[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Mdm Speaker: Order. Oath of Allegiance. The hon Member, present to take her seat, will please come forward when her name is called.
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance:
Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East)
Mdm Speaker:\tOrder. Questions for Oral Answer.
1 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health (a) how many elderly Singaporeans are currently suffering from hearing impairment and have sought treatment at Government clinics as compared to three years ago; (b) how many of them require a basic hearing aid; (c) what is the average cost of a hearing aid; and (d) whether the Government will review the use of Medisave to pay for these hearing aids.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mdm Speaker, in 2012, our hospitals attended to about 8,600 seniors for audiometry tests or hearing loss evaluation, as compared to about 6,800 cases in 2010. Of the 8,600 seniors, about 1,500 or 17% of these seniors needed a hearing aid and went through a hearing aid evaluation test. About 800 seniors eventually took up the use of hearing aids.
The cost of a hearing aid varies but averages around $1,000 to $1,500. Medisave coverage does not extend to the purchase of hearing aid because Medisave is primarily meant to support large hospitalisation bills. We need to be careful not to over expand the use of Medisave so that Singaporeans will still have enough in their Medisave to cover their hospitalisation expenses. To help the low income elderly, the Centre for Enabled Living (CEL) has a Special
\tPage: 8
Assistance Fund that provides subsidy for such hearing aids.
We are reviewing our policies to better support the elderly as our population ages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disciplinary Cases Involving Doctors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for Health (a) what action will be taken to review the handling of disciplinary cases involving doctors; (b) whether the Ministry will study the reasons behind the large number of null votes cast at the recent Singapore Medical Council election; (c) what steps will be taken to strengthen doctors' trust in the Singapore Medical Council; and (d) what steps will be taken to address public trust in our healthcare services.
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: Mdm Speaker, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has appointed a Review Committee to review the existing legislative and administrative frameworks for disciplinary proceedings involving doctors and to optimise and strengthen the processes so that disciplinary matters are dealt with in a just and expeditious manner. This Committee comprises senior doctors and lawyers and the review is expected to be completed in about six months' time.
About half the members of the SMC are elected. Voting in the SMC elections is compulsory for all fully registered doctors. About 15% to 20% of doctors cast null votes each year for various reasons.
The disciplinary processes and requirements for doctors are set out in the MRA, and the disciplinary bodies set up, namely the Complaints Committees and the Disciplinary Tribunals, are obliged to comply with those statutory requirements. The disciplinary proceedings and the deliberations of the disciplinary bodies are conducted independently of the SMC, bearing in mind that the objective of the MRA is to protect the health and safety of the public, uphold standards of practice within the medical profession, and maintain public confidence in the medical profession.
The Director of Medical Services, who is also the Registrar of the SMC under the MRA, has written to all doctors in January this year to explain and clarify SMC's disciplinary processes. As mentioned previously, the Review Committee will be looking into strengthening the processes for complaints and discipline.
Page: 9
To build public trust in our healthcare services, our healthcare professionals must play their part to ensure that patients are given the best care possible. Our professional boards and councils have promulgated ethical codes and guidelines that articulate high standards of professional conduct. The respective professional Acts have disciplinary frameworks as a deterrent against errant behaviour with measures in place to ensure a fair hearing. There are checks and balances in the professional Acts and avenues for appeal. We will continually refine and improve our processes, and ensure that public trust in our healthcare services and practitioners is maintained.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Both relate to the balance between the internal processes of the discipline of medicine and the external overview from Government and regulatory bodies. The first is with respect to trust: does the Minister feel that the primary responsibility for the restoration of trust or the increase of trust lies with members of the profession or with the Government? And similarly, with respect to regulation, the medical profession, for a very long time, has had this principle of internal self regulation because of a presumption of the need for professional knowledge and professional competency. Going forward, where does the Minister see the balance between regulation by external bodies – be they legal bodies or Government bodies – as compared to the idea of internal self regulation by the profession?
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the clarification that he has sought. First, let me explain that we need to strike a balance between self regulation and external oversight. That is why the MRA was amended recently, in 2010, to include external parties, including the senior legal professionals who will also be part of the disciplinary process that is going to be conducted within the SMC. We should allow the Act that had just been amended to be implemented fully. Many of the cases that we see today are, in fact, cases that have started before the amendment of the Act and, therefore, legally they have to come under the previous framework. The new cases will then be taken on under the new framework.
The Committee that has been set up will also take the time, over the next six months, to review the processes and the implementation of the new Act, and see where else we can improve so as to enhance the trust and confidence of both the profession as well as members of the public. I would urge the Member to give us some time to allow the SMC to work at it, to go through the Review Committee's work. In time to come, we hope to be able to continue to strengthen the processes and build the confidence in this profession.
Page: 10
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mdm Speaker, my apologies. I should have declared my interest as an employee of the public healthcare services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preparations for 2013 SEA Games in Myanmar","subTitle":"Impact on preparations of Singapore's athletes","sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether there has been any update on Myanmar's preparation to host the 2013 Southeast Asian Games; and (b) whether this will impact preparations by Singapore athletes gearing up for the Games.
\tThe Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, Myanmar will be hosting the Southeast Asian Games in December 2013. The last update from the Myanmar Olympic Committee (MOC) was in July 2012 at the SEA Games Federation Council Meeting. The delegates at the meeting toured facilities such as competition venues and the Games Village, which were still under construction then, but are on schedule for completion before the Games. The Council also deliberated on the sports to be included for the Games. Discussions are still ongoing, but the final list of sports will likely be confirmed at the end of the month. In fact, I believe there has been some convergence and they are probably already settled on the final list of sports.
Based on these preliminary discussions, the National Sports Associations (NSA) and the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) have already been working together to prepare our athletes. This includes the setting of milestones and targets, scheduling of overseas training and competitions, as well as other specialised training to ensure that our athletes peak in time for the Myanmar Games.
\t
\tMr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for the answer. I declare my interest as the President of two sports associations, and a member of the National Olympic Council. The issue we tend to face with the SEA Games is that the sports list tends to be decided from country to country, with the inclusion of some interesting choices that may not feature in the Olympic list of sports. This has resulted in the problem where athletes are preparing year by year, or two years by two years. As Singapore moves towards a more professional pathway of sports development, what can we do as a country, as a member of Southeast Asia and a member of the Games, to create greater visibility for athletes preparing for such competitions in the future? And also, as a future host of the Games in 2015,
\tPage: 11
in terms of preparing to host these Games, are there measures that we can put in place or views that we can push to ensure greater visibility for all parties concerned?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: The hon Member would be aware that at the SEA Games level, the selection of sports is done by the SEA Games Federation Council. And all ASEAN members are represented on the Council by their National Olympic Committees. We are represented by the SNOC. At the SEA Games Federation Council level, our SNOC has always taken the stand that the sports that are included in the SEA Games ought to be games that are Olympics-level or Asian Games-level types of sports. We have always taken that stand. Within the SEA Games framework, the Council allows for traditional games to be included into the Games as well. The host country, sometimes, will include some of these games. Indonesia, in the last SEA Games, included a traditional martial arts sport; Myanmar this year has proposed chinlone, a game that is something like sepak takraw and it is going to be included in the Games, as I understand.
Within that framework, what we can do is to continue to maintain our position to advocate for SEA Games-level sports to include games that are at the Olympic and Asian Games-level. With that base of sports, our athletes will have quite a number of opportunities to participate, excel and do well in these sports. Within the SEA Games context, there will always be a few traditional sports that will be included. We recognise that and that is part of the SEA Games spirit.
When we host the Games in 2015, we will maintain our same position, that we want the Games to be of a high level. And we would want to have, as far as possible, within the SEA Games that we host in 2015, sports that are at the Olympic and Asian Games-level.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Illegal Bus Drivers Strike on Industrial Relations and Dependency on Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr R Dhinakaran asked the Acting Minister for Manpower how can the Government ensure that employers of foreign workers in the essential services do enough to inform their foreign employees of the different set of rules and regulations and the law governing the nature of their employment.
\tPage: 12
5 Dr Lily Neo asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an assessment for the unhappiness of the Chinese bus drivers who were responsible for the recent illegal strike and if this situation could have been better managed; and (b) does the Ministry have in place a safety-valve mechanism to step in before relations breakdown to the point of disrupting vital public transport services.
6 Mr Arthur Fong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of the illegal strikes by the SMRT Chinese drivers, what are the learning points to avoid such an occurrence again.
7 Mr Arthur Fong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how can avenues to address grievances of foreign workers working in Singapore be better managed; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider allowing foreign workers to be unionised.
8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what are the learning points from the recent illegal strike by SMRT bus drivers; (b) whether there are adequate mechanisms to handle the grievances of non-unionised low-wage workers; and (c) whether companies that hire large number of foreign workers are equipped to manage workers of different nationalities and backgrounds.
9 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the recent illegal strike by SMRT bus drivers is a wake-up call for tripartism; (b) what lessons can be drawn to ensure that low-wage workers, including foreign workers, will be treated fairly by employers and their grievances heard; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that employers will not exploit lowly educated foreign workers, particularly non-unionised ones.
10 Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of the recent SMRT bus drivers' work stoppages, how can Singapore do better to maintain its excellent industrial relations track record, especially for essential services.
11 Ms Mary Liew asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of the recent strike by SMRT workers (a) what can be done to strengthen tripartism and ensure that it continues to be Singapore's comparative advantage; and (b) given that bipartism is a pre-requisite for strong tripartism, what more can be done to get employers to recognise and support unions at the workplace.
\tPage: 13
12 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for detaining the 29 SMRT bus drivers prior to their deportation in a prison facility when they have not been charged with any offence; and (b) what is being done to ensure that the employment terms and work conditions are adequately safeguarded for persons working in the essential services as specified in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.
13 Mr Laurence Lien asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will mandate improvements in the work conditions of foreign workers and make Singapore a more competitive destination for such workers from the region to come to Singapore.
14 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) when SMRT first became aware of the pay and housing grievances of its foreign bus drivers; (b) when the Ministry first became aware of the grievances; (c) what actions were taken by the Ministry since the grievances were known; and (d) what plans the Ministry has for improving industrial relationship between foreign workers and employers.
15 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the total number of non-Singaporeans employed in the essential services listed in the First Schedule of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67); (b) what are the top five essential services that hire the most non-Singaporeans; and (c) what is the number and percentage of non-Singaporeans in each of the top five essential services.
16 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Acting Minister for Manpower with regard to the Ministry's investigation of the recent illegal industrial strikes (a) did the workers have adequate access to the Ministry or other related agencies to air their grievances; (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the channels available to foreign workers to seek redress on their work conditions; (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing relevant agencies, NGOs and unions to set up a representative branch office or conduct regular dormitory visits to improve accessibility and prevent foreign worker abuse by employers or exploitation by third parties; and (d) what more can be done to prevent the exploitation of foreign workers by employers.
17 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what role did the Chinese Embassy play in the resolution of the SMRT strike by Chinese bus drivers on 26 November 2012; and (b) whether there were other demands made by these bus drivers apart from salary and living conditions that
\tPage: 14
were made known to the Ministry via the Chinese Embassy.
\tThe Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, if I may take the next 14 questions together?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: I would like to thank my fellow Members of this House for the many questions, but in particular, for agreeing to defer your questions to this day. Given the importance of this topic, it was appropriate for us to air this, to address this publicly, and to have a proper Question and Answer following this response.
Let me start by addressing Dr Lily Neo, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Asst Prof Eugene Tan's queries on the causes and actions taken by the Government with regard to the illegal strike by the SMRT bus drivers. I am aware that there are many reasons offered in the various media sources about the root causes of the workers' grievances. Indeed, there have been employment issues raised with MOM on SMRT in the past. In fact, in 2010, a number of these were raised.
Those issues relating to potential breaches of statutory obligations have been investigated and dealt with by MOM, while issues not related to statutory obligations have been surfaced by my colleagues in MOM to SMRT's most senior management levels. All these were dealt with prior to the strike.
When MOM officers spoke with the PRC bus drivers on 26 November when they participated in the strike, new issues were revealed and their unhappiness boiled down to three core issues. Firstly, differential salary and increments relative to the Malaysian bus drivers. Secondly, a SMRT internal circular which explicitly excluded PRC bus drivers from a recent salary adjustment exercise and, thirdly, perceived unsatisfactory accommodation conditions.
As in most other developed countries, our labour laws will stipulate the basic employment standards, and the Government's role is to ensure that these basic employment standards are upheld. It is neither possible nor desirable to prescribe every good management practice under these laws.
The first two grievances raised by the PRC bus drivers were in fact issues which had nothing to do with employment standards or to do with the law. Rather, they were contractual issues to do with the terms and conditions of their
\tPage: 15
employment. Both employers and employees share a joint responsibility to resolve such cases amicably; and the Government should be careful about interfering in private contractual arrangements which are entered into willingly by both parties and which do not breach any statutory requirements. I will expand on this later.
The third issue alleged a potential breach of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations that require employers to ensure that their foreign employees have acceptable accommodation. Following feedback from the workers, MOM promptly sent officers to check on the state of the accommodation. We found no infringements committed by the dormitory operator such as an unacceptable level of overcrowding. Although the general housekeeping conditions of the rooms the PRC drivers occupied were below par, it should be stressed that the workers are responsible for the general upkeep of their own rooms as part of the rental agreement with the dormitory.
To put things in proper perspective, with a large and diverse workforce, employment disputes are not uncommon in Singapore. In fact, employment disputes are not uncommon among Singaporean workers as well, together with their employers. I think all of us will have experienced that, whether in the capacity of employees or employers. By and large, these are settled amicably between employer and employee through grievance handling mechanisms, and sometimes with MOM's assistance as well. We stepped in to mediate in these issues.
But let me be clear about this. Whatever the workers' grievances were, we cannot condone workers in this instance, or any other, taking matters into their own hands and breaking the law. If this happens, they will be dealt with according to the law and in the case of the SMRT strike, 29 were sternly warned by the Police for participating in the strike illegally. They were then detained in an immigration depot prior to their repatriation in order to make the necessary arrangements for them to be repatriated from Singapore, and to mitigate the risk of further law and order issues arising from the cancellation of their work passes. Another five persons have been charged under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Of the five, one has been convicted for participating in the illegal strike. The court proceedings for the other four are on-going. The four drivers have just lodged fresh complaints against SMRT on 11 January, and we are looking into these complaints.
Singapore expects our citizens working in foreign countries to abide by the laws of their host countries. Similarly, we expect all foreign nationals working in Singapore to do the same. Mr Arthur Fong, Ms Irene Ng and Mr Liang Eng
\tPage: 16
Hwa also asked about learning points arising from this particular incident. I would highlight three broad lessons. Firstly, the importance of having a proper grievance handling system, and better workplace diversity management in companies. Secondly, there is a need for better protection of and educational outreach to vulnerable workers. And thirdly, the continuing importance of tripartism amidst a changing workforce profile.
Let me address these in turn, starting from the first which has been raised by Dr Lily Neo, Mr Arthur Fong, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Irene Ng.
There are many reasons why employment-related grievances may arise in workplaces. As I mentioned earlier, it is really not uncommon for a workforce of three million. Some relate to breaches of employers' statutory obligations, while others relate to contractual disputes. Yet others relate to non-contractual issues such as disagreements over the level of employment benefits or the conditions of work. It is not always very clear whether the disagreements arise from unacceptable employment conditions or from the unreasonable demands of the workers themselves. I think we often hear of stories from both sides of the coin. Regardless of their nature, if these grievances are not properly addressed and are allowed to fester, it could eventually lead to undesirable consequences, as in the case of the SMRT incident.
Fundamentally, it is the employer who bears the primary responsibility to address employee grievances. Employers are the ones who can take immediate remedial actions to address valid grievances as and when they arise. And if there are misunderstandings, it is also the employer who should try to communicate better to make sure that these misunderstandings are cleared up. As I mentioned earlier, and I think all of us would, I believe, agree that it is really not practical or desirable for the Government to step in and to prescribe by law all the different good management practices which we expect companies to adopt.
It is in employers' self-interest to implement effective communication and grievance management systems. These can, in turn, and they will, bring about other benefits such as better employee engagement and improved productivity.
This is also the view shared strongly by our Tripartite Partners. Both employers and unions believe that open and direct communication between employer and employee is really the key to harmonious industrial relations. In the case of unionised companies, the unions would work with management to
\tPage: 17
include grievance handling procedures in collective agreements.
The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) recently released an advisory on employee grievance handling that strongly encouraged companies of all sizes to put in place such procedures or to review existing ones to ensure that they are practical and relevant. So, it is not good enough to just have grievance handling mechanisms. They must be able to work and the personnel responsible for them must be able to implement them in their full spirit. I cannot stress enough the importance for all employers to give attention to this issue, particularly if they do not yet have such measures in place. This is important not just with foreign workers for the foreign labour force, but with our own Singaporean workforce as well.
If there are employers who need help and advice, they can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) which has been conducting workshops and has produced handbooks to educate and equip employers with the wherewithal to implement proper grievance management systems.
I mentioned earlier that in the specific case of SMRT, the grievances by the PRC drivers arose because of the differential salary and increments relative to their Malaysian counterparts, as well as an internal circular which conveyed the decision to the PRC drivers in really, quite an insensitive way. My Ministry has looked into these issues in detail and let me now deal with each in turn.
The Government's basic philosophy is to allow remuneration to be set according to market principles. Employers are free to determine the salary they are willing to pay for a particular job. In the same vein, workers, whether local or foreign, are free to decide if the employment terms on offer suit their needs, and whether to accept or reject the employment offer. In our structurally tight labour market, employers who treat their workers fairly and in accordance to their abilities and competencies will have a competitive advantage in finding suitable workers to grow their businesses.
On the issue of salary differentials, SMRT has explained that unlike Malaysians, the PRC drivers are not permanent staff. Moreover, they are provided transport and accommodation which have to be taken into account in their overall remuneration package.
SMRT has also explained that the PRC workers are here on a two-year term contracts. These contracts do not provide for wage increments, and the workers
\tPage: 18
were aware that they were not entitled to this increment when they signed on for the job.
But I would say that SMRT really could have handled the matter better by ensuring that the company's decisions were properly explained to and accepted by the workers. I call on SMRT's top management to deal with these issues decisively. This has been conveyed to them and they have indicated that this is something they are taking on seriously and are addressing.
Grievance handling procedures and communication channels cannot guarantee disputes are always resolved to the satisfaction of workers. As I mentioned earlier, it is often unclear as well, if the dispute arose from inadequate employment conditions or from unreasonable demands of workers. But it certainly helps to mitigate the risk of serious labour management breakdown when the means of communications are opened and there are such systems in place.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked if the drivers had access to the Ministry. The answer is yes. Employees who suspect that their employers have breached their statutory obligations may approach MOM for assistance. As I have said, MOM's role is to ensure that basic employment standards for all employees in Singapore are upheld. We will investigate such complaints and we do not just take the word of one side or one party. If proven to be true, we will not hesitate to take errant employers to task. For non-statutory employment disputes which are raised to MOM, we will facilitate where we can and where is appropriate, but ultimately the resolution lies between the employer and employee. It is not feasible or practical for MOM to step in on every single grievance that occur in every single company.
