EXEMPTED BUSINESS

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): 6.15 pm

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business setdown on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 91(3). – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column: 2530

ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT: Debate resumed.

Mr Calvin Cheng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Budget. It is indeed a visionary Budget with an eye to the future. If Singapore is to grow and out-compete our fast-developing regional competitors, we have to transform. This transformation has to be fundamental, and has to go beyond just a year-on-year drive to increase GDP. The kind of growth that Singapore saw in the preceding decades has been that of a developing nation's. In order for us to move truly into the ranks of developed nations, Singapore not only needs to achieve raw GDP growth, but also create economic fundamentals that allow us to sustain continued growth once diminished returns set in. This can only be achieved through becoming a high-productivity, knowledge-based economy that delivers a different kind of growth from the past, a growth that in many ways emphasises quality, and a growth that is sustainable in the long run. The 2010 Budget lays the foundation for all of this and will undoubtedly not only prepare Singapore for the years to come, but also make it more resilient against the kinds of crisis that hit the world in 2008 and 2009.

Column: 2531

2009 has been a terrible year for many businesses. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as a director and shareholder of a service sector SME with overseas offices and foreign-sourced income. The Budget that the Government introduced in 2009 truly helped many businesses tide over the crisis. I am not saying this merely as a platitude, but as a beneficiary of the 2009 Budget and its emergency stimuli, I would like to express my heartfelt and sincere gratitude to the Government. Many other owners of SMEs whom I have spoken to also feel the same. I bring this up also because some of the measures introduced in the 2009 Budget have not been extended this year, and the SME owners I have spoken to wonder whether it would have been useful if they were extended, maybe in a reduced form, to 2010.

Two measures especially spring to mind and I speak again as a beneficiary of these measures in 2009. Firstly, the tax exemption on all foreign-sourced income in 2009 was very helpful in easing cash flow during the financial crisis. Companies could bring cash back from their overseas offices to help in overcoming a liquidity crunch, without being taxed for it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the world shows signs of economic recovery, we wonder whether it would be useful to extend this moratorium, especially since firms are still reeling from the effects of 2009 and many are just starting to see recovering cash flows. Indeed, we hope the Minister could consider making the tax-free remittance of all foreign-sourced income a permanent policy. One of the biggest operational issues that SMEs deal with on a daily basis is cash-flow, and such a policy would be immeasurably valuable to a growing SME. More importantly, such a policy would have two major benefits to the Singaporean economy. Firstly, it will greatly encourage Singaporean businesses to grow a foreign wing, to internationalise, which is also one of the explicit aims of this year’s

Column: 2532

Budget. Allowing all foreign-sourced income to be remitted to Singapore tax free would be an added incentive for businesses to internationalise, because such a decision would again be dependent on the cash flow situation of a company. Secondly, the money that is brought back to Singapore is injected into the Singaporean economy, and this would have multiplier effects on investment and jobs in the domestic economy. This would have a far more beneficial effect to Singapore than if the same income were left to sit in offshore bank accounts, unable to be brought back into Singapore and into the Singapore economy, for fear of being taxed. For these reasons, we hope that the Minister can consider making the tax free remittance of all foreign-sourced income a permanent feature of Singapore’s tax regime.

The second measure in 2009’s Budget that benefited many SMEs, and which is conspicuously absent in the 2010 Budget was the Government’s decision to introduce the 80% risk-sharing loan scheme. This included the increase of loan quantum to $5 million, and the loan tenure to four years. Although the Government has extended the scheme by another year, albeit at reduced terms, I hope the Government would consider the immense help that the 2009 measures have given to SMEs. Although it is true that the financial crisis gave rise to unprecedented liquidity crunches that the 2009 loan measures were meant to tackle, some credit problems that SMEs face are permanent. Firstly, the initial loan tenure of two years was perhaps a little unrealistic, given that many investment projects that SMEs embark on have a longer break-even period. Secondly, and more importantly, service companies which are asset-light find it hard to get a loan even in normal times, due to their inability to offer collateral. Sir, many of the types of companies Budget 2010 seeks to encourage fall into this category. Service companies, knowledge-based

