Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Sir, in this Budget, I and others born in or before 1973 have been called “young seniors”. These days, when younger commuters give their seats up to me on the Mass Rapid Transport (MRT), I no longer feel insulted but accept with grace.
That said, with better life expectancy and health, 60 is the new 40. We still have much to contribute as citizens. Today, I wish to focus my speech on older workers and how we should be tapped on as a resource for the good of the nation.
What can older people contribute? A lot. Last week, veteran Hollywood director Martin Scorsese won the prestigious honorary Golden Bear at the 74th Berlinale, for lifetime achievement. For close to 60 years, Scorsese was at the helm of countless groundbreaking films, the latest being “Killers of the Flower Moon” released last year, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro. He announced that his next project would be a film on the life of Christ. All this, at age 81.
Singapore, too, has its own role models. The late Ms Teresa Hsu Chih, who died at the ripe old age of 113, was dubbed Singapore’s Mother Teresa. The retired nurse founded charities caring for the aged sick and destitute and was still actively involved in charity work after turning 110.
Sir, here I hint at a cultural mindset that we need to change. Over the years, I have met many older residents whose job search suggests age discrimination. Let me take just one instance.
There was a male resident who had decades of experience in healthcare management. He was well-groomed, communicated well and seemed fit. Yet, he found it near impossible to land an interview, let alone secure a job – in the same industry, healthcare – in positions either equivalent or less demanding than he had previously held. He was in his 70s.
Younger seniors aged 40 plus are also not sparred. Just last month, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) released a radio documentary on ageism in the workplace and interviewed mid-career Singaporeans; they shared their difficulties on just getting employers to give them a chance to show what they were capable of. Indeed, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM’s) Fair Employment Practices Reports, age was the most common form of discrimination encountered during job searches.
Yet, the fact is that there are jobs waiting to be filled. According to the MOM’s Labour Market Report for Q3 of 2023, there were still more job vacancies than job seekers. The ratio of job vacancies to job seekers was at 1.58, which was higher than pre-pandemic periods. The sectors that saw significant vacancies included Health and Social Services, Information and Communications, Professional Services, and Financial and Insurance Services.
While there may still be some physically demanding sectors that may not be suitable for older workers, this space has decreased over time. It is clear that jobs have evolved in the advent of technology and artificial intelligence. On this issue, Dr Helen Ko, Senior Lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), wrote a commentary in Channel NewsAsia (CNA) entitled: “Seniors do well at their jobs yet ageist myths and negative stereotypes persist.” She opined that it was not the age of a worker that was the most important, but whether the demands of work exceeded the worker’s capabilities. She noted that in this modern era, health and technology improvements meant that there were few jobs that the average 70-year-old could not do.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has put out many studies on ageism in recent years. The WHO literature refutes many misconceptions about ageing. It has been noted that there is no typical older person, and that some 80-year-olds have levels of physical and mental capacity that compare favourably with 20-year-olds. Thus, age should not be used as a proxy for capability.
Also, as life spans increase, many older people experience longer health spans. So, each cohort of the older population is effectively younger and should not be discriminated against because of age.
Having older citizens engaged in the workforce has immense benefits for society as a whole. If a significant proportion of older and middle-aged people are unemployed, especially those in the lowest income groups, they will become more dependent on informal family assistance, Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings and Government transfers or charity. This will increase social stratification and social division in our country.
Sir, at this point, I should acknowledge that the Government has various incentive schemes to encourage employers to hire older workers. These include various grants and the Senior Employment Credit (SEC) which offers wage offsets. As at September 2022, the SEC has been taken up by more than 100,000 employers and benefited more than 460,000 senior workers. While these incentives are appropriate and necessary, I believe we can attain even higher labour force participation of older workers if we change any ageist mindsets.
To this end, I am looking forward to the anti-discrimination legislation to be unveiled later this year. The various stakeholders involved have rightly identified age discrimination as something to be tackled. To make the legislation more effective, it should permeate the entire human resource process. In the United Kingdom (UK), for instance, I understand that the Equality Act 2010 protects people of all ages regarding employment, recruitment, promotion, reward and recognition, redundancy and vocational training.
Thus, for example, the UK legislation has made it illegal for recruiters interviewing potential hires to ask their age or date of birth. If our upcoming legislation has this effect as well, it would potentially be a game changer.
