Debate on Annual Budget 2018

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Budget proposed by Minister Heng and his team.

I would like to speak on what makes for good, better and the best types of budgets.

First, on what constitute good budgets. Let me take reference from some readings from the International Monetary Funds (IMF).

The IMF blog in April 2017 attempted to define several key principles underlying good fiscal policies and smart fiscal policies. The blog read that in a world of dramatic economic disruptions and globalisation, smart and good fiscal policies facilitate change, harness a country's growth potential and protect people who are hurt by the disruptions. There is a call by IMF for more room to install more growth-friendly, inclusive, strong and prudent fiscal policies around the world. National budgets are the key means by which fiscal measures, such as spendings and taxation, are implemented.

By world standard, Singapore's Budget 2018 is growth-friendly, relevant, futuristic and prudent. Budget 2018 continues with the aim of building a vibrant and innovative economy through a slew of more than 20 initiatives to anchor Singapore as a global-Asia enterprise node. It continues with its aggressive plan to train more Singaporeans in a world of technological and business disruptions.

Budget 2018 also passes the test of promoting inclusion. It not only supports employers who give wage increases to Singaporeans; it provides greater financial support to students from lower and middle income families through higher Edusave and financial and meals programmes. It continues with the various rebate schemes for household expenditure, promises a permanent GST rebate scheme and shares $700 million of last year's Budget surplus with every citizen.

But Budget 2018 is, at the same time, prudent. By putting a cap to Ministry budgets, it encourages public servants to do more with less, respecting that money is hard-earned, whether at national or personal levels. In addition, by having the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) coordinate activities for seniors and strengthening the Social Service Offices (SSOs) to link up the Many Helping Hands on the ground, Budget 2018 reduces overlaps and directs resources to where support is most needed on the ground.

In a sense, Budget 2018, Mr Deputy Speaker, is somewhat "better than good".

I believe that better national budgets are those which confront issues head on; and takes the courage to put in measures important, sometimes unpopular, to secure our future; going beyond the here and now.

The team behind Budget 2018 took courage by announcing the 2% GST hike, creating what some analysts call a constant "thorn" in the side of the ruling Government, for the next several years to come. But, at the same time, it promises Singaporeans that those in the lower and average-income brackets will not have to bear the cost of this GST hike because it has the permanent GST rebate feature it comes with.

As a better-than-good budget, Budget 2018 incorporates, too, measures that align behaviours to the values that our society wishes to promote: the Proximity Housing grant, for instance, to encourage more family members to live with or near each other; the Carbon Tax, for instance, in support of the global and national movement to create a green and more liveable city; the raising of the cap and matching grants to the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) so that they can raise more funds to meet gaps in the local district and support more assist, bond and connect initiatives.

On the best budget. For Budget 2018 to be the best ever, I have several inputs for the Minister to consider for incorporation, especially during implementation. Not all these inputs fall under the direct purview of the Ministry of Finance, but I am hoping the Minister will help to facilitate some of these inputs. Most of them concern mindsets because, as they say, the real battlefield is often in our minds.

First, on a culture of innovation. As a member of the Council for Future Economy, I have personally witnessed the painstaking efforts by Council members and their sub-committees in developing Industry Transformation Maps to anchor Singapore as an innovation, technology and enterprise node. But maps are maps, and they need tangible support and resources to become realities.

Budget 2018, with its slew of 17 measures in this space, is certainly moving in the right direction to support the making of a vibrant and innovative economy.

However, Sir, a vibrant and innovative economy is not developed from Budget allocations and programmes. It is not developed from only speaking up, and Member Mr Louis Ng spoke about that earlier, although that is a good starting point. It requires a conducive setting of a culture of pervasive innovation, and we know that cultures are not built overnight. In fact, research says that a purposeful attempt at culture-building takes at least three to five years.

As in raising a child, fostering a culture of pervasive innovation takes a village. Fostering pervasive innovation requires more than plug-and-play solutions. It needs a whole society to create an environment that encourages and celebrates a sense of playing, tinkering and experimenting, something that pre-schools, like My First Skool and MOE Kindergartens, are starting to do.

So, I think Budget 2018 should actually allocate more resources to do a deep independent dive on what is stopping us from seeing more pervasive innovation in, one, the private sector, especially amongst our SMEs; two, in education institutions from young to older ones, and families, and especially, in the public service which is watching over this space.

In my years as a Member of Parliament, I suspect the key hindrance to fostering more pervasive innovation in the public service is a four-letter word "FEAR" – fear of criticism by the public, by online critics, by even Members of this House from both the ruling party or otherwise; fear of making mistakes, fear of failing, fear of being judged and punished; or even fear of making it to the Auditor-General's Office's annual "name and shame" list of agencies and staff who are less than perfect.

