DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT: Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [22nd January, 2009],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2009 to 31st March, 2010.". - [Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Manpower and Minister for Health (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Budget.

This is a bold and forward-looking Budget which seeks to address key challenges faced by businesses and Singaporeans in these trying times and also prepare us to seize opportunities when the economy recovers. Key concerns of businesses at the moment are managing cash flow and costs, and excess manpower as a result of over capacity. Workers are concerned about losing their jobs – about losing their income to support their families.

The Special Risk-Sharing Initiative in the Budget will help companies secure loans to fund their operations and thus save jobs for workers. But from the feedback that I have received and comments by Members in the last two days, there is still much to be done by the Government to encourage and to facilitate banks to lend to viable companies. The Jobs Credit Scheme, SPUR, as well as measures recommended in the recently released Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower, such as shorter work weeks and temporary lay-off, will help companies manage their wage costs and retain their workers.

One of the key aims of this Budget is to minimise retrenchments. This benefits both businesses as well as workers. Businesses that keep their workers with them through the downturn are better equipped to respond to pick-up in demand. There will be savings in terms of time and cost, from not having to hire new workers and train them to get them up to speed. It will also help to keep up the morale of their workers, which could prove to be invaluable in both good times and bad. Businesses can enhance their competitiveness further by taking advantage of SPUR and the downtime to send their workers for training and skills upgrading to improve their productivity and service standards. Here, I would like to urge employers not to shed their workforce too quickly especially with all the measures that have been put in place to help them manage their costs of operation. Having said that, I think it would be wrong to prohibit or strongly discourage employers from retrenching at all, because it will certainly result in possible more job losses if the companies are no more viable. I remember some 10 years ago when South Korean unions fought the government when the latter attempted to do away with a legislation that prohibited retrenchments. The unions were trying to protect the rights of workers to jobs, but the outcome was vastly the opposite as companies were not able to downsize when needed. We must not be tempted to take a similar path.

Workers, on their part, may have to accept short-term sacrifices, such as pay-cuts where necessary, to keep their jobs. They should also adopt a positive attitude towards training to enhance their employability and adjust their expectations. The network of career centres run by NTUC, the e2i, the CDCs and combined self-help groups are doing their utmost to help train and place Singaporeans in available jobs. Those who are earnestly looking and training for work are assisted, if they qualify, through the Work Support Scheme run by the CDCs. I would resist giving automatic financial assistance to job-seekers in the form proposed by Ms Sylvia Lim.

Businesses, unions, workers and the Government will have to work closely to save jobs and to get through this economic crisis together. I must say that this is a source of our pride as much as it is a source of our social strength – this tripartite network that we have established over the years. But this does not happen naturally. As a contrast, just last Thursday, unions in France organised a collective strike across the country to protest against the French government's handling of the economic crisis. Their main grouse was that the French government had spent billions to bail out the banking and auto industries but had not done enough to protect wages and jobs.

In Singapore, we have built up a strong partnership and trust among employers, unions and the Government. This has enabled us to collaborate in a productive manner to deal with past recessions, and we had emerged from these crises much stronger. We should take this opportunity to strengthen this partnership, to overcome the challenges posed by this recession, and emerge from the recession stronger and more united. I would like to encourage employers to be open about the business situation with their unions and workers, and consult them on measures to better manage operational and wage costs to survive the downturn. Retrenchments should only be adopted as a last resort.

While the Budget has generally been well received by the public, some concerns have been raised. I would like to speak on some of these concerns.

There is a view that this Budget, and the Jobs Credit Scheme in particular, help businesses, but do not offer enough help to Singaporeans. I would like to challenge this view. This Budget doubles from last year the GST credit that households will receive. On top of that, for the low-wage workers, the Budget provides for a special WIS payment to supplement their income. I think these two measures alone are very helpful to low-wage workers.

The Jobs Credit Scheme is an innovative scheme which helps workers by saving jobs. Employers receive 12% of the first $2,500 of the wages of each employee who is on the CPF payroll. The more local workers employers keep on their payroll, the more Jobs Credit employers stand to receive. This motivates employers to keep more workers on their payroll and explore other means to reduce wage and other operational costs. I was heartened to hear Nominated Member Dr Loo Choon Yong spoke yesterday about how the Jobs Credit that the Raffles Medical Group, which he chairs, would receive from the Government will enable it to employ a hundred more employees, if needed. I hope the Raffles Medical Group and other forward-thinking employers will consider employing more workers, or at least retain as many workers as their operation can possibly allow and need.

