DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT: Debate resumed.

12.17 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last three days, we have heard from cheerleaders and worried ones as well. Some cheered the Budget for the goodies that met their expectations, whilst others worried at the grow-at-all-costs Budget philosophy.

We have been enjoying stellar economic growth that is the envy of many countries around the world. The respected Economist magazine marvelled at our ability to generate third world growth rates while maintaining first world economic development.

Sir, 2008 will be remembered by posterity as the year of price increases. But I urge the Government to make its mark in 2008 and be remembered for casting a net that covers all Singaporeans and taking a step to roll out out-of-the-box solutions and thoughts to sustain our economy and instil ownership of our beloved Singapore.

A special group that this net will reach is the group of Singaporeans who, if given the correct stimulus, can enter the workforce and help themselves

Column: 941

eventually. I wish to advocate issuing them with a work transport pass.

Two months ago, I met an old family friend, in his 70s. He lives in Tiong Bahru and walks six days a week to and fro to PSA in Tanjong Pagar where he works as an odd job worker. I asked him whether there was a direct bus that he could take. He answered that it would be too costly.

At his age, he relishes a hot drink or soup during lunch, though he may be supplementing that with food and water from home. With a meagre salary of $600 a month, if he wants his hot drink or soup, he will have to walk to work and home.

There are many others like this old friend, whose meagre income would not afford them the luxury of taking public transport except jalan kaki sendiri or zi ji yong jiao zou (自己用脚走). With rising inflation and higher transport costs, commuting with their legs seems to be the only viable option for many at the bottom of the pyramid.

This reminds me of my MPS where, among those who came for help, I have probed into why they are choosy about taking on jobs and would not take on those further away from home. This is what one of them told me:

"The salary as an operator is only about $600. I live in Boon Lay and work is in Loyang Changi. I have to take MRT and two buses to get to work. Daily, it costs me $5.72, almost 25% of my daily salary. Cheaper for me to declare I can't work and go on the PA scheme."

Sir, if we want to truly encourage this group of low income Singaporeans who are at the margin to re-enter the workforce, we need to help them "circulate" around Singapore. To look for a job you need to go out and find one.

Column:942

Sir, the Government has introduced many good schemes to incentivise these marginal workers back to work, such as retraining and re-skilling and the Workfare Income Supplement. Yet, we have not reached this group.

Let me give an analogy of their situation. It is very much like a condition of colic that many of us would have experienced some time in our lifetime. The only way to ease the cramp in your stomach because of the built up gas is to get off your butt and move about or, better still, run a few good laps to let go of the gas. We burp the colicky babies and massage their stomachs to help get rid of the gas.

What do we do with this group? They are not moving and continue to fester that wind in the stomach, which when it becomes a time bomb, will stink everyone around.

We know that looking at the newspapers and going to MPS is not the solution and referral to the job distribution centres sometimes also requires a fair bit of commuting. To incentivise this group to look for a job and take up even a low-paying job, I would advocate for a work transport pass, to be issued to them for so long as they are on the job and their income is below the threshold of $800.

Such a work transport pass will improve the "circulation" of those at the bottom of the pyramid and benefit them as well as the larger society. This is because we will have more of them finding it meaningful and possible to re-enter the workforce and be less reliant on PA. It is a stimulus that is needed to bring back the zest for work in this group.

Sir, at the heart of Singapore's economic success is its social compact. Since independence, the majority of our citizens, including those at the bottom, have enjoyed a steady rise in living

Column: 943

standards. This can be attributed to sound fiscal policies and economic planning. The long-term economic future may be rosy but, for the short-term future, more help is needed for those at the bottom.

Emerging global challenges are putting pressure on the sustainability of the standard of living to which we all have become accustomed. Technological development resulting in the outsourcing of services and processes away from developed countries as well as cheaper IT-driven processes have proven to be a cheaper source of business operations than semi-skilled and unskilled labour. In the immediate term, it will result in widespread job losses and income attrition in developed countries and this will hollow out the earning capacity of many semi-skilled and unskilled workers, leaving them stuck at the bottom rung.