If for one reason or another, workers prefer not to come to MOM directly, they can also reach out to unions, or Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) such as the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC), HealthServe and others for assistance in pursuing their grievances. Foreign workers can also approach their respective countries' embassies to register their dissatisfaction and complaints, and thereafter, their embassies will raise it with us.
MOM recognises the positive roles that unions play in representing the interests of their members and in stabilising labour management relations. Unions play a very important role in our landscape. Foreign Embassies also have regular engagement and a close working relationship with my Ministry. Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the role of the Chinese Embassy in the SMRT
\tPage: 19
case. Throughout the incident, both MOM and MHA officers kept in close contact with Embassy officials and facilitated consular access to the affected Chinese bus drivers.
MOM further recognises that NGOs can play a useful bridging role. We work closely with these organisations and support their efforts to ensure that workers are not exploited. In fact, at the working level, a lot of interactions take place between my officers and the representatives from the NGOs on a very, very regular basis. Between 2011 and end 2012, the MWC assisted around 3,000 foreign workers by referring their cases to MOM, solving workers' employment grievances and providing interim humanitarian assistance such as accommodation and food. During this period, MOM also received close to 500 and 450 case referrals from NGOs like Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) and the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics (HOME) respectively. The majority of these cases were resolved by MOM within the month.
Several Members, like Mr Dhinakaran, Dr Lily Neo, Asst Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Cedric Foo, have asked whether special attention should be paid to essential services such as public transport to safeguard workers' interests and to ensure that labour relations in these enterprises do not break down, since that would adversely affect Singaporeans.
The Government already recognises that it is critical to ensure companies providing essential services operate smoothly with minimal disruptions. Although the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act prohibits workers employed in sectors like water, electricity and gas from going on strike, they can join trade unions. Trade unions recognised by their employers can use the legal process under the Industrial Relations Act to negotiate with the employer, and surface deadlock disputes to Industrial Arbitration Court. Those employed in essential services listed in the First Schedule, which includes public transport, can go on strike so long as they give their employers 14 days' advance notice. Such restrictions and advance notice pre-requisites for essential services are not unique to Singapore. Many countries have them as well. I think all of us can understand why such requirements are put into the law.
MOM will be working with the respective sectoral regulators to ensure that they institute robust grievance handling procedures in essential services companies to minimise the probability of industrial action. Sectoral regulators should also work with these companies to put in place business continuity plans.
Page: 20
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked whether companies that hire large numbers of foreign workers are equipped to manage workers of different nationalities. In 2010, the National Integration Working Group for Workplaces (NIWG-W) had commissioned a study on the state of workplace diversity management across gender, age and nationality. While 90% of companies agreed that workplace inclusiveness and harmony were important to business outcomes, 27% responded that they faced challenges in managing a diverse workforce. For large companies, line managers and supervisors often lacked skills and knowledge in this regard. SMEs, on the other hand, lacked resources to raise awareness and put systemic processes in place.
Based on these findings, the NIWG-W developed a Workplace Diversity Management Toolkit. It will help employers to assess the state of inclusiveness and harmony in their workplaces, and offers examples of initiatives they can adopt. The toolkit is readily available for employers to download at MOM's website. NIWG-W is currently working with SNEF to explore ways to step up efforts to actively promote good workplace diversity management practices to more employers in a more sustainable manner.
I shall now move on to the second thrust on protection and educational outreach for the more vulnerable workers, including foreign workers, which Mr Dhinakaran, Mr Arthur Fong, Ms Irene Ng, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Laurence Lien have asked about. There have also been several expressions of concern by members of the public about our management of foreign workers.
Members will appreciate that with about 1.2 million guest workers, or one out of every five persons, in Singapore, managing foreign worker issues takes a substantial amount of my Ministry's time and effort. But it is important to watch out for this space. It is heartening to note that from a joint study done by MOM and MWC in 2011, more than nine in 10 of foreigner workers were satisfied with their overall working experience here. However, as I said before many times, while, by and large, we have good employers and Singaporeans, by and large, respect and appreciate the contributions made by foreign workers, there will be negative experiences and unhappy cases from time to time. As I said before, I do believe that we can do more in this area and I will, in this segment, outline some of the existing and upcoming measures.
Over the years, MOM has put in place a framework to ensure basic employment standards for all employees, in terms of legislation, enforcement and educational outreach. Our legislation is regularly reviewed to ensure their continued relevance and efficacy in view of the changing employment
\tPage: 21
landscape.
Recently, as Members are aware, we revised the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) to give the Government more flexibility and enforcement teeth against employers who exploit their foreign workers. Phase 2 of the EFMA review will continue later this year to better protect the well-being of workers, as well as ensure an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers. In addition, we are studying whether to broaden the circumstances where we allow foreign workers to change employers in instances where there has been a genuine mismatch in expectations.
We are also reviewing the Employment Act. A key area in this review is the improvement of employment standards and benefits for vulnerable employees. And this applies to our local workers as well.
Comprehensive legislative protection in turn needs to be underpinned by robust enforcement. MOM takes a serious view of employers who fail to fulfil their statutory duties under the law. Besides relying on cases triggered by complaints from employees, we also take proactive steps to detect errant employers. In 2012, MOM conducted about 3,000 inspections to detect potential breaches of the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, including more than 850 inspections of premises used as foreign worker housing. More than 350 employers were also prosecuted and convicted for breaching Employment laws during this period.
In recognition of the different circumstances faced by foreign workers, MOM further undertakes calibrated outreach efforts to educate them of their employment rights and responsibilities, and avenues for assistance. Since 2009, MOM has been issuing guidebooks published in foreign workers' native languages to all new foreign workers when they report to MOM's Work Permit Services Centre to collect their Work Permit cards. The guidebook provides information on foreign workers' employment rights and responsibilities under the law, and useful contact numbers, including those of MOM and the Police, NGOs, and Embassies of foreign workers' home countries. So, if they have issues, they can call any of these above numbers and register their concerns.
Going forward, we will enhance the guidebook to provide more information on proper channels for raising grievances and regulations on industrial actions.
Page: 22
Besides providing information on employment laws, it is important to provide foreign workers with information on their basic employment terms in advance, before they enter Singapore. Since June 2011, employers have been required to declare the foreign worker's basic monthly salary, allowances and deductions when applying for work permits. The information declared by employers is clearly stated in the copy of the In-Principle Approval letter, and a copy of this letter is sent to the worker in their native languages before they enter Singapore. We want to make sure that workers come in with their eyes fully open as to what they have agreed to and what the employers have agreed to.
MOM has also piloted a series of pre-departure orientation briefings in source countries on topics such as employment laws and employment terms for Singapore-bound construction workers. MOM is also working with our partners to produce an educational video for foreign workers before they come so that they are better informed on their employment rights and how to settle any employment disputes amicably.
On Mr Arthur Fong's question of whether MOM will allow foreign workers to be unionised, let me clarify that the law already allows this to take place. In fact, many foreign workers are already union members and have their unions representing them on employment related issues such as work-related grievances. And we have encouraged the unions to be proactive on this front, in similar fashion to let our foreign worker population know that they are free to join the unions.
This brings me to the final point on tripartism and industrial relations, which Ms Irene Ng, Mr Cedric Foo and Ms Mary Liew have asked about.
Strong tripartite cooperation has been one of Singapore's unique strengths. We have said this many times, and it is something that I would want to say again. It is actually quite critical for us and has contributed significantly. It has brought about general industrial peace; stable jobs for all our workers; and enhanced our attractiveness as a business and investment destination. We must continue to build on this foundation so that more and better jobs can be created for Singaporeans. It is not something we should take for granted, and we should continue to strengthen this relationship.
The SMRT incident revealed that industrial peace cannot be taken for granted. It was indeed, as Ms Irene Ng put it, a \"wake-up call\". To strengthen tripartism, we need to build upon the spirit of cooperation between workers,
\tPage: 23
employers and the Government.
Given the very strong commitment by the tripartite partners, I am quite confident that we will be able to reinforce and strengthen the tripartite foundation that we have built up over the years.
In conclusion, let me end by saying that it is inevitable that given the changing dynamic of our modern workforce, it will continue to pose new challenges to our existing framework for harmonious industrial relations. The SMRT incident has shown that we need to be nimble and develop new ways to address these challenges early. This will include strengthening the capacity of all parties in the employment ecosystem to minimise work-related disputes as far as possible, and resolve them fairly and expeditiously when they arise.
\tDr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, three supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Minister whether there is any incentive scheme in place to encourage Singaporeans to take up employment in our essential services? May I also ask the Acting Minister what is the percentage of foreign workers being employed in our essential services, and whether he plans to tweak this percentage in the long run to reduce our perpetual reliance on foreign workers for such essential services? Lastly, the Acting Minister mentioned earlier about the notes to be taken from the last strike, may I ask whether he can now give the assurance that there are action plans in place to prevent a future strike?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for her several questions. The first set of questions revolves around our essential services. This is a fair concern, and it has been expressed by Mr Png Eng Huat as well. Let me put it this way. Essential services are critical to the well functioning of Singapore's society and we should pay attention to that. Due to security reasons, it would probably be appropriate for me not to go into details as to the extent of which the numbers are involved. But, certainly, with regard to the operators themselves and the agencies concerned, we are working closely with these agencies to understand the circumstance and to make sure that appropriate measures are put in place.
As to whether there are more incentives to encourage more Singaporeans to join such essential services, the agencies are looking at how better to make employment for Singaporeans more attractive. This applies to not just those agencies alone but many other agencies providing public services. But, at the same time, I think it is to make sure that there are measures put in place to
\tPage: 24
manage industrial relations within these firms, and that is critical.
While we have seen the incidents through the SMRT strike of this possibility, it does not – and I stress – it is important not to generalise that there is a high risk of this happening. There are reasons why it has taken place. In this case, in terms of miscommunication, better management could have taken place. This is where companies and agencies, if they were to undertake much more positive control in terms of labour management, both with local and foreign workforce, they will essentially minimise the probability of such incidents happening.
As to action plans to prevent strikes from taking place, what we have done, together with SNEF and the unions, is to make sure that companies are aware that if we do not manage grievances within our companies, they will fester and can lead to various consequences. There is a range of actions that workers can take, and we see that happening from time to time. The best solution is, really, for companies to take this seriously to make sure that their grievance management systems are in place. We do encourage unions to maintain a good feel of the ground by working with the workers and to encourage workers to join the unions. These are all outlet valves to ensure their grievances are aired and are settled.
On our part in MOM, we remain an avenue that is opened for these issues to be raised. This is where I would say that clearly in terms of statutory violations, MOM will step in and deal with them. Where it is non-statutory, we will advise the companies, where appropriate, and step in to mediate when we need. But we are not able to apply ourselves on all grievances because clearly there are many, many different types of grievances and many of them are non-statutory.
With the range of measures put in place, it is really about maintaining good harmonious relations between employers and employees, and a lot of it is actually about basic common sense, Management 101, and we do encourage, as I mentioned, companies to take heed of what is gathered and learnt from this incident to make sure that they learn to manage their workforce in a much more progressive and positive way. And that, to me, is the best solution to prevent such incidents from happening in the first place.
\tMr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): I would like to ask the Acting Minister if he feels it is appropriate for essential services, even beyond statutory issues, that MOM be proactive rather than passively receiving complaints, whether he will consider things like human resource best practices audits of
\tPage: 25
essential services companies, and whether the intelligence aspects can be improved as well.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Cedric Foo for his suggestions. I would agree with him. For essential services, we are discussing with them, and we can look at putting in place more proactive measures. Clearly, I think HR audits and better intelligence are things which are practical, and we would see how best we could put in place some of these more proactive measures, as he has mentioned, to make sure that some of these companies and agencies are better able to stay ahead of the game. Clearly, they all take it quite seriously. So, this is something that we will work with them on, and we will explore what can be possible.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. I noted that there is a very strong emphasis placed on contractualism – the idea that the workers are bound by their contracts. As a lawyer by training, and one who teaches law, I certainly subscribe to that as well. But I think it is also important that the Government emphasises to employers the importance of fairness. The workers can look at the contract and say, \"Okay, this is what I will be paid.\" But if they were to come to Singapore and realise that they are being discriminated against, then I think there is only so much that contracts can do; it does not take away the fact that the unhappiness remains. My second question relates to the question that I filed, that is, what is the reason for treating the bus drivers prior to their deportation as prisoners?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I totally agree with Asst Prof Eugene Tan's assertion that contracts are important and should be respected, but at the same time, there is the issue of fairness which is something that all employers should pay attention to. As mentioned, this is good management. Good companies, as we know, are good companies because they are well managed. They are well managed on the basis of values, and it is not just what you say but how you do and how you treat workers. And a lot of it is also about how we communicate and engage. Sometimes, there are differences, and sometimes there is perceived discrimination, unevenness or unfairness. But if communications are sincere, they have an open and a good positive working relationship with their employees, whether local or foreign, that is where a lot of the problems can be pre-empted.
This, I would suggest, is something that all companies should take heed. Whether we can actually legislate for employers to learn to be fair, that is
\tPage: 26
difficult. What we want to make sure is that we do not want to be intrusive but we do want to encourage. That is where a lot of the HR practices are that we try to actively promote. But we need to be careful not to overdo it because there are many things that companies need to do. In fact, I would say that, sometimes, we are overly regulating things. Some of them are sensible practices which companies should adopt, but where it is statutory and required for the Government to step in to implement laws and regulations, that is something we should do.
With regard to the question on whether they were detained as if they were criminals, the 29 persons were detained at Admiralty West Prison which, in addition to being a prison facility, is designated as an immigration depot under the Immigration Act and is one of ICA's centres for repatriation operations. So, that is the context under which they were sent to that particular location.
\tMs Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, we should recognise how open our low-wage and low-skilled foreign workers are to exploitation by employers. Many of them do not join unions, and because of their marginalised position in society and their fears of being deported by their employers, they face huge obstacles to enforcing their basic rights. Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister three supplementary questions.
First, is he satisfied that our system adequately protects their fundamental rights and provides them fair wages, based on their skills and experience, and decent living conditions, regardless of their nationality?
Second, the Acting Minister mentioned that foreign workers are free to join unions. This is indeed reassuring. But can I ask the Acting Minister, out of the 1.2 million guest workers, how many of them actually join unions?
Third, the Acting Minister mentioned the three key issues that caused the PRC workers to mount the illegal strike. Can I ask the Acting Minister whether the PRC workers had approached MOM with their grievances and, if they had, would the Ministry have taken them seriously and help to avert such a strike, or would it have referred them back to their employer and say that this is a matter for the employer to handle?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, let me take on the last question first. The channels are open. I recognise that out there, especially online, various allegations are made. For example, let me illustrate. These are not the first complaints raised to MOM with regard to SMRT. A number of complaints were
\tPage: 27
raised prior to this and this has come up. These were raised in 2010, some statutory in nature, some non-statutory in nature. MOM took them seriously. We dealt with the issues, especially those that were statutory, we dealt with them and we told the company to change the practices and, as far as we are aware, those practices were changed. There were also some grievances that were non-statutory. However, we viewed that they were important enough that from a very senior level in MOM, we approached the most senior level in SMRT to register our concerns with some of their management practices. We told them basically that some of these things ought to be sorted out and that is something that they have done.
MOM deals with not just SMRT but with many companies. Grievances appear – they appear in my email in-box regularly – but whether all are valid or not, we have to follow up and investigate, and that is what our officers do. We do have many grievances surfaced. Like I said, some are statutory, some are non-statutory. Some do not provide the complete story. There is another perspective to it and it is not necessarily clear-cut that the employer is at fault, nor is it fair to say that it is always the employee that is at fault.
At the end of it, MOM has to deal with this. Where it warrants our attention, we will definitely deal with it. Certainly, from a statutory perspective, we will investigate and take action if regulations are violated. With the non-statutory and where we feel it is necessary, we will step in as well to mediate or deal with the companies or employers concerned. In other cases, where we feel that it is perhaps not as serious and non-statutory, we would encourage the employees to take up other alternative avenues. The avenues remain open, and that is important to register. We do take action and will deal with issues.
As to the numbers with regard to joining the unions, I do not have the numbers off-hand, but like I said earlier, we do encourage our unions to work with the foreign workforce to see whether they are interested in joining and to encourage them to do so. We note that, in some companies, a number of the foreign workers do actively join the unions, and that is a good thing because it allows representation and their voices to be heard and for the unions to take it up on their behalf.
With regard to fair wages, regulations and so on, as I have explained in my response earlier, we have stepped up primarily in terms of our amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) which hon Members are familiar with, and that was tabled a couple of months ago. That was the first tranche. The second tranche will take place sometime in the course of this year. The Employment Act is also being reviewed, with the whole intent to strengthen,
\tPage: 28
not just for foreign workers but for all our workers as well, and to make sure that their rights are protected. The position that MOM takes is this: we are not pro-employer, we are not pro-employee. However, I am also very mindful that from a general perspective, especially at the lower levels of work, it would tend to be weighted for the employer against the employee. That is something I am mindful of and I have registered that with all my colleagues. They agree that it is something to be watchful for in the process as we amend and we strengthen the regulations.
Companies are free to establish their wages and some of their contractual terms. It is a free market. This is where it is important to emphasise – it is not for us to intervene and tell companies how exactly they should structure it. Workers have a choice as well, as to where they can go. Similarly, I would suggest that foreign workers have a choice as to which country they choose to go. Notwithstanding this particular dispute and the amplification of egregious behaviour when it does take place, it is very important for us to recognise that for such a large workforce, Singapore is a fair and decent place for foreign workers to operate in. Most of our employers do not behave in a negative fashion; they are responsible. Singaporeans, by and large, notwithstanding what we read sometimes online, are welcoming, respectful and appreciative of what our foreign workers contribute to our landscape, which is why we remain a fairly attractive destination for foreign workers who are looking to earn a living, to earn enough to remit back to their families. If we were as it is painted sometimes, I do not think foreign workers would be very interested to come here. We have laws in place, we continue to strengthen them and we aim to enforce them as well.
It is important to look at it in context. But companies, like I said, do have to be fair and they have to structure their wages and contracts accordingly, because if it is unfair and unbalanced, frankly, the workers will not join them and will move somewhere else.