There are suggestions that the Government should give the money directly to Singaporeans instead. Would this be more effective? I do not think so. I think it is more effective to use the money to save jobs. Let us consider the case of a Singaporean worker who earns $2,500 a month. Giving his employer 12% of his wages, which comes up to $300 per month, could help the employer to retain him. By keeping his job, he will continue to receive $2,500 monthly from his employer plus his employer's monthly contribution to his CPF account. This compares much more favourably to the scenario where he loses his job and the Government gives him the $300 a month directly. Nonetheless, I would like to urge the Government to monitor the situation closely and extend more assistance to the unemployed should the job market worsen.

There have also been concerns raised that drawing from past reserves to fund some of the initiatives in this Budget will create a precedent and pressure for the Government to tap on more of our reserves in future. As the Finance Minister has explained in his Statement, this year's Budget comprises extraordinary measures to meet the challenges posed by the exceptional global economic crisis that we are in. Prudent and timely use of past reserves to fund the Jobs Credit and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative will help minimise the economic and social fallout in Singapore from the global economic crisis, and prevent further problems from developing. This year's Budget should not create expectations that past reserves will be used for future economic downturns, and I would strongly urge the Government not to succumb to pressure to use the reserves as soon as we face another downturn.

We should always remember the moral of the story of the goose that laid the golden eggs, and not kill the goose that lays the eggs. The "goose" in this case refers to our reserves which have come about through our hard work and savings over the past few decades. When this crisis is over, we must ensure that we do not overlook the need to continue growing our reserves, to provide us with the resources to deal with future challenges. To do so, the tripartite partners will have to continue to work closely to create the conditions conducive for economic growth.

Sir, let me continue in Malay.

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Sir, I feel that all Singaporeans, regardless of race or ethnic group, must draw lessons from the problems that we are facing now. This is a global problem that is experienced by every country.

Nevertheless, Singapore is probably one of the countries that is affected even more by this problem, because we have an economy that is vulnerable to the turbulent changes and challenges around the world. The most important lesson that every individual and family could take from this is the fact that if we have sufficient and intact savings, we will be able to face many challenges affecting our families.

Our savings at the national level, which we have built up for many decades, have enabled us to make use of almost $5 billion to help Singaporeans go through this recession, particularly in order to save their jobs. Imagine the problems we have to face within our families, whether it is loss of income or jobs, health problems and so on, and we are able to make use of our savings that we have built up over the years.

So I hope that the CPF Board and the Ministry of Finance will enhance efforts to assist Singaporeans to gain better knowledge in financial literacy and education. This is very important because some Singaporeans, who are now facing financial problems in their families, are actually those who were unable to properly manage their spending or finances. I hope the Ministry will enhance this effort.

Finally, I hope Singaporeans of all races will learn lessons from the problems that we are facing now, and help themselves as well as their families, by adjusting their mindset in order to enhance their abilities to find new jobs.

---

*Cols. 2067-2068.

12.15 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget.

Many Singaporeans have commented on measures in saving jobs for Singaporeans, enhancing business cash flow and competitiveness and supporting families as being bold and innovative. This is juxtaposed against a backdrop of continual rapid deceleration in global demand for goods and services, resulting in business failures and massive loss of jobs. We all know that the worst has yet ensued for the world-wide economic meltdown.

Sir, I wish to focus my suggestions in three broad areas; first, job creation for Singaporeans; second, more help for Singaporeans; and, third, infrastructure for an ageing population.

Sir, the Jobs Credit Scheme

is a laudable initiative to cut costs to save jobs. Nevertheless, as one businessman remarked: "There is no point paying 88% of a worker's salary if there is no business in the long run". For the business community, the crux lies in generating greater business demands so that it is commercially viable to sustain and create jobs for Singaporeans.

To help generate businesses demand, Government should remove weekend car park charges for all public car parks. This will drive greater vehicular and human traffic volume, particularly within the town and city centres. This principle is akin to the HDB Family Season Parking Scheme which makes it easier for children to visit their parents regularly.

Government should also consider providing incentives to building owners or car park operators of shopping malls and hotels, to provide a first three-hour free car parking facility. Such is the example of IMM at Jurong East. The first three-hour free parking facility has made it attractive to shop at IMM. Today, IMM enjoys an average of 1.5 million shoppers per month despite the economic downturn.

To further stimulate domestic business demands, Government could also provide incentives for our Public Transport Operators to implement a flat-rate fare pegged at $2, applicable on weekends. A similar scheme in Newcastle, England, has reported an increase of 8% in travel on its buses and Metro in the first four months of its implementation.

