SUPPLY AND SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY (FY 2005) BILLS (Business Motion)

Column No : 484

SUPPLY AND SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY (FY 2005) BILLS:

(Business Motion): Resolved,

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for FY 2006/2007 and the Supplementary Supply (FY 2005) Bill for FY 2005/2006 may be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Main and Development Estimates for FY 2006/2007. - [Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat].

Column No : 484

Column No : 484

ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT: Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [17th February, 2006],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2006 to 31st March, 2007." - [Prime Minister and Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Dr Loo Choon Yong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

I applaud the Prime Minister on his Budget Statement. Many people have told me that there is nothing substantial in this Budget. I suppose they are disappointed in that the PM did not announce further tax cuts nor did he abolish estate duty, to the disappointment of some living and some dead. But I see it differently. I see this Budget as further consolidating our economic restructuring. I am appreciative of the Progress Package. I believe this is necessary if we are to distinguish ourselves as a society and if we are to encourage young Singaporeans to grow deeper roots in our society.

I agree that globalisation will widen the income gap. And I fully support the Government's efforts to help those in the lower-income group, those unemployed and those less fortunate. I believe that this willingness to help the less able and less fortunate amongst us is, indeed, a hallmark of a great society. I note the concern of some colleagues in this House, that some people may take advantage of our kindness, our Progress Package, our Workfare Bonus, etc. I agree. There will always be some who will take advantage of others. However, I urge us to have that generosity of spirit, the magnanimity to see the relief that our assistance brings to those in need.

I have many personal experiences to tell me that many Singaporeans have actually such a strong sense of pride and self-esteem that they will decline assistance unless they are actually in quite poor shape. So, let us never become a nation that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. I have always believed that it is more blessed to give than to receive. On 22nd August 2005, Business Times interviewed a Mr Tom Huzell, head of Ikea's retail operations in Singapore and Malaysia. He is a Swede and Ikea is an international home furnishing company founded in Sweden. When he was asked how the Swedes could live with an average income tax of 40%, and higher earners pay about 50%, a VAT or GST of 25% with extra taxes on liquor and petrol, he replied that most Swedes found it very nice to live in Sweden. He went on to say that the quality of life was, indeed, very high and the Swedes were very egalitarian people. He shared that the high rates of tax meant that they had very little hierarchy and everybody was equal. Many Swedes I know share this sentiment, and they value their egalitarian way of life.

The Prime Minister has said that Singapore cannot follow the Nordic high-tax and high-spending model. He would like to pursue a low tax and tight expenditure model. I fully agree, and the low tax part gives me great personal relief. However, we should admire and emulate their egalitarian and communitarian attitude. I certainly hope that the low tax and tight expenditure policy, coupled with compassionate assistance to the less fortunate, will encourage more Singaporeans to pay their taxes cheerfully.

I also hope to see Progress packages continuing year after year and not only coincidentally just before the elections. This is because we will always have the poor with us. There will always be some Singaporeans who fall between the cracks - some dysfunctional families, some maladjusted individuals, some unfortunate sick. These packages could take different forms, targeted at different needs. Perhaps, instead of only giving Progress packages where there are higher budget surpluses, the PM may wish to make it his priority to set aside, say, $1 billion every year for the Progress Package targeted at those Singaporeans. When there are surpluses, then even more can be done.

Some members of the public have some reservations about cash handouts. Most societies do it through free or highly subsidised welfare services of one kind or another. Sir, this old fashioned welfarism presupposes that the government is the most efficient producer of goods and services. That has been an article of faith of planned economies. And we now actually clearly see that after 50 years, the greater efficiency of the market economy shows that not to be the case. So I believe that cash bonuses will enable recipients to decide what goods and services they need to buy and from whom. Besides, the bonuses from the Progress packages are more targeted and, therefore, less open to abuse and misuse. I am in support.

Sir, I am appreciative of the welfare assistance, the many job creation and workers' training programmes. I believe that helping the unemployed, finding him a job, is much better than giving him handouts. I am happy to note that last year, 110,800 new jobs were created and unemployment rate is a low 2.5%. These new jobs bring cheer to many families, enable many young stomachs to be filled. With more people in jobs and progressively better-paying ones, we will need less Workfare and assistance, and future Progress packages can be even more targeted and, therefore, more effective.