\tMr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister to elaborate on the type of avenues that the 29 SMRT bus drivers got prior to their deportation at short notice. Should they not have been given some sort of independent hearing and its findings made public? Would such an inquiry into the incidents have offered insights into all employers in Singapore on the need to and the mechanisms for proper grievance handling?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, for the bus drivers concerned who participated in the illegal strike, let us be clear. They violated the laws and what
\tPage: 29
we did was to take action to deal with the particular circumstances. In this instance, the PRC drivers, the 29 who were repatriated, were interviewed and given the opportunity to air their grievances and we registered them and took action accordingly. In the investigation process, we assessed as to the culpability of the different bus drivers who were involved. There were many more bus drivers involved, but we were able to differentiate the level of involvement and the degree of responsibility each of the different bus drivers had in participating in the particular incident.
So, in our case, I would say that what we needed to do was to deal with the particular situation. Bus drivers violated the laws and we have to deal with it. In this case, for the 29 to be repatriated and made sure that investigations had taken place. We interviewed all the different bus drivers involved to make sure that they had the opportunity to register and air their concerns before we dealt with them. Obviously, there were also other bus drivers who, we felt, warranted much more serious action, and those actions are in the process of unfolding as we speak.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, just to share with the House that, of the 1.2 million foreign workers, right now about 100,000 are already union members. They make up about 15% of the union membership.
I would like to share that in the case of SBS Transit, they have about 600 PRC drivers and more than 90% are already union members. In the case of SMRT, prior to this incident, they have about 400 PRC drivers and less than 5% were union members. But subsequent to this incident, both the management and the unions worked together to reach out to the workers. As of today, about 75% of the 400 PRC drivers have already signed up to be union members.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for his reply. My supplementary question relates to my Parliamentary Question (PQ), which I do not think was answered. In order to facilitate the workers to air their grievances, would the Ministry consider allowing relevant agencies, NGOs or even union branches to be situated within the dormitory compound? As we all know, the workers living in dormitories are often restricted in their movements. Therefore, by the time they go to MOM, it is typically quite a late stage. So, would the Ministry consider that, to improve the accessibility to air their grievances?
Page: 30
The second point relates to not just observing contract rules, but I am taking NMP Eugene Tan's point about fairness, in which the Ministry today considers contracts and employers where employment terms are set in Singapore. But we also know that sometimes we do have contracts being set outside of Singapore, in which today we do not recognise. To some extent, I think this also makes it much worse for the workers as they come here on a poor footing.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, with regard to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's first suggestion, it is something that we can look at in terms of whether we are able to enhance the access that foreign workers may have, especially in situating something or others in the dormitories. But I would say that the most expeditious would be telephone numbers. They could call a range of agencies concerned. As I have mentioned earlier, these numbers are disseminated. I will take a look at the process again to see whether we can enhance that further. But I would say that that is probably the fastest way to get in contact. And they have a choice. They can call MOM, the unions and the NGOs, and the embassy numbers are also provided. This is a very thorough range of avenues that is available. The key thing is really to educate them that these numbers ought to be used when they do have issues, register the complaint and then we can fix up appointments or whatever to follow up. I would suggest that that might well be the most expeditious and effective way to register their concerns.
On the point raised by Mr Zaqy Mohamad with regard to contracts signed outside of Singapore, that is something of concern because they may actually sign a contract in their regional state or city, and then that might actually be quite different, depending on what the agents do. It is something we recognise. But our challenge is we do not have the remit to go upstream to govern that because a lot of that operates in another country. What we have done to overcome that is with the In-principle Approval (IPA), meaning that when companies here apply for their work permits, we want them to define what exactly are they requiring the workers to do, what are the contractual terms, pay and so on. Register them, they are recorded in the IPA, this is translated into the native language and issued to the workers before they come. Whatever the workers have agreed with whoever they are supposed to have agreed with in their own local contract in their country, the final document that they received for the IPA would determine \"This is exactly what you are going to do, how you are going to be reimbursed and so on\", and to make sure that at least that tallies.
That is an important step to take. I would recognise that there are limits to how much I can control upstream. But this is an important measure so that at least they can say, \"Wait a minute. What I have agreed to with my agent or whoever differs greatly from what is being issued from Singapore\" and,
\tPage: 31
hopefully, that would raise alarm bells for the workers themselves for them to resolve the issues and take action accordingly. If it turns out to be completely not what they had signed themselves up for, then they will have other recourse to take at that stage.
Mdm Speaker: Last question. Mr Laurence Lien.
\tMr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I agree that foreign workers have a choice before they come to Singapore. The issue is that, after they have come to Singapore and feel that they are locked in to an unfair contract, then they really feel they do not have a choice.
This is where, as we have covered, we need adequate union representation and the proper use of existing dispute resolution mechanisms. I have two follow-up questions: one, how does the Ministry ensure that the foreign workers are adequately represented by the unions, particularly where they form a minority group within that union? Hence, the union might just represent the interest of the majority group. And two, how does the Government encourage the use of the Industrial Arbitration Court − which was not mentioned earlier − as the port of call before an industrial dispute gets out of hand, and to ensure that access to this Court is assured for aggrieved workers?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Our present experience with the unions is that they do actually look out for foreign workers. In fact, we do have the unions highlighting concerns to companies and to us when these issues are raised. This is something the unions do take seriously, in terms of their responsibilities. As mentioned earlier, as a wake-up call, I think this is a useful reminder for all of us to make sure that whatever channels are available, workers and the unions play a very important role. I have very little doubt that the unions take this responsibility in representing all their workers seriously, meaning that if there are concerns raised by the foreign workers, even though they may form the minority, these things will be registered and will be brought upstream. This is something that we will re-emphasise to our union colleagues as well.
With regard to avenues to the Industrial Arbitration Court, all these remain open. I think there is a due process. I deal with a lot of these issues, whether local or foreign, and many of these will go through the appropriate steps, especially when statutory violations occur. Eventually, the access to Industrial Arbitration Court is available, and no one is denied that right to go through some of these processes. It does take time and investigations need to take place. We want to make it as expeditious as possible and we find that in most disputes,
\tPage: 32
we are to resolve it pretty much in a month or so, or no more than three months. Complex cases will take longer. For some settlements, there might be complications, for example, with medical disputes or companies which are not able to pay up. To address this, because of security bond and other measures, we have various levers in place to work with the companies to make sure that adequate compensation is provided for. This is something that takes time, but it is something that we, by and large, are able to settle quite expeditiously. So, no foreign worker, and, in fact, no local worker either, will be denied that avenue.
I am looking at, as part of our improvement and strengthening of the Employment Act, whether we would be able to establish a different body to deal with some of these non-statutory concerns. I would say that this applies to not just low-wage workers, whether local or foreign, but even for some of the junior PMEs, there are concerns. Sometimes, it is non-statutory issue and we are not always able to step in. But rather than resort to the civil courts, we are exploring whether something of that nature could be set up as an intermediate body to assist them. This is something we will surface through consultation and we will gather suggestions and ideas. In fact, a number of these have been surfaced. It is something that we can explore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Cases of Baby Mix-up","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Health (a) how the recent baby mix-ups at KK Women's and Children's Hospital where two sets of parents were given the wrong newborns to take home came about; (b) how many of such mix-ups have occurred in Singapore in the past 10 years; and (c) what measures, procedures and other safeguards will be put in place to ensure that such mix-ups do not occur again.
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: Mdm Speaker, the recent incident at the KK Hospital (KKH) is unfortunate and has caused much distress to the parents involved. In the last 10 years, there has not been any reported incident of the same nature. MOH takes a very serious view of this incident. As soon as the incident was reported to MOH, I directed MOH and KKH staff to find out how it happened and work with the hospital to prevent similar lapses in future.
Let me share some background to the incident. As soon as a baby is born in KKH, an identification tag bearing the mother's details is affixed to the baby's right ankle in the delivery suite. The mother's details are also affixed onto a cot that will be used throughout the baby's hospital stay. Thereafter, when the baby
\tPage: 33
has arrived in the ward nursery, a second barcode tag is affixed to the baby's left ankle. This barcode tag is unique to the baby and used to confirm the identity of the baby electronically before medications are served or investigative procedures are carried out.
The KKH case involved two babies, Baby A and Baby B. Baby A was born on 16 November 2012, while Baby B was born on 17 November 2012. Both babies were correctly tagged and placed in the correct cots soon after birth. For most of the admission, the babies were roomed with their mothers, but in the early morning of 18 November 2012 between 3.15 am and 11.30 am, both babies were in the ward nursery and cared for by the nurses. We believe that it was during this period that the two babies were inadvertently placed in each other's cots. The mix-up most likely occurred when they were removed from their cots for care at about the same time and were returned to the cot without counter-checking their tags to ensure they were returned to the correct cot. KKH was unable to ascertain the precise moment of this mix-up as unlike activities such as administration of medication where the exact time was recorded, the time of several activities such as bathing, changing and soothing a crying baby were not recorded.
A second error occurred when the barcode tag on Baby A's left ankle dropped off and was wrongly replaced with Baby B's tag. The staff replacing the missing tag failed to counter-check the identity of the baby against the remaining right ankle tag and most likely relied on the identity on the cot itself, which showed details of Mother B and Baby B.
Subsequently, the baby thought to be Baby B was brought to Mother B and the baby thought to be Baby A was pushed to Mother A. The staff who brought the wrong babies to the mothers had failed to check both ankle tags against the cot card. Both discharge staff had also failed to open the baby's blanket to check both ankle tags when the mothers were discharged with their babies. When KKH was alerted of the error, it made immediate arrangements to reunite the babies with their rightful parents. Unfortunately, unwarranted distress had already occurred.
Since then, a specially-commissioned review committee has completed its investigations on the incident. The review committee found that although protocols for the handling of babies were in place, there were lapses in compliance with established policies and procedures. There were indications of lax supervision and inadequate audits and checks imposed by hospital management. In other words, the unfortunate incident could have been avoided if those involved in caring for the affected babies had followed the proper
\tPage: 34
procedures.
The review committee has recommended improvements to patient care and ward processes, staff education, protocol compliance and supervision, governance as well as IT enablers. KKH has already implemented most of these recommendations and is also evaluating possible IT solutions that could further strengthen the current manual processes. Details of the actions taken have been announced by KKH on 26 December last year. Let me just give a few examples. Two staff are now required to tag or re-tag babies to ensure they are correctly tagged. Patient identification procedures will be reinforced during staff orientation and training. Regular and ad hoc audits will be carried out to ensure compliance.
KKH has taken disciplinary actions against the respective staff responsible for the lapses as well as the ward managers. The staff have also personally apologised to the parents affected.
MOH has written to the CEO of KKH to register its deep disappointment and concern over the lack of oversight and supervision, especially with regard to patient safety in the nursery. KKH's Patient Safety Committee will step up its oversight of patient safety and ensure supervision and compliance of protocols by staff. KKH will also undertake a comprehensive review of its quality assurance framework to further enhance patient safety.
Mdm Speaker, we will learn from this incident. It should be a reminder to all healthcare institutions in Singapore, both public and private, to strengthen their quality assurance programmes to improve patient safety and outcomes. MOH will continue to work with all healthcare institutions to ensure appropriate actions and measures are taken and sustained to achieve the highest level of patient safety possible.
\tMrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Would all these procedures, measures and safeguards be applied to private hospitals as well?
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: Yes, Madam. All the safety procedures are also applicable to the private hospitals. They are all governed by our rules and regulations.
Page: 35
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Action Against Vice Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the recent anti-vice raids have reaped results in deterring vice syndicates, operators and prostitutes from operating in residential and heartland areas; and (b) since 1 January 2012, what is the number of prostitution-related offences that have been detected and whether this number is lower than that of the previous year.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Speaker, for the six-month period January to June 2012, Police continued to take firm measures against prostitution related activities, conducted more anti-vice operations than in the same period in 2011. During these operations, Police made 2,159 arrests of females for prostitution related activities. This is 7% lower than the 2,321 arrests made in the same period in 2011.
In addition, Police made 115 arrests of persons for abetting in prostitution related activities in the six-month period January to June 2012. This is roughly double the number of arrests in the same period in 2011.
Five, or 0.23%, of the arrests of females for prostitution related activities in the first half of this year were made in the heartlands. This shows that prostitution related activity is not prevalent in the heartlands.
Police will continue to act against streetwalkers and prostitution syndicates to keep the situation under control, and away from the heartlands.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Marital Rape","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of false police reports of rapes by spouses in the last 10 years; and (b) whether marital rape not being a criminal offence in our statute books results in our laws putting married women in a vulnerable position legally and vis-a-vis their husbands and other unmarried women.
\tThe Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Speaker, let
\tPage: 36
me first clarify that it is incorrect to say that marital rape is not a criminal offence in our statute books. The Penal Code Amendments in 2007, which came into effect on 1 February 2008, defined the offence of marital rape in situations where there is some evidence of a breakdown in the marital relationship.
Under sections 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Penal Code, there is no marital immunity in circumstances such as when divorce proceedings are underway and the parties are living apart, and when the wife has commenced proceedings to take out, or has taken out, a protection order against the husband. These provisions protect women who have clearly signalled their withdrawal of implied consent to a conjugal relationship.
Since 2008, there has been one instance where a wife was issued a stern warning for making a false report of marital rape against her husband. Our laws on marital rape should reflect the norms and values in society. My Ministry and the Ministry of Social and Family Development are currently reviewing this issue.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Madam, I thank the Minister for his reply and I am glad to note that the Ministry is reviewing this particular provision. It is interesting to note that there has only been one reported case of false report, and I hope that would actually send the message that wives are not going to make frivolous complaints. May I ask the Minister when the Ministry expects to complete the review on the provisions related to marital rape?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I must again emphasise that these statistics are in the context of how marital rape has been defined in our laws. So, there is a certain set of circumstances that circumscribe the context in which the immunity is lifted and that is the context in which these statistics are gathered. We do not know if in fact − and I think that is what the Member is alluding to − we have a total lifting of the immunity, what the instances of false reporting will be. More importantly, the context in which these sorts of assertions are made is hard to establish because of the intrinsic nature of a marital relationship. I think that is a part that we need to deal with. This is a sensitive and emotive matter. It has been discussed and debated extensively in this House in 2007, and the review will take those issues into account.
It is because of its very nature and one that is involving several Ministries that I cannot give the Member a specific time frame. I can assure him that it is
\tPage: 37
something that is given adequate priority in the Ministry's work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Area Set Aside for Public and Private Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development as a percentage of the land area of Singapore, what is the total area used for public housing and the total area used for private housing.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, about 7% of Singapore's total land area is allocated to public housing. Private housing occupies another 7%, largely in areas zoned for low-rise and low-density land use.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Is the 7% based on 2010 data that were released recently?
\tDr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Yes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Youth Participation in the Arts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what may be the reasons for the 12% drop in youth participation in the arts between 2009 and 2011 and whether this is related with participation in arts-related co-curricular activities in schools for the same period; (b) what is the Ministry's position on the benefits of arts participation for children and young people; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to increase participation in and access to the arts amongst the young people in schools and outside the school environment.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Speaker, based on the National Arts Council's Population Survey of the Arts, participation in the arts by youth aged 15 to 24 declined from 40% in 2009 to 28% in 2011. However, this was due in part to a change in the definition of an arts participant in the survey. Respondents who participated in the arts purely for academic or school purposes were excluded in the 2011 edition of the survey. This meant that youth who had participated in school, but did not engage in other arts activities outside of school, were
\tPage: 38
excluded from the pool of participants.
The definition was amended to more accurately capture interest and involvement amongst youth relative to other demographic segments, who do not have the advantage of structured school-based programmes. Prior to the change, youth participation rates had appeared much higher than the national average, but may not have presented an accurate picture of youth involvement as they would have included obligatory arts activities in school. Despite this change, the 2011 youth participation rate remains above the national average.
MCCY strongly believes that active participation in the arts can help our youth find greater fulfilment and gain confidence to succeed in their endeavours. Participation in the arts from a young age can also cultivate greater creativity and sensitivity amongst our youth. These qualities will put them in good stead in all areas of life. The energy and passion of our youth will also contribute towards greater vibrancy in our arts landscape. The future success of Singapore depends on having passionate and creative young people who are meaningfully engaged with society, and believe in striving for their ideals and dreams.
For these reasons, the previously announced Arts and Culture Education Masterplan will channel up to $40 million towards initiatives to improve arts and culture curricula and co-curricular activities in schools. This includes providing grants for showcases and performances by school groups, funding projects which improve pedagogies in the arts curriculum, and leveraging on the arts to teach the academic curriculum. The Masterplan also enhances the instructional capabilities of arts teachers, through masterclasses, learning journeys and conferences. Collectively, the Masterplan will improve the experience of students with the arts, cultivate a love of the arts from young, and develop qualities that our youth can carry with them throughout their lives.
MCCY will also continue to support our talented youth to achieve their aspirations in the arts, through programmes such as NAC's \"Pocket Rocket\" and NOISE. \"Pocket Rocket\" provides funding and guidance for youth-initiated arts projects which target community or social causes, while NOISE provides young artists with showcase and mentorship opportunities to grow their talent.
\tMs Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister. I have three clarifications. As you know, the arts and culture contribute to the development and well-being of children and young people. Research has shown that arts participation be it learning a musical instrument, singing in a
\tPage: 39
choir, drawing or dancing, actually improve children's performance across the curriculum. I just want to find out with regard to the numbers, especially the decline and the change in definition, is the Minister referring to the re-definition of youth participation to only include those youths who participate in the arts as CCAs, and outside of school, leaving out those who take the arts within the core curriculum? My second question is: is there any concern that some of these arts opportunities become significantly reduced after the child hits upper Secondary and starts to face some major examinations? And thirdly, can MCCY commission a survey or some research to track arts participation by children below the age of 15, especially in the area of arts participation outside of school?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Member for her follow-up questions. On the first question, it is the case that we are looking now with the re-definition of arts participation amongst young people at the young people who do not participate in structured programmes within schools. These are largely CCAs, but there may be other non-CCA type of structured programmes. We are largely looking at CCA programmes. That is the reason for the drop in the youth participation rates.
On tracking the numbers beyond school, and whether there is a decline in the participation rates because of people progressing through school and perhaps not continuing in arts participation after they have graduated, we do not have very good data on this. Perhaps that happens. We hope that we can improve our ability to identify or to find out more information about what youth participation is like.
This links to the Member's third question about broadening the capabilities either within the NAC or the Ministry to have a better sensing of what young people's participation in the arts is like, whether it is at the young age that the Member suggested or as they progress through their school life and perhaps, even as they enter the work force. We do engage in such surveys periodically. NAC, for example, did a survey on youth participation in the arts in 2011. From that survey, they had a good sensing of what interests young people in the arts, what motivates them to take part in the arts. That is one example of a survey that NAC did. We do hope to do more surveys in order to get a better sensing of young people's mindsets when they participate in arts activities.
\tMs Janice Koh: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Just a very quick clarification relating to my third supplementary question. My question was whether or not the Minister would start tracking arts participation below the age of 15 for children. This is because if arts participation has very wide knock-on benefits on education and on children's performance in the curriculum, then we need to
\tPage: 40
find out whether or not they have enough equal access across the board, at a very, very young age, not after 15.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Member for the clarification. It is something that we will take into consideration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Value-for-money Principle in Large Public Sector Infrastructure Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Laurence Lien asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what measures are in place to ensure that there is sufficient procurement, project management and quantity surveying expertise such that the large public sector infrastructure projects are truly value for money.
