Singapore

Lift Replacement Fund

Committee of Supply debate (Ministry of National Development), 5 Mar 2024

The Lift Replacement Fund (LRF) was introduced during the 2017 amendment to the Town Councils Act. It addresses the substantial, deferred costs associated with lift renewals in our ageing estates. This provision ensures minimal disruption due to lift breakdowns for our residents, notably the elderly, young children and those with mobility challenges.

Nonetheless, the current apportionment of Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) and government grants — 26% to the Sinking Fund (SF) and 14% to the LRF — may be precipitating a skewed emphasis towards the LRF. Looking at the 17 town councils’ latest annual reports, I notice that for many of them, their LRF is expanding at a significantly faster pace compared to their SF.

The stipulated use of the LRF may be unduly restrictive. Currently, expensive lift components like the automatic rescue device, the main controller PCB, the emergency battery operated power supply and the uninterrupted power supply can only utilise the Routine Fund, despite their considerable capital expense.

Hence, I would like to put forth three proposals to MND:

First, rebalance the funding distribution between the Sinking Fund and LRF, slightly increasing the SF’s proportion and reducing the LRF’s proportion.

Second, broaden the permissible applications of the LRF to encompass all lift components with a lifespan exceeding 10 years.

And third, permit Town Councils to transfer funds between LRF and SF to fund necessary cyclical works without compromising the original intent of setting aside adequate reserves for the two funds.

These recommendations seek a more efficient balance between addressing current exigencies and future preparations, assuring all residents benefit from dependable lift and escalator facilities.

Menopause support for female workers

Committee of Supply debate, Ministry of Manpower, 4 Mar 2024

The number of women aged 40 to 59 in the labour force has risen by 97,000 from 2012 to 2022. Many in this group of workers would be undergoing perimenopause, which can present various physical and emotional challenges that may impact their well-being and work performance.

Awareness of the health-related impact of perimenopause on women’s well-being does not seem to be widespread in Singapore. The Straits Times, in a piece titled “Is Singapore ready for the menopause wave from a super ageing society?” interviewed women who quit their jobs or suffered through the pain at work.

This loss in productivity may ultimately be costly to businesses and the economy, not to mention the human toll it takes on female workers. Based on an NUH study, and extrapolating for the current midlife working population, as many as 388,800 women may be bearing the ill effects of perimenopause at work.

It is important for employers to recognise and accommodate these changes, and foster a supportive work environment that addresses the unique needs of these women. It is notable that the UK and Australian parliaments have convened MP-led consultations to raise awareness nationally.

In Singapore, we can start with incentives for women who turn 45 to seek pre-emptive check ups and for those we need physiotherapy for their joint and muscle pain to either subsidise the treatment or give them time off for it.

If women are forced to cut short their working life during their menopause transition, their health and finances may worsen, and our economy will lose out on their valuable contributions. This scenario is entirely preventable.

Tradesperson Jobs

My “cut” on the Committee of Supply debate (Ministry of Manpower), 4 Mar 2024.

There are approximately 186,000 craftsmen and trades workers in Singapore. Their median salary is $2,700, and their median age is 56 years. Over 70% are foreigners. The low wages, ageing workforce and heavy reliance on foreign labour in this crucial sector is concerning.

I acknowledge the efforts by MOM, industry associations, unions and IHLs to professionalise these trades. However, attracting young Singaporeans remains a pressing challenge.

To overcome this, we first need to boost societal respect for skilled tradespersons — or “tradies”, as they are affectionately called in Australia.

Schools and trades associations can create greater public awareness about what tradies do. They are not all dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs. For example, licensed plumbers often do more supervision and inspections of plumbing works than the “dirty work” themselves.

Young people who prefer working with their hands should be encouraged to consider skilled trades instead of forcing themselves to study an academic subject they have little interest in.

Second, we need to lower the barriers for entry for Singaporeans to become licensed tradespersons. All courses and mentorship programmes leading to licensing should be more subsidised under SkillsFuture, even for workers under 40, and more places should be set aside for Singaporeans.

Third, to raise incomes of skilled tradespersons, agencies must rigorously enforce regulations against unlicensed individuals performing tasks that are legally reserved for licensed tradespersons. This will uphold the required quality and safety standards and prevent licensed tradespersons’ earnings from being unjustly undercut by unlicensed competitors.