Another hindrance to fostering a culture of pervasive innovation is likely the lack of vision and limitations caused by existing processes and tools.

There is a story of a man who went fishing. Each time he caught a big fish, he will throw it back into the water. And if it is a smaller fish, he kept it. So, an observer nearby found this incredulous and asked him why he did that – why throw back the big fish and keep the small fish? And this man replied, "Sir, you do not understand. The dish in my kitchen for the fish is only seven inches long, and if the fish is any bigger, then it would not fit in my dish!" That is why he threw it back.

Sir, such is the mentality of people who lack imagination and limit themselves and other people in the pursuit of innovation.

The question then remains: how can we achieve a better balance between being fearless and visionary and having to be accountable and answer for one's actions, especially failure? But if we do not settle this issue and find that balance, then we will continue to say that we want innovation in our society, in our country but, unknowingly through our mind-sets, actions, systems and processes, reward those who play safe and not try anything new nor rock the boat.

I, therefore, seek the Minister's views on how we can allocate some resources to analyse the root causes of why a culture of innovation is not pervasive in the various segments of the Singapore society. And that may lead us to having more results and outcomes in trying to build a culture of innovation and ensuring innovative outcomes in all of our different aspects of the Budget.

Second, on asset expenditure, a 2017 report by the Centre of Creative Leadership says that newer business models are presenting threats to traditional models, and the traditional models are the ones that are centred around assets, for example, a hotel property; services, for example, a recruitment company or online retail mall or technology products such as an ERP system. This report states that in a rapidly sharing economy, a "network orchestra" model that provides platforms to bring partners together for transactions and collaborations is almost now a new normal. Hence, the rise of highly valued assets which do not themselves own physical assets, companies such as Uber, AirBnB, Expedia and the like, are on the rise.

I, therefore, cannot help but notice that, in Budget 2018, several of the big-ticket infrastructure expenditure revolve around physical infrastructure – the high-speed rail, the airport and the mega Tuas port. Needless to say, to operate these physical assets would require the corresponding software infrastructure. But there still ought to be a sharper focus on creating non-physical assets and investments. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at an IMF conference just a couple of days ago in Jakarta, spoke about the huge opportunity offered by the vision of a single digital economy for ASEAN and the potential of Fintech and other financial innovations.

If Singapore aspires to be a smart city and nation, playing big not just in our own country but in the region or world-wide, what non-physical assets, especially in digitalisation, are we investing in and creating? What are we doing to position ourselves as a leader in the provision and export of non-physical assets to serve not only ASEAN but the rest of the world? Are there any ways by which good solutions that we use internally in Government or in public service can be developed with export as a goal and monetised to add to the national coffer?

I know, for instance, of good work done by MOE and GovTech in education, such as learning management systems, that I see has the potential to go beyond internal consumption, or even healthcare solutions, for that matter.

I, therefore, seek the views of the Minister on how more balance can be granted to the development or investment in non-physical infrastructure assets and how good Government capabilities and solutions can be developed for export as one of the sources for our national revenue.

Thirdly, on building a future for the vulnerable. In executing our five CDCs' charter to enhance awareness and adoption of SkillsFuture, I find that not enough Singaporeans actually believe or fully appreciate the speed of change and the risk we are all in in a disruptive new economy – jobs that have disappeared or will be disappearing, like word processors and typists; data entry operators; some travel agents; some insurance agents; jobs that we see today that never existed before – digital market specialists; drone operators; content creators; data scientists; app developers; Uber drivers; driverless car engineers.

At the macro level, even if the economy looks good and unemployment rate looks good – lo, Minister Lim Swee Say had famously said many times that the labour market is not short of jobs; it is short of citizens who possess the appropriate skills, the right skills, to fill the jobs of the new economy.

If ordinary Singaporeans are affected by all these massive changes, what more those who are not as mobile, not as adaptable, not as culturally-sensitive to work in the global market or cognitively able – the vulnerable and the lowly-skilled, not out of choice but out of circumstances, what will happen to them?

How do we ensure that, indeed, when the tide rises, all boats will rise? In the context of the Singapore economy, as opportunities abound due to technology, due to the rise of the Asian/ASEAN economy, how do we ensure that each Singaporean has a boat to ride the tide with?

I, therefore, seek the Minister to consider if a taskforce or a workgroup can be set up within the Council for Future Economy to specifically seek job opportunities for the vulnerable, the lowly-skilled elderly, the disabled and those who are not as endowed, those who are at risk or vulnerable, so that they will not be left behind, so that they do not simply just become welfare recipients.

Fourthly, Sir, on bringing out the best in Singaporeans. I am not certain how many Singaporeans, especially those in the middle and higher income brackets, are appreciative of Budget 2018's gift of the SG ang pow as a sharing of surplus from the last financial year. But I am almost certain that there will be no end of critics who say the ang pow is too little or too much.