\tThe Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mdm Speaker, the Government's approach to maximising value-for-money in large public sector infrastructure projects is, first, to put in place systems and processes to optimise project design and cost efficiency; and second, to strengthen procurement and project management capabilities.
Let me touch on processes to optimise project design and cost efficiency. Madam, we introduced the MOF Gateway Process in 2010 to strengthen the rigour of the approval process for large development projects. Under this process, projects above $500 million in value are subject to a series of reviews – spanning concept, design and costs – by a Development Projects Advisory Panel (DPAP). The panel comprises senior public officers and industry practitioners with deep technical expertise and experience in major infrastructure development. In addition, large projects are also put through Value Management workshops to refine their design in order to maximise value and cost efficiency.
Madam, let me say something about how we strengthen public sector project management capabilities. Apart from this Gateway process, we are focusing on procurement and project management capabilities. Government agencies that undertake large infrastructure projects on a regular basis, such as the Land Transport Authority and JTC Corp, have dedicated units and staff overseeing the management of infrastructure projects. Over the years, they have built up substantial in-house capabilities in procurement and project
Page: 41
management.
To address the needs of Government agencies which do not have such expertise, the Centre for Public Project Management (CP2M) was set up in January 2011 with the aim of strengthening project management capabilities across the whole of Government. CP2M is staffed by experienced officers from various construction-related disciplines such as quantity surveying and project management. It provides advice and guidance to Government agencies both on design optimisation, as well as robust project management, including risk management. CP2M also helps agencies build their own capabilities in these areas and, in some instances, provides project management services directly to agencies upon request.
I would like to share an example to illustrate these points. This has to do with the Singapore University of Technology and Design. In order to promote and improve value-for-money, the Gateway review of the project, together with inputs from the CP2M team, helped to reduce the footprint of the campus, freeing up land for other uses. This was achieved through the re-routing of a service driveway and the relocation of the tennis courts to the roof of the indoor sports hall instead of on the adjacent grounds.
Finally, as part of a broader effort to ensure value-for-money in Government expenditure, the Value-for-Money Review Office under the Accountant-General's Department conducts reviews of completed infrastructure projects to identify learning points and best practices. The lessons learnt are shared with Government agencies, and contribute to building the public sector's capabilities in infrastructure development.
\tMr Laurence Lien: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. May I ask the Minister of State whether the measures she has outlined so far have in actual fact led to all or most infrastructure projects being completed with proper project management and prudent use of resources? Or in other words, is the Ministry satisfied with the progress so far? And this is given a lot of loss of project management and project planning capacity within the public service with the spin-offs of agencies like the Public Works Department and the Housing and Development Division previously, and also given that there have been some projects with quite large over-runs like the Downtown Line.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Since the Gateway process was started in 2010, we have put 26 large-scale projects through this process. These projects are still
\tPage: 42
on-going and we are tracking them closely. We are very interested, ourselves, to make sure that there are cost savings, but the actual cost savings will only be known at project completion.
Mr Lien has also raised the other point about capabilities being lost when sometimes departments are corporatised and so on. It is a very important matter, and although these capabilities no longer reside within the Government, it does not necessarily mean that the capabilities do not reside in Singapore. That is also an important factor to bear in mind.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Mr Pritam Singh
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 24, 26-28, 35, 37-38, 43-44, 49-50, 53, 55-58, 60-61, 63-64 and 66 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 25, 29-34, 36, 39-42, 45-48, 51-52, 54, 59, 62 and 65 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 5 February 2013.]
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I refer to the Foreign Minister's reply to my Parliamentary Question on 14 January 2013 pertaining to Singapore's decision to abstain from the successfully passed UN resolution to elevate Palestine's status at the United Nations to a non-member observer state. This oral question was not answered by question-and-answer time during the last sitting, and was responded to in written form in accordance with parliamentary procedure. I have, therefore, sought the leave of Speaker to respond to the Foreign Minister's reply in which the Minister requests for some clarifications, in accordance with parliamentary Standing Order 25.
While it would be debatable whether a change in Singapore's voting position would make us more secure, my initial concern when news of Singapore's abstention came through was our decision would indeed have made us more insecure and vulnerable to terrorist threats. Singapore's decision to abstain was in marked contrast to all other ASEAN member states, and an overwhelming number of UN member states, which voted in favour of the resolution. It is noteworthy that many of these countries, like Singapore, have also established UNSC Resolution 242 to be the basis of a viable and long-term
\tPage: 43
solution to the Israel-Palestine issue, and yet, without contradiction, voted in favour to elevate Palestine's status at the UN to that of a non-member observer.
I recall in early December 2012, first Senior Minister of State Masagos Zulkifli bin Masagos Mohamad and then Prime Minister Lee sought to explain Singapore's decision to abstain via Facebook after the event, because of queries on the matter. This was reflective of the public interest in the issue, given that a central pillar of Singapore's foreign policy operates within a Southeast Asian situation, which hosts a large Muslim population.
Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the resolution, it is encouraging to note that the Government made it a point to state that Singapore has voted in favour of 18 out of 19 resolutions tabled at the United Nations General Assembly on Palestinian issues since 2008. However, each resolution carries with it a unique foreign policy signature. The resolution on Palestine's elevation is a case in point. Even though Singapore had voted for resolutions in Palestine's favour previously, our decision to abstain is more likely to be remembered than our previous voting patterns because of the weight and international profile of the resolution to elevate Palestine's international status.
In fact, Singapore's even-handed position, \"sharing the desires of the Palestinians for an independent state, and that of Israel for its security\", may have been misunderstood by some Singaporeans in favour of the latter, because of our abstention. To that end, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' parliamentary answer to my question stating that Singapore does not support Israel's activities that contravene international law, including its settlement activities in the Occupied Territories is welcomed, as is its communication of this position to Israeli representatives in bilateral meetings. It is equally noteworthy that Singapore sees both sides as having legitimate rights and shared responsibilities. The weight of this statement is significant because it counters a perception that Singapore is pro-Israel, but rather, pro-peace. It also reduces my own concern that Singapore's decision to abstain made us insecure.
In future, it would be propitious for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to consider profiling Singapore's stand on Palestinian issues and other controversial issues in front and centre not only to solicit public feedback, but before the public raises concerns on the matter lest our position be misunderstood, especially in view of our immediate geopolitical realities. This approach is likely to secure greater consensus for our foreign policy and the realities that determine it, for after all, foreign policy is an extension of domestic
\tPage: 44
politics. Thank you, Mdm Speaker!
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mdm Speaker, I thank the hon Member for accepting that our position is even-handed, welcoming it, and recognising it as pro-peace. As I have stated before, if the hon Member believes that our voting position should change, he can let us know, and we will give his views serious consideration. I also thank him for his suggestion that our position on this issue be profiled. We have been setting out our position publicly, regularly, including in Parliament. We will continue to do so and see how we can follow up on his suggestions to further profile our foreign policies. Thank you.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monetary Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 186 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Chapter 65A of the 2000 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2013/14, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Institutions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore relating to, or in connection with, the regulation of financial institutions, financial entities or financial instruments\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by Mr Lawrence Wong; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2013/14, and to be printed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 45
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insurance (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Insurance Act (Chapter 142 of the 2002 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other written laws\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by Mr Lawrence Wong; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2013/14, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Holding Companies Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to regulate financial holding companies and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by Mr Lawrence Wong; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2013/14, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Mdm Speaker, access to justice is one of the cornerstones of our society. We may have the best laws, the best courts and the best system, but all that would be lost if they cannot be accessed by persons in need.
However, like all things, there is a cost to legal services, and not everyone can afford such services. It was with this in mind that the Legal Aid and Advice Act was originally enacted back in 1956, to ensure access to justice. That objective remains as relevant today as it was then.
Page: 46
The Government is conscious that there are those with meritorious legal claims or defences but who are unable to afford lawyers. The Government has also taken into account the rising costs of living and its impact on a person's ability to afford legal services. Over the years, the Government has periodically updated the means test to take into account the current costs of living. Past reviews were conducted in 1995, 2001 and 2007. The latest review was completed in 2012.
Following the latest review, as well as taking into account feedback from Members of Parliament, the Government considers that the proposed amendments are necessary to facilitate greater access to justice by those in need. The proposed amendments take into account the current cost of living, and also expand the coverage of legal aid to include more vulnerable applicants.
The Bill does three things. First, it expands the general means test for legal aid under the Act. The effect of this is that it will allow more people to be covered by legal aid. Second, it expands the discretion of the Director of Legal Aid to depart from the general means test in exceptional cases. The effect of this is that it will allow another potential group of people to benefit from legal aid who would not fall under the general test. Third, it improves the general administration of legal aid.
I will now take the House through the main amendments of the Bill. The most significant clause in the Bill is clause 21. It amends the means test for legal aid prescribed in the Second Schedule of the Act.
Under the Act, a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident (PR) meets the means test for legal aid if his annual disposable income is $10,000 or below and his disposable capital is also $10,000 or below. It is a double-barrelled test, meaning you have to meet both the income test and the capital test. The applicant's annual disposable income is calculated by adding his annual income with that of his spouse and deducting the permitted deductibles, for example, his CPF contributions and expenses for daily necessities. An applicant's disposable capital is calculated by taking the value of all his assets, for example, property, savings and other assets and deducting therefrom the value of permitted deductibles, for example, his HDB flat, if that is used as his family home.
The means test is, therefore, structured to look at the resources which are reasonably available to the applicant to fund his legal needs. The applicant's disposable income should, therefore, not be confused with the applicant's gross income. His disposable capital does not include assets which we cannot
Page: 47
reasonably expect the applicant to liquidate, for example, the home in which he lives, up to a certain value.
Under the proposed amendments, we will expand coverage of the general means test by expanding the existing deductibles for both income and capital, and by creating new deductibles. This will allow for wider and better coverage.
An applicant can now deduct the following when calculating his disposable income: (i) $6,000 for his own expenses. This is an increase, up from the current $4,500; (ii) he can also deduct up to $6,000 for his spouse's expenses. This is up from the current $3,500. But this would not apply when the Director has already excluded the income of a separated spouse; (iii) the applicant can also deduct up to $6,000 for the maintenance of each dependant. This is up from the current $3,500; (iv) he can also deduct up to $20,000 for rent. This is up from the current $1,000, and is based on the lower end of the prevailing open-market rental rates for 3-room flats in suburban areas; and (v) he can also deduct his spouse's CPF contributions though, again, this will not apply when the Director has already excluded the income of a separated spouse.
That is for income.
As for the disposable capital, an applicant can now disregard the following. First, his CPF investments. These are to be disregarded because he cannot withdraw these to pay for legal services. Second, the life insurance policies held by him, of up to $46,000 in surrender value. Third, the annual value of his home, provided that it is $13,000 or less. This is up from the current annual value of $7,800, and it is equal to the revised maximum annual value of HDB flats. HDB flats which are used as dwelling homes will remain entirely deductible.
These amendments to the general means test will ensure expanded coverage. The current coverage of legal aid is about 17% of Singaporeans and PRs. With these amendments, we estimate that the Act will cover about 25% of Singaporeans and PRs. This would translate to about 300,000 additional persons who can potentially be covered under the Act. And this expanded coverage does not take into account the Director's discretion to depart from the general means test in exceptional circumstances, which I shall address later.
So what does this mean in practical terms? Perhaps, I can illustrate by this example. Let us take a family of four, living in a HDB flat. You have one working parent, one homemaker, two children. Let us say the gross household income is $3,500 a month, or $42,000 a year. After deduction of CPF, the gross
Page: 48
household income is $2,800 a month, or $33,600 a year.
Applying the current test before the amendments, the deduction for each member of the household would add up to $15,000, that is, $4,500 for the applicant, $3,500 multiplied by three for the spouse and children. The annual disposable household income would, therefore, be $18,600 – and this would be above the $10,000 disposal income limit. So, in that example, if you have applied the current test, they would not qualify. But if you apply the revised test under the proposed amendments, then the deductions can add up to $24,000, that is $6,000, for the applicant and up to $6,000 times three for his spouse and two children. So, applying the revised test, the annual disposable household income would be $9,600, which would bring that family within the $10,000 limit. If the same family pays rent, the rent would be an additional deductible and, as such, the gross household income could potentially go up to $5,625 and the family would still meet the income limit of the means test.
That is for the general means test. There is also a new discretion that we are introducing for family proceedings. Clause 21 introduces a special discretion in applying the means test for family proceedings which involve a child of protection orders. The practical effect of this amendment is that it will extend the coverage of legal aid to persons who are the most vulnerable in family disputes. The Bill introduces a rule-based discretion for the following proceedings: (a) divorces, where a child of age below 21, a minor, is involved; (b) custody care, control and access of children, child maintenance and all cases under the Guardianship of Infants Act where children below age 21 are involved, as well as (c) cases involving personal protection of a child and/or spouse.
In these types of cases, the Director of Legal Aid has the discretion to relax the deductibles in calculating the applicant's disposable capital. Under the Bill, in addition to the standard deductibles, he has the discretion to exclude the following from the calculation of disposable capital – the applicant's home, provided that its assessed annual value is not more than $20,000. This is $7,000 more than the ordinary cap of $13,000. The effect of this amendment is that it will extend coverage to residents living in lower end private property. There will also be a new deductible in the form of $5,000 worth of capital. This, in effect, raises the disposable capital cap to $15,000.
The proposed amendments also expand the discretion for loss of income cases where the applicant has suffered a sudden loss in income and requires legal aid urgently. Under the current Act, when an applicant has suffered a sudden loss in income, the Director already has the discretion to assess the applicant's means by looking at his disposable income for six months instead
Page: 49
of the usual 12 months. Under the proposed amendment, the quantum of the deductibles applicable in such situations will be increased, in line with the changes to the general means test for disposable income. So, for example, the deductible for dependants in this situation will be increased to $3,000, from $1,750, which is half of the new deductible for dependants under the general means test.
The remainder of the Bill makes general improvements to the administration of legal aid. The salient clauses are as follows:
Clause 3 amends section 4 to empower the Director of Legal Aid to remove a solicitor from the panel of assigned solicitors. The Director can exercise this power when, for example, a solicitor has ceased practice or it is shown from his professional conduct that he is not a suitable person to remain on the panel. However, a solicitor aggrieved by his removal can appeal to the High Court.
Clause 7 amends section 9 to empower the Director of Legal Aid to require all applicants for legal aid to make contributions towards the costs incurred for their case. The approach here is ultimately founded on the principle that the applicant must also exercise responsibility. An applicant who has a stake in his case has more incentive to be prudent and responsible than one who does not. The contribution required will depend on the means of the applicant. There will always be cases where the applicant faces great financial hardship. No contribution will be required from those who truly cannot afford to pay any.
Clause 10(d) amends section 12(4)(a) to make clear that the legally aided person is not liable to pay the fees of the Bailiff of the Subordinate Courts in the execution process, and clause 10(f) inserts a new paragraph (d) in section 12 to exempt an aided person from having to pay the requisite deposit to the Official Assignee where aid has been granted to commence bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. This will make it easier for aided persons to recover debts due to them.
Clause 11 amends section 13 to empower the Director of Legal Aid to require an applicant for legal aid or a legally aided person to deposit a sum of money to meet out-of-pocket expenses incurred on his behalf.
And clause 20 amends the First Schedule to add proceedings before the Shariah Court Appeal Board under the Administration of Muslim Law Act and proceedings before the Commissioner of Labour under the Work Injury Compensation Act and to the list of proceedings for which legal aid may be
Page: 50
granted.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I would say the Bill recognises that access to justice is important and that not all individuals have the ability to get such access without assistance. The Bill reaffirms the Government's commitment to providing access to justice for the most needy among us.
I would also like to acknowledge the officers of the Legal Aid Bureau, as well as the important role played by private lawyers who, quietly and without expectation of thanks, give their time and energy to pro bono work, whether as assigned solicitors with the Bureau or under other pro bono initiatives. A debt of gratitude is also owed to the social workers who work alongside the lawyers dealing with the problems that the law cannot solve.
I would conclude by saying that State legal aid is part of a range of measures to help the needy. It is supplemented by LASCO for capital cases, as well as CLAS and other pro bono work administered by the Law Society. All of these have a part to play in facilitating access to justice. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, first, let me congratulate the Senior Minister of State on her maiden Second reading Bill. I promise to be nice and polite. I support any measure which promotes access to justice. The Court's role is to resolve disputes, protect rights, interpret and clarify the laws we live our lives by. Ultimately, it is there to do justice. But it cannot achieve that role if people are unable to put their grievances before it.
I, and I am sure many in this House, have come across cases where Singaporeans have been reluctant to pursue good cases, because of costs. Often, it presents a chicken-and-egg problem – a wife who needs a lawyer to recover maintenance but is unable to pay for a lawyer because she does not receive maintenance. Individuals are entitled to represent themselves, but many shy away from doing so because the process appears too intimidating and they believe they cannot cope.
Legal Aid will not solve all these problems and not all problems can be solved, but it is an important tool to help those in need. I am, therefore, glad
Page: 51
that the Government is changing the criteria for a person to qualify for Legal Aid, so that more Singaporeans can benefit from it.
There are, however, four points I would like to raise about the Bill.
The first concerns the amended means test. In order to qualify for legal aid, the applicant's disposable income must not exceed $10,000. To calculate disposable income, clause 21 stipulates that a maximum amount of $6,000 can be deducted from the applicant's income in respect of maintenance of each dependant.
I accept that $6,000 is a significant increase from the original deductible of $3,500. However, it does not distinguish those families who may have higher expenses because the child or the dependant is handicapped or chronically ill. So, the Act is not flexible enough to embrace different circumstances.
I accept that it would be impossible to legislate for different situations. That is why the Director should be given wider discretion to allow or disallow applications, and to ask for information which will enable him to exercise that discretion. This would allow the means test to be applied in a more effective and accurate way.
The means test could also be made more flexible. A good example of its rigidity is the deduction for rent in calculating disposable income. In this Bill, the amount of deductible for yearly rent has been revised upwards from $1,000 to $20,000. Would that figure still be relevant next year or the year after that? It could, depending on the economic situation, be either insufficient or too generous. Rather than having to wait for Parliament to legislate changes which takes time, we should use a more flexible formula which takes into account fluctuations in inflation or cost of living. This would allow the means test to remain relevant as time and the economy changes.
The second is a point for clarification on the issue of contribution. Section 16(4) applies to a person who is not initially liable to make a contribution, and who subsequently recovers money in legal proceedings or by virtue of a settlement. This section operates to make such a person liable to pay the Director for sums payable on his account out of the monies he recovered, and that is a good thing.