Column: 2533

companies, and companies that develop intangible intellectual capital are by definition asset-light. They have no factories, no machines, no inventory to offer banks as collateral. One cannot offer patents and trademarks as collateral to banks, at least not yet. Brands cannot be mortgaged. These are companies that the Government purportedly want to grow, but are precisely the type of companies that will need Government-backed loans the most. The investments of knowledge-based, innovation-geared companies are not only riskier, but also have longer pay-back periods, and break-even points that need more time. And without collateral, they have little access to these loans from risk-averse banks. I thus urge the Government to consider making permanent the loan schemes it extended in 2009, especially in the case of asset-light, but intellectual capital-heavy companies.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I listened with whetted interest the debate between Mr Low Thia Khiang who argued for industry-specific dependency ratios and the Government MPs who support the use of a price mechanism. Sir, it is a perennial debate amongst economies, whether the price mechanisms or quotas is a better method to allocate resources. Most free market economies would support the price mechanism as a more sophisticated method than quotas for various reasons but chiefly because imperfect information prevents quota-setters from accurately allocating resources. The price mechanism is set to automatically match resources with needs by allowing businesses to expresses their preferences by a price. I am of this view. However, I do agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang on his point about industry specificity. There is a very real concern that if the cost of labour rises by too much or if local labour is unable to plug the gaps caused by too low a cap on foreign workers, companies will uproot from Singapore and relocate to places

Column: 2534

where labour is cheap and abundant. The Singapore economy as a whole would then suffer, jobs will be lost, growth will be retarded, and nobody, including low-income Singaporean workers, will be better off. This argument is true but surely cannot be applied to all industries. Some businesses are just not "relocateable". Manufacturers and factory operators can perhaps choose to relocate to another country but construction companies will find it harder to do so. A condominium that needs to be built in Pasir Panjang will still need to be built there, whether foreign workers are available and at what price. A cleaning company who hires workers to clean up Newton Hawker Centre, cannot just uproot, at least not without difficulty, and start cleaning food centres in China. Newton Hawker Centre needs to be cleaned with or without foreign workers and regardless of price. Can I thus suggest that perhaps the foreign worker levy be varied according to industry, with industries less likely to relocate to other countries with higher levies, compelling them to increase productivity and thus use fewer foreign workers and hire more locals at a faster rate. Industries that are more internationally mobile such as manufacturing, could then be dealt with in a more gradual, gentler manner, giving them more time to adjust, upgrade their processes and increase productivity. This would undoubtedly take more work and research from Government departments as they have to identify, classify and differentiate the various industries but it would hopefully result in a more nuance and more effective policy in phasing out our reliance on foreign labour. Industry-specific levies can thus draw on the strengths of both the arguments for industries' specific dependency ratios as well as an across-the-board foreign worker levy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the 2010 Budget is one that looks into the future of Singapore, and which prepares Singapore

Column: 2535

for the long-run. John Maynard Keynes famously quipped that "in the long-run, we are all dead" and although in this case it may be hyperbolic, I wonder whether it may be too soon and asking too much of companies and the people of Singapore to run faster, when they are just catching their breath from 2009. Many companies are still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis and their short-run survival is still paramount. Although productivity increases are vital to Singapore’s long-term future, the introduction of foreign worker levies, even if phased in gradually, will add to short-term costs. Even if 2010 were to be a good year, many companies would still be nursing their wounds from the last two years, some nearly mortal. 2010 would be a year of recovery in the literal sense of the word, where the wounded lick their wounds. Might it be too soon to increase foreign worker levies this year, rather than next? Would the Minister consider giving companies more time to recover and catch their breath before urging them to sprint even faster?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the same concerns go for the people of Singapore, the man on the street. Training for the future is beyond a doubt of paramount importance, but right now, many are still jobless. Employers cannot re-design jobs they cannot yet offer. Workers cannot learn, upgrade or add value when they are still out of work. We need a transitional period of recovery, a period for the unprecedented damage that was done in the preceding 18 months to be undone, a period for the dust to settle. Surely we need to re-build, before we can build again. Sir, would the Government consider extending for another year, albeit in reduced form, some of the extremely useful measures for needy Singaporeans from Budget 2009, measures that Singaporeans are very grateful for? Some of these measures would include additional rental rebates for eligible households in public rental flats, income tax rebates and the income tax instalment

Column: 2536

payment plans. More important would be the measures in 2009 that targeted the most vulnerable groups of Singaporeans – the Public Transport Fund top-up, the Financial Assistance Schemes for Education, the Public Assistance Rate, and the Singapore Allowance for Pensioners. This group would have suffered the greatest from the financial crisis and would probably need the longest time to recover. Sir, the lowly skilled are often the first people to lose their jobs; they are also often the last to get them back. Can the Minister perhaps consider phasing out in stages these assistance schemes introduced in 2009? I also look forward to hearing in greater detail about the enhanced Workfare Income Supplement which would undoubtedly help the most disadvantaged Singaporeans and include them as we move towards being an advanced economy.