In Singapore, emerging sectors, such as hospitality, will provide some jobs but, at the same time, the IRs could prove to be a double-edged sword. More money coming into Singapore could have the effect of pushing up the cost of living and those at the bottom will be hit the hardest. So, the sooner we help this group to help themselves, the better off it will be for us all lest they add on to the increasing pool of PA recipients.

A policy framework to deal with the problem of wage stagnation at the bottom rung and a rising cost of living may be one of the biggest challenges that Singapore has faced to date.

Sir, we need to reconcile our response with our tradition of non-welfarism. At the same time, the challenges that are confronting us today are very different in terms of their shape or magnitude from those that have confronted us before. We need to be creative and innovative and to

Column: 944

focus upon areas such as fine-tuning the Workfare provision, the retirement benefits, and developing a well-integrated continuing education and training system. Help does not just come in the form of financial subsidies and incentives, it also comes in the form of opportunities and special help for the bottom of the bottomest.

It is equally important to remember that most other advanced economies are facing the same problem. Fortunately, as a country, we have the human capabilities to deal with the issue. Also, unlike the UK and many of the European countries, we do not have an existing debilitating welfare infrastructure nor have we nurtured a welfare-centric culture. Whatever approach we adopt, it can be designed from scratch or, to put it another way, from the centre outwards. We can customise it and make it compatible with work incentives and human capital investment.

Next, I would like to propose a few out-of-the-box solutions and thoughts. I call them out-of-the-box because they may not be the norm of the Government's way of doing things or thinking.

The first point I wish to raise is about improving connectivity in our transportation. How do we ensure that whilst battling with road congestion through more ERP gantries and hikes, there are adequate interim measures put in place to facilitate connectivity from one point to another point?

Many private operators have put up feeder buses to link MRT stations and bus terminals to shopping hubs. It is in their commercial interest to do it, so as to bring the shoppers to the shopping hubs by creating convenience and accessibility. This in turn benefits the commercial operators.

Private condominiums operate scheduled free shuttle service from their

Column:945

condominiums to nearby MRT stations. Alexandra Hospital also operates a shuttle service from the hospital to an MRT station. These shuttle services provide the convenience with better connectivity for those who rely on public transportation.

The Government has never really felt a great need for such intervention as arrangements such as these are purely premised on commercial motivation. However, I would venture to say that such connectivity is very much part and parcel of our transportation infrastructure that the Government should look into providing.

For example, traffic congestion around schools can be improved if there were shuttle services to take students from and to the MRT stations, bus interchanges and major transport routes to and from schools. This could be the tipping point for students to use public transport more frequently. If the Government so wishes to encourage and switch the mindset of the entire nation, to commute by public transportation, then, as in the words of the Minister for Transport, seamless commuting from point to point is the answer.

As an interim measure to prepare Singaporeans to take public transport, I urge the Government to introduce more shuttle bus services to link up terminals and stations to educational institutions, retail hubs, heartlands and private estates. These could be implemented straightaway without having to wait for the completion of the major transportation network.

The second point, Sir, is on how we can have a better communication process through an information databank.

The Government has introduced many good schemes to help Singaporeans. Although many of these schemes were well published in full in the mainstream

Column:946

newspapers and communicated through channels including grassroots dialogues, many on the ground still cannot grasp the key intention of the schemes. With so many schemes rolling out, one after another, many are confused with what they are eligible for. Try asking any grassroots leader or MP who is charged with disseminating information and the mechanics of such schemes, and I can say the majority will not be able to tell from the A to Z of such schemes, unless you are the author.

Even the most zealous of grassroots leaders trying to help a resident will be greeted with information overload. And this explains how some join the complain camp – because if you cannot win them, you better join them. So the complaints will fester and the misunderstanding of the good intentions of the Government gets more serious.

What is wrong with the current communication process and what can be done to improve it? Our newspapers are very good at reporting a scheme in great details. For example, the recent announcement of the transport policy by Minister Raymond Lim was well covered in the Straits Times . The report was a very comprehensive summarised version of the complete policy paper. It was a useful reference for those who wish to study transportation policy but the message to many readers was that they have to pay more to commute.