Under section 9 of the Act, persons whose disposable capital and annual disposable income fall below $2,000 need not make such contributions. Under
Page: 52
the proposed amended section 9, however, this $2,000 lower limit is abolished. Instead, all persons are liable to make contributions, except where the Director exercises his discretion to reduce, waive or refund any contribution.
My question concerns how section 16(4) operates in situations where the Director has exercised his discretion to waive the contribution. Section 16(4) states that only persons who are \"not liable to make a contribution\" are required to pay the Director out of the monies recovered. A literal reading of the section suggests that only persons who had their contribution entirely, and not partially, waived would be liable to the Director for sums payable in the event that he recovers money. Could the Minister clarify if those who had their contributions partially waived are still liable to make contribution in the event that they recover money?
Third, clause 20 of the Bill expands the scope of the Act to allow aid to be granted for proceedings before the Commissioner for Labour under the Work Injury Compensation Act. Such workers are a vulnerable class of people, and legal processes are often alien to them. It is important they are able to enjoy the full benefit of the statutory protection accorded to them. They will need legal assistance to navigate such proceedings in order to do so. Unfortunately, this is often too expensive and, again, intimidating. The Bill deals with this problem by extending the scope of legal aid. And, again, this is a good change.
This topic brings up the plight of foreign workers. As we have seen in recent months, unscrupulous employers can and do take advantage of their foreign employees. Recently, it was reported that a foreign worker who had been injured in an industrial accident had difficulty obtaining his compensation award because his employer had failed to purchase insurance for him. There have also been reports of employers withholding salaries to their employees for months on end, or who do not provide sufficiently for their welfare. They are exploited simply because they are vulnerable. If left unchecked, workplace abuse can have negative repercussions on Singapore's reputation, industrial relations, and public order.
Under the Act, only citizens and permanent residents can avail themselves to legal aid. I am not advocating legal aid for foreigners. However, there is no reason why employers should not bear the costs of their employees receiving proper representation in relation to work disputes. And this should be made part of the true cost of hiring foreign workers.
Page: 53
My last point concerns legal aid for criminal proceedings. We do not have a criminal legal aid scheme administered by the State. The only form of criminal aid provided by the State is for capital crimes under the LASCO scheme. Those who are unable to afford a lawyer in non-capital criminal proceedings are faced with defending themselves, unless they qualify for aid provided by volunteer lawyers from the Law Society. Based on figures provided by the Subordinate Courts, up to 41% of accused persons are without counsel at the pre-trial stage.
More should be done to help those who need counsel for criminal matters. Laypersons find it extremely challenging to navigate the legal process. Whenever an accused person is unrepresented, the risks of an unsatisfactory outcome are higher.
At first blush, there may be some conflict in the Government expending resources to investigate and prosecute crimes, and then giving legal aid to the accused. But it is not the Government's role simply to arrest, try and jail. Government's role is to ensure the rights of all citizens are protected, and that includes making sure that those who are accused have a fair hearing. Its KPI should not be the number of successful prosecutions, but rather that, in every case, a fair and just result was achieved.
There have been cases of accused persons taking what they consider to be the easier path – pleading guilty to an offence they did not commit simply because they cannot afford the cost of a trial. Whenever we have cases of wrong convictions, it is a blight on our legal process and the administration of justice. And there is no higher cost than the indelible stain of a wrong conviction, particularly where the cause is one of lack of resources. As a society, we have a shared interest in ensuring that the rights of all are protected. In that respect, there is no conflict in administering criminal legal aid.
Thus, I would like to urge the Minister to extend legal aid to criminal cases or even consider a public defender scheme to provide legal assistance and representation for those who cannot afford legal counsel in criminal proceedings. We may not need to expand the legal service to achieve this. The solution could lie in assigning lawyers criminal legal aid cases with a modest fee rate set by the Director of Legal Aid. This is not unlike the situation where applicants for legal aid may be assigned an external solicitor. Such a scheme would also have the advantage of building up and improving the quality of the criminal bar, as well as exposing our younger lawyers to such work.
Page: 54
I started by saying that Legal Aid is just one tool, albeit an important one. But the duty to providing good counsel to those in need should not fall entirely on the Government. The principle of \"many helping hands\" should apply here as well. Private practitioners, retired lawyers, academics, corporate counsel and even lawyers in foreign law practices in Singapore should get involved. There is enough legal talent in this country to do this. Despite the long hours and the stress, we should acknowledge that we – lawyers, that is – belong to a privileged group. We should offer our time and expertise to help those who are not so fortunate. There is now a strong drive, led by the Law Society, to have lawyers in private practice do more pro bono work. We should support it as best we can. There is still much to do, but if everyone does his bit, we can significantly reduce the risk of an unjust result and have a legal system we are all proud of.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Before I begin, I should state that I am a member of the Legal Aid Bureau's panel of solicitors.
Mdm Speaker, a few weeks ago, I made an appeal on behalf of a resident who came to see me. He is 51 years old, married with two children of school-going age. He ran a small business which did not succeed. Over the years, he had stopped work to look after his two children. His wife was the sole breadwinner of the family.
Last year, after 16 years of marriage, his wife filed papers in Court to get a divorce. She also asked to be given sole care and control of the children. He was served with court papers by his wife through her lawyers. He came to see me because he needed assistance and also legal representation in court.
He was, however, denied assistance by the Legal Aid Bureau. He held a life insurance policy where the surrender value exceeded $10,000. Hence, he failed to qualify under one of the double-barrelled means criteria. He went on to get some other pro bono assistance from legal clinics and other sources, but, today, he remains unrepresented in court.
Mdm Speaker, this is not too infrequent an occurrence. Access to justice, as the Senior Minister of State pointed out, is a cornerstone-principle of our legal system. It is important for us to ensure that legal costs should never be prohibitive, and should never be a reason for a person to be denied justice.
Page: 55
Chief Justice Menon made this point just a few days ago when he spoke at the opening of the 2013 inaugural Litigation Conference. He said, and I quote: \"It is cold comfort to those who seek justice to say that we have a great legal system, if it is priced out of their reach.\" It is with this as its driving purpose that the Legal Aid Bureau was set up in 1956. The objective was to make legal aid and advice more readily available to persons of limited means.
Under the present means criteria, the entire amount of an applicant's surrender value on any life insurance policy would be taken into account. In other words, a surrender value of $10,000 or more, even on a life policy, would automatically disqualify an applicant, even if that applicant has got no other assets or is unemployed and has no income. A surrender value of $10,000 on a policy is not very high and, more often than not, taken out at an earlier stage of their lives in order to mitigate against the occurrence of accidents or other unfortunate rainy day incidents. This really ought not count against an applicant when he or she applies for legal aid. More importantly, unlike other forms of disposable capital, such as a motor car or property or shares, an applicant should really not be expected to dispose of his life insurance policy just to fund his legal expenditure.
During the debate on last year's Budget, I had inquired if the Minister could consider reviewing the qualifying criteria used for means testing. These criteria have now, through these amendments, been refined and include revising the deductions in income levels to account for the increase in basic living expenditure, and also deductions in rental relief and life insurance policies. These changes would allow the Director, Legal Aid, to better assess the true financial ability of an applicant to have access to legal aid. I, therefore, support these amendments.
Whilst these revisions go a long way towards ensuring that a broader spectrum of society would not be disqualified on the means test alone – there is also the merits test – I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to consider giving additional discretion to the Director to grant legal aid in circumstances where the applicant otherwise fails to meet the criteria.
Mdm Speaker, I raise this because, even after these amendments today, the qualifying criteria remain an absolute one, apart from some additional considerations which the Director already has by virtue of paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule and through the additional amendments that are being introduced today. Paragraph 6, in particular, is limited in application to only certain specific category of persons, and even then, there is a cap on the additional deduction which can be given. The Act otherwise provides no latitude
Page: 56
for re-consideration once the criterion is exceeded, however minimally. In the case of my resident, the letter he received from the Legal Aid Bureau stated specifically that the criterion was a statutory requirement and they were unable to waive it.
The only other recourse in such a situation is for the applicant to appeal to the Minister. Under section 8(4) of the Act, which was introduced in 1995, the Minister may authorise the Director of Legal Aid to grant aid to any applicant who does not qualify if it is in the public interest to do so. However, it is difficult to imagine a situation where an individual or an applicant would be able to satisfy the public interest element to persuade the Minister to exercise his discretion to grant him legal aid. In fact, in 1995, when the then Minister for Law introduced this provision into the Act, he cited as an example of a public interest exception, the victims of the Spyros incident which took place in 1978 in Singapore. And that, we know, was one of the largest industrial accidents in Singapore.
Hence, I would echo the earlier Member, Mr Hri Kumar, in suggesting that the Legal Aid Director be given a broader discretion to consider all relevant circumstances in a situation where the applicant has not passed the means test. This would not be an altogether new proposition as the comparable legislation in Australia and the UK already provide for the relevant authority there to have discretion to decide, based on a range of relevant circumstances and criteria which evaluates not only the financial means for that particular applicant but also the complexity of the legal case in question and what other serious alternatives to litigation that the applicant might have.
Under section 8(3) of the Act, the Director is already conferred a discretion to deny the grant of legal aid even if the means criteria have been satisfied. What I am seeking is to ask: why not give him a similar discretion the other way round – to consider the grant of legal aid, notwithstanding that the means test has not been satisfied. In such a situation, the grant could be on a limited basis, or possibly on an enhanced co-payment basis so that only genuinely needy cases would be assisted. Having an unbending financial means criterion which just looks at numbers alone does not always meet the ends of justice.
The last amendment to the Act, as the Minister pointed out, was done in 2007. Income levels, inflation rates move. In fact, today's amendments recognise specifically that, to take the example that the earlier Member cited, for the deduction of rental relief that has gone up from $1,000 to $20,000, taking into account today's prevailing open market rates for HDB housing. This shows that there could be really large swings in the threshold levels between the time
Page: 57
that the Act is amended to update these threshold levels. Giving the Director a broader discretion would mean that the Act does not have to be amended each time the qualifying criteria become outdated or need to be amended. And it would certainly also reduce the risk of an applicant falling foul of the means test for no other reason than because market rates have moved on. Madam, with that, I support this Bill.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Mdm Speaker, the proposed amendments before us today will help improve access to justice, and reinforce the principle that every Singapore Citizen must be afforded justice, in both substance and availability, regardless of one's financial status. We cannot have a legal system in which access to justice is divided between the \"haves\" and the \"have-nots\".
The means test was last revised in 2007. This review and revision is needed so that the means test is kept sufficiently robust to ensure that the rise in income levels and costs of living do not result in fewer deserving people qualifying for legal aid.
Madam, I welcome the proposal to expand the coverage of legal aid for persons of limited means. The deductions applicable when calculating disposable income would increase to $6,000, from $4,500, for the legal aid applicant; and $6,000, from $3,500, for each dependant. These are significant increases and I welcome them.
Madam, I have three questions at this juncture for the Minister.
First, could the Minister enlighten the House on the considerations that drove the review of the Act and the means test, as well as how the quantum of increase in disposable income before a person would qualify for legal aid was arrived at?
Second, could the disposal income level be increased before a person is eligible for legal aid? For example, to qualify for legal aid after the proposed amendments, the indicative income level for a person with no dependant is a gross monthly income of $1,666.67, or about $20,000 per annum, after taking into account the permitted deductibles. This is an increase from the current existing rates. Would the Minister elaborate how this minimum threshold
Page: 58
income is determined? Why $10,000? Why not a figure which is higher?
A third question is: why are Singapore Citizens and permanent residents treated equally when it comes to the provision of the grant of legal aid and advice? Should permanent residents not be required to satisfy a higher threshold when it comes to means testing?
I welcome clause 21 of the Bill which refines the means test for matrimonial cases in which minors are involved. Minors should be adequately protected and the limited means of their parents should not compromise their rights and interests.
This Bill also seeks to provide for the Director of Legal Aid to have greater discretion and flexibility in the administration of the legal aid scheme. I support this provision to give the Director of Legal Aid greater discretion. Our legal aid scheme cannot be so overly rigid if the Legal Aid Bureau is to meaningfully fulfil its mission of \"blazing trails in the compassionate practice of the law\".
Mdm Speaker, the responsibility for the legal aid scheme cannot just rest with the Government. To be sure, the State's provision of a well-funded legal aid scheme is necessary. But that is insufficient to develop and sustain a compassionate legal aid scheme. For the legal aid scheme to function purposively and with compassion, the role of assigned solicitors is extremely important. And I say this while also recognising the important role that the legal officers in the Legal Aid Bureau play. Not many legal officers would choose a posting to the Legal Aid Bureau, which is typically not regarded as glamorous. So, in this regard, legal aid must epitomise the best of the legal profession and what the law and the legal system can do to ensure that fairness and justice are not just motherhood statements but are lived realities in our society.
Money alone is grossly inadequate in delivering the quality of legal aid and advice to those who need such help most and, in the most serious cases, protecting a person's fundamental right of access to justice, be it in the civil or criminal arenas. In this regard, I welcome the formation of the Pro Bono Development Unit within the Legal Aid Bureau in 2011 and I hope that more efforts will be made to encourage pro bono work.
Mdm Speaker, I hope that the legal fraternity would fully embrace pro bono work, looking at it not so much as a form of social responsibility but – more importantly – to regard it as a noble privilege and a tangible commitment to the sustenance of a legal system that is accessible to all and to ensure that one's
Page: 59
rights are sufficiently protected.
Would the Minister consider requiring our law students in our two law schools to undergo a mandatory programme on pro bono activities in order to sensitise them to the value of this unique service to society? Such a public interest lawyering programme need not necessarily be about clocking hours performing service, given the safeguards on the rendering of legal advice under the Legal Profession Act.
Rather, such a programme should nudge our aspiring lawyers to appreciate the centrality of legal aid and pro bono work in the well-being of our society's administration of justice, and how that helps to keep the various legal actors accountable in a system of justice that strives to be built on the rule of law.
Mdm Speaker, it is my hope that our framework and process of legal aid would more extensively involve non-lawyers as well, such as mediators and social workers. Access to justice need not necessarily be confined to access to a lawyer. While the Ministry of Law has actively promoted alternative dispute resolution (ADR), there is also the perception that ADR is all about compromise, or even the displacement of rights, even in relational disputes. This perception must be arrested to ensure greater confidence in ADR.
Finally, I would urge the Government to review the means test more regularly, perhaps every two to three years. The means test must keep pace, not lag behind, the change in the cost of living, as well as any other factors that may contribute to more persons of limited means requiring legal aid. Madam, I support this Bill.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef\t(Marine Parade): Madam, I support the Bill and the expansion in the criteria for eligibility and coverage. This is in line with the vision of Legal Aid Bureau, which is blazing trails in the compassionate practice of law.
It is also welcomed by many of my residents who have had their cases rejected due to not meeting the previous criteria. With this amendment Bill, more people will qualify for legal aid assistance. It is thus anticipated that Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) will be seeing an increase in the number of applications. What will be its strategy to manage this increase? Will it be possible to get more qualified volunteers or will LAB likely have to work with private companies and
Page: 60
volunteers and also the Law Society through its pro bono services?
Along the same lines, can I enquire on the average number of referrals annually to LAB for the last three years? How many were approved? And of the rejected cases, what were the circumstances? Are these due to not meeting eligibility criteria or other reasons? Also, what proportion of the referred cases were matrimonial-related or divorce-related cases?
For cases involving minors, Madam, the Bill states that the Director will have the discretion in decision making. I would like to ask, should we not at least set some minimum, flexible guidelines or criteria, as a reference?
Now, let me share an anecdote based on a real case in my constituency. A single parent who lived in my ward passed on, leaving behind two children who were in Primary school. Her sister, who was going to take charge of the children, came to see me to seek advice on legal procedures for formal guardianship. This happened in February 2012. One year ago. She had already taken the children in and was taking care of them and looking after them. She herself has got aged parents to look after and she works in the clerical line. I referred her to LAB for assistance, only to be given a rejection after several weeks. I re-appealed, of course. Somehow, the reply came with the same fate. Thus, I made a referral to the then MCYS, only to be told she needed the services of a pro bono legal representative from The Law Society, understandably. She, then, saw the legal representative from the Law Society, who then told her she should go back to LAB, as her case should be handled there! And, of course, she came back to me. It has been some four times since she has come to see me and the case continues, now into its twelfth month, going back and forth.
The reason for rejection given by LAB was due to the fact that she herself has a life insurance policy whose surrender value is $40,000. She had purchased this a long time ago when she started working. The surrender value of the policy has to be taken into consideration when assessing her assets. However, you and I know that this is not fluid cash for her and her family at this point in time.
I certainly hope something positive can come out of this amendment Bill to assist people like her, instead of having them go round and round like this. Now, with the \"disregard of up to $46,000 of the surrender value of life insurance policies\", under disposable income, it will benefit others in a similar predicament.
Page: 61
Now, Madam, the new Bill will also cover proceedings, previously heard before the Commissioner of Labour, cases for workman injury compensation and also Syariah court appeals. However, what is still lacking is coverage for criminal legal assistance.
Sir David Marshall, then Chief Minister of Singapore, said that a service like that provided by the LAB is \"essential in every democratic society to help the poor\". A form of legal aid existed since 1956, even before the Legal Aid and Advice Bill came forth. There were, of course, criteria set, suitable for that period of time and the development of Singapore then. Free legal representation was provided then when necessary to even persons charged with murder. Then Minister for Social Welfare, Lee Yew Hock, stated that the principle on which the case for legal aid legislation might be based on is in the magna carta which states, \"To no man will we deny, to no man will we sell or delay justice or right\". There is, after all, a need to provide legal aid and ensure success of the judicial system and its equal opportunity to all; rich or poor.
I would like to ask the Minister of State: can we consider perhaps in selective cases, some sort of criminal legal aid assistance. After all, in cases of criminal prosecution, too, the poor and the low income will not be able to afford a lawyer and, indeed, a heavy stake is involved as he could end up in prison, affecting his life, his family and his children's future. Currently, these people can only get assistance under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme from the Law Society, if they are lucky and, of course, there are no guarantees. Thus, in the name of supporting liberty and livelihood, I would like to propose if we can indeed consider assistance of some sort to these low income, needy and poor cases, maybe even in a more selective manner to start off. With that, Madam, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.51 pm until 4.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Page: 62
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Amendment Bill which will help to enhance the framework for legal aid for those who are unable to afford legal representation and access to justice.
I would like to applaud and appreciate the steps taken by the Ministry of Law to review, expand and enhance the coverage of legal aid and introduce measures to avail access to legal aid and advice in Singapore.
I am heartened that there will be increases in the deductibles for applicants, their spouses and dependants to account for inflation and the higher cost of living. In addition, rental relief has also been raised correspondingly, in alignment with the market increases. Then, there is the up to $46,000 of the surrender value of life insurance policies which will be disregarded for means testing. By the same token, Central Provident Fund (CPF) Investments will not be included in the calculation, and the annual value of applicants' property to be excluded from the means testing will be increased to $13,000 from the current $7,800. All these reflect current realities on the ground and will allow those in the lower segment of the populace continued access to legal aid and justice.
