Sir, let me first publicly thank the many ground inputs that were given to me when I polled a network of bankers, lawyers, grassroots leaders, residents, hoteliers, MNC and SME business operators. Majority of the ground feedback has been highly favourable. The Resilience Package covered many bases from businesses to individuals to even the charity sector. Some even deem this Budget as one of the most progressive Government intervention packages in the world. For that, I thank our competent Finance Minister and his team.

Sir, I will touch on four specific topics: On national reserves; the Jobs Credit Scheme; the SRI and the need for assessment and recalibration.

Sir, the drawing down of the national reserves is a significant decision and has silenced the many proponents whom I am very sure did not expect this. At a youth dialogue held last week and chaired by my colleague, hon. Member Christopher de Souza, two key concerns stood out. One, the fear of our young people who worry that they will be jobless upon graduation. Two, the young people also expressed concerns over the impact of the unprecedented step of dipping into national reserves on future generations.

Much has been said that these are extraordinary times and drawing down our reserves is the way to go to avoid irreparable damage to our economy. But, Sir, it has been largely projected that the current crisis will last at least two to three years. Bill Gates has just sent out his 2009 Annual Letter with the message that the impact of the current economic crisis will be felt for a long time, and he is optimistic that the problems we face today will be behind us if we take a longer timeframe, such as five to 10 years.

Sir, if things are going to get worse before they get better, will we be further drawing down our reserves for the next several years? I would like to ask the Minister to shed some light on the specific criteria by which recommendations to the President to draw down our reserves are made. I would ask him to also consider and maybe report to us the necessary post-recession steps to systematically top up the reserves that were drawn down.

Sir, the million-dollar question that even the MOF team could not answer as at now is – will Jobs Credit be translated to save jobs or would some companies retrench anyway, just like Chartered Semiconductor in the face of its massive losses?

With a no-strings-attached generous scheme like this, how can we avoid the scenario of what happened in the US where some of the public bailout money found its way to funding up to US$18 billion in Wall Street bonuses or fancy corporate parties? Even the US Congress has introduced legislation just last week to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts Federal bailout money.

By the same token, Sir, there should be accountability too on the part of recipients of the Jobs Credit Scheme to ensure that our precious reserves are not simply fattening the pockets of shareholders and top executives who are paid broadly on the basis of profit sharing.

Is there a need to inflate the coffers of healthy enterprises that are not at risk of losing their employees? Would a broad-based blunt Jobs Credit Scheme simply means moving our reserves into the wrong pockets and creating windfalls for some; at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of target recipients especially those who are vulnerable – the elderly, the disabled and the needy retrenched?

Sir, one of my young married residents who is hearing impaired (deaf) was laid off last December by a bank, not DBS, I might add. Even after my appealing to the CDC, the NTUC and several other banks for help, she is unfortunately still jobless. Her mobile phone (because she is deaf) which is her main form of communication, was disconnected because of unpaid bills. She updated me through a borrowed phone and this is what her SMS read, "My past experience in my job search made me feel hopeless due to (my) deafness. Hearing bosses will not employ deaf people who need jobs badly. Walk-in interviews make deaf people feel depressed cos we are rejected due to lack of communication. I mailed many times and there is still no response or response saying no available jobs." She ended off "Sigh …"

Sir, when I sent in a Lunar New Year gift to help her husband (who is mute) and her young son, the couple was reluctant and they felt bad receiving the gift. All the couple wants is dignity through a paying job! Surely there is some room in our bonanza budget of $20.5 billion to help genuinely vulnerable workers to keep their jobs and sustain them.

I have four suggestions, Sir, to sharpen some of the blunt edges of the Jobs Credit Scheme.

Suggestion 1: Refine the Jobs Credit Scheme to attach strings so that there is a partial refund should retrenchments still occur.

Suggestion 2: Set up a Task Force to innovatively address the potentially explosive situation of the thousands of job seekers who would be graduating from our universities, the polytechnics and the ITEs. Maybe include them in a modified SPUR programme; or create ways by which they can make a living such as creating contract teams and deploying them for specific tasks in the public sector or, better still, the people sector.

Suggestion 3: Tier the Jobs Credit Scheme so that companies who retain the elderly and the disabled get a higher quantum than the current 12%.

Suggestion 4: Introduce a total solution for the needy retrenched. I use the term "needy retrenched" because I know of retrenched employees who had been accorded very generous severance packages that will last them a few years. Again, we cannot afford to be too blunt in the way we design help and a form of maybe "means testing" will be necessary.

For the needy retrenched, I ask the Minister to consider the following:

1. Provide a grant of up to $300 per month per eligible Singaporean for as long as the employers' Jobs Credit Scheme is running or when a job is found, whichever is earlier;

2. Secure an integrated package from the HDB, Town Councils and Singapore Power to institute measures, such as housing loan restructuring, deferments or payment by instalments for this target group;

3. Deploy career coaches and placement officers at career help desks at all community clubs and through a centralised portal;

4. Make public in multiple channels an updated list of available jobs through the various media;

5. Conduct a systems study to reduce the overlaps and inefficiency in the macro amazing maze of CDCs, ethnic-based self-help groups, grassroots organisations, VWOs, family service centres and charity bodies.