Even as the economy slows down, there are still job opportunities in some industries. For instance, the education, healthcare and social service sectors will continue to hire workers. Particularly in both the healthcare and social service sectors, including voluntary welfare organisations and religious organisations, the demand for workers is very likely to be sustained, as our population ages.

To capitalise on their recruiting capabilities, I would like the Finance Minister to consider expanding more attractive Jobs Credit to these hiring sectors, in order to encourage them to employ more Singaporeans.

In the same light, where such industries or private companies hire mature Singapore workers, defined as those above 40 years old, on a contractual or temporary basis, the Finance Ministry could reward their acts by extending more attractive Jobs Credit to them. This shall be a positive inject into the looming job market where fewer companies, logically speaking, are more adverse in employing mature workers.

In short, the above proposals have added another dimension to the announced Jobs Credit Scheme. Besides the emphasis to retain existing workers, it is hoped that the scheme could also incentivise hiring sectors to employ more Singaporeans.

To further build capabilities and enhance corporate governance, Government should seize the opportunity to incentivise social services sector and religious organisations to hire more experienced PMETs, the group which is likely to be affected most during today's downturn.

To encourage PMETs to take up training to equip them for jobs in these sectors, I would like to propose for the Finance Minister to consider extending training allowance for PMETs. Currently, each registered unemployed job seeker enjoys up to $600 training allowance a month from the Career Centre. Since most PMETs who are retrenched or suffered a pay cut are likely to have some savings accumulated from the preceding years of employment, it is suggested that PMETs enjoy up to $300 training allowance per month. This move will encourage retraining and at the same time promotes self-reliance among the PMETs.

More could still be done to help Singaporeans cope with the challenging times ahead.

Sir, despite the S&CC rebates and Utilities Save, some households face legal actions or disconnection of utilities supply resulting from their inability to pay the S&CC charges and utilities bills. Based on the Town Council's experience, 40% to 60% of the households in arrears are those living in 4- and 5-room HDB flats. The use of annual value or HDB room type as a proxy for the disbursement of S&CC rebates therefore does not provide adequate assistance to these households.

Thus, I would like to urge the Finance Minister to consider providing more support for these 4- and 5-room HDB households. In addition, to avoid the disconnection of utilities supply, I propose that the U-Save be disbursed through GIRO on a monthly basis to pay part of the current month's utilities bill. In the same light, the Government should consider restructuring the payout of GST credits and rebates to be on a monthly basis through GIRO. Smaller and monthly payouts would also encourage prudent domestic spending.

Sir, air-conditioning consumes the most energy in every household. Many of the air-conditioning units which were installed many years ago are not eco-friendly.

To promote our sustainable development plan, I would urge the Finance Minister to provide incentives or rebates to households to replace their air-conditioning units to approved eco-friendly models. This could be a one-off goodwill grant similar to the case of repairing spalling concrete in HDB flats. This would not only increase our carbon footprint but would help many households to have savings in their monthly utilities bills.

The looming recession should also be viewed as a window of opportunity for community organisations, such as the CDCs, to instil a sense of positivity and rally Singaporeans behind a common cause, such as promoting healthy lifestyle, especially among the elderly.

The idea of health is wealth is especially true in challenging circumstances. I would, therefore, like to urge the Finance Minister to provide more funding support for the CDCs to promote active and healthy lifestyle among our residents.

The five CDCs shall be publishing a guide titled "Recession and Resilience Roadmap" to help Singaporeans cope with the recession. The roadmap serves as a help directory to Singaporeans who are retrenched, suffer big pay cuts or those who need emotional support. More details on the guide would be shared at the end of this month.

Sir, I support the increase in capital expenditure to expand and accelerate infrastructure spending to build a better home for Singaporeans. There are two areas which I hope the Government would consider in making our built environment more elderly-friendly.

First, our built environment still lacks barrier-free access and facilities. Elderly and the physically disabled are still not able to move freely and independently. The Town Councils have limited financial resources to expedite the construction of these facilities in the HDB heartlands.

I would like the Government to increase the Community Improvement Project Committee Fund (or CIPC) to enable the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) to take ownership and speed up the implementation of barrier-free facilities in their respective constituencies.

Secondly, we need to expand and accelerate the social services infrastructure.