However, I would like to question whether there is a better way to capture the current cost realities than merely fine-tuning the deductibles and relief. The last review of the means test was in 2007 where the disposable income was raised to the current $10,000. With a current inflation rate of over 3%, it would be far more effective to consider raising the disposable income rather than to deploy the current method of increasing personal and dependants' deductibles and relief.
For example, in personal relief, we have seen an increase of $1,500. If we take reference to an applicant with no dependants, the increase after five years is a mere 7.5%, based on a monthly pay of $1,667. This works out to be only a 1.5% increase per year since 2007, calculated against the gross monthly income. In the same vein, even as we consider the increase in the dependants' relief from $3,500 to $6,000, this works out to be an increase of only 2.5% per year since 2007. All these are still below the 3% average inflation rate.
Page: 63
With reference to the $10,000 limit, we should try to work out a simple average analysis of monthly income. Disposable income, after the revised terms, is defined as the total income, together with the spouse's income for the past 12 months, after deducting $6,000 per dependant, $6,500 for oneself; rent not exceeding $20,000 per year and CPF contributions. Taking into account current cost of living, a disposable annual income of $10,000 would be at sustenance levels.
Instead of $10,000 as the disposable income limit, I would propose to increase the amount correspondingly with the rise in household incomes and factoring in accelerating inflation to $14,000. According to the \"Household income Trends 2011\" issued by the Department of Statistics, the average monthly income of our resident employed household, excluding employer CPF contribution, was $6,280 in 2006. In 2011, the same figure has grown sharply by 41% to $8,864. As we seek to push up the wages for Singaporeans in all industries and sectors to provide for a better life, I submit that there should be a proportional increase in this disposable income limit to be entitled to legal aid.
Moving ahead, I recommend that it is imperative to regularly and continually review the current limit, possibly every two years, to factor in rising inflation and rising incomes of our populace.
In addition to the means test, there is also in place a merits test that the applicant will have to go through before the Legal Aid Bureau will grant support. If we know that each applicant is already caught up in domestic or personal issues to seek legal resolution, do we need to subject the applicants to the merits test? It would be useful for the Legal Aid Bureau to share with or educate the public openly on what are the objective criteria in the merits test and how approval will be decided. The Government should also delve into further study as to how legal aid can be administered through the whole system rather than Legal Aid Bureau per se.
If a society is judged by how the strong and those in governance help the weak, I am confident that a better support system for legal assistance can be developed comprising well-established community legal clinics, easier access to Government legal aid and a certain number of pro bono hours to be determined between the Government and legal fraternity. Of pro bono hours, we have heard commonly of the two schools of thought – one, that it should come from the heart and, the other, a mandatory system. These two points of view are often intensely argued by both sides. I believe a balance can be created between the two. The Law Society, Ministry of Law and our Law Schools are already doing great work in this area. The Chief Justice has also urged and
Page: 64
supported the move to encourage the legal profession to serve the community. In fact, just two weeks ago, NTUC and the Law Society entered into a long-term partnership to provide legal clinics, resources and employments to our more than 700,000 union members. Moving ahead, it distils down to how the Government and the legal fraternity can work together to work out a framework that will enhance this access and for the fraternity to endorse and embrace them.
Lastly, we must also not forget the Legal Aid Bureau and its staff and people there who make legal aid \"happen\" for us. Two decades ago as a young law undergraduate, I spent my first year university vacation on attachment with the Legal Aid Bureau. I saw for myself the plethora of cases and the piles of files which the Bureau had to handle. I am sure and hope much has improved since those days. With this expansion of the scope of Legal Aid pursuant to these amendments, I hope more resources be dedicated to enhance and develop the capabilities of the Legal Aid Bureau to handle in this new operating environment. I envisage that more manpower will be needed in view of higher workloads.
In addition, well-manned counters and hotline services to take queries and, at the same time, provide timely updates to those on-going cases, are needed. Likewise, there should even be a specialised department in the Bureau to have the ability and astuteness to investigate when doing the \"means test\" and detect and differentiate genuine cases deserving aid from those out to abuse the system.
In conclusion, it is important to ensure that legal aid will remain available to all, especially those who are unable to afford it. A systemic development, capability enhancement and dedication of resources by the Government for legal aid, such as community legal clinics, pro bono legal services and the Legal Aid Bureau, would have greater effectiveness in reaching out to those who need the legal services the most and yet unable to afford them. With that, I support the Bill.
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Amendment Bill. The amended means-testing system would be more beneficial for Singaporeans and PRs who apply for legal aid. For example, the cap of disposable capital is now raised from the current $7,800 to $13,000. We all know that housing prices have been rising rapidly in recent years. For an ordinary
Page: 65
home owner, his disposable capital, that is, the house he owns, has increased in value. The increase in housing prices is the equivalent of the rise of disposable capital. The amendments demonstrate the efficiency, flexibility and sensitivity of our legal system. The purpose of legal aid is to help those who need legal support yet lack the financial resources to receive fair and just treatment. The amendments have served this purpose by not depriving those who cannot apply for legal aid due to market reasons from getting the help they deserve, thus protecting their interests.
The amendments are good, but I have three points to raise: first, not long ago, the Government announced a slew of generous grants for buying a flat, childcare and education. People now ask: is too much welfare conducive to encouraging people to continue working hard? Some might question the benefits of giving legal aid applicants more financial help. To address these concerns, should the Government not respond by informing the public the scope of legal aid through the media, community and grassroots organisations? Not all legal issues can be solved by free services provided by the Legal Aid Bureau staff.
Second, there were 9,775 legal aid cases in 2011, among which over 50% were divorce cases; others were adoption, traffic and industrial accident compensation cases. It is worth noting that one third of the cases were handled by over 100 pro bono private lawyers, not by staff from the Legal Aid Bureau. These are onerous pro bono duties; and the pro bono spirit of these lawyers is commendable. It should be emulated by younger and new lawyers. Some Singaporeans do not understand that the Bureau must take a calibrated approach in handling these cases, and consider each single detail; and they complain that the Bureau has a bad attitude and do things inefficiently. I suggest that the related departments hold seminars and talks with schools and communities so that more people would understand the importance of pro bono legal work and encourage more practising lawyers to take up. We can then better look after the vulnerable who need legal aid, creating a more inclusive society.
Third, I understand that there were more females seeking legal aid in 2011. Among them, those aged between 40 and 50 years old made up 28%, and those 50 years old and above made up 36%. In terms of education, those with Secondary school education but did not attain \"O\" level qualifications formed 26%; those with only Primary school education formed 28%. Generally speaking, people with low education tend to be ignorant of their legal rights, therefore, are helpless in handling marital or family disputes. I suggest that, subject to available manpower, we should conduct free legal courses for the low-income
Page: 66
earners in languages they are familiar with, so that they know how to safeguard their own rights and seek fair treatment when they encounter difficult legal problems.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and would like to address some of the issues and queries that they have raised. First, I think that Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Edwin Tong had both made speeches calling for greater discretion. In a sense, what they raised was highlighted and responded to by Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef who, on the other hand, questioned the issue of discretion and asked whether or not we should have some minimum flexible guidelines or criteria. And there you have the tension. Discretion allows you to do a certain amount of things but, at the same time, that discretion cannot be unfettered because, if so, it would not be transparent and then there would be challenges to whether the discretion was exercised properly.
There has to be some reference to a framework, and that is what we have at the moment. We have tried to balance it by having a transparent means test but, at the same time, we have tried to blunt the sharp edges of the means test by having a discretionary element exercisable by the Director of Legal Aid. I notice, though, that the two cases mentioned by Mr Edwin Tong and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef were ineligible for legal aid because of the surrender value of the applicants' insurance policies. In these cases − for Mr Edwin Tong's resident, the surrender value was $10,000 and, for Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, it was $40,000 − under the revised limits, they would both qualify. I would urge Mr Tong and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef to ask their residents to re-apply. If there is further difficulty, please refer the matter to me, and we will see what can be done.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked about the average number of referrals annually for the last three years and how many were approved. On average, there are about 10,000 applicants to the Legal Aid Bureau per year, out of which, approximately 90% are approved. She had asked what were the reasons for the rejected cases and, in general, it is because they have not met the eligibility criterion. Finally, she had also asked what proportion are matrimonial cases. The answer is 52%.
There were comments made on the means test in general and, on this, let me just make a few comments – which are that the touchstone is really
Page: 67
disposable income and disposable capital, not gross income or gross capital. What we do is we look at the resources reasonably available to the applicant in order to finance his or her legal expenses. The test allows the applicant to deduct the resources which he uses for his day-to-day expenses and his spouses' expenses and his dependants' expenses; so, you do not take that into account. It also disregards the assets which you cannot expect the applicant to sell, for example, his life policy up to certain amount and his dwelling home. So, you look at the end of the day at what he has left that he can actually use to pay for legal services.
Mr Patrick Tay said that taking into account current cost of living, annual disposable income of $10,000 is at the sustenance level. I was not quite sure why that would be the case because the means test envisages that $10,000 is what you have left after you have deducted your own expenses, your spouse's expenses and your dependants' expenses. So, $10,000 disposable income for legal services is not luxurious by any measure but it is, I think, accurate to say that it is above sustenance level. There are also different ways to structure the means test, but our assessment is that adjusting the deductibles is probably a more targeted approach than simply increasing the disposable income limit. That is because the deductibles, which we are increasing, are what represent the average cost of living for the average family. The annual disposable income represents our estimate of the reasonable cost of basic legal services. So, the $10,000 figure was arrived at, being an estimate of what would be a reasonable amount you would have to spend in order to obtain basic legal services.
If you take a test where you raise the annual disposable income into a one-size-fits-all test, then it could result in inequitable outcomes. For example, all things being equal, a bigger household with more dependants will have more expenses. Having a flat disposable income test could operate unfairly against them. Pegging the living expenses deductibles to a number of dependants will give you a fairer outcome.
So, the better approach is this: we look at the disposable income and capital limit and ask ourselves whether those amounts are sufficient to finance the cost of basic legal services. Our assessment is, yes. If you have more than $10,000 in disposable income or capital, you ought to be able to afford basic legal services. If it is less than that, then that is where the Legal Aid Bureau will step in to help you. The idea is that this is not intended for protracted trials but basic legal services, such as probate, adoption and straightforward family law cases.
I turn now to the comments made by Members on the specific elements of the means test. Asst Prof Eugene Tan asked about the considerations for the
Page: 68
review of the Act and how the quantum was derived. The main consideration in reviewing the Act was to take into account the changes in cost of living and also to provide coverage to the more vulnerable groups in family cases. That was the thinking behind the current amendments.
Several Members had also expressed concern that the levels in the means test may become outdated and they had commented on the need for regular updating, and I note Asst Prof Eugene Tan's comment that review and revision are needed so that deserving persons are not shut out. Yes, we agree entirely. That is why the Government regularly reviews the Act and the Act has been reviewed at regular intervals – in 1995, 2001, 2007 and, now, in 2012. But we will continue to review and refine the means test regularly to ensure that it remains relevant.
Mr Hri Kumar suggested that the means test could be updated by using a flexible formula rather than having to wait for Parliament to legislate the changes to the means test. Actually, under section 24 of the Act, the Minister can amend the means test deductibles and discretions in the Second Schedule by way of Gazette notification. In this instance, it is being brought through Parliament because there are other amendments which are required.
I move now to the exceptions to the means test. All of what I said before notwithstanding, I also accept that rigid adherence to the means test can cause difficulties in very exceptional cases. The test is premised upon average income and expenditure patterns and, like all tests premised on a general set of parameters, it may operate harshly, or in an unintended fashion, in exceptional circumstances. It is for this reason that the Act has discretionary exceptions to the general means test which cover separated spouses, those who suffer a sudden disability leading to a loss of earning capacity, those who suffer a sudden loss of income and need urgent aid and, of course, the new exception that we added for family cases involving children or those requiring protection orders. The amendments have increased the quantum of the deductibles for the discretionary cases and built in some extra flexibility.
To recap, the Government's general approach is to make sure that those in need of legal aid but who are in difficult financial circumstances, especially the vulnerable groups, are not shut out by inflation and changes in the cost of living. We are also concerned to ensure that vulnerable individuals in family situations have the protection of the law and access to justice, and this can be seen from the thrust of the amendments.
Page: 69
Asst Prof Eugene Tan asked why Singaporeans and PRs are treated equally when it comes to the provision of legal aid and advice, and suggested that PRs be required to satisfy a higher threshold. Actually, there is a differentiation in treatment between Singaporeans and PRs. Whilst we do not have a separate means test for Singapore Citizens and PRs for the qualifying level, PRs are generally charged a higher contribution when they are granted legal aid. So, in order to qualify, the test is the same. But at the end of the day, when we are asking back for some form of contribution, the PRs will have to pay more than the Singaporeans, and there is a differentiation between Singaporeans and PRs in favour of Singaporeans. We think that this is a fairer approach. This is the current position, but we will continue to study this.
Whilst I am on the subject of contributions, Mr Hri Kumar asked whether those who had their contributions partially waived are liable to make contribution in the event they recover money. The answer is, yes, they are.
On the merits test, Mr Patrick Tay asked whether it is necessary to impose a merits test. And the answer, again, is, yes, it is. The reason is this: you are spending taxpayers' money to provide legal aid; you want to make sure that the person has access to justice. On the other hand, if a claim is clearly frivolous, you do not want to be spending the taxpayers' money to pursue something which is clearly and obviously frivolous. Similarly, for untenable defences. On the other hand, I accept that there are also cases which fall in between where the possible outcome is not so clear. And that is where you have to make an assessment of the merits: you have to think about whether this is a case which should go to court. On balance, if there is a reasonable prospect of success, then the Legal Aid Bureau will render legal aid. So, the merits test is relevant and important.
Mr Tay had asked what about the criterion for the merits test. But you cannot apply a criterion as such. Each individual case depends on the facts of the case and the application of the law to that case. So, it is not a one-size-fits-all merits test for every case.
On the broader issues, I believe, Ms Ellen Lee mentioned about legal aid services in general and educating the public on the legal aid coverage. The means test and the scope of legal proceedings covered are actually available on the Legal Aid Bureau's website and brochures. But the Legal Aid Bureau is happy to provide copies of the brochures to organisations as and when required.
Page: 70
Ms Ellen Lee also suggested educating the public of their rights. Certainly, more can be done in this area. It does not necessarily have to be the Legal Aid Bureau but we will look to see how persons in need can be made more aware of their legal rights.
Mr Hri Kumar raised some concerns about foreign workers who may be caught in legal difficulties. Whilst I appreciate the comments that he has made, they really are more a matter for the Ministry of Manpower. I will raise Mr Kumar's concerns and suggestions to the Minister for Manpower, but Mr Kumar should feel free to direct those comments to the Minister for Manpower himself as well.
For criminal legal aid, I would agree with Mr Hri Kumar and the others who have spoken on it about the importance of adequate representation in criminal proceedings. The Government already funds LASCO. But on the other types of criminal proceedings, I should say that the Government's KPI is not convictions. The Government's KPI must be and always has been justice. This is something that we will try to uphold. And it is because of this that the Government does also contribute indirectly. The Government makes a contribution to the Law Society's Pro Bono Services Office which runs the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. We are in discussion with the Law Society to expand our funding to them, to enable the Society to take on more deserving cases. There is also a Government-community collaboration, the Community Justice Centre, which is in the midst of being implemented. This is a one-stop hub that will provide greater integration of legal aid and social assistance to litigants-in-person or defendants. Social services available at the Centre include legal clinics and practical support services to help the LIPs or the litigants-in-person prepare court documents and applications. That said, we are also open to other suggestions.
Mr Hri Kumar had suggested a possible public defender scheme using lawyers from private practice. This is actually among the various suggestions that we have received and which have been considered. We will review this and other suggestions and see if any refinements can be made.
I would like to conclude by commenting on what some Members have raised, which is support from the legal community and the need for pro bono. They have mentioned lawyers in private practice and other stakeholders who have come forward to give of themselves and their efforts in terms of pro bono legal aid. This is very much to be encouraged and it is heartening, in particular,
Page: 71
to see the private lawyers coming forward to do this.
In reply to Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, the Legal Aid Bureau has been enjoying good support from the legal community in getting private lawyers to be their assigned solicitors. As mentioned by Asst Prof Eugene Tan, we set up the Pro Bono Development Unit in the Bureau to better reach out to the private lawyers. And Mr Hri Kumar's point about involving corporate counsel and foreign practices is also well taken, and this will be reviewed.
With respect to the Legal Aid Bureau's caseload, my Ministry will allocate resources to deal with the increased caseload for the Bureau as may be appropriate.
With respect to what is the best approach to promote more pro bono efforts, mandatory or otherwise, we have had a consultation, views have been heard and a committee led by Justice V K Rajah will make recommendations on the way forward. There is also a committee which I am chairing – the Pro Bono Promotion Committee – which will look into the overall pro bono system and review how best to encourage pro bono work by the legal profession as a whole.
With respect to Asst Prof Eugene Tan's enquiry about law students and law schools, the law schools are actually in the midst of refining their curriculum to expose students to doing more pro bono work. But as a general rule, we would want to cultivate an environment in the community where the legal community as a whole steps forward to do more pro bono and to support legal aid.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Page: 72
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Deputy Prime Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the next item under Deputy Prime Minister Teo be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit?
Mdm Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
Hon Members [(proc text) indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the next item be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move,
[(proc text) \"That this House endorses Paper Cmd 1 of 2013 on 'A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore' as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge, and Paper Misc 1 of 2013 on 'A High Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans' as the land use plan to support Singapore's future population.\" (proc text)]
Since March 2012, we have engaged over 2,200 Singaporeans and representatives from various groups, and also received 2,500 pieces of feedback on this important issue of population. All Members of this House were also invited to send in their views and suggestions.
Page: 73
Since we released the White Paper on 29 January 2013, much of the attention and public reactions have been focused on the population projection for 2030. Singaporeans have expressed concerns over job competition, having too many foreigners and overcrowding. Many have asked whether we should do more to encourage marriage and parenthood and slow down our pace of life. These are all heartfelt and important concerns which Singaporeans have today, and which we also worry about for our future.
Indeed, these were the issues which we grappled with as we prepared the White Paper. Allow me to take a step back, Madam, and focus on why we have prepared the White Paper, the objectives and the balance that we are trying to achieve.
We faced a series of unprecedented crises in the last decade: 9/11 in 2001, SARS in 2003, and the global financial crisis of 2008. They caused wide swings which required extraordinary responses to cushion the impact on Singaporeans. By working together, we kept our society cohesive, stabilised the economy, saved Singaporeans' jobs and emerged stronger as a community. However, the responses we took threw our planning out of gear.