A $100 SG Bonus "hongbao", for some, could mean just an additional dinner out for the family or for himself. But to another citizen, the bonus adds to the cashflow to purchase that milk powder or diapers for the family baby or disabled elderly parent.

So, let us bring out the best in Singaporeans. Just a small request. I seek the Minister to give Singaporeans a choice to donate their SG "hongbao" (the bonus) to their favourite charities, before the SG Bonus is credited to citizens.

Sir, Budget 2018 should help move Singapore from success to significance and bring out the best in each of us. This is not a job for the Government alone. It is a job for all of us – Singaporeans. It is for all of us, as a country, to imagine that we can become even better versions of ourselves.

There is the story of a farmer who often wins awards for growing the best corn in his locale. So, when a journalist asked him for his secret of success for growing this best corn, the farmer replied, to the journalist's surprise, that he shared the corns with his neighbour farmers. The journalist was surprised and asked, "How can you, Mr Farmer, afford to share your best seeds with your neighbours when they are your competitors?" To this, the farmer explained, "Sir, you need to know this. The wind picks up pollen from ripening corns and blows them from field to field. If my neighbours grow inferior corn, the cross-pollination will affect the quality of my own corn."

And herein lies the story of successful people and nations – why they should never just stick to Success, worldly Success but move to Significance. Like the farmer, if we wish to grow good corn, we must help our neighbours grow good corn. Life is all connected. If we want a peaceful life, we must help our neighbours be peaceful as well. If we want to do well, we must seek to help others do well too – it is not a zero-sum game.

In the world of business, I saw many top busy local business leaders, some of them in the Council for Future Economy, some in the CDC I work with. They are busy, business leaders but they gave unselfishly to causes beyond themselves – leaders like Mr Robert Yap from YCH who helped start the Logistics Academy for the logistics sector; many of whom are his competitors. Leaders like Mr Vincent Tan of Select Group who is unselfish in encouraging the F&B sector to try out new technology and SkillsFuture initiatives; leaders like Mr Kang Puay Seng and his partner who during their days starting Mr Bean trained and supported adults with disabilities to prepare and sell soya bean products; and leaders like Mr Wee Ee Cheong and Ms Wee Wei Ling who used their business platforms in the banks and hotels to create jobs for the disabled. There are many more giants like them with whom I engage in my CDC and charity work.

In North Carolina in the United States, students in a school’s technology centre create prosthetic arms using 3D printing for others in need and at the same time, hone their advanced manufacturing skills.

Singapore, as the chair of ASEAN this year, beyond the regional digitalisation plan that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman spoke about in the IMF meeting this week; Singapore should look into setting up a fund to encourage Singaporeans to go serve others in ASEAN. Two young staff of mine in the CDC, Caleb and Sherlyn Yap, a couple, help villagers in Thailand and Cambodia start chicken farms as a livelihood. Each year they use their annual leave to do that. I see in this young Singaporean couple, not only kindness, contentment but also a sense of purpose and a sense of meaning.

Budget 2018 had put in six measures, no less, to foster a spirit of giving.

My fellow Mayors and I are thankful that Minister had paid some attention to the CDCs and increased the funding cap so that Government will match grants for donations the CDCs are able to raise. It will come in useful for the emerging and existing needs that we identify in each of our Districts.

In Central Singapore CDC where I serve, we started a series called ENOUGH TALK to encourage people to not just criticise but take action on issues that they care about such as low-skilled elderly who might be doing very manual difficult work at the hawker centres and toilets; such as cardboard collectors; such as the homeless; such as the hungry; such as urging Singapore to support climate action by simply going "plastic-light" or finding ways to reduce styrofoam plates and boxes used at the many buffets and food distribution charity activities for the needy.

Our Camp Explore programme curates good enrichment classes, holiday programmes. I remember Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Kuik Shiao Yin have been talking about these to close the inequality gap.

Good enrichment classes for children from lower income families so they too have equal access to opportunities and holiday enrichment opportunities like their peers from the more affluent families.

Therefore, the CDCs and other members of the SG Cares movement encourage Singaporeans to join us to help our neighbours grow good crop. They say it is possible to give away and become wealthier, richer. It is also possible to hold on too tight to what we own and lose them all. So, Singapore, do give in order to become wealthier.

In conclusion, Sir, I thank the Minister and his team for this “better-than-good” Budget. I know the team had put in tremendous efforts seeking views, way before the Budget was stitched; and mulled over the many options and even spent much time preparing communications materials so Singaporeans will comprehend and partake in the post-Budget discussions. For that, please accept my deepest appreciation. I strongly support the Budget, Sir.