Sir, what is needed is to customise the message for a targeted audience instead of a message for all. Let me explain this further. For example, if a resident approaches his community leader to find out his eligibility under the means test or the Budget handout or the policy guidelines applicable to him under the CPF lifelong plan, the resident cannot expect to have a very helpful answer from his community leader unless the community

Column: 947

leader was involved in the formulation of the policy.

What is needed is an information databank that can extract a subset of specific information and rules of schemes that are relevant and applicable to the personal profile of the enquirer. The process sieves out the relevant information needed.

For example, if I wish to find out more about my CPF contributions, Medisave and lifelong policy, I would go to a specific website. I would key in my name and NRIC number. I will be prompted to key in other profile as needed, such as my birthday, gender and income.

The computer will return with specific information applicable to me in that age group. It will tell me all about the status of my CPF account, the Minimum Sum and so on. I would not need to plough through the information that is not applicable and that does not concern me. It can also tell me the level of subsidy that I am entitled to under the means test if I wish to know my subsidy eligibility. This information data bank will complement the general information that is disseminated through the mass media.

Yes, we have the media that reports the macro stuff of the policy or scheme; we have the cartoon brochures to simplify, explain and clarify. But we do not have the customised individual information that you and I and the man on the road would want to know. Perhaps the Government should start looking into a department that will make communication of such information better understood by Singaporeans so that we reach out to every nook and corner. Depending on volunteer grassroots leaders to do the job of outreach is not enough.

A good example is the ComCare Scheme. It is not simply dishing out

Column:948

money to those who step forward. We need to comb out many who are still in hiding because they would not or do not know how to step forward. Perhaps it is timely to bring in the professional marketers, campaigners and counsellors to do a better job.

The third point is about inflation and our food supply. Sir, inflation is likely to increase relentlessly despite the slew of strategies that the Finance Minister has announced. With food prices going up, the hardest hit will undoubtedly be those who can least afford these increases – lower income families with little produce substitution choices. If they are already eating chicken instead of pork or mutton, will they be left eating vegetables and rice if the price of chicken or mutton increases any further?

We will switch to frozen food, but to what extent will frozen food bring down food prices before price increase catch up with frozen food? For how long can the Government ensure that the frozen food stockpile will stabilise food prices for a while and that our neighbours, whom we depend on for some basic food items, will not take this opportunity to squeeze us further, further aggravating our vulnerability as a country?

Sir, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Our closest neighbour has recently declared that they will be following in our footsteps – our tried, tested and proven method of growth. I, however, fear the day that the politics of envy replaces the politics of imitation. What is worrisome is when our neighbours decide to further increase the price of their food supplies. Is our Government prepared for such an eventuality, and how could such a scenario be countered?

Sir, the fourth point is about our future. As Singapore moves towards our target population of 6.5 million, we are

Column: 949

increasingly faced with the question of what type of society do we want our children to grow up in. As urban congestion rears its ugly head, the slogan 'gracious society' is no longer a platitude: it is an urgent call to arms. Unless we step up efforts to make this a reality and change our attitudes and adjust our way of living, growing up in a city of 6.5 million will be almost intolerable.

Our ideal tolerance level should be on par with the Japanese: even in sashimi packed subway trains, tempers seldom flare, and a business-like but not unfriendly amiability is the defining characteristic of that country.

For the longer term, the Finance Minister has shown the way to cope is to build up our capabilities and a resilient Singapore. The key to this is retention. MM Lee recently asked: where have all the bright and young Singaporeans gone? Perhaps we could solicit more feedback from the yearly 1,000 students who study overseas and decide not to return to Singapore.

The renowned magazine, The Monocle, and a survey commissioned by the Hub Culture recently ranked Singapore the 17th city in terms of liveability. Singaporeans used to seeing Singapore at the top of international charts were shocked: why are we a paltry 17, far behind 10th placed Hong Kong? Why, when we rank as one of the top three places in the world to do business, are we so far down the charts in liveability?