In particular, the growth in foreign workforce, total population, infrastructure and housing were not aligned. This contributed to the anxiety, crowdedness, integration issues and the daily inconveniences faced by Singaporeans today. To address these issues, individual Ministries have been taking steps to reduce the intake of PRs, tighten on foreign workers, boost housing supply and improve transportation. But we now need to review all these holistically.
The White Paper, therefore, sets out to take a re-look at all these issues, balance the different needs and constraints, and chart a roadmap to guide future policy. The White Paper is fundamentally for the benefit of all Singaporeans – ourselves, our children and their children – to make sure that Singaporeans continue to live in a harmonious society, with strong supportive families, good jobs and a good living environment.
We looked at our past population and workforce trajectory, and concluded that we could not continue growing at those rates. Over the past three decades, our total population had been growing at an average of 2.5% per year, and our workforce at 3.3% per year. These growth rates were simply not sustainable for the coming years because our foreign workforce and population would increase
Page: 74
beyond our constraints.
I would like to emphasise two points at the outset.
The first point is that the White Paper is proposing a major shift – a significant slow-down in our rate of workforce and population growth compared to the path that we were on. Up to 2020, we will be slowing down the rate of workforce growth to 1% to 2%. This is half of what it was before. Beyond that, the White Paper projects a further reduction to about 1% per year. This is a significant reduction, just a third of what it was before. Population growth rate is also projected to drop to about half the historical growth rate. I will go into this in more detail in my speech.
Up to 2020, the roadmap in the White Paper is clearer. But beyond 2020 till 2030, the projection has a wider uncertainty range of 6.5 million to 6.9 million.
This is the second point I would like to emphasise. We are not deciding now on the population trajectory beyond 2020. Nor are we deciding that we will have a population of 6.9 million in 2030. We are using this figure, which is at the high end of the 6.5 million to 6.9 million range, only to prepare infrastructure plans.
This population range up to 2030 provides a common set of parameters so that we can make long-term plans that will be sufficient to cater even to the high end of possible populations. This is especially important for infrastructure plans that may take many years to implement and, once built, will be there for decades. If we under-provide in our land use and infrastructure plans now, Singaporeans will have less flexibility in the future and, if things turn out unexpectedly, we will face bottlenecks and constraints. In fact, these are precisely the problems that we are facing today. We do not want to repeat these scenarios by under-providing.
What the population will actually be in 2030 will depend on the needs of Singaporeans and the decisions we make on economic and workforce policy along the way. We hope that with restructuring and productivity gains, with Singaporeans living healthier and longer, and therefore choosing to remain in the workforce longer, and more women joining the workforce, our population will not reach 6.9 million. It is the ability to meet the needs of Singaporeans and provide a good quality of life that is the driver. That is our objective, and not the numbers per se. If we are able to achieve all that with a smaller population, whether 6.5 million or lower, there is no reason to go higher. But it is prudent to plan our infrastructure for the upper end of the range, so that we do not get
Page: 75
caught out.
Furthermore, this is not a one-off exercise. Every few years, we should relook at our plans again, decide the path we actually take, especially beyond 2020, and make changes to refine the plan, based on our needs, and as domestic and external circumstances change.
Though it is important for me to make these two points at the outset, we have actually jumped several steps to the outcome. It would be helpful for me to start at the beginning. And where is the beginning? The beginning is our Singapore Citizen core. During our engagement sessions, as we heard the views and suggestions, hopes and concerns of Singaporeans, they asked us several key questions. These questions remained on our minds as we developed the White Paper. Let me try to answer these questions.
First, is our ageing and shrinking citizen population really such an urgent issue? Can we not just wait a few more years before we deal with it? The issue is, indeed, upon us, and is an issue we need to deal with now.
Last year, our first cohort of Baby Boomers, those born after the Second World War in 1947, turned 65 years old. Between now and 2030, over 900,000 Baby Boomers – or more than a quarter of our present citizen population – will enter their silver years. By 2025, our citizen population will start to shrink if we do nothing. Let me explain what the trends mean.
At a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.2, for every 100 Singaporeans in this generation, there will be 60 Singaporeans in the next generation, and only 36 in the generation after that. And this poses a huge challenge to the sustainability of our Singaporean core population.
What does this mean for the lives of Singaporeans? For our seniors, many will continue to live active, healthy lives. But as age catches up, they and their families will want the assurance that their needs can be met, and that there will be enough caregivers and health workers to look after them.
Today, our Singaporean workforce is still growing, slowly. But as our Baby Boomers retire, and fewer school leavers enter the workforce, our citizen workforce will start shrinking by 2020.
What does this mean? Today, we have 5.9 working-age citizens for each citizen aged 65 and above – 5.9, so nearly 6. By 2030, this will fall to just 2.1, or
Page: 76
roughly one-third. This number, 2.1, is about half the average of 4.1 for the OECD countries in 2010. We can mitigate this by creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to continue working beyond the current retirement age. But, the support ratio will still fall significantly.
So, what does this mean for Singaporeans? Higher taxes on those working to fund subsidised healthcare for a much larger number of seniors. Slower business activity and less investment in new sectors, leading to fewer jobs and career opportunities. Young Singaporeans may decide to leave for more exciting opportunities in other growing cities. This would hollow out our population and workforce further. This is a real worry, not on a national level, but for parents, too, who wonder whether their children will go abroad in search of better opportunities, and they will be left here alone in their silver years.
Take Japan as an example. In 2011, 23.3% of Japan's population was aged 65 years and above – the highest in the world. One statistic particularly jumped out at me. In 2011, for the first time, Japan's largest diaper maker, Unicharm Corporation, reported that it sold more adult diapers in Japan than baby diapers. Just think about it. That is just diapers only. What are the implications for the rest of the society, healthcare system and economy?
Japan moved from an ageing population, as defined by the World Health Organization, where 7% are over 65, that is, an ageing population, to an aged population where 14% are over 65, in 24 years. This was much faster than Italy, which took 61 years, Sweden 85 years, and France 115 years. Japan took 24 years. Singapore will age even faster, taking just 18 years to make the same transition. We are projected to be an \"aged\" population by 2016, three years from now.
Japan's population started falling in 2005 and is expected to fall by one million people every year in the coming decades. The Japanese population will shrink by around 30% by 2060, with 40% above the age of 65. The social and economic implications are enormous.
Singapore is a much smaller country with a much smaller population and economy. If we do not take decisive actions now to sustain our Singaporean core population, we will decline more quickly and sharply than Japan.
This leads us to our second question: how do we sustain our Singaporean core population? The best and most fundamental way is to encourage Singaporeans to start families. Regardless of whatever else we do, encouraging
Page: 77
marriage and parenthood, bringing up children must remain a key priority. This is not just for tackling our population challenge, but to continue to have strong families, and the fulfilment and happiness that come from having families.
We introduced a Marriage and Parenthood Package in 2001. Last month, we announced the latest enhancements to the Package, taking on board the feedback that we received from Singaporeans over the past year. I would like to highlight two changes. Extending MediShield coverage to babies born with congenital and neonatal conditions reflects the more caring and inclusive society we want to be, and provides important assurance to couples wanting to have children. The introduction of Paternity Leave signals that we should adopt new attitudes and mindsets towards shared parental responsibilities.
Since 2001, the families of about 350,000 Singaporean children have benefitted from the Package. The latest enhancements will benefit more families. However, to support our families, we need the community, employers, extended families and individual Singaporeans to foster a pro-family culture in our whole society.
In the short term, I hope our birth rate can increase to at least 1.4 or 1.5, which was our birth rate not so long ago, around the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Beyond that, we, of course, would like to see the birth rate rise above 1.5, perhaps to the replacement rate of 2.1, but it will take time, and we will need all Singaporeans to do their part to make it happen.
And until that happens, to prevent our Singaporean core from shrinking and ageing rapidly, we will need to augment our population with new citizens and permanent residents. A significant number of Singaporeans are themselves marrying non-Singaporeans, reflecting the more globalised nature of interactions between people today. About 40% of Singaporean marriages each year are between a Singaporean and a non-Singaporean, numbering some 9,000 in 2011.
Singapore has historically been an immigrant society and has benefited from the diversity and energy that new citizens bring. Several colleagues in this House also have close new citizen family connections.
We should continue to welcome immigrants who can contribute to Singapore, share our values and integrate into our society. Taking in younger immigrants will supplement the smaller cohorts of younger Singaporeans born since the 1980s, and balance the ageing of our citizen population. Taking in
Page: 78
between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens each year is about equivalent to having a stable and sustainable Singapore Citizen core population with a TFR of 2.1. We have, in fact, been taking in new citizens at this controlled rate, averaging 19,000 per year over the past five years. We will review this immigration rate from time to time, depending on our birth rates, as well as the quality of applicants, and our changing needs. If we are able to raise our birth rates, we can eventually take in fewer immigrants. But do remember that a baby born today is not going to be 20 years old, until 20 years' time.
Permanent Residents (PRs) are also counted as part of our resident population. They form a pool of potential new citizens who have a longer term commitment to Singapore but are not yet ready for citizenship. We have tightened up significantly on the number of PRs granted each year, down from a high of 79,000 new PRs in 2008 to about 30,000 each year for the past three years. We plan to maintain the current rate. This means that the PR population will remain stable, where it is, at between 0.5 million and 0.6 million.
There are concerns that if we take in too many new immigrants, Singaporeans may increasingly feel like strangers in our own land. Thus, it is important for new citizens and PRs to fit into our society. Most new immigrants come from similar ethnic backgrounds as Singaporeans, but some may take time to adapt to our norms, culture and values. We will continue to encourage and help new citizens and their children to integrate into our society, adapt to our way of life, becoming more like us over time. I hope that more Singaporeans will also help foster stronger bonds in our community. This will help to strengthen our Singaporean core – not just in numbers but, more importantly, also in spirit.
With a careful balance of parenthood measures and controlled number of new citizens, our core population of Singaporean citizens will stabilise around 3.6 million to 3.8 million in 2030, similar to the number if we had replaced ourselves fully. If we maintained our current birth rates and with no immigration, our Singaporean core population would eventually shrink sharply below today's 3.3 million. This was the first, and most important, part of the White Paper, to ensure that our Singaporean population is sustainable and stable.
After tackling the key issue of having a sustainable Singapore Citizen core population, we then looked at what is required to take care of Singaporeans' changing social and economic needs. Some have pointed out that the proportion of Singapore Citizens in our total population will fall from just under 62% today to perhaps 55% by 2030, and asked: is this Government pro-Singaporean or pro-foreigner? Why do we need foreigners working in
Page: 79
Singapore? Why can we not let Singaporeans take up all the jobs in Singapore instead?
Having foreigners here on work passes must be for the purpose of meeting Singaporeans' needs and benefitting them, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Let us look at who these non-resident foreigners will be. The largest group, the majority, will continue to be those on work permits who do jobs and provide services that Singaporeans need, but do not want to do ourselves.
As Singaporeans become increasingly better educated and upgrade their skills, they will have higher job aspirations. Singaporeans in non-Professional, Managerial, Executive and Technical (PMET) jobs will also be higher skilled, but their numbers will fall by 200,000 by 2030. This is why we need more foreign work pass holders to take up more of the lower-skilled jobs, even as we upgrade industries and improve productivity. We will continue to take care of Singaporeans through upskilling programmes and Workfare, and imposing foreign worker levies and dependency ratios.
Let us be clear. These foreign workers are here to support Singaporeans' needs. For example, we expect to need significantly more healthcare, eldercare and domestic services workers to support our ageing population and working families. A visit to any nursing home will show you that. They build our homes, rail lines and roads, and clean our housing estates. They thus enable Singaporeans to enjoy good social and municipal services while moderating the cost of these services, contribute to our quality of life, and allow more Singaporeans themselves to be in the workforce. But even so, the number of foreign workers will be controlled and their overall growth rate significantly reduced in the coming years. So, industries currently dependent on foreign workers will have to learn to do more with less.
While the number of Singaporeans in non-PMET jobs falls, the number of Singaporeans in PMET jobs is expected to rise by 400,000 to about 1.25 million by 2030, compared to 850,000 today. Two-thirds of Singaporeans in the workforce will hold PMET jobs in 2030, compared to about half today.
To sustain such a high ratio of PMET jobs among Singaporeans, we need a dynamic economy and businesses that produce goods and services not just for Singapore and the Singapore market, but for the region and the world.
Companies need foreign workers to complement the Singaporean core in our workforce, so that companies can pull together a diverse range of skills,
Page: 80
backgrounds and experiences. These foreigners help companies to expand to regional and international markets, set up regional HQs in Singapore, or kick-start new high value-added sectors in Singapore. These new activities will provide more good job opportunities which Singaporeans can eventually take up. But again, the work pass criteria will need to be more stringent. MOM has progressively tightened salary and qualification requirements for Employment Pass and S Pass holders.
Those on work passes are here during their productive years, and return to their home countries after working here. Hence, they help boost our ratio of working persons to retirees, but do not add to our retiree population. So, remember, with our ageing population, our dependency ratio will fall to just 2.1 working persons to each retiree. But by supplementing our Singaporean core workforce with foreign workers, we will be able to maintain a ratio of working persons to retirees of about four in 2030, similar to the OECD average today. This is based on our projections for significantly slower workforce growth, compared to our historic average. We are also able to adjust the numbers and types of foreign workers flexibly, depending on our changing needs.
We have heard concerns that there are jobs which Singaporeans want but which are instead going to foreigners. We need to strike a balance. We need to allow companies to create the jobs, and, to do so, they may need a workforce supplemented by foreigners. But we must also ensure that Singaporeans will benefit from the good jobs. This is something we are looking into, and MOM will address Members' concerns later in this debate.
Are we pushing growth at all costs and simply importing foreign workers to drive that? Let us look at two possible scenarios.
First, the \"freeze\" scenario, where foreign workforce numbers are frozen at where they are today. I can see some Members of the House, looking nervously at this prospect. What will happen? Our economy is likely to be dislocated. Both local and international business groups have said that the White Paper's proposal to halve the workforce growth will create a very tight manpower situation. A \"freeze\" will hurt businesses, investments and jobs for Singaporeans. Smaller companies may fold. International companies may pull out because they cannot find the right staff. If there are closures or pull-outs, Singaporeans in these companies may lose their jobs.
If we had operated under the \"freeze\" scenario last year, in 2012, EDB would not have been able to bring in $16 billion of foreign investments, which will
Page: 81
create 18,600 new skilled jobs. The opportunity to build up a critical mass in sunrise industries with good jobs of the future may pass us by. Our diploma holders and graduates may not be able to find challenging PMET jobs to meet their aspirations. A \"freeze\" would also mean fewer workers to do the jobs that many Singaporeans do not want to do, such as construction and cleaning, to help build HDB flats and rail lines. We will also need additional foreign domestic workers to help look after our elderly parents or young children, so that more Singaporeans can go out to work.
Now, let us consider the other alternative, the \"business as usual\" scenario. Some business or industry associations would prefer it if we allowed the foreign workforce to grow as quickly as before. If we allowed this, our total population will grow well beyond 6.9 million and well beyond our physical capacity in 2030.
So, neither of these extreme scenarios leads to desirable outcomes. And we do not want either of these. This is why the White Paper has sought to strike a careful balance in terms of workforce growth. We are not proposing to \"freeze\", nor to continue with \"business as usual\", and we are certainly not proposing to grow at all costs.
We are proposing a significant change of gears in our development trajectory. For the rest of this decade, we plan for total workforce growth to be between 1% and 2% per year, half of the 3.3% per year over the past 30 years. Beyond 2020, workforce growth is expected to slow further to about 1% per year.
Sustaining high productivity growth will also become harder as our economy matures and ages. If we are able to achieve our ambitious stretch target of 2% to 3% productivity growth per year in this decade, and maintain overall workforce growth at 1% to 2%, we can expect GDP growth to average 3% to 4% up to 2020, though in good years, we may exceed that. From 2020 to 2030, with workforce growth further slowing to about 1% per year, and productivity growth moderating to 1% to 2% per year, we may see GDP growth of between 2% and 3% per year from 2020 to 2030, depending on both internal and external circumstances. This range of 2% to 3% growth converges with the mature economies in the OECD. It is less than half of the 5.6% average annual growth that we saw in the 2000s, and the typically 7% annual growth that we saw in the two decades prior to that.
So, we are certainly not pursuing growth at all costs, as some have mistakenly claimed. Instead, we have set our sights on high-quality,
Page: 82
productivity-driven, sustainable growth that will help to create good jobs, raise wages and improve the lives of Singaporeans.
Nonetheless, Singaporeans are understandably worried about how many people we can accommodate in our island home, given the current infrastructural constraints. Will Singapore be overcrowded? To address the daily concerns of Singaporeans, we have stepped up development of public transport and housing. We have seen some initial results, and there will be further improvements in the next few years. Transport remains a particular concern.
The Ministry of Transport is implementing plans to add 800 new buses over five years, increasing capacity by 20%. We are opening one new section of MRT line every year for the next five years. The Downtown Line will begin to open from this year. We will continue to add more trains to reduce waiting time during the peak hours. And MOT is studying further steps to ease the strains that commuters feel today.
As we developed the Population White Paper, we worked closely with our planning and infrastructure agencies, to make sure that we could maintain a high quality living environment for Singaporeans.
Taking into consideration the various needs – to sustain our citizen population, and to meet the social and economic needs of our better-skilled workforce and an ageing population – we arrived at a population planning range of 6.5 million to 6.9 million. This is equivalent to a population growth rate of just over 1% per year from 2020 to 2030.
Madam, we are not asking Parliament to decide on reaching a population of 6.5 million, let alone 6.9 million. Rather, we have laid out the various needs and considerations, and are making provisions for the future. We need population projections to make infrastructure plans. Such a planning basis will allow infrastructure, which could take a decade to plan and build, and which would last several decades after that, to be properly located and sized. This is to give decision makers sufficient capacity and flexibility when they make decisions on policy settings in the future.
MND and MOT have laid out more fully the land use and infrastructure plans in Paper Misc 1 of 2013 on \"A High Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans\". These have received wide coverage in the media.
Page: 83
Even if our population were to reach 6.9 million one day, our population density for developable land will be about 13,700 persons per square km, still much lower than the population density of 22,000 in Hong Kong and 26,000 in Seoul. With good planning, the additional facilities and improvement works will enable Singapore to support a larger, older population while alleviating the strains that we are currently facing. To avoid falling behind in our infrastructure again, we will plan well in advance, implement these plans ahead of demand, and build in a buffer where possible.
This takes me to another key question: why are we tabling this White Paper now?
Demographic changes have very far-reaching implications for our society, our economy and our living environment. We have reached an important turning point where our citizen population will begin ageing rapidly and shrinking if we do nothing. This is why over the past year we have released several consultation papers providing information on population and workforce and encouraged discussion and comments.