Next, I would like to turn briefly to the related topic of how to ensure our older workers can retrain. To assist mid-career workers, this Budget introduces three measures under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. I would like to make some observations about this initiative. While there is a minimum age of 40 to access these measures, there is no maximum age. I agree with this approach. Not having a maximum eligibility age impliedly recognises that a worker remains potentially employable, regardless of age. This is laudable.
I move to the first measure of providing a new $4,000 credit to enrol in courses that are targeted at employability outcomes. If the intention is to assure enrollees of better employability outcomes, will there be any condition attached to participants, such as to secure jobs in certain sectors?
As for the second measure of providing additional subsidies for a full-time diploma study in any area, it was not mentioned that increased employability was a goal of this measure. Would it then be possible to sign up for such subsidised courses simply for enrichment purposes?
Even if so, I would say that there is utility in this, as it keeps the minds of seniors agile and keeps them healthy longer; it could also allow them to become effective volunteers in our non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and charities, even if they are not earning a salary.
Finally, on the third measure of full-time courses that will attract a monthly training allowance of up to $3,000, it would be useful to know what the eligibility conditions are and whether there are any employment outcomes attached to these.
Sir, having managed and taught continuing education and training (CET) courses myself for more than a decade, I have personally seen the strong desire of adult learners to improve themselves. Many of them do not come from privileged backgrounds and they value the second chance, as it were. For adult learners to succeed, having course fee subsidies and employer support is critical. CET is a worthy cause, as it is an important aspect of social mobility.
Sir, let me conclude. I have focused on how older workers are a national resource that should be leveraged on, for the benefit of society. We still have work to do to tackle age discrimination if we are to maximise our country’s potential and well-being. All of us should be lifelong learners, or risk becoming obsolete. As I said at the start of my speech, 60 is the new 40. Let us embrace this reality with renewed confidence.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, like you, I am also a “young senior”. And like you, I, too, enjoyed the movie “Killers of the Flower Moon”.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I would like to also make some comments on the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim’s speech, a couple of speeches before me.
As I understand, Ms Sylvia Lim’s position is that we should not disenfranchise our senior workers. I could not agree more.
If one were to study the Budget delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, there are a number of key initiatives. In fact, a whole raft of measures that are targeted to assist our seniors, not only age actively, but also to reskill, upskill and re-enter the workforce.
So, I enjoin the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim to have a care and look at what we are doing, the $3.5 billion for Age Well SG. And what is the purpose behind this? It is to empower active ageing. Or a MediSave bonus of up to $300 for all adult Singaporeans born in 1974 to 2003. Why? For the assurance for healthcare. We will increase quarterly payments from the Silver Support Scheme by 20% and raise qualifying household income thresholds to $2,300. Why? To support seniors in their retirement needs. And the list goes on.
But specifically, if I have not misunderstood hon Member’s speech, is the aspect of re-employment and jobs. And here, I would also like to invite the Member to take a look at what the Government is doing to have mid-career reskilling. We are providing $4,000 in SkillsFuture credits for mid-career top-ups in May 2024, which can be used for selected industry-oriented training courses with better employability outcomes and up to $3,000 monthly SkillsFuture mid-career training allowance for up to 24 months for selected full-time courses.
But I have learnt, over the years, in this Chamber, that statistics do not necessarily make the point as well as stories do. So, let me share with you that while we have all these measures in place and there is a lot of deliberation, a lot of the need to balance competing interests and pushing out new policies, funding them, ensuring the revenue is there for them. But at the end of the day, as MPs and Members of this House, at least, the elected ones, have a duty to ensure that these policies and measures meet their intended need on the ground.
Let me share with you a story which, I think, meets the concerns of what Ms Sylvia Lim raised. This is a story of a resident, Mr Subramaniam, whom I have known for a number of years. He is now 65 years old.
Some years ago, we met and he shared with me that he is looking to upskill himself and he wants to get a security guard licence. I said, “Mr Subramaniam, why would you like to get a security guard licence?” He said, “Because I will be able to upskill, earn more money for my family. I have a wife and I have one son Ramasamy. We live in our one room one hall flat in Ghim Moh.”, an area in the ward that I am responsible for. So, I said, “Yes, we will do our best to get you a security licence.” He did.
We have seen Ramasamy grow up. He went from Henry Park Primary School to Fairfield Methodist Primary School. He did well enough to get into ITE. He got a 4.0 out of 4.0 GPA in ITE. He went on to Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and he did one semester in Glasgow and he is doing very, very well.