Sir, the 2010 Budget is one that would have far-reaching long-term consequences for Singapore. Some of these results may not be seen as fast as some people might want, but are vital to Singapore’s inexorable march to becoming an advanced, developed nation. It is a measure of the confidence of this nation that we can embark on planning for our future so quickly after we have come out from the worst recession we have ever experienced in our sovereign history. I have no doubt that we will succeed, and that every single Singaporean will reap and share in the harvest from the seeds we plant right now.

With this Deputy Speaker Sir, I support the Budget.

6.28 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year is the year of three anticipations. First, the opening of the IRs; second, the Budget and third, the General Election.

Column: 2537

The first, well, Resorts World created some euphoria but it did not really bring the house down. We will see how the opening of Sands IR on 27th April pans out. The second anticipation is the Finance Minister's Budget Statement for 2010. I sense that while there were some cheers among the people in the lower- and middle-income groups but the jubilation and celebration seem to be somewhat muted. Some say this is not an Election Budget, no " ang pow ". However, many resources in the Budget have been put into improving the quality of jobs. The fact is that the measures taken by the Finance Minister in the past year Budget 2009 were commendable. They have sustained our economy and avoided the jobless recovery.

Let me share with you my experience on the ground. In 2003, after SARS, there was also the serious economic downturn and economic restructuring.

Many businesses failed and many jobs were lost. I remembered I cried silently in bed twice as I shared my residents' pain and desperation, both times after the MPS. The residents who came to see me shared with me their sadness and frustrations and sought advice on means to look after their families as their businesses failed. They had to make drastic adjustments to their living standards to sustain their families. In 2009, although the world suffered its worst and most widespread recession in 60 years, many of our Singaporean families were spared. I did not have to go through the same agony that I experienced in 2003. We must compliment the leadership which has taken the most decisive action and swiftly instilled confidence. The creative and forceful measures of the Resilience Package notably the Jobs Credit and SPUR helped Singaporeans to keep their jobs and sustain their families. I do not see many families in disarray despite the world's worst recession. Even for the

Column: 2538

unemployed, their despair found relief after a short period. We were able to help many to find jobs after a few months and most are able to go for training – thanks to the training allowances. The most important is that you can still see the confidence of those who are unemployed and the job-seekers.

Now we are calibrating our growth. We are talking about hundreds of new jobs; we are talking about slowing down the flow of foreign workers and we are talking about training and upgrading to raise productivity.

Largely, I agree with the essential points in Budget 2010. However, there are a few areas of concerns or refinements that I seek of this Budget.

Increasing the worker's levy. Presently, the quota in the levy are based on a broad classification of industries. Many of the small and medium enterprises are appealing to MOM for the classification of industries to be narrower for quotas for foreign workers. For example, in the manufacturing industry, some companies are in the light industries and others in the heavy industries. Those in heavy machinery or heavy manufacturing do need more foreign manpower because our Singaporeans are softer and they shun such jobs. Also, our population are greying as years pass by. My suggestion is that the increase in levy could be progressive instead of the straight off increase for all foreign workers. The progressive levy based on the number of workers employed would help our SMEs to curtail and manage the production cost from escalating while continuously looking into ways to improve their productivity. The progressive levy could be based on the size and turnover of the companies. For example, the first basic tier with X number of workers would be lower and the levy increases with the rise in the number of foreign workers employed.