Sir, for avoidance of doubt, I declare that I am the director and shareholder of a company that provides technology solutions to training providers.

Artificial Intelligence in Education

My speech during the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Education’s budget, 1 Mar 2024.

Given the increasing demand for AI skills in the workforce, it is crucial to help our students develop not just good foundations and fundamental skills, but also become proficient in using common AI tools.

For example, all students need to be taught how to correctly input prompts into generative AI tools like ChatGPT to get their desired output. They also need to be taught how to check for hallucinations, avoid plagiarism, and adhere to ethical and legal boundaries, so that they can use these technologies safely and responsibly.

I emphasise that this needs to be taught to all students, starting at the primary and early secondary levels, and not just to those who sign up for AI student outreach programmes or in individual schools on an ad hoc basis.

More well-resourced families often enrol their children in AI enrichment classes to enhance their digital skills, while lower-income families have less access to them, creating a digital divide across socioeconomic groups.

Unequal access to AI education could exacerbate existing inequalities, leaving some ill-prepared for an AI-driven world. This is why we need to bridge this gap by making dedicated AI education a fundamental component of the national curriculum.

We must also invest in more professional development for teachers to equip them with the skills to incorporate AI into the classroom.

Lastly, while AI tools are important, impassionate machines cannot replace an inspirational and empathetic teacher. Therefore, AI tools should always augment, not replace teachers. By doing so, we can combine technology and traditional teaching, to build a holistic and comprehensive educational experience for each student.

Politically significant persons

My speech during the Committee of Supply Debate (Ministry of Home Affairs), 29 Feb 2024.

Recently, Mr Philip Chan, a Singaporean businessman and former People’s Association grassroots leader was designated by MHA as a politically significant person (PSP) under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA).

MHA said that Mr Chan has “shown susceptibility to be influenced by foreign actors, and willingness to advance their interests”. I understand there are other Singapore residents who are publicly known to be associated with foreign political organisations, but have not been designated as PSPs.

I would like to request for more details of the Ministry’s criteria for designating PSPs. How does the Ministry assess the risk of foreign interference and the public interest in applying FICA’s measures to PSPs? What are the factors that distinguish Mr Chan from other persons who engage in similar activities but who are not designated as PSPs?

I understand the Ministry might be reluctant to be too transparent about the criteria to prevent people from circumventing the FICA provisions. However, MHA should provide better guidance to the public on where the out-of-bound (OB) markers are, so that they can avoid becoming unwitting agents of foreign influence and interference.

National Service pay

My speech during the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Defence’s budget on 29 Feb 2024.

National Service (NS) is an obligation that every male Singaporean or second generation PR must fulfil. However, it is undeniably an opportunity cost that is disproportionately levied upon one segment of society. Due to NS, Singaporean men begin their careers two years behind their female peers, first-generation PRs, new citizens and foreigners. NS poses a significant challenge for aspiring professional athletes, disrupting their training and competition during their peak performance years, and hindering their world-class aspirations.

The current philosophy of giving NSFs an “allowance for basic upkeep” needs to be reviewed in view of the significant increase in cost of living and NSF’s opportunity costs. As a first step, the terminology should be changed from “NS allowance” to “NS salary”, and it should attract CPF contributions.

The median NS salary should be at least the Local Qualifying Salary of $1,600 per month. This still won’t be a market salary, but it will go some way to compensate NSFs for the opportunity cost of two years of service and help them contribute a little to their household income.

I must emphasise that this does not in any way diminish the ethos of national service — just because we pay our NSFs fairly doesn’t mean their service is any less of a national duty.

Insurance coverage for persons with disabilities or special needs

My speech in Parliament during the Committee of Supply debate (Prime Minister’s Office).

Persons with disabilities or special needs often receive inadequate insurance coverage to protect themselves. Even if they manage to get insured, the scope of coverage and insured amount is often limited. MAS is proposing to issue guidelines to insurers that they should not indiscriminately reject an application solely based on declared personal information such as a disability.

Mr Chairman,

Instead, insurers are expected to carry out an objective assessment of every application based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks being insured. However, even under the new proposed guidelines, insurers are not prohibited from declining applications, setting higher premiums or applying conditions in view of the risks presented by an applicant with a disability.

Can the Minister explain when these guidelines will be issued, and how they will be materially different or more beneficial to persons with disabilities or special needs?

