Tin Pei Ling
April 28
MY SPEECH DURING BUDGET DEBATE 2013 - 5 MAR 2013
[covered SMEs, helping elderly age with confidence and dignity, and mental health]
Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2013 is in the right direction – it promotes greater redistribution of wealth, more help and care for low income, elderly and the less privileged Singaporeans, manages long-term foreign manpower growth and strengthens the resilience of our SMEs. Several commentators have also called this a “Robin Hood” Budget as the Government takes more from the more able to give to the less fortunate. Therefore, it is in this spirit that I support the Budget 2013.
While I understand that the Budget, no matter how comprehensive, cannot cover all grounds, I hope that the Government will continue to pay attention to three areas, which I will elaborate now.
The first area − it is to help SMEs to help Singaporeans. The recent debate on the Population White Paper has clearly set out the need to curb foreign manpower growth. This move is necessary and has to take place at some point in time – in fact, taking the necessary tough measures now today may forestall the need for even more difficult adjustments tomorrow. And, unlike other proposals, the Government’s proposal paces the adjustments to enable a soft landing which will be helpful for our SMEs to cope.
However, we need to take care that SMEs are given sufficient space to adapt and transform. There will be some heartaches as they undergo transformation to keep up with the times and increase productivity, but we should avoid excessive pain. We must remember that not all SMEs are the same. They operate in different markets and face different business conditions. Some SMEs may add a certain character to our society, or are emblems of a certain Singaporean way of life. For instance, coffee shops are common spaces and common focal points for ordinary Singaporeans to come gather and enjoy an affordable and delicious meal. Some SMEs are in sectors where you simply cannot mechanise tasks. For example, you cannot simply create standard pre-mixes for machines to whip up delicious dishes. It is like having robots to read out lines in a drama play. I am sure they can do so competently, but the feeling is just not the same.
Over the last few days, I have spoken with a couple of business associations comprising coffee shop owners and merchants, as well as SME owners from other sectors. They shared their manpower woes including not having enough manpower, not having the right skill sets or simply some who are quite resistant and unwilling to take on a certain task or even undergo re-training. Whatever these woes are, I believe that their circumstances apply to the rest of the F&B sector as well, especially for the smaller businesses. Hence, measures to provide guidance, flexibility and stability are necessary to help our SMEs cope with the manpower pressures.
First on guidance. The Government has to be more proactive in reaching out to small businesses which may not have the capacity and resources to find out about government help, or to apply for such schemes and implement productivity measures. It should work with business associations to apply best practices, for example, implementing self-service model at food outlets, introducing new innovations, pushing for efficiency gains and quality standards. Through these, perhaps, they can even enjoy efficiency of scale in some innovations and implementation of such measures.
The Government also has to do more handholding as many SME bosses may not be proficient in English or simply do not know what possibilities are available out there. It is difficult to expect them to transform if they cannot imagine what is possible. The Government may even have to take on a bigger role in conducting horizon scanning of best practices and innovations, and share them proactively with the SMEs.
Second on flexibility. The Government should allow more flexible deployment of staff. For example, a coffee shop owner may have two coffee shops, but these coffee shops are registered separately by virtue of their different locations where they are sited. Can this coffee shop owner be given the flexibility to deploy his foreign workers between the two locations, depending on the prevailing business conditions? We also need better definition of sectors as the types of businesses increase in complexity and have a more calibrated set of rules governing particular sub-sectors. The Government should also allow businesses to retain already trained foreign workers, whom they had invested in, so that they need not re-train their new workers again and again.
Third on stability. Efforts to curb foreign manpower growth can bring instability to our SMEs. Hence, maintaining greater certainty and stability in the rest of the business operating environment will be helpful. Keeping business costs low for about one to three years will give businesses the confidence and capacity to change. For coffee shops, for example, rental cost is almost always on the top of the list of business costs. If they cannot cope, they risk passing on the cost to consumers, who are mainly the lower and middle-income groups. Hence, rental cost can be a major driver of inflation. Therefore, I would urge the Government to offer rental rebates to SMEs and of those who rent from the Government, to keep the rental rate steady.
Another area to consider is how to disincentivise workers from job-hopping so that there is better predictability. For example, some business owners told me that Malaysian workers, who are apparently preferred over workers of other nationalities, have a much higher tendency to job hop as they know that they are indeed much preferred. Hence, they requested that the Government set rules to prevent such job-hopping practices, for example, requiring a six-month break when a Malaysian worker quits one employer to go to another. Essentially, what this means is that after a Malaysian worker has quit one employer, this person has to go back to Malaysia for six months before coming back again to work for the new employer.