Column: 2539

The Productivity and Innovation Credit has once again shown the Minister's creative mind in encouraging and invigorating Singapore's economy. This scheme would help companies who have good business track records and are paying corporate taxes to continuously strive to increase productivity and provide quality jobs. Even the start-ups and companies that are not paying taxes are able to enjoy cash grants for the conversion of the credits. I would like to urge the Minister to be flexible in the claims for such expenditure for innovation and automation and also to provide more support under SPRING for these SMEs. Many of the SMEs have shared that they have manpower constraints in supervising these innovation and automation projects and have to engage additional experienced consultants to help them. Many of these consultants may not be as capable as they claimed to be and eventually after completion of the projects when SPRING officers come to make their assessments, grants cannot be made as the work done is not sufficient. However, these SMEs have already paid for the consultant costs. The suggestion is that there should be more support from SPRING to assess these projects while the work is in progress and also provide an accredited list of consultants for the SMEs.

The Workfare Incentive Schemes have encouraged many women folk to step out into the workforce despite the low wages these few years. I am particularly happy for this extension of scheme, ie, the Workfare Training Scheme. However, the concern is that payment of these payrolls and course fee, the process has to be efficient and effective as many of these employers are small companies and cash flow is tight. The process of claims has to be simplified as well. The additional concerns are that many of these workers are illiterate and we need to allow oral tests to certify them or the use of mother tongue.

Column: 2540

Before I proceed onto the concerns of the families in the heartland, as Chairman of Aljunied Town Council and I have also been managing property for a long time, sustainability of our environment is very crucial and enhancing our living environment is also part of the objective of this Budget. May I be so bold to ask that Town Councils be allowed to be included in the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme for cash grants as we do not pay taxes and of course, I have to leave it to the Minister to decide and to set the limit for the cash grants.

Allow me to present why Town Councils should be included in the scheme. There are many areas of innovation, design and automation that we could look into in the management and maintenance of the environment. One main area is the automation and segregation of food waste collection at our market and hawker centres and this will allow our bin compound to be much cleaner. In fact, currently, if you go to any bin compound near to the market, you really do not want to go near them. Studies have yet to be made on how to allow our residents to hang their clothes out of their homes more easily as many are getting along in age. Much of the cleaning of the common areas can be automated as well. The use of motion lights and LED lightings in our common areas could cut down on utility cost. However, we need these lightings to be robust and we need research and development (R&D) for such installations. Designs of street furniture, eg, seats comfortable for the elderly and creatively interactive children play areas, are among those that need to be looked into. In addition, we have the nationwide rollout of the fibre optics. There are many possibilities – the wireless hotspots at the estates, the wireless connection of the CCTVs, the wireless video communication channels are numerous possibilities. Aljunied Town Council has implemented

Column: 2541

the "iLink @ Aljunied GRC", an iPhone application to allow residents to give feedback on-the-go. I feel that there could be more such applications to increase staff productivity. We do obtain a Government grant for the maintenance and management of the estate. But these are basics and we hope that these can be enhanced to include incentives for design, innovation and automation.

The Finance Minister responded to the needs of the majority of people, giving incentives for those who own houses, and lending help to those who have to support aged or handicapped family members. If I may say so, on behalf of the Ministry of Health and MCYS, and I wish to declare that I am a GPC member of both Ministries, I would like to suggest to the Minister for Finance to consider providing more support for the elderly and the families at the community level. Give these two Ministries far more resources for step-down care: the community hospitals, elderly homes with basic medical facilities, day-care centres for the elderly, the mentally challenged and the dementia elderly in the community. The top-up of the CPF Medisave accounts is really indeed much needed.

I am particularly concerned about our youths. I have two youths at home. My concern is the increasing pressure of academic demands in schools. Now getting nine to 10 A1s in secondary school is becoming more common among the top percentages of students. Even getting 10 As would not qualify you for Raffles Junior College (RJC) as the JC has its own through-train students to tend to. Recently, a good friend's daughter has three points, wanted to go to RJC and appealed. She could not get in. Many who got in have negative points; even zero point does not get you a place. The earlier tagline of schools of "Teach Less and Learn More" is now changed to "Since Teach Less, you Learn More,

Column: 2542

Teach More and you can Learn even More". The teachers are teaching more, more remedials and students are asking for more tuition. I have asked my daughter to cut back on tuition who is now in Secondary 4. She just would not. She said she needs to strive for negative points for good colleges. We need more creative civil servants to tweak our school education systems quickly and fast.