A study reported by Reuters has crowned pedestrians in Singapore the world's fastest movers, walking 30% faster than we did in the early 1990s. This is evident from the level of stress ordinary Singaporeans face in their everyday life. In my weekly Meet-the-People Sessions, I am seeing more cases of family hardships and disputes, including breadwinners struggling and striving to make ends meet.

To support families at risk, the Government should expand the scope of services by the Family Service Centres (FSCs) and build more FSCs to make them accessible by those who require their expertise. FSCs could be scaled up to be a one-stop centre for counselling, family support, childcare and student care services. Where possible, we should co-locate FSCs with polyclinics or family clinics or integrate healthcare and family care services so that they can complement each other to provide holistic support to families at risks. Sir, family members of needy families could suffer from chronic illnesses which could be hereditary.

By providing healthcare and family care at an early stage, we can help those chronically sick to remain employable and self-reliant. At the same time, we can help their children to avoid the chronic diseases or manage the diseases at an early age. This will definitely reduce the healthcare cost burden of these families and the country. The integration of healthcare and family services should include healthcare and family care education, training of caregivers, counselling and other family support services.

As for the elderly, we should provide more Senior Wellness Centres to keep them active and healthy. The Government should provide more funding to build more Senior Wellness Centres at community clubs and centres. More funding should also be provided to organise fitness programmes for the elderly, such as brisk-walking, qi gong , taiji, etc.

Sir, in these trying times, we must do more to stay united as one people.

Sir, I support the Budget.

12.26 pm

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, a few days ago, more than 2,500 global leaders gathered at Davos for the World Economic Forum, to discuss a post-crisis world. From Gordon Brown to Lakshmi Mittal to Bill Gates, the mood was somber. Everyone knew there were clear and present dangers of an economic meltdown. Everyone knew they need to collaborate and guard against protectionism. But, no one had a clue as to how long and deep the recession might be. No one had the magic bullet. Instead, some even turned to the academics for an answer – a sign of desperation. One Harvard professor confessed that he sometimes feels like an imposter, as he witnessed his graduates being handcuffed out of Wall Street, and blamed for the meltdown. He, too, was clueless as to what could be done to save the world.

Sir, I am sharing this insight to illustrate how difficult it must have been for the leadership and the Minister of Finance to draw up Budget 2009. So let us not belittle these efforts. Singapore is the most open economy in the world. Our trade is approximately 3.5 times the size of our GDP. When the global trade shrinks, our man-in-the-street will feel less 'jingling' in their pockets. We must realise that we cannot control external events, but we can manage ourselves. Technicalities aside, in any crisis, we need three boosters: (1) confidence, (2) pragmatic steps, and (3) inspiration for a better future. So how has our Budget team measured up to these criteria?

The recent PWC Global CEO Survey revealed that confidence plunged to its lowest since 2003. Seventy-nine percent do not see revenue growth this year and most are worried about immediate survival. Top concerns are tight credit, sluggish capital market and collapsing demand – precisely the sort of issues that our own SMEs and MNCs face.

So has our Budget evoked any confidence? I think yes. First, our strong reserves give us ammunition to battle the downturn. Second, it is drawn from past prudence and not future money that indebts our population. Third, past reserves target temporary measures in dire straits shows that the leadership knows what it is doing, and not panicking to rampantly inject money into the economy. Fourth, the assurance of more off-Budget measures when the need arises is comforting – although I hope that the measures would be proactive rather than reactive. For example, China has rolled out a two-year $4 trillion RMB investment programme, equivalent to 16% of their GDP 2007, which is accompanied by massive tax cuts, adoption of preferential taxes for SMEs and halting of 100 items of administrative fees. In comparison, our 6% of GDP budget seems small. Hence, while confidence of adequate ammunition is there, the firing power is somewhat muted.

Sir, when a man is bleeding, we have to stop the bleeding first. The $20.5 billion Resilience Budget rightly focused on preserving companies to keep jobs, so that life can be as normal as possible for Singaporeans. Global demand has dried up,

but rentals and labour costs have not adjusted as fast. Many feared that blood-letting season has arrived. So the rental rebates, tax cuts and Jobs Credit Scheme are all quick measures to cut costs. The shortcoming of this scheme is that it leaves out a large number of freelancers, self-employed and no-CPF part-timers, who are a growing segment of our labour force. In fact, part-time workforce has increased from 3.2% in 1998 to 6.8% in 2008, and even more for self-employed and freelancers like taxi-drivers, real estate agents, insurance advisors, and creative workers. I hope the Minister would look into expanding the scheme to help keep them in business too.