Population projections beyond 2030

My speech on 28 Feb 2024 on the Committee Supply Debate (Prime Minister’s Office).

The government has clarified that it does not aim for Singapore’s population to increase to 10 million and is anticipating a population of “significantly below 6.9 million” by 2030. However, with 2030 only six years away and fast approaching, a key question arises: what are the government’s longer-term forecasts?

Population projections are a critical tool for public policy planning.

Given current birth rates and the intake of new citizens and PRs, what are the government’s projections for Singapore’s population in 2040 and 2050? These figures are pivotal, not just for immediate policy adjustments, but for securing a sustainable future for all.

The government claims that it does not seek to achieve any particular population size. I find this rather strange: if there is no population target, how does it decide how much to regulate the immigration tap or how much to invest in pronatalist policies to achieve its desired economic, social and security outcomes over the long term?

Boosting productivity through AI and robotics

Budget Debate 2024, 26 Feb 2024

Mr Speaker,

Fair competition

Singaporean workers aspire towards making a good living and engaging in meaningful work that uplifts not only their own families, but also their communities, their nation and the world. One inescapable reality of work is competition.

We have always had a very competitive culture in Singapore. This has served us well in many ways, from the excellent performance of our students in schools to our efforts to top the global rankings in everything from corruption perceptions to business friendliness.

However, competition also has a darker side. Singaporeans are not looking to the government to shield them from global competition at the workplace. However, we detest unfair competition, where people who do not play by the rules or follow local norms still get ahead.

For example, when Singaporean workers see colleagues getting hired and promoted not on the basis of their ability and hard work, but because their manager prefers working with people who share his cultural background, this creates a profound dissonance in them. Why? Because Singaporeans have been brought up to believe in meritocracy as a guiding principle in our society.

We want a Singapore which rewards workers and professionals based on their competence and hard work, not connections or tribal loyalties.

Nevertheless, while we strive to shape the Singapore that we desire, we are but a small drop in a vast ocean. We have to teach our children and students to deal with the world as it is, not how they want it to be. They must be taught at home and in schools to speak up when they have something to contribute, and not keep silent in the background. They must be encouraged to ask for what is due to them, and not simply accept what others decide for them without question. And they must be willing to network with a wide spectrum of people from different cultures and nationalities, and understand what motivates them.

Singapore is often viewed as a nation of excellence. In local parlance, we do things “swee swee”. Give a Singaporean a task, and when they say they’ve done it, we can trust that it’s been done well. We must never let this culture of excellence slip. It is our advantage in an increasingly competitive world.

Boosting productivity

Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics have both burst into mainstream consciousness in recent years, with the launch of generative AI and self-driving cars. These technologies could provide a path to boosting Singapore’s productivity by enhancing the speed, accuracy and efficiency of various tasks and processes.

There are many studies of AI’s measurable impact on productivity. For example, a joint-study by BCG and Harvard found that consultants using GPT-4 completed 12% more business tasks, 25% more quickly, with 40% higher quality, than a control group without AI access.

These are amazing opportunities for Singapore to take advantage of. The government can spur a broader uptake of AI and robotics not only for our scientists and businesses, but also for general purpose use by ordinary citizens.

In November 2023, I asked about whether the government planned to develop indigenous capabilities in creating and deploying AI foundation models, including establishing a National Foundation Model Research Institute. In February 2024, I proposed the creation of a national AI healthcare foundation model, which can be used to predict and intervene in a broad spectrum of diseases. I would like to repeat these calls here.

These are not just national initiatives, but possible precursors to greater regional scientific co-operation. Singapore needs the right institutions and opportunities, in order to attract and retain the best minds, including talented Singaporean scientists and entrepreneurs.

I am under no illusions about the potential of these new technologies to cause job losses. This is why in January 2024, I asked the government for its plans to proactively retrain workers who are at most risk of displacement from AI. We need interventions to steel our citizens against AI-driven job redundancy. It is better for us to be the architects of our own disruption, than to allow technology to change us for the worse.

It is tempting to pull out the old playbook of pouring money into training programmes and encouraging workers to attend courses. However, this approach may not succeed in upskilling an entire workforce in disruptive new technologies.

We must also embrace tacit learning through the hands-on use of AI and robotics. Tacit learning is learning by doing.