Sir, I am interested in the big question of how do we build a competitive, growing and yet sustainable economy. Having been in Parliament for one year, I have learned to be dermatologically more fortified. Even after 45 other colleagues have spoken before me, I still feel that I have to ask this question again this year. I applaud the Government's effort to invest in R&D to help us become a knowledge hub. The setting up of a R&D Trust Fund, the RIEC, the NRF are all good things. Spending 3% of our GDP on research and development by 2010 will bring us closer to the R&D's spending level in the Nordic countries. However, I hope that the RIEC and NRF will try their best to ensure that a progressively greater portion of these R&D expenditures are spent together with the private sector and in the private sector. This is because the Nordic countries actually spend 60% of all their R&D expenditures in the private sector. Ours is about 40% only.

I believe that because of this, there is better choice of research projects, earlier commercialisation of discoveries, and in all a better payback of their R&D investments. They build great knowledge industries as we all know. The private sector cannot afford and does not believe in the pure pursuit of knowledge. And with our increase but still relatively modest R&D expenditure, we really must try to get more bangs for our bucks. I therefore propose that RIEC and NRF, besides seeking to raise the R&D expenditures to 3% of our GDP by 2010, set as their goal to involve and partner the private sector, so that 60% of the R&D expenditure will be used and spent in the private sector.

Sir, besides increasing our spending on R&D and creating a safe and reliable environment for the protection of IPR, I believe there is yet another way to grow our knowledge-based economy. There is an observation that quite a lot of intellectual property is trapped in the public sector. This was noted in the deliberations of the ERC's Sub-committee on Services Industry in 2002 of which I was a member. It was noted that we have structural problems because the public sector is not mandated to grow their organisations via revenue from external sources. We are aware of the many advances and innovations made by our defence scientists in DSTA, system engineers in LTA, researchers in MOE, universities and hospitals. Some public agencies have acquired this IP in the course of their work when they tender for this and that project. Of course, there have been delightful stories of successful privatisation of PWD and SingTel. One recent story is that of former HDB's Architects and Town Planners Department, now reorganised as Surbana, designing a great motorcar showroom and racing track in Abu Dhabi. It would not have been possible or conceivable have they still been part of HDB.

I like to share with you that the Sub-committee recommended that we push on with corporatisation and privatisation of Government agencies; designate an agency to collate the inventory of such IP and sell or license them for commercialisation; incentivise research institutions and universities to consider licensing their IPs; and support technology and skills transfer from Government IP owners to Singapore-based companies as well as co-develop technology with them. I hope the Government will implement these recommendations so that Singapore-based companies can commercialise their IP and build profitable businesses with them. This proven IP should provide quicker returns than doing new projects. It will enable us to further broaden and deepen our capabilities, strengthen and grow our economy.

Sir, as we upgrade our manufacturing sector, I have been told that Singapore needs to have a total manufacturing eco-system environment. It appears that because of our costlier environment, manufacturers of small parts cannot survive in Singapore. Unlike China, Taiwan and Vietnam, we do not have these downstream and often low-tech, low-cost industries. I suppose they like to see the situation of a little town outside Shanghai - I believe it is called Wenzhou - where most of the world's cigarette lighters and maybe cigars flame-throwers are made. Different brands, different styles, different qualities, different costs. And there are companies that supply millions of flint grinders. Some people make millions of these little gas fuel casings and gas nozzles, and many other parts that are needed to make cigarette lighters. I wonder what has happened to our efforts to promote Batam and Bintan industrial parks. I think Johor could make a good partner with cheaper land and labour. Together with them, we can perhaps provide this eco-system that manufacturers like to have. With the return towards stability in Indonesia and our improved relationships with them and Johor, it is perhaps time to revisit and reinvigorate this win-win strategy.

On the service industries, I agree that we cannot afford low cost as an attraction. But we can surely offer trust, quality and service. At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as Chairman of Raffles Medical Group. In healthcare, we can offer patient safety, professional reliability, service consistency, cost predictability and institutional governance to foreign patients.