Corporate tax cuts from 18% to 17% are useful to those who are still making profits. But, ultimately, cash flow is the lifeblood of businesses. The Special Risk Sharing-Initiative is critical to stimulating bank lending, unlock cash flow blood clots that cause sound businesses to perish, and avoid the downward economic spiral of deleveraging. However, the devil is in the implementation, and I hope the Minister can clarify the steps and assure the House of its timely and generous execution.

Sir, ultimately, businesses exist because of demand. Waiting endlessly for global demand to return is not the answer. I have three suggestions.

First, enhance the SPUR scheme so that we can soak up some excess manpower capacity and upgrade the manpower capacity to get ready for the upturn.

Second, although we are export dependent, whatever bits of domestic demand generated would help our SMEs, our workers and our families to go the extra mile. An obvious and low hanging fruit is government projects. By breaking down billion dollar projects into chewable contract size of less than $50 million for infrastructure and less than $1 million for ICT and healthcare works, it will help keep SMEs humming, and I urge the Government to seriously look into all possible ways to generate demand for our SMEs.

Three, what about reallocating excess capacity to growing sectors like the social economy? Here, I declare my interests. We should be bolder and think out of the box. Sir, the social economy, as a whole, forms the fifth largest economy in the world, and demographics have it that it will be a growing sector. In Singapore, much of its work has been termed either as charity or under Government welfare. There have been hybrid models in the world and I am very grateful that Minister Tharman recognises the contributions of social enterprise in his main Budget speech.

In growth years, the social sector suffered from unaffordable manpower and space costs. Now, many will be in a crisis mode due to shrunken capital pool and cashflow blues. Yet, the downturn itself shores up demand for social services and gives the social economy the ability to soak up private sector redundancy in manpower, commercial space, production lines, and so on.

There is another reason to grow the social economy. Sir, in my constituency, I have a widow with three young children. Her husband passed away suddenly. With low education qualification and three children to care for, it is hard for her to take on any job. Using the Household Benefits Calculator from the Budget website, she will obtain $1,199 from GST Credits and Resilience Package. I assured her that more help will come, as the beefed up ComCare funds and my grassroots schemes will ensure that she does not fall through the cracks. But she tells me that taking money is no dignity. She wants a handup, not a handout! She wants to work from home, and be a good role model for her children. Sir, I admire her spirit. If all Singaporeans are like her, our collective resilience will see us through the ebbs and flows. We need to cultivate this spirit, by making available self-reliant avenues.

Growing social enterprise and the social economy are critical steps. Yet, the Budget provision for the social sector is paltry and largely limited to IPCs, compared with the billions of dollars set aside for Jobs Credit or Special Risk-Sharing Initiative schemes, which can be applied across the board. I urge the Minister to put serious money to leverage on this golden opportunity to build capacity and expand the social economy. There are many ways to do this, from fiscal incentives to Government becoming an "aggregate buyer".

For example, instead of companies employing people with no work to do, the Government can fine-tune the Jobs Credit Scheme or introduce new schemes to redeploy excess staff to do capacity-development in Non-profit Organisations (NPOs) and Social Enterprises (SEs). Professionals like accountants, operation managers and supervisors can be redeployed on a part-time or full-time basis, share their experience and expertise, and infuse the social sector with ideas, strategies and corporate governance. Stints at NPOs can also be invigorating for these professionals, creating new perspectives to life. Companies that engage in such schemes can enjoy higher employee morale, customer loyalty and strengthened government relations.

I concede that the pure capitalistic model of development is not sustainable in the long term, as it promotes greed, inequity and anomie. Businesses, as corporate citizens, must work side by side with the Government and communities. Social enterprises, as bottom-up organisations, can also help Government deliver social services more effectively. In this crisis, we can view our national needs from a macro perspective, think out of the box and find opportunity to reallocate our resources, as well as build a value-based social contract among the people, the public and the private sector.

The third criterion is whether we have an inspiring vision for our future.

Sir, people move in the general direction of our currently dominant thought. So I agree with Mr Lim Swee Say that if we focus on the negative, we will get negative energy. So we need to set our minds to think positive and, in fact, think big. For all the multi-billion dollar investments we have, we are short on what Americans call a big, hairy, audacious goal that can excite, inspire and galvanise Singaporeans towards a moonshot.

To illustrate, in 1961, John F. Kennedy rallied Americans to dream the impossible to put a man on the moon. This fired imagination and inspired a whole generation of space engineers. In 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong became the first man on the moon. In 1963, Sir Martin Luther King called on America to "hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope to transform the jangling discords of America into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood". In 2008, Barack Obama became the first coloured President of America, changing history forever.