Using AI tools or robots needs to be made as easy and as commonplace as googling for answers on a web browser or operating a TV remote control. Robots should be deployed more widely in our environment so that the public gets used to seeing and using them every day. Giving every Singaporean hands-on practice with AI and robotics will better ensure that the gains from these technologies go to everyone — manual workers and knowledge workers, civil servants and entrepreneurs, MNCs and SMEs.

SkillsFuture must also support tacit learning. In February 2024 in my adjournment motion on global AI leadership, I called for the subscriptions to cutting-edge AI tools to be subsidised by SkillsFuture Credits. AI tools make workers more productive, and we should give our people more opportunities to use them.

We must strive for the whole breadth of Singapore society to have more contact with the best AI models and robots. Only by trying things out as a first mover, and being willing to accept and learn from failure, can we gain and retain the thousand points of knowledge that no instructor can teach.

New world order

In his Budget Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong rightly pointed out that we are now in an era of armed conflict, confrontation and terrorism, with major powers prioritising national security over international cooperation, and that there is a diminished willingness to tackle global issues.

These are stark realities. We must work within the realities of this new world order, as the old order is probably not coming back anytime soon.

DPM Wong said that we will pursue better jobs and better growth. He made a commitment to improve wages across professions. In particular, he said that the wages and career prospects of ITE graduates should not be too far behind polytechnic and university graduates.

I fully support this. I hope the wages of skilled tradespersons will come much closer to par with knowledge workers, because of the value they bring to our economy and our society. I will elaborate further on this during the Committee of Supply debate on MOM’s budget.

The introduction of the SkillsFuture Level Up Programme, which injects another $4,000 into Singaporeans’ SkillsFuture Credit, is welcome. DPM Wong said it is to be used for selected training programmes with “better employability outcomes”, including part-time and full time diplomas and undergraduate programmes. In addition, workers 40 years old and above will have the opportunity to pursue another full time diploma at subsidised rates.

How did the government arrive at the conclusion that these diploma and degree programmes have better employability outcomes? Is there empirical evidence to support it? And if there is, are the better outcomes due to the greater skills that these graduates have acquired or because local employers continue to emphasise paper qualifications over skills and experience?

In fact, it has been recognised that one of the most effective ways to pick up employable skills is through on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeships. As such, I would suggest that the government subsidise OJT and apprenticeship programmes to the same tune as diploma and degree programmes.

In his Budget Statement, DPM Wong mentioned briefly about how the government will do more to support those whose jobs are made redundant through a temporary financial support scheme for the unemployed. He said the government will be working out the details later this year. Sir, this scheme was announced almost one year ago, at the National Day Rally in August last year. How much longer will it take to flesh out? More importantly, how fiscally sustainable will this scheme be?

Will it include an insurance component, like what the Workers’ Party has proposed through its Redundancy Insurance Scheme, to ensure that premium contributions from employers and employees during times of plenty can be drawn down during economic downturns when retrenchment levels are higher?

Cost burdens for disability community

Mr Speaker, social inclusion must be at the heart of all our economic policies. I am glad to note that the maximum monthly fees at Special Education (SPED) schools will be lowered to $90, with lower fee caps at all centres.

However, Singapore should move towards equalising the fees for SPED schools and mainstream schools. While I am aware that the cost for providing education at both types of schools is different, the school fees should be the same. So if mainstream primary school fees are only $13 a month, then SPED school fees should also be $13 a month, not $120, which is the current average. Even lowering it to $90, while commendable, is still not equitable. This is especially so considering the higher costs that parents of special needs children incur in many other areas besides education. The additional costs of SPED schools should be socialised in the interest of creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

School bus fares remain another significant concern for the disability community. As of 1 January 2024, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has increased the price cap of school bus fares for school bus operators at mainstream schools by up to 13%. But SPED school students face a higher increase in their school bus fares due to the smaller pool of bus operators who are able to meet their more complex needs.

I am aware and appreciate that there are various school bus subsidy assistance schemes like the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS).

While I understand the need to keep the school bus operators sustainable, the adverse impact of the cost of living crisis has made the cost of school bus transport an added burden for many parents of students with disabilities. Many rely heavily on school bus transport to commute to and from home, school and social service agencies to attend programmes such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), Day Activity Centres, Sheltered Workshops* and Special Student Care Centres. Very often there are additional costs involved. EIPIC, for example, is a half-day programme, so the students need to also be ferried from their school to the programme, creating a double whammy in transport costs.