I am heartened to note that in 2005, we received, as a nation, 374,000 foreign patients who came here to seek treatment. At the growth rate of 20%, we will reach our target of 1 million patients by 2012. I am sure the public and private sectors will continue to move together to make Singapore the leading healthcare hub in the region.

Sir, despite my optimism, I still have a few concerns about Singapore being the logical and default service hub for the region. Others are trying to compete with us to do the same. My concerns are that some of the excellent and insightful recommendations of the ERC Sub-committee on service industries have yet to be implemented. With your indulgence, may I quote from the Report, paragraph 5,

"Nevertheless, in many services, the exportable component seldom exceeds the local demand. It is therefore natural for the regulator to put priority on regulation to address social, political concerns of the domestic demand ahead of industry development. Powerful regulations often end up hindering the growth of the exportable component."

Paragraph 6:

"In some sectors, Government inevitably gets deeply involved in the services sector beyond being a mere regulator to become a dominant player. When it also tries to be a promoter of exportable component, it becomes largely ambivalent."

Sir, four recommendations were made. Recommendation No. 1: regulator cannot be the promoter. But the regulator must be sympathetic to the industry's development. Recommendation No. 2: regulator must not also be a player. In other words, Government should actively outsource such services to local enterprises wherever possible. Recommendation No. 3: promote regional and global demand. I am glad this has been done by agencies, like STB and EDB. Recommendation No. 4: stimulate sophisticated local demand. I believe some stimulation is done like placing out reserves for private fund management. I hope the Government will revisit these observations and recommendations and implement them across all service industries. I believe we can even exceed our targets, if we have the conviction to follow through these recommendations.

On land pricing, as property prices move upwards, we can all see that the Chief Valuer is not wasting any time. He is vigilant and has revised development charges upwards steeply. I expect he will have adequate justification. I certainly hope he will just be as quick to revise these charges downwards when the property market dips.

Sir, rising property prices make everyone feels good. Banks lend more money at better rates, non-performing loan (NPL) portfolio becomes smaller, professional services do well and the Government collects more stamp duties and fees. I like to remind us to be careful about our land prices. We must never allow ourselves to be priced out of the market and become an uncompetitive economy. We must be prepared to make exceptions for industries and sectors which will bring greater economic benefits downstream to Singapore.

A high land price for such industry is equivalent to taking a one-time capital gain upfront. Alternatively, we can have a lower land price but take the economic benefits like jobs, reduce assistance pay-outs and more taxes over the next few years. One outstanding example is the land around Changi Airport. We all know that Changi Airport is the only international gateway into Singapore, unlike other countries that have many cities and airports. When airlines bypass us, many tourists, businessmen, investors, private banking clients, foreign patients would be lost to the Singapore economy. The Government has rightly said that the survival of Changi Airport is more important than the survival of SIA, our national carrier. That was the rationale for allowing and encouraging low-cost carriers into Singapore.

I would like to see Changi Airport land price zero-rated. I would like to see the key performance indicators of CAAS to be those of the number of flight arrivals and departures, number of passenger throughputs, number of cities and regions to which Changi Airport is connected. I would be less interested in how much money CAAS makes. Yes, we can keep that as a score, to measure the efficiency. Instead of collecting higher landing fees and charges, I would rather the Singapore economy benefits along the way as tourists, shoppers, private banking clients, businessmen, foreign patients, patronise our banks, hotels, retail outlets, restaurants and hospitals. This multiple effect not only makes financial sense but it is also more likely to create the kind of jobs our older and less educated Singaporeans will be able to have and do well in. Singapore still collects the fees but over a longer period and downstream, instead of at the top, upstream. I believe Dubai has taken this approach and their thriving busy airport has brought people from many lands to a once sleepy desert town, and Dubai Inc. has benefited. Their approach may be less rational and disciplined. But it has worked for them.

Sir, on growing human talent, I am appreciative of what has been done in recent years by MOE. I am also very glad to hear that 25% of each cohort will go to publicly funded universities. In my time, which was slightly less than 40 years ago, it was 10%-11% only. At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as an SMU Trustee and RJC Board member. We all know that this has been a great factor in our society, spending more on education, creating more places for people, and this has helped us to have the kind of upward social mobility. And actually, many of us in this House have benefited from our own publicly funded university.