Sir, let us not underestimate the power of dreams. It is the only thing that inspires us to break through the seemingly impossible, and reach new heights. So, what could our 'moonshot' be? I would like to offer two possibilities.

One, perhaps Singapore can be the happiest home on earth. Imagine, year 2025, Singapore is the happiest home on earth. Earth-friendly products and high-touch technologies are being developed here, responsible corporates look after the communities they operate in, and people are employed in happy environment where worklife balance is achieved. Impossible? But, currently, many corporate and government leaders are rethinking the free market system and no country has occupied this growing niche yet.

We can take the lead to rally leaders in this field to develop a centre of excellence for businesses that do good and do well. This can be accompanied by developing a stock exchange for businesses with double bottomlines (social and economic), a hub for financing such businesses and a magnet for talented and compassionate technologists and capitalists. Jobs in this industry will create positive energy that invigorates the workforce and brings meaning to life. Just how big is this market? Takaful funds, green-tech investments, microfinance, social enterprise will all add up to easily more than a trillion dollars worth. So this is not child's play.

Second suggestion – what about making Singapore into a silicon valley for assistive technology? Imagine a place where both the old and young can play side by side and the disabled can participate equally in the socio-economic development, not hindered by impairments. How do we do that? Singapore can be a silicon valley for "Imagineering", which is the imaginative application of engineering sciences in assistive technology. Not only is the market opportunity huge, but history has shown us that assistive technologies can often make huge impact in everyday life. For example, in 1808, Pellegrino Turri built the first typewriter for his blind friend, Countess Carolina Fantoni da Fivizzono and, in 1972, Vinton Cerf, hearing impaired since birth, developed e-mail-like text-messaging protocols for the Arpanet, which is the precursor to the Internet. These technologies are now part of everyday life.

Currently, there are exciting developments in this field. From the powerfoot for amputees to outrun a normal athlete – which is, by the way, why it was banned in the Paralympics – to supershoes which help elderly walk effortlessly, to intuitive mouse technology that understands its users with a blink of an eye. Assistive technology espouses great social good that can anchor Singapore into the rapidly growing trillion dollar industries. With ageing population worldwide, the demand can only grow.

To illustrate, there are 500 million people worldwide over the age of 65, with 200 million suffering from severe sensory, emotive, cognitive or physical disabilities. They can benefit from affordable machine-assisted memory aids or prosthesis. Over 1.5 billion people suffer from brain and nervous system disorder, and neural circuit repair tools are currently being developed in MIT to overcome these challenges. Worldwide, millions of amputees, cerebral palsy and elderly can also enjoy the 'powerfoot'.

Given our ageing population and advance IPR, R&D and financial hub status, plus innovations and experience in the NUS Mixed Reality Lab, Singapore is well placed to become a silicon valley in the development and commercialisation of assistive technology that transforms human disabilities into abilities, and enhances us on the road to be a creative, intelligent and compassionate nation.

In conclusion, Sir, perhaps it is in times like this that provides us an opportunity for us to rethink our priorities and values in life. All said and done, the economic storm will one day blow over. The right question is not 'when will it be over', but 'how would we want to emerge from this storm – as a person, as a corporation, and as a nation'? The right lessons must be learnt. The era of privatising gains and socialising losses must pass. Greed, blind self preservation and pure capitalistic behaviour without hope for tomorrow will only cause us to shrink and emerge as a selfish people. A small step for man, a giant backflip in social cohesion. On the other hand, Sir, even the weak become strong when united. Big ideas can spur imaginations and rally the nation towards collaborative innovation, and the answer lies within us.

Sir, I support the Budget and call for it to further evoke confidence in the present, deftly execute pragmatic measures where reality bites, and inspire and rally Singapore towards a moonshot. Sir, united we stand.

12.43 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the generous Budget announced by the Minister for Finance. It is indeed a challenge for me to speak as the last speaker, as I will be effectively scraping the barrel for pertinent, yet uncovered issues after having heard 52 other speeches before me. Nonetheless, as the Chinese saying goes, hao xi zai hou tou ( 好戏在后头) or , literally translated, " The best is yet to be ".

2008 has been a tumultuous year. The world economy has gone through a roller-coaster ride, starting from a high point of booming trade, skyrocketing stock indices and property prices to one of doom and gloom towards the second half of the year. What started as a sub-prime crisis in the US has swiftly cascaded to the rest of the world, to one of global financial meltdown and sinking into a deep recession – likely the worst since the last Depression in the 1930s. Many economists and analysts have coined this crisis, financial tsunami or economic Pearl Harbour, aptly reflecting the true severity of the current situation. I certainly hope that the world economy will not deteriorate into an economic Hiroshima.