These are hard questions about the soul of Singapore we have to ask in the years ahead: is the key to loyalty merely economic, or is there something more to encouraging our best and brightest to stay?

A look at the Hub Culture indices provides an interesting insight into why we only rank 17 in liveability. The survey

Column: 950

ranks cities according to 'innovation, change and vibe'. Under the section on Singapore, the survey highlights the Government's good efforts in 'innovation at the macro level and providing economic security'. However, it still begins the section by the familiar caveat: 'Singapore might seem boring'.

Could it be that despite the Government's best efforts, our citizenry still feels uninvolved in the success, growth, and vibe of our country? Could it be that the more our Government does, the less our citizenry feels engaged and involved? Perhaps it is time to consider engineering an engagement innovation with the young, and allow change to occur organically, from the ground. Encourage community bonding, independent thought, social vibrancy, but let people on the ground take the lead.

Is Singapore merely a transit hotel to our very own sons and daughters? The key difference between a home and a hotel is the amount of control you have over your surroundings. In a hotel, the management has the final say, although the customer comes first. In contrast, a man's home is his castle. Give Singaporeans involvement, and attachment will form. Give them ownership of the country's destiny, and they will stay for life. That is the key to making Singapore a home.

Sir, the solutions and thoughts on the four points I have raised are not going to come out of the mill just like that. Indeed, to be Singapore number one, means weaving all the disparate threads of our social, economic, and political policies into a unifying theme that will keep our country ahead. More important than staying ahead is the question of how we want to live.

Singapore cannot be number one in all economic indicators, and still have

Column: 951

unhappy citizens with poor quality of life or feeling dissatisfied or feeling the lack of opportunities. What do we do then? Well, Singapore must continue to strive in its pursuit to be number one in liveability, graciousness, consideration and compassion, as I have highlighted in my speech. The litmus test for all Parliamentarians and Singaporeans to use is this: what type of society do we want our children to grow up in?

Sir, it is by no accident that we won the bid to host the YOG. The entire spirit of the nation has propelled this flight this far. It has to do with a sense of pride and ownership. We have not lost them all and we must continue to kindle them. With this most important of indicators in mind, we can then truly say that we have arrived.

On this note, I support the motion.

12.38 pm

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, my esteemed colleagues who have spoken in the last two days have covered most of the topics. As I was listening, I pondered upon what is the most important question for Members of this Chamber to consider, ie, what are we doing today so that the need for all these social welfare schemes that we are all requesting for can be lessened? We should not be asking for more and more social welfare schemes. We should be asking how can we reduce the number of social welfare schemes, and what individual policies has the Government made now to reduce the reliance on all these social welfare schemes for the people.

How do we measure the well-being of a nation? How do we measure progress – GDP growth, mean income, family, inflation control, control of consumer price

Column: 952

index, how inclusive as a society that we are. I think there are many, many measures. And I reiterate again – what are we doing today so that we need less of social welfare schemes?

If there was no 2% GST hike last year, will the price of the luncheon meat remain at $1 and not increase from $1 to $3? Will the prices of wheat, rice, other food items, transportation cost and rental not increase to current levels? Will the oil price, which is an important proxy and critical link to energy prices and inflation, remain at last year's price? The answer is no. We are not immune to the global inflationary pressures, as we import all our food, energy needs and sand as well. There will still be increase in prices and there will be inflation.

We approved the 2% GST hike in this House last year and we must not forget why the GST hike was proposed in the first place. The aim is to revamp our tax structure to better equip the Government with additional resources in the future to tackle the widening income gap and provide resources for wealth redistribution through schemes such as Workfare Income Supplement, and the key words here are "in the future".

This year, yes, the Government struck lottery, a big prize. But compared to Hong Kong, we only got third prize. They got first prize.

I think the key question we need to ask is: what has the Government achieved last year? The Government collected $1.4 billion in GST but returned $865 million, in terms of Growth Dividends, and that is 62% of the GST collection. In actual fact, the real increment for the Government for GST is only 0.8%, which means it is from 5% to 5.8%.