I am glad that PM has given emphasis to investing in and developing our own people, whether talented or not, whether they are talent or no talent. Yes, we must grow our own timber for our own saplings will grow deeper roots in Singapore soil and hopefully withstand monsoons and typhoons. The PM quoted Peter Drucker and I agree that Singapore must actively attract talent from everywhere. America has been the beneficiary of successive tides of talent migration. We must do likewise.

Sir, unlike businesses that Drucker referred to, they can relocate their domicile. We are a nation and we certainly cannot relocate our domicile. As the late Mr Rajaratnam asked in the television clip I saw, "Where can 2.5 million Singaporeans go?" So I hope we will always reassure our own people that regardless of whether they are considered talent or not, we will invest in them and help them to realise their potential. I am glad we now have many routes to success and many paths to glory.

Sir, may I congratulate the PM on setting up the Opportunity Funds to provide more enrichment opportunities for needy students. This will certainly help these students to develop and compete better beyond subsidised school fees, and so on.

Finally, Sir, I agree with the PM that this Budget aims to build a vibrant economy where opportunities abound and an inclusive society where no one is left behind. I am proud to be a Singaporean.

I support the motion, and I will pay my taxes cheerfully.

12.55 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very challenging to be the last speaker to respond to the Budget Statement. However, this time I did not cut my speech, although I have seriously considered doing it after two days of speeches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate. Sir, the Budget 2006 financial package will certainly resonate well among the majority of heartlanders, especially the lower income and the elderly. At the core of this Budget is not just what the Government is giving out to the people. Rather, it is the principle behind the handout that is important. Just as it is easy to be distracted by the glitter in a diamond, the discerning buyer will look at it with the eye of a gemologist. She will examine the precious stone, not for its glitter, but its cut, grade, colour and clarity. I believe today Singaporeans are knowledgeable, mature and well-read to be able to appreciate that this is a Government that has the people close to its heart. It shows that the many feedback sessions, dialogue sessions and face-to-face engagement between the people and the Government at the constituencies and elsewhere did not fall on deaf ears. In difficult times, the people are called upon to tighten their belts. When there is a good harvest, the Government shares the harvest with the people. Our financial policy is effective because it is coherent, consistent and as predictable as it is possible, while maintaining scope for flexibility and the use of judgement as and when the situation requires.

Over the past few years, there has been a shift in the global economic landscape which saw the emergence of India and China among the leading economies in Asia. We have to adjust our economy to keep pace with the tectonic movement in the global economy. As a result, a percentage of our population, particularly the older and less skilled workers, is displaced. While the devastation they face is nowhere compared to the thousands who lost their homes and livelihoods from natural disasters as earthquakes and landslides, the sufferings they face deserve our full support and assistance. Indeed, the Government has acted promptly and put in place many schemes, including the latest measures announced in the Budget.

I have three concerns. Older workers, however, thus far the efforts to help these workers navigate the terrain to get back to the mainstream workforce have not yielded sufficient numbers. The momentum has to pick up so that we can attract more to come forward and pick up new skills the way the infectious Latin America drum beats draw the crowds to the dance floor. For these older workers, the cost of living has moved up and those without jobs will find themselves still swimming in turbulent waters though they now have a lifeline thrown to them. Some of the retraining programmes require them to undergo classes to gain some literacy in English and Arithmetics. We have to recognise that these workers, some in their 50s, 60s and illiterate, will find it very difficult. I urge the Government to consider the mindset of these older generation of workers and to set up an inter-Ministry body to look at how we can better understand and motivate them, how we can come out with solutions that fit into their minds. I always believe that they want to help themselves. But what they want to do is not always what the civil servants and MPs think what they should do.

They will remain obdurate to classroom learning no matter what you offer them. The idea is not to put oneself in a position where we find ourselves and the workers in two opposite polar positions. If there is no way to bring them to the classrooms, can these older workers pick up other skill sets, like simple vocational skills training? Help them to adapt without going through the ABC route. Teach them the skills that they may be well more suited to. For example, mend shoes, repair clocks and watches, repair the new dual flush cisterns where Environment is going to make it compulsory as a water saving device, make handicraft, prune shrubs and landscape gardens, polish furniture and repair leather upholstery. With these skills, they can go out and either work for someone or set up their own little businesses. Offer them some seed funding and give them the stall licences and let them move on with life without having to agonise learning ABC. Limit the options to those who are without any primary qualifications and are above 50 years old. Provide the seed money for them to set up their own business. Offer them the second chance to be their own boss, and it may rekindle their interest to take up the challenge.