I should make it clear that by helping SMEs, it is not about helping them to maximise profits. When SMEs fold, it is not just the owners going out of business. It is not just foreigners losing their jobs and being sent back to their own home towns. Helping SMEs means safeguarding the businesses and jobs that many Singaporeans have and helping their families, that is, Singaporean families, to preserve their livelihoods. According to the SPRING website which I just checked today, the fact remains that today about 99% of enterprises in Singapore are SMEs. And out of every 10 workers, about seven are hired by the SMEs. This is a significant statistic and it also goes to show and give us a sense of proportion of the kind of impact that Singaporeans may feel if SMEs cannot survive this change. I think this is something that we can all think about.
Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak briefly in Mandarin.
[Start of translation of Mandarin Speech by the Parl secretariat; the Mandarin version is not published as part of hansard yet]
Mdm Speaker, Sir, this Budget Statement continues to restrict the inflow and growth of foreign workers and the rationale behind the tightening of foreign worker policy has been clearly explained and discussed in the last few months.
Restricting the growth of foreign workers is a matter of time and because of the tightening of foreign worker policies, many SMEs have complained bitterly. For some of them, it appears to be a matter of life and death. Some feel that they have been forced into a corner and they have to make a livelihood elsewhere.
This year’s Budget Statement is not just about restricting the inflow of foreign workers, it has also introduced some goodies. However, I believe the goodies are not enough. I believe that the Government can provide greater guidance, apply greater flexibility and introduce more stable policies. For example, the Government can provide greater assistance and guidance to help businesses transform. Secondly, the Government should allow them to enjoy greater flexibility in terms of manpower, especially in the deployment of foreign workers. Thirdly, provide rental rebate to help SMEs reduce the business cost.
For SMEs, the pressure of not having enough workers is great. Just as Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned in his speech, although there are many opportunities or “lobangs”, there are not enough people, not enough headcount for businesses to grab these "lobangs" and opportunities. Under such circumstances, I believe SMEs will change in order to survive. However, if they have too many worries, if there are already too many problems that they cannot resolve, then they will really be unable to change. I believe this is not what the Government wants to see.
I would like to state clearly that the purpose of helping SMEs is not to help them increase profits. If SMEs are unable to survive, not only will the bosses of SMEs lose their rice bowls, not only will the foreign workers be sent back to their home countries, but also the Singaporean employees will suffer.
Earlier, in my English speech, I mentioned that 99% of enterprises in Singapore are SMEs and out of 10 workers, seven are Singaporeans. So, from this perspective, SMEs are very important to the livelihood of Singaporeans. So, if the SMEs cannot transform successfully, cannot survive and continue to employ Singaporeans, many Singaporeans who are gainfully employed may be displaced and lose their jobs, their family members and family lives will be greatly affected. Hence, I would like to appeal to the Government to actively seek ways and means to help SMEs transform, and to overcome the difficult situation that they are facing.
[End of translation of Mandarin Speech]
The second area that I would talk about is to help elderly age with greater confidence and dignity.
I strongly welcome the measures announced in Budget 2013 that are targeted at our seniors. I believe these measures bring much needed help. Still, it is important to ensure that these initiatives, such as the Eldercare Fund, the Senior’s Mobility and Enabling Fund, and integrated eldercare service centres, are made easily accessible to the elderly, so that the targeted groups will actually benefit from them. Many elderly do not know what the schemes are, who can apply and how to apply. Hence, the Government needs to mount a more determined and extensive outreach drive. A positive example is the CHAS publicity drive. The outreach should also be aimed at removing any potential stigma of applying for these funds and help schemes.
There are two specific issues that I would like to briefly touch on in this area of helping elderly age with greater confidence and dignity. The first has got to do with the CPF. The Government should allow greater flexibility in the use of Medisave with a higher annual cap and lower minimum sum. Some elderly feel extremely uncomfortable with having to apply for Medifund and being unable to use their own savings in the CPF. They also fear that they will have to incur out-of-pocket expenses (OPE) if they fail to secure financial assistance, such as the Medifund.
These OPE can, perversely, lead to worse health outcomes and greater health expenditure at a later date. A patient who defaults control of chronic diseases, like high blood pressure and diabetes, is only storing up more expensive catastrophic medical problems for later. For example, early diabetes can be controlled with minimum organ damage. If uncontrolled, tragic consequences such as blindness, heart disease, kidney failure and limb amputations may follow. Out of pocket expenses must not discourage elderly Singaporeans from making the right decisions for their health. Hence, while the Government should be applauded for looking at how the out of pocket expenses can be reduced, I also hope that more flexibility in the use of Medisave can be looked into as well.