I would therefore like to call on the government to increase the monthly household income limit for both the FAS and ETS, especially for households with special needs members. In addition, more subsidies can be provided to match the inflation of school bus fares. This would ensure that more families can access and benefit from these subsidies to cover the ever-rising cost of living.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we chart our course through the rapidly changing global and technological terrain, our policies must embody a steadfast dedication to fairness, meritocracy and innovation. By nurturing an ecosystem that champions fair competition, leverages the transformative power of AI and robotics, and places the welfare and progress of every Singaporean at its heart, we can secure a robust and flourishing future. Let’s remain committed to building a society where access to opportunities, a culture of excellence and the value of each individual’s contributions shape the Singaporean journey for generations to come.

Sir, I support the Motion.

* DACs and SW are only 18+.

Transparency of Government Reserves

Parliament, 7 Feb 2024

Mr Speaker,

In our quest to safeguard the Singapore dollar, especially from the volatilities of currency crises, it is important for a country to hold sufficient Official Foreign Reserves (OFR). We’ve seen the dire consequences of not having enough in the tank during Thailand’s ordeal in 1997. The country’s struggle, stemming in part from currency speculation, led to a severe depletion of its OFR. This forced it to float its currency, triggering an economic crisis which affected the whole region, including Singapore.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has assessed that the “optimal” amount of OFR it needs to provide a “strong buffer” against stresses in the global economy and market is between 65% to 75% of GDP. The central bank assessed this level based on internationally-accepted measures of reserve adequacy and its own practical experience in foreign exchange intervention to ensure the stability of the Singapore dollar.

Since the MAS (Amendment) Act came into force on 21 February 2022, MAS has been allowed to subscribe to Reserves Management Government Securities (RMGS). This allows the transfer of OFR to the government for the long-term investment by GIC. This is OFR above what MAS needs to conduct monetary policy and support financial stability. Should there be a need to supplement the OFR on MAS’ balance sheet in the instance of a tail-risk event, it can redeem the RMGS before maturity at par.

Based on a parliamentary reply by DPM Lawrence Wong to me, as at September 2023, MAS’ current OFR stood at S$455.5 billion or 70% of GDP, with the potential to ramp it up to 106% of GDP by redeeming the RMGS holdings of S$237.6 billion.

This means MAS effectively has access to 31% more foreign reserves than the high end of the range it assesses to be optimal to defend the Sing Dollar.

The value of both MAS’ OFR and RMGS have been revealed publicly. So has the value of Temasek Holdings’ net portfolio. What remains is the value of the reserves held by GIC, which it has only revealed is “well over US$100 billion”. It is estimated to be worth many multiples of that.

In a parliamentary reply on 3 Oct 2023, DPM Wong said we need to brace for extreme tail-risk scenarios, including crises of unprecedented scale that could lead to significant capital outflows beyond MAS’ reserves, or emergencies caused by state or non-state actors threatening our economy, livelihoods or national existence.

Sir, the spectre of extreme scenarios cannot be a carte blanche for maintaining a veil of secrecy over the reserves. Is the government keeping the reserves held by GIC a secret only to prepare for extreme tail-risk scenarios, or is it also to avoid questions from MPs and the public on why our substantial reserves aren’t being invested more in Singaporeans?

Greater transparency serves to both improve governance and foster a more inclusive and informed discussion about our nation’s future. Transparency about the size of our reserves will facilitate more robust public discourse and democratic debate about our country’s long-term budget and expenditure plans. It will ensure that decisions regarding the use of our national wealth are made with the participation and understanding of citizens. Most importantly, it will increase accountability, as my Hon. Friend from Sengkang Jamus Lim has explained in his speech, and build more trust in the government.

Conversely, expecting Members of Parliament to scrutinise, debate and approve the government budget and each ministry’s allocation without full knowledge of our reserves is comparable to making a decision on buying a house without knowing how much money they have in their largest bank account.

Mr Speaker, I urge a review of the government’s stance on the secrecy of the reserves.

If the government wishes to maintain its strategic ambiguity regarding the full size of the reserves, the figures could be shared confidentially with MPs or with a cross-party Standing Select Finance Committee that looks into the health of our reserves and government finances, which the Leader of the Opposition has proposed.

This parliamentary committee will then be able to properly consider the specific funding needs vis-a-vis the threats that Singapore must prepare for and make recommendations to the government on how these needs could be funded.

I support the original motion.