Many parents are still concerned over the many foreign students in our schools. We used to have ASEAN scholars and others who are bonded to the Singapore Government. Many scholarship students have also become citizens and respected leaders in their various fields too, including Cabinet Ministers. However, there are many foreign students in schools using our education system and before their children reach the age of National Service, they leave Singapore to return to their own countries. We must ensure that precious resources are not spent on such students. We should ensure that they are at least bonded or they do pay the market rate for our quality education system.

Another area of concern is the food prices in the neighbourhood markets and hawker centres. Our land is limited. With open tender for this essential facility, the food prices will definitely increase as the developer needs to recover the high land cost for these new market and food centres. The tenants need to pay higher rental resulting in higher food costs. The new Sengkang Market and Hawker Centre's food prices are at least 50 cents more than the rest of the market and hawker centres. Another disturbing trend is the subletting or assignment of these market and hawker food stalls. This has also indirectly increased the rental of these stalls.

Although we need to intensify the land use, certain essential facilities need to be catered for, for our heartlanders by the Ministries directly. I wish to appeal that

Column: 2543

the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources continue to be responsible for the setting up of market and hawker centres so that we could have fair prices of hawker food.

These are ground concerns and they are disturbing. We need to take effort to address them so that the fiscal policy is not only seen as working for the country as a whole, but that lay people can see it benefiting them on the ground. Therefore, be it in education or healthcare sector or basic food, we have to be mindful of the risks in making changes. But if we do not change, then we may be losing more by missing all the opportunities to enable wholesome and quality living for our people.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate.

6.42 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the forward-looking Budget announced by the Finance Minister.

2009 has been a difficult year for many Singaporeans. Whilst the current signs point towards a possibly strong recovery for Singapore and the region, the United States and the Euro zone are still facing high unemployment rates and uncertainties in their economic future.

Economic survivability and long-term sustainability seem to be taking centrestage in this year's Budget. The Government has also announced many measures and schemes to help up-skill and raise the productivity of our workers. These are no doubt important initiatives as they affect the livelihood of many Singaporeans. However, we need to look beyond just economic growth and the competitiveness of Singapore. We need to have a big picture perspective of ensuring the survivability of mankind and its environment. The constant damages done

Column: 2544

to our fragile environment are irreversible and Singapore must do its part in saving the environment, even in our pursuit for economic growth.

Despite inconclusive climate change talks at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December, I am heartened that the Government is nonetheless pushing ahead with more spending for a greener Singapore. However, more should be dedicated to fight climate change, invest in green technology and incentivise companies and individuals to go green.

Sir, we often hear people complaining about the weather. This is indeed a succinct and accurate statement about what is possibly the number one issue of our times. The world has been experiencing erratic weather and natural disasters. Many scientists have attributed the severe floods and droughts faced by many nations in the world to climate change. They have known for decades that all the waste gases we dump into the air would change our climate. They have been warning of the risk since the 1980s. Unfortunately, few people have listened. There was the Kyoto Protocol initiated back in 1997. World leaders patted each other on the back and then headed home and pretty much, everyone has overshot their targeted emissions commitments, a bit like a new year's resolution. Almost everyday, new information confirms that our environment has changed. In fact, our environment is changing even at this very moment as I speak.

The recently concluded Copenhagen Summit did not bring much consolation to environmentalists lobbying for more concrete actions to be taken. It is too easy to be fatalistic and say that the challenge is just too enormous and that efforts by a small tiny nation like Singapore will not have made much of a difference. But that is incorrect.

Every little effort counts and I believe sooner or later, tackling climate change would be an important agenda for all governments.

Column: 2545

We have reached a level of technological advancement that puts us in a powerful position to harness non-polluting sources of energy. Given the right technology and commitment of governments, it would be possible for solar, hydro and wind energy to power the whole planet on their own. Each of us can make a real difference to the amount of greenhouse gases released to the air. Do nothing and we consign the planet to a temperature rise of 6 degrees Celsius or more by 2100, and almost unimaginable changes to our climate, planet and lives. The changes we can make at home, at work and at school are not extreme. Simple adjustments that we can all make can stop millions of tonnes of emissions. Everyone of us can make a difference!