Our Government has done an appropriate thing in bringing forward the Budget Statement and announcing a generous Budget totalling $20.5 billion to help the Singapore economy and Singaporeans pull through this unprecedented time of difficulty. Previous speakers have already eloquently articulated and argued the salient features of this year's Budget.

I will not attempt to repeat the points already so well put forward in this House over the past two days. But suffice to say, in all, the Budget is generally an all-encompassing one, with the sole objective of saving jobs and helping the low-income families. Unfortunately, there are a few blind spots which I would like to highlight. Some of the less fortunate and vulnerable groups of society have often been left out of the radar screen, left to fend for themselves, both in good times and in bad times. I would like to bring up the predicaments of two such groups – the handicapped (many from old age and sicknesses) and the single parents. They are are often sidelined as our country strives towards economic growth and prosperity. Indeed, these vulnerable groups are likened to the remnants of burnt rice stuck at the bottom of the rice cooker, often avoided because of its bitter taste and rough texture, even though it has similar beginnings as the much appreciated fragrant rice.

Being one of the fastest ageing populations in Asia, Singapore faces the continuous challenge of developing public policies to accommodate this shift in the population demographics. As a result of improvements in sanitation, medical technology, and public health awareness, life expectancy has risen in Singapore to 78 years old for men and 81 years old for women; and this is expected to increase further in the next few decades.

The Government has done a wonderful job in addressing the potential issues of financial security, employment, housing and affordable healthcare for the elderly. MOH is also stepping up infrastructural development such as building more rehabilitation centres, nursing homes and step-down care. However, what is severely lacking is the emphasis on social independence and improving the quality of lives of the handicapped and the sick and aged who want to contribute to the society and continue to stay in their own homes respectively. More funding should be allocated to the provision and research and development of assistive technology for the elderly and handicapped.

The use of assistive technology to improve the lives of the elderly and the disabled seems to take the back seat in Singapore compared to many of our first-world counterparts, such as the Nordic countries. The provision of assistive technology to people with disabilities is among the cornerstones of policy on disabilities in the Nordic countries. In countries such as Sweden and Finland, disability policies strive to bring about a society which makes it possible for people with disabilities to be fully active members of society. The fact that all people are equal is a basic starting point with regard to how society should be formulated, and people with disabilities are citizens with exactly the same rights and obligations as everyone else.

Assistive devices are products which people with disabilities need in order to prevent future losses of function or ability and to compensate for impaired or lost function ability to cope with day-to-day life. Assistive devices can assist individuals to carry out the many simple and basic tasks (many of which we normal people take for granted) themselves or with the help of someone else. These would include getting dressed, eating, moving around, communicating with society, finding their way around and to taking part in normal leisure and recreation activities.

As disabilities become more common as people age, the elderly will inevitably use assistive technology to a great extent. One reason why assistive devices are becoming more important is the fact that the number of elderly people has risen, as has the number of extremely elderly people, ie, those above the age of 80. As Singapore ages, care services are being dominated more and more by diseases and injuries that affect the elderly, such as dementia, impaired mobility, impaired vision, impaired hearing and "general frailness". Therefore, the demand for rehabilitation and assistive devices will increase, particularly among extremely elderly people.

In Singapore, there is currently no centralised agency that specifically addresses the assistive technological needs and requirements of the elderly and the handicapped. Available services, such as those provided by SPD and SAVH are generally very fragmented and there is very little knowledge and awareness of the availability of assistive technology. The assistive technological support offered is generally very basic, compared to what is currently available and commonly prescribed in the western countries, such as in Europe and the United States.

Just take, for example, the Swedish Handicap Institute (HI) is a national resource centre on assistive technology and accessibility for people with disabilities. The Swedish Handicap Institute works to promote full participation and equality for people with disabilities by ensuring access to high quality assistive technology, effective provision of assistive devices and an accessible environment. It encourages research and development, tests and procures assistive devices, assists with the development of knowledge and methods and provides information and training.

Many elderly and the handicapped want to live their lives independently and with dignity. Some may need a little basic assistance whilst others will request technological ingenuity to overcome their physical challenges. There is a poem that best illustrates this sentiment, and I read: "Some say I am disabled but you know that it isn't true. I simply have a challenge a little different from you. My slight inconvenience has taught me things they could not know. Each obstacle is a victory enabling me to grow. There're really not many differences. I cry, I laugh, I snore. I do not want to be treated as if I am not a person anymore."