And along the way, when we meet, whether at market visits or home visits or when he comes in for Meet-the-People Sessions and we have a chat; and the relationship is now a friendship.
I asked Mr Subramaniam, “What did you do with your upskilling and reskilling? He said, “Mr de Souza, I got a job in Changi Airport.” So, I said, “Changi Airport? You live in Ghim Moh. How long does it take for you to get to Changi Airport?” “An hour, an hour twenty minutes.” And I said, “And an hour and 20 minutes back.” So, he said, “Yes.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Because Changi Airport, pay is better and I want the best for of my son.”
So, when we talk about wanting to provide for our seniors, I agree that policies and statistics can be quite clinical and impersonal. But that is what we are called to do in this House, to make the policies and the statistics, change the lives of our residents. That is our vocation. That is our calling. And when Ramasamy came in with his certificate from SIT, the family said and shared with me, “Now, I think it is time for us to buy our flat.” That was a very moving sharing with the family.
So, I could not agree more with Ms Sylvia Lim’s point that we cannot forget our seniors. I agree wholeheartedly with that. But where I diverge humbly and respectfully is that we are doing that. We are pushing out policies, we are pushing out initiatives and we are pushing out a lot of fiscal provision. The bridge is us and it is for us to accomplish that vocation to the best of our ability. With that, Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say that I am really rather puzzled by Mr de Souza’s response to my speech and, perhaps, respectfully too, I may suggest that he has misheard me.
First of all, you know, he says to have a care as elected MPs for what the Government is going and, in my speech, actually, I strongly endorsed the CET initiatives. Having been a person that has been involved for more than a decade in managing and teaching CET courses, I see the value and I did say so in my speech. I have also acknowledged the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme in detail. So, I think he has misunderstood or has not heard what I have said and, kind of, accused me of not acknowledging Government’s efforts. I do not think that is true.
The main focus of my speech really is on older workers and how we need to tackle ageism in workplace and the Government’s own statistics, MOM’s own Fair Employment Practices reports, highlight that age discrimination is the main form of discrimination that needs to be tackled.
While I am happy to hear that his resident has done so well, but has he not come across any residents who are older who have faced age discrimination in the workplace?
Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank the hon Member for giving me this chance to reply. I did not hear the hon Member talk about all the different measures that we have in place to support the seniors which I went through.
The Member may have alluded to the upskilling which I alluded to. I think what is important is to not dichotomise, not say, “Look, this is water and oil and what we are going to do at the policy level doesn’t actually trickle down to the low level.” It does.
And the reason why I gave an example is to show that we are meant to be the bridges. If we see that there is ageism, as I have seen and as I have tried humbly, to the best of my ability, to bridge, then we should. That is my point. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
These are a slew of measures that work, I think, in concert with each other – the fiscal measures as well as what we do on the ground for residents to job match and to ensure that they get as close to a job as they want, not only for their own sake but for the sake of their residents.
So, I do not think I misread or misheard Ms Lim’s speech. I think it was largely based on ageism and my humble response to that is if you look at all the fiscal measures, and the grind and the work of the MPs on the ground, I think we do have a chance of a winning formula for our seniors.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I do not wish to prolong this matter. I think the Hansard will speak for itself of what I have said, and I do not agree with what he has accused me of saying.
Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: I think “accusation” is a very strong word. I am not accusing the hon Member. I am summarising what I think her point is and her point is really that there is this stark, prickly, difficult and possibly unassailable issue of ageism. I agree that it is a difficult issue. I agree that it is an issue on the ground.
I do not agree that it is unassailable. And the formula for that, the remedy for that or the solution for that is what the MPs do on the ground to bridge that gap, to translate fiscal policies and all that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had said in Budget 2024 into real life examples of how this has worked and impacted families.
So, I make no accusations. I seek to re-orientate the House into how the Government is vested with this issue and has put in place all the initiatives to try to overcome it.
But the winning formula really is, as backbenchers, our calling and our vocation, to bridge that gap. And I genuinely believe that.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. I never said that ageism is unassailable and, in fact, in my speech, I expressed the hope that the upcoming anti-discrimination legislation would move the needle and be a game changer.
Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank Ms Lim for agreeing that ageism is not unassailable.
Mr Speaker: I assure Members that everything that is said here will be captured in Hansard. Leader of the House.
27 February 2024
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=budget-2336
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 