In similar context, we have helped the older workers and the lower skilled workers in their 60s and 70s by the direct allocation of stalls in the markets and hawker centres. We saw how they were able to bring up their children and many have since progressed and done well in life. For example, I know of a hawker in Toa Payoh who brought up three sons. All of them graduated from universities and are doing very well. There have been concerted efforts to help this strata of people which today we are seeing in numbers again because of the globalisation of economies.

In addition, some of these retraining courses are very long. I am currently arranging for our market and hawker stallholders to attend GEMS courses, introduced by Minister Raymond Lim, taking advantage of the coming market and hawker centre's two-day closure for washing. NTUC's Learning Hub has helped me to organise this session together with our grassroots leaders, as we believe that GEMS courses

would help them to improve their services to our fellow Singaporeans.

Although we are not in Orchard Road, we are now just a neighbourhood hub, downgraded from a town centre status by both the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Transport with the stroke of a pen in the town planning and the route of the transport system. We will conduct the course in Mandarin, with direct interpretation for our Malay stallholders. WDA insisted that the session must be for eight hours before the necessary funding can be made available. For these hawkers and stallholders, to tie them up for one whole day of the two-day closure means a lot to them. The second day closure is meant to be spent cleaning their stalls to get them ready for the next day's operation. Hence, it is a lot to ask them to spend one whole day for training. I really cannot understand WDA's rationale. I would have to raise funds for these people to attend the classes if I am not able to convince and persuade the stallholders to spend one whole day with me for the GEMS. This would mean that I would not be able to tap on the Government's funding of about $40 million of the Budget, ie, not benefiting from it.

The agency implementing these training programmes must understand the mindset of the people. They must recognise that there are times when you can only make small gains but, yet, this is important, rather than try to attain the summit and never reach it. They must be flexible in the administration and implementation, so that the training budget, painstakingly set aside by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, is within the reach of the people to whom they are meant.

Next, portable medical insurance. This was highlighted five years ago. However, it has remained a written paper on someone's desk waiting to be adopted. This scheme is gravitating itself as a very important factor in the employment of older workers. For the past few years, many senior workers have realised that there is no longer life-long employment, not even in statutory boards. When there is life-long employment, the company's medical insurance premium would average out in a worker's working life. In current times, when there is no life-long employment, the cost of medical insurance is very expensive on the individual person if he needs to cover himself at age 41 and above. The cost of medical insurance for the individual or the new employer is tripled at least for a person aged 41, compared to a worker aged 30 and under. This has resulted in the reluctance of companies to employ workers above 41. This is definitely much more than looking at the white hair, as mentioned by Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee.

At this point, I must congratulate and thank our Minister for Health for redesigning and giving each Singaporean a basic medical insurance coverage in our hospital care, ie, our MediShield. The question here is: is this basic medical hospital insurance sufficient to cover the active working life of an individual and also through his old age? Many do not think so and have to buy many other medical insurance policies on top of this basic coverage and also request for the employer to cover their medical hospital insurance. For the many who could afford, it is fine. But for the senior worker who is looking for a job and has no sufficient insurance coverage for himself, he would have to bargain hard with his new employer. With that, many would not be able to find suitable employment.

The Ministry of Health strongly believes that the comprehensive coverage without co-payment is not a sound insurance scheme for the people in the long term, which I fully agree. Once there is no co-payment, there will be abuses of the system not only at the insurance pay-out, but also at the medical care providers. The question is: how is the 41-year-old going to pay for his medical insurance premium if the insurance premium tripled and on the increase for a person aged 41 and above looking for employment? I am proposing the use of the 1% of the insurance premium, as set by the Ministry and Government agencies which pay to the civil servants' Medisave accounts, as a guided percentage to be paid by the employer. In addition, I would like to ask the Ministry of Health to allow for additional insurance premiums to be paid out of the individual's Medisave account, not for comprehensive coverage but with a cap for sufficient coverage in the working life of a person.

