Mr Speaker, for my Budget Debate speech this year, I would start with the issue of our ongoing efforts for Green Transition, followed by the issue of support for adults with disabilities, before touching on a few issues relating to healthcare and support for our seniors.
Our Ongoing Efforts for Green Transition
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister announced in his Budget Speech that Singapore submitted our new climate target i.e. Singapore’s 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, to the United Nations Framework 2 weeks ago and that we have committed to reducing our emissions to between 45 and 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035.
The NDC is a concrete commitment we have made to the international process, and I am glad that for the first time, the government has committed to a downward trajectory in the country’s emissions after the planned peak in 2028.
On our latest NDC, I would like to ask how much our plan is aligned with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C warming target. If it isn’t aligned, how much warming is our plan consistent with, ie. is it a 2°C warming world, 3°C warming world and so on?
Second, can the government clarify what is stopping us from bringing forward our transition? Is it possible to accelerate negotiations on renewable imports with our neighbours? On transport, which I often speak on in this house, I hope the government can incentivise a faster shift towards vehicle electrification for private vehicles, as well as to expedite the electrification of our public fleets given that it has more direct control over it. A Straits Times article on 12 November 2024 reported that the number of public buses running on batteries have risen to 420, which is 7% of the current overall fleet.
I have also previously spoken on my concern for the slower electrification of our logistics vehicles including lorries and other heavy vehicles. I welcome PM’s announcement of a new Heavy Vehicle Zero Emission Scheme and an Electric Heavy Vehicle Charger Grant providing incentives for the purchase of heavy vehicles and co-funding of charging infrastructure. I hope these incentives will help push the needle on heavy vehicle conversion. I look forward to MOT’s elaboration of these features and other clarifications during COS.
Mr Speaker, in this Budget, about a year since its launch, the PM also doubled the Future Energy Fund to $10B. I would like the government to explain how each disbursement is accelerating our energy transition, as well as to give more details on the nature of projects that have been funded.
Thirdly, the NDC does not explain the proportion to which novel tools such as carbon capture utilisation and storage and carbon credits will contribute to the downward trend in emissions after 2028. To what extent will Singapore be relying on them? Is the government’s view that such tools will be as predictable as incentivising efficiency and emissions reductions through higher carbon taxes from 2028 onwards?
On carbon capture utilisation and storage, the responses to the public consultation on the NDC included concerns on the use of carbon capture and storage, which may not be fully proven and difficult to scale. Can the government explain how it took into account feedback on the NDC from the public, who are key stakeholders in the climate crisis?
Fifth, my understanding is that emissions from international aviation and shipping are not covered under our climate targets. Is there a timeline for when our targets will eventually cover those two sectors? In this Budget, the government will provide $5B more to the Changi Airport Development Fund, some of which will go to T5, which PM has said that when completed, will increase our airport capacity by 50%. While Singaporeans may all look forward to our air hub expanding, the 50 per cent increase in capacity will, if it goes according to plan, mean a staggering increase in flights and consequently aviation emissions. What are our government’s plans of cutting aviation emissions per plane seat so that we will not inadvertently be accelerating climate change with the increase in airport capacity and flights? How will our Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint be stepped up in the next few years to mitigate the increase in aviation emissions after T5 opens?
Mr Speaker, I have spoken previously on the green transition of our petrochemicals industry. Our linkages in the “brown” economy are still deep for now even as we see in 2024 the significant sale by Shell of their assets in Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island. I would like to seek the government’s update on the green transition of our petrochemicals industry, where we stand now with the Shell sale and other developments in the petrochemicals industry. Are there any shifts towards green transition folIowing the sale which the government is able to provide some updates? I would also like to ask about the manpower transition efforts for our workers in this industry, whether following Shell’s sale or generally, what are being done to transition our workers as the industry undergoes green transition. I have asked about this previously and I hope we will get some assuring answers from MOM this time.
Mr Speaker, I look forward to the government’s responses and elaboration to the concerns I have raised, whether at the Budget Debate or at COS. Although global geopolitics has changed dramatically over the past year, climate change is still the number one existential risk to the world and to Singapore. To be clear, the Workers Party supports ambitious climate action. We have and will continue to back the government on good, effective climate policy.
Empowering Persons with disabilities
Mr Speaker, I welcome PM’s announcement that he will provide more support for adults with disabilities. At my Budget Debate speech last year, I have said that as a society there is a lot more that we can and should do for adults with disabilities among us, in particular adults with serious special needs, as well as their caregivers. I spoke on doing more for the care and education of adults with special needs including post-sped schools education and training as well as doing more for their caregivers.
I am happy to hear that the Government is looking into the post-18 pathways for persons with disabilities to see how more support can be given to those transiting to work, building up work readiness at the workplace.
For persons with disabilities, the range of disabilities do vary a lot. Reasonable accommodations are essential for persons with disabilities in entering the workforce and attaining and maintaining employment and this would be consistent with the requirements of United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I note that there are already state funding and subsidies for improvements to workplace, job redesign, and assistive technology to aid persons with disabilities in their workplace, and there is also the Enabling Employment Credit which has just been extended to end 2028 under this Budget and these are all beneficial for persons with disabilities in the workplace.
On the other hand, knowledge and appreciation of the importance of reasonable accommodations to persons of disabilities can be instilled from young in school in both children and youth with or without disabilities. This can be specifically included in the CCE syllabus where we have been told that the current curriculum aims to develop students to be empathetic, sensitive, and respectful to all, including those with Special Education Needs (SEN) or disabilities.
Can the MOE clarify or consider whether the concept of reasonable accommodations or at least key aspects of reasonable accommodations are currently being taught to both children and youth with and without disabilities to better prepare them to foster an inclusive work environment for all when they enter working age?
Mr Speaker, I hope the Enabling Masterplan 2030 with its focus on inclusive employment practices, will continue to facilitate improvements in employment experiences for persons with disabilities including getting more support from employers to provide appropriate accommodations in their workplace that can facilitate a working environment where persons with disabilities can thrive.
However, transiting persons with disabilities and getting employers to be PWD-ready is one thing. A suitable working environment for disabled persons will also require good understanding, empathy and support from their colleagues.
And indeed when we talk about disabilities, there is a wide range. Provisions can range simply from ramp for wheelchair access for the physically handicapped persons, to providing assistive technology for those with sight problems, etc. For those with special needs, e.g. mild autism, depending on the individuals, it may involve suitable calibration in lighting or noise or providing for task management assistance or specific communication modes at work, etc. I am just citing a few common examples, there is a lot of than that, but how many of us can say we know with some details of the workplace needs of different categories of disabled persons?
I recently had conversations with some Singaporeans who are high functioning autistic working adults including a resident; they shared with me their life journey of struggling with their autism at their workplace, both before and after discovering belatedly their autism after they became adults.
A person shared with me her fear of group projects causing her to do badly in school right through to university and even at work. Another, a successful and highly educated and intellectual individual, shared with me that he would often struggle if his superior did not provide clearer instructions or guidance or understandable guidelines for certain administrative tasks or when he had to conduct seminars or workshops. A sticking issue is the lack of understanding from colleagues of their condition and their needs at work. There is even fear of discrimination, of affecting promotion or job security, preventing one from sharing about one’s condition or challenges.
I hope that SG-Enable can consider how to enhance public education and understanding of the disabled persons at work so that employers, colleagues at the workplace and indeed all Singaporeans will have better knowledge, understanding and empathy for their colleagues with disabilities or special needs
Enabling Our Seniors to Age Well
AACs
Mr Speaker, in my Budget Debate Speech last 2 years, I had spoken on issues relating to our Active Ageing Centres including staffing. While the AACs are expected to reach out to as many seniors in the cluster they are assigned to, given the number of seniors, there may inevitably be a shortage of resources in terms of spaces for centre activity, time as well as staff or volunteers attending to residents. This may create the situation in centres that residents may not get to participate in as many organised activities as they wish or to use the centre space as often as they would like to. I am only concerned that this will lead to loss of interest from some residents which would be a great waste after centre staff have tried so hard to bring them to the centre. I hope MOH and other stakeholders can give some thought as to how centres can be given more resources so that they can take care of more residents assigned to their cluster and residents can use their centres for activities more optimally.
LTC subsidies
Mr Speaker, in our 2020 manifesto, the Workers’ Party called for residential long-term care to be more heavily subsidized so as to relieve the out-of-pocket financial burden of social care for many families.
We are heartened to note that the Budget has stepped up quite significantly to this end. We support the raising of the maximum subsidy level to 95% for the Non-Residential Long Term Care services for per capital household incomes below $1,500 to allow more people to age in place with financial support.
We welcome the maximum subsidy level of 80% for Residential Long-Term Care which we had proposed in our manifesto. We are heartened that the qualifying income for this maximum level of subsidy has been raised to $1,500 Per Capita.
Removing Annual Value for means testing
Mr Speaker, in Nov 2023, during the Workers’ Party’s Motion on the Cost of Living Crisis, I spoke about removing the Annual Value as a method of means testing when the household income is zero. Earlier that year, the honourable member for Aljunied GRC, Mr Gerald Giam, had also urged the same in a Parliamentary Question.
The Workers’ Party continues to believe the AV should be removed as a means testing criterion for healthcare subsidies. Firstly, healthcare affordability should not be tied to property values that are determined outside of one’s control, as they are influenced mainly by the rental prices of neighbouring units.
Imagine a retiree couple who have lived in their low value walk-up apartment for decades, as a result of gentrification of their estate and perhaps the Work from Home habits of younger people, the area is sought after, rents rise in their area, the annual value of their flat goes above $21,000 and just like that, they lose the entirety of the healthcare subsidies they had enjoyed. The rise of rents since Covid makes this scenario more common than we know or admit.
Secondly, looking at the household data from the Department of Statistics, particularly the recent Key Household Income Trends 2024 released on 13 Feb 2024, we have found that households with no income and that live in properties with AV above $21,000 which we assume are private properties, make up just 3% of total household. By extension, at any one time, they occupy less than 600 beds in the Residential Long Term Care sector, based on bed numbers as at end 2023.
Thirdly, as I had spoken in my Cost of Living Motion speech, there may be a variety of reasons why individual owners are unable to monetize their property. And they are not the only people who are affected by the Annual Value. There are also family members living together who are caught by the rule. They are sharing a high AV property to help care for each other, but they may not be able to get their relatives in the same household to pay for their unsubsidized medical expenses
For all these reasons, I hope the government will reconsider and remove the AV criteria and provide the same subsidies to all households that have no income.
Better coverage for dental care
The cost of dental care in Singapore has become a concern. Anecdotally we have heard of Singaporeans crossing the border to Johor Bahru to seek cheaper treatment, a subject of the Parliamentary Question in November 2024 by MP for Sengkang, Ms He Ting Ru. For more serious conditions that are riskier, it may be a case of paying for more expensive treatment locally or ignoring the problem that will worsen with neglect. Is it surprising that the National Adult Oral Health Survey in 2019 revealed that over three-quarters of those aged between 21 and 64 in Singapore suffer from periodontal disease.
Much more can be done to overcome the accessibility and affordability of local dental services, by addressing the overlooked role of dental health in our healthcare system. A few experts have weighed in over the last few months.
First, the subsidy framework should be expanded to holders of Chas Green card so that subsidised care may be available for all at private dental clinics under the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS).
Second, increase the capacity of the current public dental system which is currently overburdened. By shortening the waiting times, we may encourage regular visits and turn more patients that need urgent attention away from having to seek the more expensive private dental clinics.
Last but not least, in my speech during the 2022 Motion debate on Building a Healthier SG, I have asked for oral health to be covered in the Healthier SG programme. In his ST Forum letter of 22 November 2024, the Dean of the NUS Dental Faculty Professor Chris Peck said that the omission of dental care from Healthier SG “needs rectification” with encouragement on prioritising prevention over corrective treatments. I hope the MOH will give consideration to this.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I look forward to the replies to the concerns I have raised.