How does the Government return this amount of $865 million? It is not uniform, it is not equal. It is targeted and

Column: 953

it is tilted in favour of the lower and the middle-income groups as well as the elderly. The lower and middle-income groups gain more from the GST rebates. Now, consistently, they also gain more from the proposed Growth Dividends that are about to be paid out if this House approves the Budget for 2008.

There are also concerns as to why there is such a large discrepancy in the 2007 budget estimates. But I must say that I am happy that the Government is in a strong fiscal position of $6.4 billion surplus rather than in a $0.7 billion deficit. If the Government had estimated a $6.4 billion surplus and ended up with a $0.7 billion deficit, I think we will be very worried. I think this House has much to cheer rather than to accuse the Government of coming out with the wrong estimates. If we are wrong, Hong Kong is wrong as well. They are four times above their estimates.

With the looming uncertainties in the global financial markets as well as dark clouds in the horizon, I join in the echoes of my fellow parliamentarians to welcome the prudence of the Government for keeping some surpluses for additional contingencies if the need arises. But, at the same time, I urge the Government to be bold in rendering assistance to low income families to help them to become resilient again. The key word here is "resilient". Do not, because of fear of breeding dependency or possible abuse, be paralysed into inaction.

Building a resilient nation starts with building a resilient family. Although the Budget 2008 has provided for almost every individual, ie, the students, the taxpayers, the working adults, average Singaporeans, the elderly and even the rich dead, there is no mention of the family. Strengthening the unity of the Singapore family is the antidote and the prophylaxis to many of the social ills of the future. I would like the Government

Column: 954

to re-examine this and see how we can strengthen the family structure better through fiscal policies. The current tax rebates and incentives given are mainly targeted at individuals.

One of the ways that we can look at is enhanced childcare subsidy for lower and middle-income families. Through our work in the constituency, we have come across many low income young families with a single breadwinner. The non-working spouse may stay at home to take care of two, three, or sometimes four children. The option for the non-working spouse to work to supplement their family income is attractive but is not a practical one, as the childcare charges for their children can be higher than their income.

Today, childcare cost is not low. It ranges from $400 to $800 a month (averages about $650). And the $150 subsidy offers little help to the lower income group, who can probably earn between $800 and $1,000 if they go out to work.

The sums do not work well for these workers. After deducting the subsidy, childcare still costs them from $250 to $650 per child, and it does not make economic sense to encourage them to work.

The current $150 per child subsidy is given to all working mothers regardless of their income levels. The same amount is given to a mother who earns $800 as a factory worker and sends two of her children to a $500 per month void-deck childcare facility and to an executive mother who earns a five-digit salary per month and who can afford a $1,500 per month up-market pre-school/childcare facility in town.

The current $150 childcare subsidy can be revamped to tilt in favour of the lower and middle income groups. If higher subsidy is given, I believe it will

Column: 955

entice the non-working spouse in low-income families to the workforce. It will also help to elevate their household income. Their children will also benefit from more structured pre-school education programmes and social interactions in the childcare facilities.

Just like the proposed means testing in healthcare, and the additional housing grant of HDB, this is not the first time we are introducing differential subsidy and grant, which is provided according to socio-economic needs. And, in this case, targeted assistance can be delivered to those who need it most. It will encourage and enhance their resilience for the future.

I hope the Government will revamp the childcare subsidy scheme to make it more attractive for the lower and middle income non-working spouses who are staying at home to care for their children to join the workforce. It will increase their total household income and over time enhance their resilience.

Another point regarding family. I know that the middle income group has been offered 20% tax rebate and that has been tilted towards the lower middle income group (those who are earning less than $150,000 per year). But this is for the individual.

I hope that the Government can consider the breadwinner, the family man who has to support the children as well as elderly parents. There have been calls in this House to review the child relief as well as the enhanced child relief scheme.

The relief for children was last revised in 1998. It was raised from $1,500 to $2,000 for the first to the fourth child. It has been 10 years now. With rising costs and inflation, I hope the Government can revisit the child relief scheme.