Are we being hopeful that the SRI will translate to more loans for companies? Sir, financial institutions and the Governments do not answer to the same drumbeat or mission. As poet Rudyard Kipling said in 1892, "Oh East is East, West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

A respected banker told me this, "Banks are not in the business of saving failing companies nor is it their objective to save jobs, as what governments are expected to do. At the most, banks can identify viable but perhaps mismanaged or marginal companies and help them restructure and turn around so that the banks can get their money back." This banker also said, "Government’s consideration is not purely commercial, of course, and it remains to be seen if the SRI in its current form will reap any results."

This is borne by the painful experiences of some of the SME operators I know. An entrepreneur I know in retail shared with me his experience since October last year. He said this, "Despite an 80% increase in our business turnover and more than two times increase in net profit, our main bank cut our facility by 70%. Another bank also removed our OD line." This SME owner further said, "We approached a number of banks for new financing but none agreed to extend the line. The reasons quoted were unfavourable market conditions, low cash liquidity in our balance sheet and tighter control by the banks’ credit departments." He further lamented, "Even though we have a good business model and already secured a number of big firm orders in hand, the credit departments still refused to grant a new line. They fail to appreciate our business operations … and even after the Budget announcement, bank managers still seem hesitant to review our (application)."

Are these quotes anecdotal? I do not think so. At a Parliament sitting last November, Finance Minister Tharman himself pointed out, and I quote:

"It will be inappropriate for the Government to direct banks to lend, or to get involved in who they should lend to. These are commercial decisions which the banks themselves have to make, based on their assessment of the risks as well as the relationships that they maintain with their customers. Our banks make these assessments carefully, and take into account both the short-term risks and their long-term interests in keeping their customers. We should continue to leave these decisions to them. However, what Government can and will do is to enhance the various Government schemes that are in place to help our SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) retain access to credit."

Sir, I totally agree with the Minister’s comments and it pays to hone and be more targeted at saving our SMEs and go further and nurture the promising ones.

Sir, it has been widely acknowledged that SMEs are an integral and significant part of Singapore’s economy. I have worked and consulted with both multi-national firms and the local conglomerates before and I can testify that there is inherently much deeper management and technical bench depth in successful MNCs. Besides the need for deeper management and technical bench depth, SMEs usually lack the ability to achieve economies of scale and expand beyond the domestic markets. There is often an under-utilisation of technology in these firms and they face difficulties in competing with the Government, GLCs and the bigger private sector players in attracting talents. Some of them do have promising business models, good dare and savvy, worth more than a second look.

Sir, the days of solely counting on MNC investments to Singapore as a major weapon in our survival toolkit is over. Markets like India and China are attractive destinations today for MNCs because of their large domestic markets and bigger talent pools from which to select. Neighbouring countries, known to admire Singapore, had for many years, adopted the same fiscal and other measures not just to attract but seduce the MNCs to their countries. To run ahead of the pack, it pays for us to be contrarian and develop higher resilience for our economy through more aggressive Government efforts to nurture promising SMEs so that they can become MNCs.

Sir, my key suggestions to Government are to redirect some resources to nurture the SME sector. Groom as many of them as possible to become MNCs! Move from defence to aggressively help them prepare for attack when the economy rebounds!

For a start, as in the alleged mis-selling of structured products, the Ministry should consider similar measures, such as the appointment of independent persons to expediently oversee the complaints handling and resolution process in each financial institution for unsuccessful loan application by SMEs.

Two, develop a special task force with the sole purpose of nurturing promising SMEs to multinational firms. I think of SMEs like the Promising Brand Award winners like Mr Bean, with injection of capital, expertise and technology, can be scaled and become the Asian version of Starbucks globally. I think of organisations such as the NTUC Childcare of which I am a board member, and I wonder why we would choose to invest in ABC, the failed Australian chain of childcare centres with its charismatic owner. For NTUC Childcare, which is the largest childcare operator in Singapore, an injection of investments in strategic areas, such as curriculum portals or e-learning for students or web-based teacher training packages, would take it to a different league.

Sir, I say we go aggressive and turn the initials of SMEs to our very own MNCs!

Sir, I applaud the Minister for being decisive and swift in releasing the Resilience Package, and I will be the first to admit that hindsight vision is always 20/20 and it is always easier to critique than to construct. Nevertheless, I believe that there is some bluntness in this Budget that can be sharpened so that we can ensure that precious resources are effectively and efficiently applied.

As at today, very few can forecast the actual impact of the various initiatives to stall the crisis. Sir, there ought to be a clearer line of sight between the funds that we are investing with the outcomes that we desire. I urge the Minister to conduct a regular assessment of the impact of the schemes which should be further honed or abandoned if any initiative does not serve the objective.

On this note, I would also ask the House and the rest of Singapore to appreciate Government's need to be bold and swift in moments like these and cheer rather than just jeer the team. Let us unite and support the Finance team so that they can test and learn quickly what works best and turn the blunt parang to a surgical scalpel to hasten the healing of any wounds sustained in this crisis.

In conclusion, Sir, if we stay united as a people and stop thinking of "What’s in it for me?". If we single mindedly march toward a common aspiration to emerge as a stronger Singapore when this tsunami is over, we can say, like John Keynes in his essay "The Great Slump of 1930" that, "This is a nightmare, which will pass away in the morning."

Sir, I support the Budget.