There is no place like home to start cutting emissions. A significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions come from our homes. Air-conditioning is one of the biggest energy users in Singapore homes. Installing timers on air-condition systems and setting the temperature at 24-25 degrees Celsius can help save energy. Appliances use electricity when on stand-by mode. Do turn off the TV or computer when not in use. Rather than use a screen saver, which uses just as much energy as a normal screen, simply set your computer to turn monitor off, say, after 5-10 minutes of inaction. Lighting makes up about 15% of our home's energy use. We can cut that by half in dark-coloured rooms simply by painting the walls white. Inefficient incandescent globes, invented in 1875, convert only about 5% of the energy they use into useful light, the rest being lost as heat. Switching to compact fluorescent lamps or LED lamps can save energy. LED lamps also last much longer and emit less greenhouse gas than compact fluorescent lamps. Singaporeans must be encouraged to reduce, reuse and recycle for general sustainability, and it

Column: 2546

also contributes to greenhouse gas reductions.

Companies can do their part in improving their energy efficiency and reducing energy wastage. This will not only reduce their carbon footprint but also enhance their long-term business competitiveness. NEA's industry-focused Energy Efficiency National Partnership programme also provides the necessary help to companies who are keen to take the green initiative.

Singapore is a paradox when it comes to temperatures. Many foreigners from temperate countries often remark how we are "summer outside, winter inside". This overuse of air-conditioning indoors persists and the Government should step in to incentivise or penalise so that suitable temperatures can be adhered to.

Many of us carelessly leave doors to air-conditioned spaces open, at the expense of the building management. We design buildings without effective mechanisms to reduce the amount of cold air escaping.

The Government can further enhance the existing Energy Efficiency schemes in the form of public education, subsidies, tax rebates, grants, seed fundings and incentives, to make it a lot more appealing for individuals and companies to embrace the green movement. In the United States, families are given home tax credits of up to US$1,500 for energy efficiency improvement works in the homes. Maybe the Government can also consider this to encourage all Singaporeans to do their part.

At the moment, the general perception of green technology is costly and requires a high start-up investment. But many people are not aware that green technologies and solutions can save so much energy that they pay for themselves, and therefore it makes sense

Column: 2547

to implement them. The Government can inject more grants and tax rebates into the Green Mark Incentive Scheme so that more developers and building owners will retrofit old buildings, instead of tearing them down and building new ones, to make them more energy efficient.

The number of green vehicles on the road is less than ideal. The existing green vehicle rebate can be increased further to make it irresistible and more economical for car owners to switch to green vehicles. Or perhaps the Government can start a different COE category just for green vehicles to encourage the growth of these types of vehicles.

Alternative energy market is an emerging industry potentially worth billions of dollars. Singapore should take the bold step of investing in this industry, not only to stay ahead in the "power" curve, but also to create employment in alternative energy jobs. With this expertise, Singapore can subsequently develop products and services that we can export to the international market.

We live in a world where the need for energy is continually growing. But how will we be able to meet the ever-growing demands if we primarily depend on non-renewable resources? Today, fossil fuels supply more than 85% of the world's energy. Sooner or later, we will have to look for alternatives. It is always better sooner than later.

So what can we do? The future is definitely not in fossil fuels, we know that. It belongs to renewable energy. Solar power, wind power and hydro power are the leading renewable energy technologies of today. Our overly dependence on fossil fuels is not a good thing and we should start making serious efforts to decrease it. Being dependent on something that will soon run out is not very healthy. The main objection against

Column: 2548

green energy is the cost. That is true. Renewable energy is generally more expensive, but for how long? When fossil fuels start to run out, the price will climb and we would not have a viable replacement. Green and renewable energy should be our main focus in the coming decades. The sooner we become free of our fossil fuel addiction, the better.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, global climate change with its profound global impacts is one of the most daunting challenges faced by policymakers. In addition, much of the traditional sources of energy are becoming unsustainable, making new greener sources of energy the wave of the future. An investment in "green" energy means a future of low energy cost and a greener sustainable environment.

Just late last year, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, chaired by Senior Minister Jayakumar, have laid firm targets to cut carbon emissions growth, ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit. Under the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, the Government has committed $1 billion over five years to improve the energy efficiency of our economy in industry, transport, households and buildings. Singapore has also pledged to voluntarily work towards cutting projected "business as usual" emission levels in 2020 by 16%, contingent on a global agreement being reached. I certainly hope this resolution will be the catalyst for the explosion of green industry in Singapore.

Sir, on that note, I support the Budget.