Column: 956

Likewise, the relief for the elderly was last revised in 2000. It was raised from $4,500 to $5,000 for children who support elderly parents living with them. For parents who are not staying with their children, the tax relief remained at $3,500.

I urge the Government to increase both the children and parents tax relief to affirm the importance of the family in the Singapore society.

Many Members have raised the issue on home-makers which I had raised it in 2007. The "stay-at-home spouse" could be "mum", and in some case "dad". Their contributions to the family must be recognised and appreciated. They are team mates working in the paddock of an F-1 race. So they are unsung heroes. However, they are also a very vulnerable group. They are the ones who will be most affected in the event of a family discord or divorce. They receive no pay, no CPF, and no Medisave.

I would like the Government to review the current policies and propose measures to provide for the future of the home-makers. If left alone, they will be the ones who are left out in the CPF LIFE scheme. The Government can facilitate in assisting the working spouses to transfer part of their CPF funds from the Ordinary Account to the Special Account of the home-makers so as to provide at least some form of retirement funds for them. The Government can also consider increasing the tax reliefs for children and parents but transfer the savings into the Special Account of the non-working spouse directly.

I again suggest that we should reward these home managers – they are all the ministers of home affairs – with incentives that are not dissimilar to the ones that are provided to NSmen, although, administratively, it is difficult. But if any government can do it, it is the Singapore Government.

Column: 957

While everything is moving up, there is something that goes down. The key to a resilient nation is a top quality economy as well as a resilient workforce. We have no other natural resources except for human resources. Continual investment in our human resources through upgrading and training is the key to our success in the future.

As I said, everything is going up – wages, rental, inflation, CPI – but productivity is down. We have achieved good economic growth. The output or productivity of our workforce did not match this growth.

According to the headline of the Business Times on 11th February 2008 "Singapore's competitive edge eroding", it reported a US study showing the high hourly wage cost rise for the production staff in Singapore was the second highest among 33 locations. In US dollar term, the hourly wage cost for production workers in Singapore shot up sharply by 17.1% to US$8.55 in 2006. Mind you, that was 2006 figure; the 2007 figure, I am sure, would be higher.

According to the MTI Economic Survey in 2007, overall labour productivity fell by 0.9%, down from the 1.5% gain in 2006. And in the last quarter of last year, overall labour productivity fell even at a more alarming rate at 3.7%.

Productivity in business continued to fall, posting a 5.0% decline in 2007; in manufacturing sector, declining by 3.2% in 2007. If our productivity is dropping, then the question we need to ask is: what is supporting the economic expansion? Is the economic expansion possible because of increase in foreign labour? Can we continue with the over-reliance on foreign workforce to secure good economic growth in the future for Singapore?

Column: 958

I would urge the Government to take a look again at our productivity. To look at means and measures on how we can raise our productivity to propel our economic growth instead of relying on foreign labour. Although the proposed incentives to spur R&D and innovation may increase productivity, I hope the Government can devise measures and to encourage and reward increase in productivity in the industry.

The levy on skill re-training seems to me like running contrary to this productivity drive. Currently, only for workers who are earning less than $2,000, the employers need to pay a skill re-training levy of 1% of their gross salary, which means that employers spend $20 per worker if the salary is $2,000. And there is some motivation for the employers now to want to train the workers so that they can raise the salary to above $2,000, of course, provided productivity increases. With that, the employers need not pay the levy on skill retraining after that.

With the revision of the upper ceiling now from $2,000 to $4,500, I am afraid that will only discourage employers from sending their employees to retraining. So I hope that the Government take a look at it and provide some other incentives so that re-training is possible.

I am heartened to see that the Government is topping up the Life-long Learning Fund to encourage life-long learning. It is a right step towards a resilient nation, a resilient community.

The proposed subsidy for part-time degree programmes at the three publicly-funded universities and the UniSIM for Singaporeans who had not previously benefited from a Government-subsidised undergraduate education is a boost for diploma holders who wish to upgrade to a degree.