Mr Speaker, the Government has emphasised the need to spend on R&D to spur Singapore's economy to the next phase of growth. However, many of these R&D spendings are on products with high economic value such as pharmaceutical, life sciences and technology. What is lacking is the R&D spending on products with high social value, such as assistive technology. The Government should seriously consider investing in this area to address the current and future needs of the elderly and the handicapped.

Another vulnerable group that may have fallen through the cracks is the single-parent family. This year's generous Budget fails to give this group a boost, especially in difficult times like this.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Singapore's social policies espouse on strong Asian or Confucian values and place great emphasis on traditional family structures and self-reliance. Under this system, the society's overall good generally takes precedence over an individual's rights. The position of the Singapore Government is premised on the belief that specific social security programmes for single-parent families will create a potential moral dilemma that encourages dependency on the State as well as the promulgation of undesired alternative households resulting from divorces and pregnancy out of wedlock. Our Government is worried that these not only undermine its "Asian values", and erode "the family foundation of nationhood" but also drain State resources.

The single-parent has to serve a dual-parent role, making up for the deficit, both in physical as well as in the financial support. It is tough indeed to raise children and maintain a career at the same time for the single-parent family. This is especially so in Singapore, where many of our Government policies are staunchly pro-family in nature. I believe single parenting is not a choice many people would intentionally make but a consequence, many a time forced by circumstances and desperation.

Contrary to what our pro-family policies serve to achieve, the number of these family structures is on the rise. Population census data shows the number of single-parent families increase from 13,000 to 18,000 households between 1990 and 2000.

Single-parent households are generally at a higher risk of poverty than two-parent household. A survey of 20 countries confirms this belief even after factoring in social security benefits and direct taxation. This risk is higher in liberal welfare countries such as the UK, USA and Canada. Indeed, their experience demonstrates that poverty amongst single mothers is likely to be more persistent than the national average. Data for Singapore in 1990 illustrated that about half of single-parent households earn less than 50% of the national average monthly household income.

---

*Cols. 2069-2070.

( In English ): Sir, as a matter of fact, single-parent families are not specifically targeted by social assistance policies in Singapore. Even during the best of times, single parents face many difficulties – financially, socially and emotionally. So in the face of the global financial turmoil, the issues they faced would be much tougher and more complex.

When faced with financial challenges, these families have to compete with other vulnerable groups for means-tested social assistance. Even then, many assistance programmes have eligibility conditions that disqualify such families. In many aspects of public and discourse, single-parent families are viewed as undesirable alternative household entities to be frowned upon and thus excluded from some social services that are available to "normal" two-parent families. For example, public housing applicants in Singapore must be a proper "family nucleus", comprised of a married couple, in order to be eligible for a Government-subsidised apartment. This excludes unmarried single-parent families by default and has significantly disadvantaged such families in their attempts to apply for affordable subsidised public housing. Another example is the pro-natal Baby Bonus, a Government cash grant for newborns of married couples, for subsequent use towards childcare purposes. Disadvantages are also found in tax policies. For instance, tax relief granted to married parents to employ domestic maids is unavailable to single-parent households. Thus, instead of being helped, single-parent families are often discriminated or disadvantaged by our pro-family policies.

Indeed, hardship cases involving single-parent families are not uncommon during our MPS. Many MPs would have seen such cases in their constituencies and can offer no long-term solution to their problems. If the Government fails to assist single parents, there would be potentially dire social consequences that would affect the opportunities for their children. In order to help, or rather, not make life more difficult for this vulnerable group, social assistance programmes should be non-discriminatory to benefit both single-parent and two-parent families in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is going through very challenging times ahead. The elderly, physically handicapped and the single-parent families have not been spared from the pains of the current economic crisis. As companies scale down on their hiring plans, disabled and elderly workers often find themselves on the losing end. The Government has and will always look after its citizens in good times and in bad. However, more could be done to alleviate the hardships faced by the vulnerable groups in the society.

Let me end by quoting Hubert H Humphrey, ex-US President:

"The moral test of government is how it treats

- those who are in the dawn of life, the children;

- those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and

- those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

And also allow me to add on to this evocative quote. Not forgetting:

- those in the abyss of life, the mentally ill; and

- those in the mirage of life, the single-parents.

On that note, I support the Budget.

Column No : 2027