet retain our Singaporean core. Second, that we are committed to tackling the challenges of a rapidly ageing population and growing income inequalities.

Sir, a document, entitled "Budget Highlights – Financial Year 2012", was distributed on Budget Day. It is full of numbers, charts and spreadsheets, but these are my main take-aways:

First, over the past five years, Government has increased expenditure significantly on our social infrastructure. In 2006, spending on education was $7.2 billion; in 2010 it was $10.3 billion. In 2006, investment in healthcare was $2 billion; in 2010, it was more than double: $4.2 billion. And over the next five years, it will be double to $8 billion. Singapore's social development bill last year was $21.5 billion, or 45.2% of total Government spending. I believe this Budget, the Government's spending on social infrastructure will grow even further.

Second, Government's commitment to building a more inclusive and caring society is a long-term, sustainable one. This is seen by the many endowment funds, which Government regularly tops-up, to cater to the needs of disadvantaged Singaporeans.

These include the $3 billion Medical Endowment Fund for those who cannot afford medical care, $6 billion Edusave Endowment Fund to level up opportunities for our children, $2.5 billion Eldercare Fund for needy patients requiring long-term care, and $1.5 billion ComCare Fund to assist low-income families.

Third, even in difficult times, our Government has been in a strong fiscal position to provide special transfers to help buffer Singaporeans against global challenges.

Last year, Government gave out more than $3 billion for (i) Growth Dividends; (ii) Medisave Top-Ups; (iii) Cash grants for SMEs; (iv) Workfare Special Bonuses; (v) Special Employment Credits; (vi) U-Save Rebates; (vii) S/CC Rebates; (viii) Child Development Credits, and others.

This year, the GST Voucher has been hardwired as a permanent social transfer for lower income Singaporeans.

As many Members quite rightly pointed out in the course of today, we should quietly contrast this with the position many other governments in Europe now face. Instead of being able to give more in a crisis, they are faced with the painful decision of cutting even more.

Fourth, Sir, our ability to invest in our people is linked to strong, stable economic growth and prudent stewardship of our budget. Last year, the three biggest sources of revenue were corporate income taxes, personal income taxes and GST. Without a growing economy, without companies setting up shops here, without tourists spending money, and without people's incomes growing, I do not think we will be in any position to spend more on social infrastructure and support. So, we need to grow the pie wisely in order to provide more support for Singaporeans.

Page: 1537

Even as many Singaporeans applaud the Government's focus on vulnerable Singaporeans, there are two groups of voices whose concerns need to be addressed. The first group is concerned about who will be paying for these growing social investments. They ask if the cost of capital would have to be borne by future generations. They point to massive structural deficits in other countries such as in Europe and the US, and want to be sure that we never talk ourselves into the same trap because no one will be there to bail us out if we spend beyond our means. I hope Government will assure Singaporeans that even as we strengthen our safety nets and enhance social infrastructure, which we must do, these are fiscally sustainable over the long term.

The second group is concerned about Government's plans to restructure the economy. This has been the subject of many, many earlier speeches but I thought it was important enough to bear brief repeating. Sir, last night, I went for a haircut. News about the Budget was on the radio. So, my barber naturally struck a conversation about how difficult it was to hire Singaporeans. He was prepared to hire unskilled workers and train them up as apprentices, but Singaporeans did not want the job because they thought it paid too little, involved standing for long hours, and ate into weekends. I was seated snugly in the chair and he was speaking animatedly as he wielded his scissors around my head. So, I made sure that what I have said did not cause too much excitement.

We discussed Government's proposals, including the Special Employment Credit for older and disabled workers, enhanced Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC), enhanced training support and the SME cash grant. He suggested that he reviewed his starting salary for new employees and sent his name cards to the CDCs, SCORE and other agencies. At the end of the discussion, he was still worried but slightly more optimistic about the future of his business. And I was quite relieved as well.

Sir, even though many SMEs may successfully transition into higher productivity gear and wean off foreign labour dependence, the fear is that many Singapore businesses might fall by the wayside. Will the cost of transition be too high? Will there be too much collateral damage? Traditional SMEs may not be fully aware of the many schemes that the Government has put in place, they may not have the critical mass, capital or the sophistication to maximise them. I hope Government and SPRING Singapore can proactively reach out to these SMEs, and set up innovation hubs to help share ideas and innovations with such companies and businesses.

Sir, I said earlier that the Budget has a lot of "heart", but on its own, it will not create a compassionate society. It will not on its own build an inclusive society, or generate social mobility, or foster a sense of ownership and belonging among Singaporeans. For example, Budget 2012 will give businesses significant rational financial incentive to hire older or disabled Singaporeans but that, Sir, will not make them embrace Singaporeans over cheaper foreign labour, or encourage them to make adjustments to accommodate older or disabled Singapore workers, unless they themselves see the inherent value of hiring Singaporeans and the benefit that this brings to society at large.

Helping to raise productivity and incomes will improve the lives of Singaporeans, but it will not bring pride and dignity to work, unless Singaporeans respect our cleaners, our waiters and our drivers. Despite all the funding and effort put in by the Government in the Yellow Ribbon programme, it will not automatically cause people to erase the prejudice that may be in their hearts towards ex-offenders.

Page: 1538

Making healthcare more affordable, expanding transport capacity, increasing the CPF rate for older Singaporeans, enhancing educational opportunities for disadvantaged children and giving GST Vouchers will certainly ease the pressures of daily life for many Singaporeans, and give them the assurance that our Government cares for them, but none of these measures, Sir, will automatically foster a society where people care for one another and for the less fortunate, where nobody feels marginalised.

Budget 2012, Sir, is about Government making difficult trade-offs and allocating limited financial resources in ways that best support the building of an inclusive society. This Budget is a necessary condition, but it is merely a signpost on the long road of nation building. Ninety-nine percent of the work will have to be done by Government leaders, civil servants, VWOs, employers and Singaporeans from all walks of life coming together in a positive spirit to work the loom and weave tightly the fabric of an inclusive society, so that no strand falls apart.

Let me just share one small example. In Jurong, there is a charity known as Loving Heart. It runs a School Partnership Programme with 24 primary, secondary and special schools in the Jurong area. Working with the schools, Loving Heart provides more than 700 pupils from disadvantaged families with pocket money for breakfast and more than 200 students with sports, tuition and mentoring. The charity's hardworking and young social workers cooperate very closely with Jurong's grassroots leaders and a pool of enthusiastic volunteers who gave their time and energy. Each year, Sir, business leaders and grassroots leaders come together to raise funds for this worthy cause. It is also supported by South West CDC and the NTUC.

These social investments will bear fruit. Last year, three students from a Jurong secondary school who had graduated from Loving Heart's sports, tuition and mentoring programme went on to represent Singapore in the Youth Olympic Squad. One of the boys distinguished himself as one of two top scorers, and helped Singapore secure the Bronze.

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman himself emphasised at the end of his Budget speech, and I can do no better than to quote him:

"We all know that building an inclusive society is not just about Government redistributing resources to help the poor. It is about building a society where at its heart, people retain a deep sense of responsibility for their families and seek every opportunity to improve themselves and do better. Where employers treat workers with respect, value their contributions and reward them fairly. Where the more successful step forward to help others in the community, because they feel for their fellow citizens. And where Singaporeans actively participate in causes that will make this a better society. An inclusive society will only blossom if we grow this spirit of responsibility and community."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the real question about inclusiveness is this: what is it that we, as Singaporeans, are doing today to make a difference? Sir, I support this Budget.