Column: 959

But I have received an email from one of my residents asking me to put forward this request in Parliament, one of which I have brought up before. Can the Government allow the use of individual CPF to pay for their part-time degree courses? Second, can the 40% tax relief on school fees of part-time degree courses at approved universities be transferred to the parents or elder siblings who are actually paying and supporting their school fees? And I like his ending statement in his email to me. I quote:

"With the influx of foreign workers into our country, we have to ensure that the sons and daughters of our own land be among the top 50th percentile in earnings of our workforce. We are not asking to be the top, but we should not be at the bottom."

I am not here pushing for a bumiputra policy in Singapore, but I think it is worthwhile to re-look at how our Singaporean workers can gain more from the re-training.

The last point which I would like to touch on is on climate change. With the increase in oil price hitting a three-digit level now, there will be increase in energy costs and I do not think the costs will come down further. It augurs well for Singapore and it makes sense for us to save energy. And the Government had articulated the importance of tackling climate change during the ASEAN meeting last year. Likewise, the same message was echoed at the Bali meeting that we need to speed up the efforts on tackling climate change and there is an urgent need to do so, although we recognise that being a little red dot, even as we stop producing any CO2, we are unlikely going to change the direction of climate change. But I think the green revolution can start from the little red dot. I hope the Government, through its fiscal policy, can initiate some changes. Apart from the

Column: 960

reduction in supplementary tax for diesel-powered passenger car which meets the stringent Euro IV emission standards, the Budget is truly silent on the issue of climate change.

I would like to suggest something simple, which is for the Government to consider introducing a green car COE category and that amount can come from the current COE amount. I am not asking the Government to put more cars onto the road now. It does not need any further Government funding but with green car COE, the market will decide and over time the number of green cars on the road will increase.

As our nation progresses and we achieve happiness and prosperity, we should be more resilient. There should be less and less need for social schemes, such as Workfare Income Supplement, ComCare, Medifund, Eldercare fund, etc, and many of the funds that were quoted by Mayor of North-East CDC, CPR, etc. But I ponder, now that we have more and more of these programmes, are we truly progressing? Are we truly resilient as we introduce more of these programmes? I understand that we definitely need them now. But I would still again urge Members of this House as well as the Government to ponder over what more we can do now so that the need for social programmes can be reduced in the future.

With that, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Member?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the first clarification. The Member in his speech asked why should we quarrel with the discrepancy in the estimates because we are in a happy situation, as we have a huge surplus instead of a deficit.

Column:961

Sir, does he agree that he misses a point – the point is not so much of whether we end up with a huge deficit or a huge surplus. The question is, why are the Budget estimates so much off the mark?

Second clarification: he referred to Hong Kong, and he said that if our estimates are off the mark, Hong Kong is even worse than us because they are off the mark much more than Singapore's estimates. I am afraid that if this is the attitude of the PAP, we are going down a slippery slope. We are not so good in estimates, he says, but, never mind, there are people who are worse than us.

Sir, in Mandarin, this is exactly what we call Ah Q jing shen.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: May I reply, Mr Speaker, Sir. In fact, when I did a block visit last night, a resident asked me the same question. Why is the Government having such a huge surplus? Did something go wrong in the estimates?

Reading the papers this morning, when Hong Kong reported a huge surplus four times above the estimates, of course, the main reasons given were that it was an unprecedented year, property prices went up, and they got huge transactions in terms of the stock market. Similar phenomenon was seen in Singapore as well. And I told the resident, at the end of the day, the key question for this House is how do we look forward. When the family breadwinner came back and said, "I strike the lottery", you should not, in the first place, be asking, "Why did you strike the lottery?" You should be asking, "How are we going to use the lottery money?" Are you going to say, "Let's go to a restaurant. Let's go and have a holiday and splurge it all."? Or are you going to put some of this money now to buy insurance for your child, to make sure that education is provided for, or to put some into medical insurance as well to

Column: 962

make sure that medical needs are taken care of? I think we should not miss the point. The real issue now is what we can do now to make sure that there will be less and less need for all these social welfare programmes in the future. Look forward and not look backward.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 1.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at

1.05 pm until 1.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 1.35 pm

Column: 962

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: