that this budget has something for everyone, you just need to know where to find it. We've had CDC vouchers for a couple years now. Should Singaporeans expect it to be a permanent feature of the budget? I can't. An unexpected thing in this budget, you know, is this credit for cultural activities in Singapore. Maybe you can take advantage of that going to day. Yeah, so. Government day for your day. Yeah, we do. Budget 2025 dropped earlier this week on February 18, and Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said it was one for all Singaporeans. Now, we've had a few days to digest the details, and the big question I have, and perhaps you too, is did Budget 2025 stack up to what we were expecting?
Now, if you're watching the usual place for the first time, hi, I'm your host Natasha, and joining me as a co-host for today is Claire Huang, the senior business chorus, Fonden, at the Straits Times. Now, Claire, what was one thing you liked about the budget and one thing you didn't like about this year's budget? This is definitely a bonanza budget. It's got lots of goodies, you know, a lot of cash transfers in the form of vouchers, as G60 vouchers. You've got CDC vouchers, you've also got U-Safe rebates, and I think all these really help. But I think there are some people who actually feel that the young adults may feel left out. Also, retirees, that's another segment of the population, and I'm talking about retirees who, you know, they're not under the low income or the vulnerable segment, and they have grown-up children, so these two segments may feel a bit, you know, left out.
OK, so I want to know if the three guests on our couch, on the usual place today, agree or disagree with you. But first, let me introduce them. So we have Ms. Injani Raja, the minister in the Prime Minister's office and the second minister for finance and national development. I should say welcome back, because it's your second time on the show. And next to you is Mr. Musa Fazal, Chief Policy Officer at the Singapore Business Federation, and also Mr. Walter Tisera, Associate Professor of Economics at the Singapore University of Social Sciences. Thank you all for being here, and we are going to get into your views. Maybe I should start with the two of you. OK, Minh, hang out. Mr. Musa, Prouff, what was your take on the budget 2025, and were there any surprises, or, like, Claire, were you expecting greater coverage for maybe particular groups of people?
OK, so maybe I'll just start from the business community perspective. I think, first off, we want to say thank you to Minister for a very generous budget. Thank you. And we're very very very very very generous budget. I think, generally, from the feedback that we've gotten from the ground, from business leaders, we did a quick ball of business leaders immediately after the budget. More than eight in ten say they were satisfied with the budget, and that it helps to address a lot of their concerns and pain points. I think the CIT rebate, in particular, the corporate income tax rebate was very much welcomed, because it helps to address some of the immediate short-term cost pressures that businesses are facing.
And I think it was generous. I don't think businesses were expecting it to match the CIT rebate last year, because I think last year the cost pressures were even more extreme, because of inflation and the impact on wage costs. And so I think businesses appreciate that, that that was there. I think businesses also feel that the budget was very much forward-looking. So if you look at a lot of the business measures, I think there's over 14 billion in terms of top-ups in various funds that are intended to support R&D, infrastructure, future energy sources and so on, which we think are really important in helping to support Singapore's economic competitiveness over the longer term.
So I think businesses support that. If there were certain areas where I think we were hoping to see a little bit more emphasis, I suppose one of it would be on foreign workers. So obviously manpower issues continue to be a key concern for businesses. Manpower costs, manpower availability. So a lot of businesses still rely on foreign manpower in order to augment the local workforce. And there's a lot in the budget about how we can upskill and upgrade the local workforce, but on the foreign manpower side, I think, for example, on SBS side, we did have some recommendations related to the S-pass levies and qualifying salaries to see whether some of those could be deferred in order to release some of the cost pressures on businesses.
We had also asked if, in terms of availability, whether there could be certain liberalizations of the foreign manpower rules to help businesses that are going through this journey of transformation and need a little bit more time to be able to transform, to become more lean and more productive. So I suppose I also recognize that the budget statement cannot cover everything, and maybe some of these things might be covered. We're hoping in the Ministry of Manpower Committee of Supply and Debate. But so the foreign manpower part, I think, was something which was missing from Eelah.
Before we get into addresses, maybe, Prof, what was your general take on the budget? I think the key takeaway for me is that the budget is actually doing a good job of building on what, I think, previous budgets, the most recent budgets have done, in trying to support our families and workers through this very difficult economic period of very high inflation in the last couple of years. We see that, for example, there's continuing emphasis put on mitigating the cost of living pressure.
That's true. The CDC vouchers continue to support the CDC voucher scheme. Of course, that builds on CDC vouchers, which will already introduce in past budgets. It also builds on continuing to redistribute, to ensure that, for example, GST is not regressive by giving back through the GST vouchers scheme to low-income households. In a majority, I would say, of Singapore households in HDB. So I think that's very important, it's really building on that. When you look at workers, for example, then I think for workers, it's continuing to emphasize that the way to get past this cost of living hurdle is actually putting into place foundation for long-term wage growth.
So that's why I think we're very hard to see that continues to be support there for upskilling, upgrading for workers, especially I think now this recognition that the workers are doing skills upgrading on a part-time basis need also some help from training allowances and so on. So I think that was very encouraging as well. Families, I think, dare you see support for the cost of bringing up your family. I know that's the lower caps for basic preschool services through, you know, anchor operators, also support for larger families, which I think very welcome for some those Singapore institutes to have, you know, tree or more, right? So I think that's very welcome.
Then I guess what would I wish to see, you know, think about more? I think maybe two areas. One is, I think, thinking a bit more about perhaps redistribution or the situation facing the lower income households is not that we already don't have such systems. It's already very extensive. Lower income Singaporeans will see, you know, all of their GSE cancelled out in terms of rebates as well as all the inflation covered, right? But when I look at the SG60 vouchers that everybody got, I mean, it's not, I'm not, you know, ungrateful for that.
But then I think, well, what if we took that instead and put it into some kind of more permanent, perhaps, you know, the CVC voucher scheme for the most vulnerable Singaporeans? Would that be something that I could get behind as, you know, somebody who may not need that SG60 imagine? I know you've talked about, we can always donate it to charity, right? But, you know, perhaps there could also be a permanent scheme like that. That's one.
Then thinking about families, again, you know, there is a lot of support available, especially if you're lower income. It goes all the way to making preschool quite negligible in cost. But there I started thinking, what if we started imagining that preschool was treated the same as public compulsory education for primary and secondary? Could that be an assurance given to Singaporeans? Of course, there are Singaporeans who want to buy much more so-called premium preschool services, but it's a basic tier that is, you know, that Singaporeans don't have to worry about the cost of, is that feasible or not?
So these are some things I started thinking about. So, men hearing three different views on. I mean, we know the goodies that were available, but there are still people who want other things, right? And as the three of them have articulated, what's your take on what they said? Well, I think you've got to see the budget in the larger context, because this is really allocating our financial resources in a strategic way. And so there were various key thrusts, but the big thrusts are this.
First, tackling the cost of living pressures, because we know that's very much on people's minds. So you want to do the things which are immediate, right? CDC vouchers help with grocery living expenses. Then we know that utilities and water, so hence the U-Save, which is part of GST, and then you have the GST vouchers, and for that it's tiered in such a way that the seniors and lower income get more. Middle income do get, but seniors and lower income get more. So the bulk of that takes care of or is directed at the immediate cost of living pressures.
But then we have to look at the bigger objective, which is you want to get the economy going, because if the economy grows, then that means more jobs, more opportunities, better income. And you can see that the way it was laid out by PM yesterday, there are three prongs to that. One is innovation and technology. The other is our enterprise ecosystem, seeing what we can do to boost it and to help our companies grow. And the third one was investment in infrastructure and future energy.
So because if we get that piece right, it's going to get the jobs going. I mean, you get the jobs going, you get the income going, and then it flows back to people. And then, of course, the family part of it, because we've been working on this for some time, as you know. And this builds on what previous budgets have done. So in the last couple of budgets, we enhanced the baby bonus cash gift. We increased the CDA amounts. We also made first step. With this potential, we made extra two weeks on a voluntary basis. And then we're now making it mandatory this year, right?
And we also announced that this year, the shared parental leave would kick in. Six weeks this year, four weeks next year, so 10 weeks in total. So these are the building blocks. Then for this year's budget, we said, okay, we've done those building blocks for families. What's the next thing? And we said large families, or larger families, because one of the things that's holding people back from having, well, for first, they have to get to the decision of having one child or two. But most, after two, start being concerned about, even more concerned about costs.
So we said, well, if we want to encourage them, then we should need to get them over that hurdle, and hence the large family scheme. Then, of course, the other things like, you know, the city, climate resilience, and making sure that we're sustainable, all the rest of it. So you should see it in that context that the specific strategies that are needed but at the same time to alleviate media cost pressures, and of course, to be able to celebrate SG60. Minister, how far do you think these measures, right, in all, go in helping Singapore, you know, deal with future challenges?
And we have two bad things in mind. A lot of the measures are short and medium term, yeah? And the second thing is we are now moving into an era where, you know, the climate is such that there are a lot of uncertainty and tensions. So I'm just wondering, you know, when you look at it in totality, how does it help us, how far does it go in helping, you know, Singapore, move Singapore forward? I think it goes quite a long way in doing that because the measures are both near term, as well as long term. So near term would be things in terms of the economy, right?
We want to anchor businesses here. So the private credit growth fund, for example, and then the tax incentives in this far as we want to get companies listed here in our stock exchange, the R&D, we want to mix Singapore manufacturing hub as well. So basic advanced manufacturing hub. So basically, anchoring the businesses here. And that's going to have both short as well as longer term gains. But then you've got all the future stuff, for example, infrastructure investments in the port. That's going to bring logistics, business, Singapore will continue to be a logistics hub.
There's the investments or the monies that we set aside for Changi for T5 because that's going to get us connected to the region and the world. And that kind of connectivity means that we have access to markets, people will be coming in, coming through, and that's not going to take place just in the next five or even ten years. That's for the next 15, 20, 30 years. So it's really long term. And then the way we're looking at coastal resilience, long island, looking at greater southern waterfront, looking at the the the the the the Northern coast.
All of these are very long term. But the money is starting to be put aside in this budget for that. And of course, energy. Energy is going to be our biggest challenge going forward, right? So, as PM said, we're going to invest heavily in clean energy and then explore and see whether nuclear is a feasible possibility. Explore that potential, work with partners, build up our capability. So you can see it's both near term as well as long term.
So let's deep dive into different themes that came out from this budget. So one of the things was some measures were about tackling cost pressures, you know, on with families and Singaporeans, right? So as Claire mentioned, various range of measures. How far do you think these measures will go to reserving cost of living questions? Yeah. Prof, maybe you want to kick us off. So when you look at cost of living, the single most important thing I think you can do to help families in cost of living is to make sure that they've got jobs. And also to make sure, of course, that jobs have got sustainable, real wage growth. So people's standards of living are improving. I think that's the most important thing.
But of course, in the short term, what has been going on is, I think, in the last couple of years, there have been some periods where global inflation has run much higher, much faster than wages were able to keep up. Now, in the most recent year or so, at least wages were able to keep ahead of inflation. But you look at last couple of years, it was kind of like neck and neck, belly ahead. And that is where I think Singaporeans do want or expect the government to help.
And that's where I think targeted assistance, like feedy-fee vouchers, you know, which practically all Singaporean households, I mean, in fact, do get, as well as other kinds of support, which are more tiered, more oriented towards Singapore households through more needy, that will come in to ensure that households can, for the most part, still consume the same kinds of things as they were, you know, as they did before, right? This random inflation. But that being said, right, it's also important, I think, that households also look at what they're buying, and also think about whether they want to adjust some of the expenditure patterns.
What I'm saying here is that I don't mean that, you know, all of us have got to, like, eat less or anything like that, but I think it's more about shopping smart, right? And then, you know, perhaps shifting what you're buying and so on, right? Yeah, I don't think. Yeah, I hope so. People will be like, what? Like, you'll change my whole life, so. Yeah, so it's not about, yeah, completely changing your whole lifestyle, right? But I think it's about the reality that when prices change, you've got to change behaviour, right?
And ideally, you change your behaviour in a way that allows you to maintain your standard living, but then you don't go, you know, wasting your entire paycheck or anything like that. So I think cost of living vouchers and so on, they're great, they help to mitigate that, but, you know, we also have to be smart consumers and shoppers, and in the longer run, longer term, I think it's really about finding better jobs of skilling and so on, which is where also the budget does put in framework to help Singaporeans do that.
Okay, on the shopping smart, right? This one, not so much budget, but I should put in a word for N2C Fair Price, because almost every day of the week they have got some discount going on, there'll be some where it's for, you know, pioneer generation or for seniors, sometimes they'll have for something else, so choose your day before you go after N2C and then you can take advantage of that. Okay, and can you see the CDC vouchers?
Yeah, that's true. Like, yeah. Talking about Fair Price, Minister, you know, I'm just trying to understand the CDC vouchers, right? Well, they're very good and I appreciate them, you know, because I benefit from it. Yeah. I'm just wondering why the government is using this as a strategy and why not go straight into the root of the problem, which is tackling the cost of items, you know?
Yeah, because CDC vouchers, while I benefit and, you know, a lot of people benefit and we're happy to have them, so the problem with it is it's kind of seen or viewed by some as drip feet. It's also viewed as probably like driving prices up, prices of items, goods, food up. So I'm just trying to get a sense of, you know, why CDC vouchers. Yeah. It's a really good question and let me just give some background to it.
When we came out of COVID and then you had the Ukraine war and all the supply logistical issues, that was what was driving prices up. It started off with the logistics issues, then of course once you had Russia, Ukraine war and then the oil energy that all fed into it, right? And we were looking at how to deal with that. So a few things. I mean, Singapore doesn't produce an awful lot of our own. We buy a lot. So you can't tell other countries, hey, lower your prices for us. It's just, it's not feasible. So we have to buy the price that they sell to us.
We have price stickers mostly. The first thing we did, MAS did, was adjust monetary policy. And they did that, I think, about five times, if I'm not mistaken, to try and make sure that the costs were more affordable so that the same dollar was able to buy more. So that was step number one. But that would not have been enough. We obviously had to assist. And the question is, do you just straight away plow in a whole bunch of cash, which might have an unintended inflationary spiral effect? Because it could have that effect if you're not careful about it. So we were very careful to make sure that if we do give the assistance, you give the assistance in a targeted way so that it helps with what is the greatest pain point.
And the greatest pain point was really food groceries and utilities bills. And that was the start of the CDC voucher. It was really intended to assist with daily cost of living assistance. And then the YouSafe one came about when we wanted to tackle the utilities part. So having done that, we also said, well, if you're going to tackle cost of living, where do people shop mostly? At that time, it was just coming out of COVID. And you remember the heartland shops were really suffering. The hawkers not so much because during COVID period, a lot of people went to the hawkers and the heartland shops.
So we said that maybe we should do, you know, achieve two goals with this. And as you can use it, but use it in the heartland shops so that you also boost the local heartland economy. And then everybody's happy about that, but the feedback came. But we also do a lot of our grocery shopping in the supermarkets. So we would therefore like to be able to have the CDC vouchers extend to supermarkets. And we had to look at supermarkets that had the back end systems that would be able to process the CDC vouchers.
So obviously started off with NTUC and then it's expanded to some of the others. And that was why the following year, we extended it half of it for heartland shops and for hawker centers and the other half for the supermarkets. So you can see the evolution of it, but it's still intended to be helping with cost of living. Because if you just do a straight cash outright, then somebody might just go and splurge it all in one go. And then you're still left with the cost of living items which are not addressed. So that's the thinking behind it.
Yeah, but Minister, as it is, right, we are already being told that hawkers, some hawkers are actually thinking of, because they're factoring in all these vouchers. So some shops along the food chain, basically the supply chain, all the way to the hawkers, they are starting to think about increasing prices. So then that drives prices up as well. Wouldn't it be better, for instance, fair price? We all get our stuff from fair price. It's one of the biggest retailers. It's probably, it has the monopoly in some sense in Singapore.
So wouldn't it be better that fair price set the kind of price level as to what is affordable in that sense? And I'm going back in history, because if you look at our founding fathers, they're very brilliant. And they came up with this idea that we are going to help make sure that blue collar workers can actually afford the essential food items, can afford insurance. And that's where it started, right? So can we not do that instead? Because right now when you compare some of the fair price items, Shingsong, that's better. So nothing to stop people from going to buy from Shingsong.
And don't forget the CDC vouchers also help the heartland shops. So basically you want to give people choice. They have choice of hawker centres, they have choice of the heartland shops, they have choice of going to fair price, and any of the other supermarkets that accept CDC vouchers. So basically spread the love around and make sure that people have the ability to use the CDC vouchers in various ways.
I just wanted to add that what Mr. said is an important point, which is the role of the CDC vouchers in helping small businesses in our heartland enterprises. So I think that there are a group that do need additional support and help. I think what Prof mentioned about productivity and how productivity is lagging in certain sectors, many of these are the domestic facing sectors, including FMB and retail. So they do need some additional help in order to be able to make that transformation to become more productive, but in the meantime costs are going up.
And some of these costs are, as a result, for example, the progressive wage model. So many of these are FMB and retail sectors also hire a lot of low-wage workers, older workers, and their costs are going up as a result. It's important for us to pay these workers a decent wage so that they are able to have a dignified form of living, but at the same time it does raise costs. And so we do need to find some way to support some of these enterprises to be able to tie through this difficult period of making a transformation journey.
And I think the CDC vouchers do help. So maybe I can make a few observations. I think one is on the role of the CDC vouchers and maybe influencing pricing and so on at a local level. And I think first, I want to say that I think the hawkers and also the heartland merchants have had a very difficult time with it last couple of years because whether we, the Confuima, you don't think inflation is real or not, the fact is that for them, when they talk to the suppliers, when the import ingredient product in so on, the prices have gone up.
And if they say, I don't want to pay those higher prices, you know, basically the countries who are sending us goods, they're happy to send them somewhere else. That's the reality, right? So yes, our hawkers, heartland merchants are facing a lot of price pressures, input cost pressures. And I think when they come to the consumer and they have to give the consumer a justification for why the prices are going up, I think you can't blame them if they look for reasons that are going to sound maybe more palatable to us as consumers than talking about, well, actually my costs went up and you know, like I have to make a living and blah, blah, blah, right?
So sometimes the reasons they may come up with are things like, oh, you all got CDC vouchers. So, okay, like you can pay more, right? Or they may say, oh, but GST went up. That's why my prices went up. So the thing is, it's convenient sometimes for them to look for reasons that sound better to us so that we don't get unhappy with them. But you know, the reality is that, yeah, I mean, they have to make a living, right?
And then, you know, in many cases, they've been absorbing the price increases for quite a while, and they're just trying to figure out where their brains, when can I raise prices because I've been absorbing this for months and months. And so, you know, when something hits like GST or CDC vouchers, they say, oh, uh-huh, this is a good time for me to tell, unfortunately, my customers, I look, I got to do it, right? So that's how it works.
But then, I think coming to Y CDC vouchers and why not other policy figures? Because I think you are hinting at why this in the government control prices. I mean, it's to explain the difficulty of that, you know? I don't actually think it's to control prices. I'm saying fair price can set the tone for everybody. Yeah. Right.
但是,我想谈谈为什么是 Y CDC 优惠券,而不是其他政策措施?因为我觉得你在暗示为什么政府控制价格。我的意思是,这也是为了说明其中的困难,你知道吗?我并不认为这真的是为了控制价格。我是说,合理的价格可以为所有人定下基调。对吧。
Okay. So there can be perhaps, okay. So let's say government doesn't control prices, but you look at policies like subsidies, or you look at basically, how do you, uh, smooth when you might say the supply chain to make prices as low as possible, right? So I think there, first, I think for the large supermarket change in Singapore, I think the best way to actually ensure that the prices are as low as possible is to ensure that, uh, basically these large chains are competing with each other vigorously.
So I think it's not so much about, you know, fair price or whatever, but it's about, do we have a variety of choices in our local neighborhoods? And, yeah, you know, the supermarkets are able to access, you know, good retail sites and so on for them to compete for our business and so on. I think as long as that is in place, that is what actually helps to get you the lowest possible prices true, having more efficient supply chain.
Um, but I just wanted to touch briefly, I think, on, sometimes people do call for price controls or subsidies and so on as you see in some of the countries. And I think that really it's not that it cannot be done, but whether it's just the best use of our taxpayer money. Because we see with subsidies in particular, uh, there's a lot of you might say leakage, leakage, meaning that people get the subsidy who don't really need it.
You subsidize basic products, you think, oh, uh-huh, I will help the average Singaporean, but actually it is the richest Singaporean who spends more on everything, including basic items. So you just get a lot of subsidy money going to them, maybe disproportionately, if that were to happen. So I think that's why Straight Out Voucher Scheme would be considered by most economists to be more efficient, better use of your taxpayer dollar than some of the other proposals out there.
We've had CDC vouchers for a couple of years now. Should Singaporeans expect it to be a permanent feature of the budget? He can do it all. I think you have to look at the genesis of CDC vouchers, which was to provide targeted assistance. And I think our position has always been that if there's a need, then we will assist. But, you know, if the economy improves and things get better and cost-a-living become more manageable, then obviously there would be less of a need. The key strategy, actually, is not more CDC vouchers. It is what Walter alluded to, which is how can we raise incomes where there's real value, real productivity, which is why a very large chunk of the money went towards boosting the economy to grow opportunities and jobs.
And another very large chunk went into skills future and upskilling and helping people to pivot to new jobs and new opportunities, because that's where the additional income, the higher income, is going to come from, which would hopefully in time make less of a need to have CDC vouchers. And that was the perfect way to my next question, because the other theme that came up in the budget was actually about support for businesses and workers as you mentioned, enabling them to upskill. Now, the thing about upskilling is I want to find out, was there a particular industrial specific type of worker that the government wants to push, like, make this a priority for?
Is it like everybody must go for upskilling? And then, do we have the jobs to fit this new skills? Right. That's a really good question, and I'm sure the others will jump into. I think the group that we are most concerned with are those age 14 above. And why do we say that? Because if you're just coming out of school, probably University ITE, you're equipped with the latest of what the schools have to teach, and you're coming in armed with whatever is the latest knowledge, right? So the students who come out of the university in Poly, they're going to be the very tech savvy ones.
They're the ones who have less issue with technology, digital, even AI. The ones who have been working for some time, used to working in a certain way, and now suddenly finding that because of technology, because of AI, because of other things, the way they do the job is changing, or the job is gone. And then they have to pivot or to switch to something else, or they have to learn how to do the same thing in a different way. Those are the ones that's more difficult, and then they have to acquire new skills.
So last year's budget, remember, we introduced the Skills Future Level Up program that had additional money for courses, but most interestingly, for those who want to take a diploma. So for those who already have a diploma, you can take a second diploma, for those who have a degree, you can actually go ahead and take a diploma on a subject which you always wanted to know about, but weren't able to. And of course, if you come from ITE, you can also have access to that. That's all part of the upskilling, and there's a range of ways in which this is done.
The simplest one is you go for a course. Then the other one is the diploma, the other is where you have to retrain. And at the same time, we have those programs where you train in the company, where you have CTCs, the company training centres, and the ones where you are placed in the company, you train there, and you see whether you can get a job with the company later on. So it's kind of like not one size fits all. Skills Future is one name, but it's multifaceted with different types of programs really to help the older mid-career person who's seeing their employment landscape change.
It's really to equip them and help them to find new jobs or new opportunities. Mr. Rachael? I'm not sure that I would say that Skills Future only applies to certain sectors. No, no, I said that's the priority group. I was responding to her. I agree with you, Minister, that the priority group might be older workers. But I think that across all sectors, there are emerging manpower needs, manpower shortages, and there's a need for us to be able to support workers to be able to move dynamically.
Across the economy into new job roles as the economy restructures. I see Skills Future as being a very important tool in allowing us to be able to do this. And PM in his speech, they talked about some of the new growth sectors. He talked about biosciences, med tech, and so on. Housing up our producers, 80% of the world's DNA chips. So there are plenty of exciting new job opportunities for how can we support Singaporeans in terms of embracing some of these new job opportunities.
I think Skills Future is very important in that respect. I think for us, one of the important things, though, is that training shouldn't be done for the sake of training. So we firmly believe that actually company-led training is critical. Employers play a very important part in this. And it benefits both the employers in making sure that the training actually meets the job needs of that employer. It also benefits the workers, because I think at the end of the day, workers want to go for training, which results in wage increases or makes them more employable to be deployed across different types of job roles and so on.
So we're very happy to see measures in the budget that try to tie workforce transformation with enterprise transformation efforts and workforce development grant. We also think that some of these grants, the businesses do face certain challenges in terms of being able to fully utilize them. So, for example, when businesses want to take up a new digitalization tool, actually there is an up-skilling component associated with that. You need to train the workers to make use of that new digital tool.
But today, the way the system works, there are different government agencies that you apply to for the digitalization tool, a different government agency that you apply to to redesign the job, a different one that you apply to for training. So, trying to bring this together and look at it holistically from the perspective of businesses, because I think there's a bit of an application button, so the grants are out there. It's not like the grants are not out there. But if I have to apply to many different government agencies and they all have different requirements and procedures that I must fulfill in order to be able to qualify for the grant, then it becomes a heavy button not to be able to go through this.
So, the workforce development grant, which amalgamate some of these workforce transformation grants together, we find that very promising and we're looking forward to hearing more details about how that's going to work for businesses. Yeah, so I think there are two groups of workers. I'm personally quite concerned about, which I think was echoed actually also by government and business, right? Which is younger, lower-wage workers. And here we're thinking particularly about persons who need some help with upskilling, so they can move up the wage and skills ladder.
And also you've got people in this group who might have somehow missed out on the opportunity to complete their formal education or go as far as they could have, maybe because of pressure to find work to support their families and so on. So, I think that's one group where we really do need to think about first, what are the kinds of careers and job opportunities they could have, where ideally they get support within the companies to actually continue upskilling. And of course, that support comes from the, I think, a combination ideally of the company, perhaps the unions as well as the government.
So, that's one broad group. And of course, the other very important group would be the more middle-aged PMATs especially, professionals and so on, who are currently the challenge. I think, is that as long as they're in stable employment, things are fine. But actually because of the pace of business change disruption and so on, they do face some job uncertainty. And if something were to happen to the industry or role, then if they're out of their job, they actually may face a lot of difficulty pivoting, transitioning to a new job, new career and so on.
That's actually a really big challenge, I think. And there, I think, when we look at the opportunities out there, I absolutely agree that there are a lot of exciting group opportunities out there. New technological areas and so on. But I think there, we have to be a bit careful, I think, in terms of skilling or retraining for perhaps a particular job or a particular industry area, which is currently a sentence versus perhaps you might say general skills training, learning how to learn, for example.
And I think that's really important because we do want to avoid situations, I think, where workers end up in this strange cycle where they train for something, but because sometimes the pace of development can be very rapid, when they finish their training, then the industry is perhaps going a bit more on the downturn or maybe it's already absorbed all of the manpower already. And then, you know, they find themselves retraining again.
And I think actually we're seeing this to some extent in the tech sector over the last couple of years, where not talking with the PMET here, but talking about the younger, single-barians, we saw, for example, enrollment in our technology courses in our universities expand dramatically, and then the graduates, some of the graduates are now facing certain challenges in the job market, right? Of course, they're still well trained, highly skilled and so on, but it was not exactly the situation they taught they had four years ago, that's a challenge. So how do you balance this, you know, very specific job training versus general skills training?
I think that's a challenge all of us actually have as well. Universities certainly, we're trying to figure out how do we strike the right balance between giving you contemporary skills right now versus helping you learn better yourself. And I think here for businesses, maybe for government, I would say one concern that's been brought up is workers may feel they don't have enough time in the course of their work and so on for self-directed learning.
Of course, you know, they have to produce for the employer and so on, but I think it's worth asking, could there be more support or perhaps a more regularized system for having study time for employees and so on outside of, you know, just what the employer is directing them to study as well, or train? Ultimately, the good point, identifying the other group, which is the lower income, less skilled, and for that one, this budget does have something which is the work skills support scheme. So that would be helpful for them.
Can I quickly ask about what profs said about mandate? Well, he didn't say mandate like study time, but is this something that, you know, perhaps we could see in the workplace, what he said at the end about having, sure. I think that something MOM has to look at because it is a very valid point. You've got all these schemes and people may want to go for that, the questions whether the employer can release you. So that is something I think that where employees need to have the conversation with the employers and the employers also need to ask themselves, will it's their value from doing this?
Because if my employee goes for this cost and is going to come back and be able to add value, then it's an investment of time I should be willing to make, but you need good HR to be able to do that. I agree with that. And, you know, what the brings up is the perennial problem. So even though there are a lot of training schemes available and the heavily subsidized by the government, but take up is difficult because people just don't have the time to go for the training.
But I think this is why, as Minister brings up, it's important for employers to buy into the idea of the training and why I mentioned that employer, less, and more people can be able to get the money. And that's why I mentioned that employer led or company led training is quite important because then the employer knows that this is the kind of training that will actually support me in my enterprise transformation journey.
And so I'm sending the workers. I'm consciously choosing to send the workers for the training in order to benefit my company over the medium to long term. So I think there are already some support mechanisms to support companies with developing workplace learning on the job training. So, yeah, we do hope that there can be more support for that effort because especially for SMEs, it can be quite challenging.
Yeah. Let's tend to support for families. Yeah. So this year, the focus, there's quite a bit of focus on larger families, right, large families. Minister, would you say that, what would you say to Singaporeans, you know, who say that more can be done for particular segments of the society? For instance, couples who are still thinking on the fence about whether or not I want to have a child, not have a child, and also for singles, you know. And can I have a show of hands here? Who is single? And the single? Yes. Almost all of us. Okay. So many of you are the ones that are out. Almost all of us. Who are you? Yes. You are. Yes. Then this is the question, you know, some of them, what would you say to these segments of people?
Okay. Well, I would say that this budget has something for everyone. You just need to know where to find it. So, let me run through. Everyone starting with the children up to age 12, you get the life SG credits, right? And then for those above age 12 to 21, you've got the top up. So 500 for each child up to 12. And for those age 13 to 20, they also get $500 each in the Edisave account or the PSEA. Then when you're 21 and above, you also get your SG60, the 600. And for the seniors, they get extra. They get 800. So that's the everybody gets something. That's the first thing.
Then for the singles, although it's not classified as singles per se, I mean, the singles will get the SG60 as well as the CDC vouchers and so on if they have their own household. But under housing, housing is MND and HDB take up quite a large chunk of the budget for the MND budget. And remember last year we introduced the new classification framework. And under the new classification framework, singles can now buy the two-room BTOs across the island. Whereas prior to that, they would have been limited to the non-mature estates. So money in this budget is going to support the new classification framework, which will enable singles to have access to two rooms, BTOs all across the island.
Then MND also announced last year, but it will come and be really implemented through monies in this budget. The family care scheme, which is where family members who are applying for a flat either together or one member applying for a flat to be close to, let's say, child applying to be close to parent will get extra priority. So previously, and I used to see appeals for this, if the parents were in the central area, which was considered a mature estate, singles would not have been able to get priority because they had to apply in the non-mature for their flat. But now under the family care scheme, they can apply to get priority to live close to their parents, or they and the parents can apply together to have a place where they can be close to each other. So there is something, everyone, not to worry.
And seniors, of course, get extra, pretty much of everything. They get extra GST, they get extra Medicaid-safe, and of course they get extra of the SG60 vouchers. So I want to ask the large family schemes, whatever was given out yesterday, is the move to encourage people to have couples to have more children, right? You know, a total fertility rate is a bit dismal. And I guess this is not normally seen for those who are most things. This one is not one of the ones where we want to be near the top. So do you think that with the budget, yesterday's budget measures, you know, would this be a game changer to get couples moving?
Because in the last time you hear, we talked about shared parents who leave. Now this is a, I think this is a big move because to have three children is a lot. So do you think this will be a game changer in some sense? I'm going to ask, you know, prof, maybe you have a tick line? Yeah, so I'd say in terms of fertility decisions, right? There are really kind of a couple of different stages that you try to think about policy rights, right, to improve the needle. So one is why do people get married or don't get married, right?
And I think in the Singapore context, I think a lot of people cite issues such as not having the time to go out and meet people and so on. Especially if they're beyond a school social network. There are also questions about things like whether people can find housing or not. Although on that regard, I think government has done a lot actually in the last couple of years to basically get over the very unfortunate, you know, hurdle that we had during COVID of not being able to complete the BTOs in time due to all of the logistics issues and so on. So now that that's settled, you know, hopefully people who are seeing somebody have a bit more confidence, I think, to actually get married.
I would also say that an unexpected thing in this budget, you know, is this credit for cultural activities in Singapore, right? Maybe you can take advantage of that going to the day. I was a government think for your day. It was the subtext, like, it was called cultural past. It wasn't intended, but it's a great idea. Culture past brackets dating past, right? If you prefer, I think you guys said second.
Oh, yes, yes, yes. So once we take care of the hurdle of people, you know, getting married, then it's like how many kids and do we have kids or not? And how many kids? And I think there, I agree that there is support in this budget as an, you know, previous budget for the cost of raising children and so on.
But we also have to, I think, face the fact that in Singapore a lot of the cost of raising children, I think it comes ultimately for a lot of parents in Singapore from their feeling that they need to invest a certain very large amount in children in order for their children to be competitive. And I think that is something that is not fixed with just the budget alone.
So, actually here I would, you know, kind of refer people to a very interesting interview that Minister Chan gave very recently on tuition culture in Singapore, you know, M O E and things like that, where I think maybe what we need to do is reflect a bit on what can we do, you know, so a couple of fronts, right? So, I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think that's a very interesting question. I think M O E has put in a lot of reforms in disregard recently, and I'm not sure that that has come through the parents yet, but I hope it will.
The other part of it, of course, would be unfortunately, I think some of the market dynamics where you see private, you know, providers of enrichment and so on, perhaps, you know, encouraging a mindset of very high competitiveness and so on and don't lose out and so on. I think that's probably feeding, for at least for some parents, this perception that, yeah, you know, if I cannot invest at least this huge amount, it's not worth having a child write or something. So, yeah, you cannot subsidize or grant your way out of that problem. I think it has to be kind of like perhaps the societal mindset shift supported with the appropriate changes in the education system.
Well, no, that's very correct. The issue of low TFR and not marrying and not having children is a complex one, and it's not particular to us. In fact, we had a debate on this in Parliament at the last sitting, but essentially it boils down to a few factors. Just lifestyle and life aspirations, millennials and younger ones, I think. I'm not sure whether it's reversing, because I remember reading an article that, you know, in some places there might be a reversal, but right now it's like, I want to focus on career, or I mean, children might tie me down, I won't be able to travel, I won't be able to do what I want, and it's just too stressful.
So, that that's one thing, the aspiration bucket. Then the next category would be costs. They're worried about costs. Then the other category would be what life balance. Then another category would be the stress, what Walter talked about, the stress as the children go through the school system. So, if you look at it, you'll see that in the last two or three years, we have systematically been putting in place things to address this, so that it's sort of the overall ecosystem. First, when they're going, okay, the dating part, I'm not sure what we can do, right? I mean, that's pretty much a personal thing.
But assuming that people want to get married, the first thing to do is make sure that the housing part is settled. And we did have the housing crunch during COVID, but actually we've caught up with that. We've caught up with the delays. And between 21 to this year, building over 100,000 BTO flats, and in fact surpassed our target, we're going to put in more BTO flats and more of the shorter waiting time flats. And I think recently we had just one of the largest sailor balance flats exercises. So I think housing is on track. It'll take a little bit more time for it to flow through, but they need a house before they can have a, you know, start the family.
Then on the cost part, we enhanced the baby bonus, we enhanced the CDA, we also, with the large family scheme, address those who want to have more children. Then on the work-life balance part, the extra paternity leave, two weeks, now made mandatory, but the big move was the ten weeks of shed parental leave. And at the same time, supplementing that with the flexible work arrangements, tripartite guidelines.
Then education stress, as Walter says, Min-chan talked about that. And that one, it's, because it's a mindset thing, it's very hard to, you know, to tell parents, don't stress so much, but perhaps if parents just pause and have a look at all the steps we've taken, you'll see that what we're actually trying to do is mixing up our family friendly so that if you want to have children, you can. So on the part of the parents, we hope that, you know, they'll be a bit gentle on themselves. Don't stress so much, because we're doing our best to make sure that, you know, it's more conducive to have families.
I agree with Min that that's also an important factor to consider in terms of, because I think for a lot of parents, they have caregiving responsibilities, and they want to be able to balance that with their careers. So being able to support them in terms of providing more flexible work arrangements is an important part. But I think also we have to balance that with the business considerations. So for a lot of businesses, especially small businesses, they may not have, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the chief HR officer, he's also the chief marketing officer. He's doing everything. So even being able to put in place a system to support flexible work arrangements is challenging.
So how can we support some of those small businesses to be able to do some of these things? I think there have been ideas banded around maybe providing certain types of shared HR services to support some of these small businesses so that they can implement some of these things. I think that will go some way to also addressing this issue of work life balance, which I think also indirectly also affects this. That's something that maybe should be for future budgets to think about because it's really about whether or not you have a good HR, but they're not you have enough buffer and the ability to draw on manpower to help tie you over for that particular period.
That's right. Yeah. Sorry. I had a very big question that Claire was like, you need to ask. That's right. Yeah, I forgot. Yeah, I forgot. That's a special gift. Actually, maybe it's on the cards. So, okay. Minister, you've been teasing it a lot. Yes. Are you going to tell me what it is? I can't tell you exactly what goes into it. Can you actually, actually, I just came from doing a video on it, packing all of the various items. But I'll say this much.
When we were putting together the brainstorming for what should go into the baby gift, the one constant piece of feedback we got from all the parents was they wanted it to be practical. So, there'll be lots of practical items. We'll also be supporting Singapore brands. And it should be something that's easy to carry, easy to use. And I think at least one or two items in there should be something that would last some time as something that parents can remember and the child can look back and say, oh, I was an SG60 baby.
Oh, that's so sweet. Yeah. I kind of get an idea of what it is. We'll leave the big review for this. It's not just happening in March. The reveal as to what goes into the items I will deal with at the Committee of Supply. So very soon. I can't doubt that. Okay. We'll look out for it.
Okay. So let's talk about where we go from here. I mean, spending is obviously expected to rise in the coming years, especially against the backdrop of Singapore being a super aging society. And, you know, we have been told by Prime Minister that the revenue from corporate income tax is not quite guaranteed, right? Even though this year, not this year, 2024 was really good.
That said, we still have two components, two top fixtures. One is personal income tax and the other one is goods and services tax. Goods and services tax would be the second largest contributor followed by personal income tax. So I'm just trying to get a sense of, you know, going forward. What is our plan to sustain this rising spending more taxes? You actually need to have different sources and not rely just on one.
Because if you rely just on one, then if anything happens, then you're stuck, right? So you'll see that our strategy is to have a variety of sources. It used to be the largest, but not for this year, was the NIRC, the net income returns contribution. So that's the income on our reserves. That's one chunk. Then you have corporate income tax, which this year did particularly well.
Then you have personal income tax and you have GST. And then you have all the other miscellaneous things, right? So you've got a basket of revenue streams. And you want to make sure that you're not too overly reliant on any single one. And the other thing that we do, and also can explain this better than myself really, is a simple government works very, very hard to make sure that we don't swing between feast and famine.
Because there may be some years that you do extremely well on taxes, and the next year you don't. But you can't budget like that. You can't budget just going on what actually is coming your way. You have to try and project, which was the thinking behind GST. When we started thinking about it, which was back in 2018, we knew that at 2030, with our population aging, and 2030, one in four is going to be age 65 and above, there's going to be a lot of health care that's needed there.
So you have to start early. And when you're looking at it from 2018, 2019, you have no guarantee as to what you're going to get in 2030, unless you put in place something which is a sustainable, sustainable revenue, and that was GST. Then of course, if you have other things that come along the way that boost up your revenue, then it gives you the opportunity, as we have in this year, to set aside monies for future needs, like our coastal resilience, like future energy, and so on. So we try very hard to smooth it out so that we don't have this sort of wild swings. I've explained it in sort of lay language, but also it will give you all the technical details for that.
So I don't think I'll go into technical so much, but I want to start by saying that I think what Minister actually kicked off the entire discussion with, which is that the budget also is a very important role to play in laying the groundwork for our economy to be successful. That's really the most important thing, because if we cannot grow the economy, if we don't ensure that Singapore is a choice destination, not just for Singaporeans, of course, to live and work in play, but also for investors to come in, also for high school migrants to come in, and so on, and contribute to Singapore, if we can't ensure that this happens, we don't have the tax base, and we don't have the tax base, we cannot provide for Singaporeans.
So I think that's really important to make sure that we continue to be a really, really choice destination for investment capital, people, anything, you know, Singapore has to be up there at the top. But that being said, I think Minister is absolutely right, that it's all about trying to plan ahead and making sure that when we do have predictable, long-run expenditures that we're going to need to provide for, we do have to provide for the baby boom generation of Singaporeans in the next couple of decades, then we have to match that with reliable sources of revenue as well.
So I think in that regard, what we've seen over the last couple of decades is that our consumption taxes have gradually gone up. They are actually still below, I would say, maybe OECD or developed country norms, but there might be room to adjust that a bit more, it's a political decision, of course. I would also say that I think in terms of assets as well, there is a question about whether we could do more with raising revenue from assets. Now, I know, you know, in the last couple of years, there were some revisions in property tax rates. That didn't go down well, I think, necessarily, because it ran right up against, you know, this COVID-related boom in property values, and a lot of people found themselves paying more than they thought they would or should, right?
But I think that's another area to look at. It's more about, I think, making sure that our system, tax system, continues to be progressive so that Singaporeans who have done well by the system, benefited by it, perhaps they give back a bit more, right? And then Singaporeans who still need a bit of help to actually catch up and so on, they get more help, so I think that's very important. I think also, and broader perspective, besides, you know, matching the revenue and expenditure, this thing about avoiding fees and famine is absolutely right, I think, as well, which is why we do have a very robust reserves management framework to ensure, you know, that we do have that rainy day fund, so that if we had a famine period and surpluses in that term of government and not enough, we can tap on that as we did during COVID.
And I think it's also very important that when we do have those surpluses occurring from time to time, you know, instead of thinking, do I give this back immediately to the public, which, of course, you could do, but another thing you can do instead is think, okay, is there something I need to set aside the money for, create an endowment fund, top up fund, whatever it is, and I think government has been doing a lot of that over the decades, and that, in turn, provides a very stable stream of, you know, resources, right, revenue and so on, to fund these needs in the future.
Yeah, no, I mean, I'll just echo what the said about the importance of economic growth as that anchor for a secure revenue base over the longer term. And, you know, any economies will tell you that economic growth is a function of two things. One is labor force growth and the other's productivity, and we were talking quite a bit about fertility rate and out shrinking labor force, so quite apart from the fact that we have a low fertility rate, we also have an aging population, so, trying to think about how we can maximize the use of our local labor force is quite critical, and I think the budget does address, has quite a number of measures that try to address this, but also we have to double down on productivity and try to see how we can transform the economy to stay ahead.
I think we also have to bear in mind that Singapore is a small economy and we have a lot of constraints. We have constraints with regards to land, we have constraints with regards to labor, what the budget talks about in terms of energy also highlights how over time we also have to address constraints with regards to energy, and whether we are able to produce enough energy to be able to meet our economic needs. And not just any energy, but clean energy. And clean energy as well, so carbon is also a constraint that we also have to think about.
So, we have to think about how as an economy we can overcome some of these constraints, and how we can continue to create value, a value premium that justifies people wanting to continue to invest in Singapore, justifies businesses wanting to start new businesses, create new businesses in Singapore. And we have to bear in mind that our economic dynamism is also a function of what's happening in terms of our competitors. So, it's not just a static thing. We have to run the race and we have to run it faster than others around us. Many of them are catching up.
And so we also have to bear that in mind and continue to think of new ways in which we can create value for Singapore and Sasti in that value over the long term. So, that's also why PM ended his budget speech on a different note, which was unity, because with all these different things that we have to do, the only way in which we can do it is if we are team Singapore, sort of united and pulling along in the same direction.
So, budgets about that as well. Okay, so before we end, because I have you, Minister, on the couch, commentators and political analysts have called this an election year budget for all the goodies that come out. What do you say to that? I would say that it's a budget for everybody. Wherever we can, if there is money that is available, we make sure that it is channeled for the right strategic direction. But if there's something that's extra, we should share it.
And that's the essence of what being Singaporean is about. We're all in this together. So, I mean, there may be some years when things don't go as well, and we saw that during the COVID years, we had the reserves to draw on. This year, things, you know, is better in terms of the revenues, then we share it. And that has to be our approach. Thank you very much for being on the show and sharing your thoughts, and thank you for calling us in the UK.
If you're watching this episode on YouTube, like, subscribe, or hit the notification bell to get fresh content. Now, you can also catch the usual place on Apple Podcasts, 45 or on the STF. And I'll see you next time at the usual places.