Thirdly, I am appealing to the Prime Minister to put in more money in the Medisave for these older workers to be able to pay for the insurance premium, made portable as his personal insurance. The other issue is that the insurance company, as a business, would not take up this senior worker above age 41. We need the help of the Ministry of Health to tie on this additional insurance with the basic MediShield, firstly, to minimise the over-coverage and also to allow the insurance company a big base to average the higher risks of these senior workers so that it is at a reasonable cost to the worker or his employer to make it portable to him. I would like to appeal for the good working tripartite relationship between NTUC, employer associations and Ministry of Health to relook at the paper lying on someone's desk and make the medical insurance scheme portable for a person when young so that the medical insurance that covers himself could continue to be with him wherever he works and whenever he needs to retrain and change jobs to suit his skill and age.

We must start now. Even if we need to cut off at an age group, we would have to do so, as in the case of MediShield. This would enable our younger generation not to face the same situation as our senior workers now are facing. The employers will be more willing to employ the white-hair workers and let skill be the determining factor rather than the higher insurance cost, which would then be taken care of by the workers themselves, with the help from the tripartite relationship of the Government, employer associations and NTUC.

On inter-Ministry approach, on a broader level, I note that we are moving towards a more inter-Ministry approach as we search for solutions, especially on policy formulation, from health issues to the focus on managing the effects of casino gambling. I have called for the setting up of more inter-Ministry bodies and committees to tackle the implementation of this Budget in the earlier part of my speech. Why? Because, for many people, from residents to even MPs, it is very time-consuming, tiring and frustrating having to deal with inter-Ministry issues. All too often, each Ministry will push to the other. The most classic example I have come across recently was when I asked for an additional lift for Kovan MRT Station. There is only one lift serving the residential estate but more to the market and hawker centres. The answer given was that there is no budget allocation from the Ministry of Finance. Sir, I am appealing for more budget for such essential amenities where many of our older residents use these lifts daily. Commuters go to the market and hawker centres daily. How do we justify spending millions on the artifacts beautifying our MRT stations but our residents have to struggle to get from one point to another?

We have made progress in cheaper lifts for our HDB estates. So please do the same for our MRT stations. Hundreds and thousands use this transport system daily and we need to encourage them because of our limited land for private cars. I hope the Government will tap this inter-Ministry approach for some operation and implementation measures and to problem-solving on the ground issues.

We used to have ZIP, the "zero in process" for the Government agencies and Ministries. However, this is not heard of in the present time. I have been receiving complaints from the residents of Government agencies pushing to one another, especially so now that many agencies have also outsourced their routine maintenance works.

One other example is the clogging of open drains in the private estates. Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue is very complicating. If the drain has potholes or big holes, the agency in charge to repair is PUB, and the cleaning of drains is under the National Environment Agency (NEA). So the problem of clogging of drains cannot be resolved until both agencies work on it, ie, get the potholes repaired and then clean the drains. The residents are confused and would not be able to understand the fine differentiation of duties. So, in the meantime, the drains remain clogged with mosquitoes, and our residents are left at the risk of being bitten.

I understand that in one medical centre, the doctors from different disciplines meet regularly to exchange views on their patients' case files in a holistic approach to patient care. Therefore, it would be good if this practice is expanded at ministerial level even more. This inter-Ministry committee offers not only a multi-disciplinary and multi-perspective approach to a problem. It also cuts out the argle-bargle when Ministry officials have to deal with each other later on. The complexities of today's economic, political and social environment demand more collective effort to be put in by officials from the different Ministries, either in policy formulation or implementation and operation measures.

To conclude, I applaud the Prime Minister for his generosity towards the needy and the lower-income workers. The principle of sharing the goodies with the people is a policy that we will always adopt as part of our inclusive approach to achieve prosperity for all. Go the extra mile to help our older workers to get back to the job market and to help the lower-income workers. Enable the medical insurance to be portable, to be able to encourage our employers to engage our older workers. Adopt an inter-Ministry approach while we search for solutions to complex issues. We must similarly adopt the same approach in solving the ground operation issues. History will measure and judge the distance that we have gone in building up a prosperous and harmonious community and in making Singapore our best home.

Column No : 503