Next, for seniors who are 55 years old and above but who are still working, can we not allow them to tap on their CPF monies – not just their Medisave – in a more flexible manner? I have come across some residents who are just at the threshold of 55 years old, and face the minimum sum requirement being imposed on them. However, due to certain unexpected circumstances, they needed to purchase a flat and did not have sufficient cash to pay for it. Nonetheless, they are still working and are able to continue to top up their CPF accounts. More flexibility in the use of the CPF for our seniors will give them a greater sense of comfort and confidence.
The second issue that I would like to raise has to do with housing, and this is partially linked to the use of CPF as well. The concept of a Studio Apartment is good. However, the requirement for upfront cash payment of 100% is too stringent. Some seniors, for whatever reasons, have to seek their own housing. Studio apartment is the option for them, as some are not eligible or unable to find a co-tenant to rent a HDB flat with. Their cash savings may be significant but insufficient. However, they have money in their CPF, and some who are still working will be able to contribute back to their own CPF later. For example, I recently came across a case in which a senior lady, who was working part-time as well, with a mentally handicapped son, who had to right-size to a Studio Apartment. However, she could only pay for the Studio Apartment after she had sold off her current 3-room flat, which they were still living in. In essence, she needs to do a contra arrangement. But this is apparently not allowed by HDB.
For this and other cases, can the HDB allow a more flexible payment arrangement for them? Alternatively, can the HDB provide an arrangement that helps to synchronise the sale of an existing flat with the moving in to the new Studio Apartment? Securing a retirement nest is important to many senior citizens and I believe most would much prefer to live with their own children or families members if they have a choice. However, sometimes circumstances may dictate otherwise, and we should not make it unnecessarily difficult for them to own their homes.
Another priority is to cater to the needs of the single elderly. My observation is that there is a rising trend of more single elderly looking to rent HDB flats. Currently, they can only do so under the Joint Singles Scheme. The rationale for disallowing only one person to occupy one unit, and thereby maximising the use of the unit, is understandable as there is a finite supply of rental flats. However, we need to institute proper safeguards to protect our seniors. Let me share another case that I encountered recently. This case was about a 73-year-old elderly Singaporean who was co-renting a flat from HDB with another single elderly. The monthly rent was only $26 – this is to be paid to HDB – but the latter made him pay another $185 per month to her as “rental fee”. The latter had also apparently disallowed him to use electricity and forced him to shower at a nearby swimming complex. He was so scared of losing that unit that he endured it. Had the case not been surfaced to me by a kind-hearted lady in my ward, he would have continued to suffer in silence. Now, apart from this, stories of how single elderly would rather sleep at the void deck than face their co-tenants are also not uncommon.
Hence, I think we need measures to be put in place to prevent bullying of the elderly, and ensuring a peaceful and safe living environment for all. For instance, the authorities could set up the dos and don’ts upfront, impose mandatory community mediation when disputes occur, and impose penalties of differential severity on the bully. Also, it is really challenging to require single senior elderly to search for suitable co-tenants on their own. Often, HDB is kind enough to provide a list of interested tenants so that the senior applicants can call them on their own and try to strike a deal. However, the common feedback that I receive is that this process is not effective as the “candidates” on the list tend to find ways of rejecting one another, thereby unduly prolonging the process. Hence, can the HDB consider giving an additional boost and do the matching for them? I anticipate concerns but I think this idea can be considered. First, the “candidates” would have to be assessed to be eligible and in real need of a flat by the HDB in order to rent it. This is already done under the current procedures by HDB. Second, when HDB does the matching and allocation, it will minimise time wasted; also, HDB can do pre-screening to determine who might be suitable to live with whom, thereby reducing the risk of conflicts later.
With HDB doing the matching, there is certainty that a co-tenant will be found and, thus, for the single elderly who are currently homeless, they can move into the unit first while waiting for the HDB to send in a co-tenant later. In essence, we need to do our utmost to enable our elderly to secure a nest for their retirement and live safely and peacefully in their golden years.
And the third area − which I will do it very quickly − is on mental health. I spoke on this during last year’s debate and I am glad that the MOH has made several moves on this front. However, I urge the Government to continue to pay attention to this area. I think more can be done, and I will elaborate more on this during the Committee of Supply debate. But I hope that help for those with mental health needs will always have a special place in the Finance Minister’s mind, heart, and coffers too.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget is a step in the right direction. I hope that the Finance Minister will not stop here, but will continue to make budgets in this vein. At its core, this Budget represents a new philosophy – that Singapore is not about trying to maximise growth, but sharing outcomes fairly, and moving together as one people; that Singapore is not just about enabling those who are able to get ahead, but is about bringing everyone along throughout the journey. Our SMEs, our seniors, those with mental health needs – they are all part of our community and deserve our help. Pressing ahead without them is not an option. Instead, we must continue to dedicate resources to help them cope with the changes taking place in our economy and society, and deliver programmes to better their lives. Again, with that, I support the Budget.
