Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, for my Budget debate speech this year, I will start with the issue of our ongoing efforts for green transition, as I have done in past years, followed by the issue of support for adults with disabilities before touching on a few issues relating to healthcare and support for our seniors.
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister announced in his Budget speech that Singapore submitted our new climate target, that is, Singapore’s 2035 nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the United Nations Framework two weeks ago and that we have committed to reducing our emissions to between 45 and 55 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 plan peak in 2028.
On our latest NDC, I would like to ask how much our plan is currently aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees warming target. If it is not aligned, how much warming is our plan consistent with, that is, is it a two-degree warming world, three-degree warming world, or so on.
Second, can the Government clarify what is stopping us from bringing forward our transition even further? 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 a number of public buses currently running on batteries have risen to 420, which is 7% of the current overall public bus 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 the Prime Minister’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 Ministry of Transport’s elaboration of these features and other clarifications during the COS.
Mr Speaker, in this Budget, about a year since its launch, the Prime Minister also doubled the Future Energy Fund to $10 billion. 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 captured 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 emission 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 this 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 these two sectors?
In this Budget, the Government will provide $5 billion more to the Changi Airport Development Fund, some of which would go to Terminal 5, which the Prime Minister 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% 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 a significant sale by Shell of their assets in Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island. I would like to seek, once again, 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 toward green transition following 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 elaborations on the concerns that I have raised, whether at the Budget debate or at the Committee of Supply.
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.
Mr Speaker, I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that he will provide more support for adults with disabilities. In 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 school education and training as well as doing more for their caregivers. I am therefore 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 a person with disability in entering the workforce and attaining and maintaining employment, and this would be consistent with the requirements the 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, 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 character and citizenship education 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 educational needs or disabilities. Can the MOE clarify or consider whether the concept of reasonable accommodations or at least the key aspects of it are currently being taught to both children and youth, with and without disabilities, to better prepare them to foster any 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, getting more support for 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 disability, there is a wide range. Provisions can range simply from rent for wheelchair access for the physically handicapped persons to providing assistive technology for those with sight problems and so on. For those with special needs, for example, 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 and so on.
How many of us can say we know with some details, of the workplace needs of different categories of disabled persons? I recently had conversation 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 successful, highly educated and intellectual individual shared with me that he will often struggle if his superior did not provide clear 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 own condition or challenges. I hope that SG Enable can consider how to continue 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.
Mr Speaker, in my Budget debate speech last two years, I had spoken on issues relating to our Active Ageing Centres, including staffing. While Active Ageing Centres are expected to reach out to 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 the residents. This may create a 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 for some residents, which will be a great waste after centre staff have tried so hard to bring them to the centre. So, 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.
Mr Speaker, in our 2020 manifesto, WP called for residential long-term care to be more heavily subsidised 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 and we support the raising of the maximum subsidy level to 95% for the non-residential long term care services for per capita household incomes below $1,500, to allow more people to age in place with financial support. We also 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 their maximum level of subsidy has been raised to $1,500 per capita.
Mr Speaker, in November 2023, during the WP 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 hon Member for Aljunied GRC Mr Gerald Giam, had also urged the same in a PQ. WP continues to believe that the annual value should be removed as a means testing criterion for healthcare subsidies.
Firstly, healthcare affordability should not be tied to property values. They 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-19 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 February 2024, we have found that households with no per capita household income and those who live in properties with annual value above $21,000, which 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 have spoken in my cost-of-living Motion speech, there may be a variety of reasons why individual owners are unable to monetise 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 annual value 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 unsubsidised medical expenses. For all these reasons, I hope the Government will reconsider and to remove the annual value criteria and provide the same subsidies to all household that have no income.
Next, 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 PQ in November 2024 by my colleague, MP for Sengkang, Ms He Ting Ru. For more serious conditions, they 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 of 2019 revealed that 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 the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) green card, so that subsidised care may be available for all at private dental clinics under the Primary Care Partnership scheme. 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 more expensive private dental clinics. Last but not least, in my speech during the 2022 Motion debate on Building a Healthier Singapore, I have asked for oral health to be covered in the Healthier SG programme.
In his Straits Times Forum letter on 22 November 2024, the dean of the National University of Singapore dental faculty, Prof Chris Peck said that the omission of dental care from Healthier SG “needs rectification”. With encouragement on prioritising prevention over corrective treatments, I hope MOH will consider this.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I look forward to the replies to all the concerns I have raised.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Mr Dennis Tan, do you have a clarification for Ms Ng Ling Ling?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a clarification regarding a point that I made earlier, just correcting the figures for my previous speech this morning.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So, you want to make accurate your previous speech?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, just a clarification on the figures.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, proceed, please.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Very, very brief, Sir. Just now, in my earlier speech, I said that in Singapore’s NDC recent submissions, we had committed to reducing our emissions to between 45 to 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035. I wish to clarify that the correct figure should be between 45 to 50 million tonnes instead. That is all.
26 February 2025
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=budget-2563
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 