Indeed, we have been asked by many why we even need to do this. It would be easier and less controversial to ignore our demographic challenge, and avoid dealing with it. But we believe in giving Singaporeans the full picture. It is more responsible to surface the issues and plan ahead while we are able to do so. Hence, the White Paper charts out a roadmap that carefully balances the various needs and constraints, so that we can plan ahead to prepare for the future, and not just for this generation, but also subsequent generations, of Singaporeans.
If we do too little to address our demographic challenge, we risk becoming a shrinking ageing society, and our young people may leave to seek more exciting opportunities elsewhere. But if we take in too many immigrants and foreign workers, we may weaken our social fabric and national identity. We need to strike a fine balance. And if we get this right, we will be able to achieve our goal to have a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore, with the well-being and benefit of Singaporeans at the centre of all that we do.
Mdm Speaker, let me close with one last question: who are we Singaporeans? Our forefathers came here from many lands, around the archipelago and further afield. Most Members would not have to go very far back in our own families to find somebody who came to Singapore from elsewhere and decided to sink roots here. They settled here, worked together for our future and, in the process, evolved a set of shared values that allowed
Page: 84
us to unite and achieve peace and progress together.
We are now moving into a new phase. The world is more globalised. We now have more Singaporeans living and working overseas, even as we have more foreigners living and working in Singapore. So, what does it mean to be Singaporean, and how do we retain our Singaporean identity?
We are Singaporean because of the common responsibility that we hold towards one another, because of the common hopes and dreams that we share with one another, because we are stakeholders and the protectors of the future of our country. These are what unite us and define us. We feel proud to be Singaporeans because of what Singapore is and what Singapore stands for. No foreigner can share in this pride. We feel sorrow when misfortune befalls one of our fellow Singaporeans, and display a generosity of spirit to our fellow Singaporeans.
We defend Singapore and Singaporeans because we are the stakeholders of our country – our families, our homes and our futures are here. No foreigner can feel the same way. We may help to ensure the safety of foreigners who are here in times of conflict, but we are not defending their families or their futures. We are defending ours. And that will never change.
We are Singaporean not just because of where we are born, but because of what we believe in, the values we live by, and a common desire to want to make our home a better one.
The plans that we make are, and must always be, for the good of Singaporeans – today, tomorrow and into the future. How to strengthen our cohesive society with Singaporeans at the core? How to ensure that Singaporeans have good jobs in an increasingly competitive global economy? How to keep Singapore the best home for Singaporeans, even as other cities are becoming more attractive?
What will life be like in Singapore for Singaporeans by 2030? As a citizen in 2030, you will have good quality jobs and opportunities, have access to services to support your family needs, and enjoy a high quality living environment. As a student, you will have many opportunities to maximise your potential. As a working adult, you are likely to be holding a higher skilled job than today. Your home will be in one of the world's most liveable cities, with convenient access to recreational facilities, parks and green spaces, and good public transport. As a senior, you will have aged care and support facilities available in the
Page: 85
community, and more beds in both acute and community hospitals, with sufficient staff to take care of you. Let us strive together to realise the \"Singapore promise\" – a better life, a better tomorrow, for Singaporeans of all ages.
Mdm Speaker, we have spent the past year taking in a diverse range of views, concerns and aspirations expressed by Singaporeans. All the views have been considered, though not all could be fully accommodated as some pull in opposite directions. We have tried to find a judicious balance in charting out our population roadmap for the future, with the well-being and benefit of Singaporeans at the core.
I hope Members of this House, and Singaporeans in general, will study the key considerations and support the recommendations of the White Paper as we work together to achieve our goal of \"A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore\".
Mdm Speaker, I would now like to call upon this House to endorse the White Paper on \"A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore\" as the roadmap for Singapore's population polices to address our demographic challenge, and the Miscellaneous Paper on \"A High Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans\" as the land use plan to support Singapore's future population. I look forward to hearing the views of hon Members during this Debate. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move [Applause].
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to kick off the debate on the White Paper. Today, I want to speak about three biases that inform both policy and political life in Singapore, and why we need to be aware of them – even if, as you will see, we cannot get rid of them altogether.
Over the last few weeks, we have had a series of announcements and my emotions have been on a roller coaster ride. I started on a high when the Marriage and Parenthood package came out; I got concerned when the Population White Paper came out and, finally, I felt better and reassured when the Land Use Paper was published.
Page: 86
First, on the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package. I was most delighted at the recent announcements and I will tell you why. Since becoming a Member of Parliament in 2006, I have spoken many times on Total Fertility Rate (TFR). On legislating paternity leave, I never give up and I have spoken on this every year since 2007.
Three years ago, I asked if those starting a family could be given higher priority in their HDB flat applications. This has been done. Altogether, I am very heartened that several suggestions which I have made over the years have been considered and are now incorporated in this latest M&P package − paternity leave, maternity leave to be made more flexible, childcare leave, work-life balance, childcare centres, priority housing, and also funds for assisted fertility.
Having said all these, I know many of my colleagues here have also in their own ways pushed for these measures over the years. We should all acknowledge and celebrate these improvements to family life with this new M&P package.
I hope these measures will go some way to boost our TFR − I shudder to think that a possible headline in 2030 reads: \"Singaporeans − an endangered species\" or \"The Last Singaporean projected in the year XXXX\".
Three Biases. Madam, planning and implementing public policy is not easy. I know my own role in the entire process is a modest one. Listening to what people wants – that is important. Making speeches in Parliament, writing blogs, conveying the interests of different groups – and making criticisms of the plans that meet or do not meet these assorted interests – that is the easy part.
My parliamentary colleagues, whatever colour of shirt or blouse they wear, know this, but in the heat of elections, the temptation to crow like the rooster, claiming he makes the sun rise with his crowing, may be too great.
Bias Number One. The causes of things. That which follows after is caused by that which came before. What is the true cause of things in social life? I think as long as Singapore is the better for it, why does it matter who has the credit for it?
Yes, we know that voters need to know what Members of Parliament have done, and can do. Today's debate is about the joint future of Singapore, and it is a collaborative effort. So, I urge the debate to take a mutual interest approach, rather than paving the way for future credit claiming. Together, both sides of
Page: 87
the House can make Singapore better for our fellow Singaporeans. Madam, I make this point about the need for cool debate only because the issues that I, and I am sure several others, will bring up will be hot ones.
Madam, policy formulation is never easy − over time, we need to review and refine policies. I would like to point out two biases which started out with good justifications, but will need to be re-thought: anti-welfarism and pro-market mechanism.
Bias Number Two. Hard work leads to success; poverty is the result of lack of trying. Madam, we have, in the White Paper, made provision for up to a 6.9 million population. The public reaction so far has been less than euphoric, to say the least. The Government has been careful to say that more immigrants are needed because Singaporeans are getting older. Yes, we need growth and continued prosperity. But – there are many buts. But Singapore is already so crowded. But foreigners will take away some of our jobs. But do we really want to keep on growing?
Singapore is crowded as is. The current bottlenecks, especially transport, are already there. These are legitimate concerns that Singaporeans have raised and I share them too. So, before we go further, we need to resolve current strains on infrastructure, especially transportation − this is an imperative.
The second large worry − do we have enough land to accommodate potentially 6.9 million people in our island? While 6.9 million is a big number, when we examine it closely, we are already slowing down population growth rate from an average of 2.5% in the last 30 years to about 1.35% in the next 20 years. So, this is almost half the rate that we used to grow and, at these reduced rates, by 2030, the number comes up to a maximum of 6.9 million.
Rather than the \"worst case scenario\", we ought to consider this as the \"hard constraint\" that planners need to work with. Within this constraint, my most severe reservation about the White Paper is the ratio of citizens to non-citizens. Currently, we have less than two Singaporeans to one non-Singaporean, which is already low for me. But in future, this may potentially go down to less than 1.5:1. And then you ask, what is the point of it all?
So, I hope that the ratio can be maintained at current levels and not decline further by 2030. We do need to do more to have more citizens. Not just by getting new citizens in, but also by getting our people to get married and getting
Page: 88
our married couples to have more babies.
Singaporeans ourselves can and must respond and answer to this call too. At the same time, can we moderate the flow of immigration as we strive to grow our citizen population? Only within these figures can the notion of \"maintaining a strong Singapore Core\" make sense. At the same time, we need to continually review and continually enhance the privileges of being a Singapore Citizen. This must be on the Government's radar screen all the time. And together with this, let me ask squarely this question: why are so many people so unhappy with the Population White Paper? First, not many of us want more people, more strangers living in our midst. I have addressed that briefly in my remarks on procreation.
But let us go at it another way. Assuming that we do not get more people to get married and for those married to have more babies. Let me say this, suppose we keep the 6.9 million figure, but the Government promises more than enough trains and homes; a steady supply of good jobs if you can work, unemployment benefits if you cannot, and a top-up to your salary if you do not draw a high enough salary. Suppose, as long as you are Singaporean, you are assured of a place in the sun, even if there are more people, simply because this is our land, and the land of our parents. In healthcare, housing and education, you will have a safety net. How is that? Is that not a good thing for Singaporeans?
I know this may perhaps sound too good to be true and, indeed, I can sense some disbelief in some of my colleagues. But actually the PAP was born on the back of recognising that we have the chance of making our own destiny – we are for Singaporeans, our party political philosophy is one of capitalist socialism – the market does our bidding, so that we can slant our policies to favour and to help those who need it most.
At the same time, another one of our key principles is \"self-help\" − of making every man do his best and then assuming that a strong work ethic and personal ambition will be the great equalizer. This is sensible on the face of it, but over the years, this has hardened to an ideology of anti-welfarism.
As a result, we kept welfare to a minimum. We do our best to get every Singaporean a job, saying that a job is the best welfare, a view that I certainly agree with. For years, we have trumpeted our low spending on direct welfare and lack of unemployment benefits – if we do not work, we do not get paid; otherwise, we would get soft and we would be landed with a large government
Page: 89
deficit like many \"soft\" western models. Look at all the governments in debt, with no financial discipline and the ensuing bail-outs. We do not want to be in that state.
In public finance, we plan to the last decimal, because time is money and we do not build ahead of demand. We want to ensure our limited resources are all efficiently used. But this White Paper makes a fundamental change in the way we regard bricks and mortar. The Prime Minister has said emphatically that we are building ahead of demand − we cannot always plan perfectly, so let us plan generously.
Economically, it is not a wise thing to do so. But economics do not rule Singapore. We should recognise that this is a fundamental change because it shows that we are deviating from one of our most deeply-held past practices. This building ahead of demand is a move I fully support and I am glad the Prime Minister himself has stated this categorically. I also urge the Government to draw up intermediate milestones in five years, or 2017, or in 10 years, what will happen and communicate them clearly so that Singaporeans can better visualise and, for that matter, Singaporeans can also hold Government accountable to these milestones.
But I think we need the change to go deeper – we need to examine this strain of anti-welfarism in our political philosophy and see whether it still fits into the Singapore of the future – whether, when the ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners is a mere 1.5:1, the assurance of meritocracy, as we know it, is enough to secure the Singapore Dream for everyone.
What if success is not because of hard work but because of luck? What if it is because both your parents are rich, and can afford $1,000 in tuition each month? What if your grades are good, not because you work any harder but because you are chauffeured to school every day and back?
Conversely, what if poverty is not the result of laziness but of a large medical bill that wiped out your savings for the last 10 years? What if, no matter how many times you tried, how hard you worked, you never made your business work?
The chain of causation does not run straight and the more we do policy, the less we can be sure of how X leads to Y.
Page: 90
For the present, this means that we must continue to build and to subsidise and help the needy. For the future, we must give greater security to Singaporeans for them to feel that whatever hand life deals them, the government of the day is for them. We must resist our self-righteous, sanctimonious chant that \"We do what is right, rather than what is popular\". Sometimes, it is right to do what the people want, not because we think it is right, but because they do.
The Government does not always know best, it may only know what is efficient, what is rational, what costs the most, or the least. If we admit the long and uncertain chain of causation, we would give more, even if it does create messiness, even if it does allow some gaming of the system. I know this runs some risks but I believe this is a risk that we can now afford to take.
Bias Number Three. Growth is good, More Growth is Better. And this brings me back to growth. We can take risks now because of the strong growth of the past. Growth is, indeed, the bedrock of our success in the past. This is the one key justification for the Population Plan of the future. I am sure we do not want a 2030 headline to read \"Singapore − a country in decline\". That we need more people is partly because we need growth. Growth is good because it gives us a better life. And so, Government must also illustrate clearly how as a result of the population policies, an intended objective is to create better job opportunities and higher salaries for Singaporeans. And then make it happen.
Indeed, Singapore has grown from mud flats to metropolis because of economic prosperity. And now from metropolis to what? What is growth for? On the surface, this is an easy question: growth is for Singaporeans of course. But what about the many foreigners who live here too? Is growth for them too? And this is the second reason people are unhappy with the Population Paper.
We see this tiny island as very much a zero-sum game. There are already many foreigners in Singapore. Can we have more? For my many friends in SMEs and also sectors such as in F&B, hospitality, services, these sectors all need more foreign workers as well.
Now, wearing the hat of the CEO of NTUC FairPrice, I have been receiving many calls and requests from the public and community to have more supermarkets closer to their homes − they also want longer trading hours for their convenience.
Page: 91
We employ close to 9,000 staff. But we have close to 900 vacancies. As is, our workforce comprises about 80% citizens, 10% PRs and 10% foreign staff. Our dependency ratio actually allows us to get up to 45% foreign staff but we choose not to. NTUC FairPrice's management team, for that matter our entire team, is solidly Singapore Core and we will have it no other way.
But like many other businesses, the manpower shortage is hurting us. Our staff is feeling the strain. We cannot open new supermarkets as fast and as many as we would like in response to what the public wants. But we do need and we do appreciate the 10% foreign staff that is part of our employ. They, together with our 80% local staff and 10% PR staff, all help us provide the level of service and convenience to the public.
Still, we do from time to time get criticised for employing \"so many foreigners\" when we employ only 10% of the 45% that is allowed. And yet, we are 900 staff short.
Yes, we will continue to leverage on IT to help mitigate our manpower shortage and up our productivity. I use this example to show why this issue needs to be calibrated more finely and to speak up on behalf of all SMEs here who, like NTUC Fairprice, collectively employ thousands of Singaporeans – it is not just a them/us dichotomy.
Now, let me wear my Member of Parliament hat, I still need to answer: what is growth for? Economic growth is a public good. It is non-exclusionary. Foreigners who come here, too, are under protection of law, and have the same rights to infrastructure. Do we not provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of maids, bus captains, nurses and wait staff from overseas to help us grow our economy and also for our own convenience? Is our growth not for them too? Do they not ride on trains? Is Singapore also not a place for them to build their dreams?
It gets harder. What is growth for? Is it just for food in our stomachs and roof over our heads? What about \"happiness\"? Depending on your temperament, either $2,000 or $10,000 is required for happiness. More insidiously, research has shown that relativity is important in happiness. Ten thousand dollars is not going to make you happy if someone less hardworking, less gifted, less driven than you, is making more than you.
Happiness is as much a personal, as well as a practical issue. And so, too, then is growth. But as policymakers, we need to take care of the practical issues
Page: 92
of happiness.
Three years ago, in 2010, I had in this very House cautioned about the growth strategy and called for an \"ethical limit\" to growth. In 1985, Herman Daly, a renowned economist, had then already pointed out that the limits of growth are determined neither by physics or economics but by morality.
Madam, a large part of my speech has been on what is the \"Singapore Core\" that we want, and how we are going to get there. The first is an issue of national identity; the second is a matter of politics. But really, an answer to both can only be found in our sense of values.
So, again, what is growth for? It is apparent by now that I have no answer. But I do have a sort of list of \"anti-answers\" – I know what growth is NOT for.
It is not an end in itself – it is not to meet some 4% target that we have written in stone, that growth is always a necessary condition for the good life.
It is not to make sure that everyone has the four Cs in life. It is not even about building flats or ensuring that each one of us has affordable health care or a seat on the train. It is not about material things – but neither is it a completely personal choice. Because this is a land we all share, not a piece of private property.
This is Singapore, and we need to discuss the substance of our collective action. This is what the on-going National Conversation is about. Madam, this is not an easy point in our history – because the things we value are so diverse. To decide in a joint direction, we need a collaborative, open-ended and intellectual approach to addressing a political and moral question.
Let us all focus on the outcomes that these three papers seek to achieve. By all means, all of us here should raise ideas and suggestions and not simply criticise for the sake of scoring points. If there are valid and good suggestions and worth a review and a rethink, I urge Government to be receptive and be prepared to do so.
On both sides of the House, we need to review our biases – the first, to think that what follows is necessarily caused by what went on before. This is the stuff that leads to grandstanding and populism.
Page: 93
The second – ideological welfarism – denying help to the needy and downtrodden, with the mistaken justification of upholding work ethic and freeloaders.
Third – the pursuit of growth without regard to social goals, such as income disparity and social cohesion. This creates a country without a soul, a population without an identity.
Mdm Speaker, I know that these biases have already been recognised – I put them starkly here so that our debate can be constructive and that we remain open to new ideas. Only then can we truly see the bright and shining future of Singapore, as we continue to build a Singapore that we all love and where we are all proud to be called a Singaporean.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah, you may want to round up your speech.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I had a sharing session on the Population White Paper with 60 grassroots leaders and residents on the third day after it was released, to discuss the various assumptions, proposals and the implications to us. The group comprised Singaporeans from various age groups, communities and backgrounds. Their top three concerns are: first, the impact of 6.9 million population; second, basic needs of the people in 2030; and third, integration issues between Singaporeans and foreign immigrants.
The first concern is the impact of 6.9 million population. People asked: can Singapore really accommodate a population of 6.9 million by 2030? Even so, will we be filled to the brim and will there be \"room for further development\"? Minister Khaw Boon Wan had later clarified that 6.9 million is the \"worst case scenario\". What some people failed to understand are why we need immigrants and why there would be a \"worst case scenario\" if they come, and not an \"everything-is-okay scenario\" or a \"best case scenario\". Why would it not be a \"80/20 scenario\" where there is a 80% chance that we would reach the projected population and a 20% chance of wait and see? The foreign arrivals would probably not behave like what we say in Hokkien \"no come no come, one come
Page: 94
all come\".
During my school days in the 1960s, we had a population of over 2 million. During my children's school days in the 1990s, our population increased to over 4 million. So in 2030, our population might increase to 6.9 million. We understand that the projected population and the various goods and materials that needed to support it highlighted the growth challenges we face under the current usage of goods, materials and technology. Therefore, the number of foreigners we need is a matter of trade-offs. Deputy Prime Minister Teo had explained what it meant for us of the trade-offs and how the White Paper was trying its best to strike a balance between the different trade-offs.
Second, the basic needs of the people in 2030.The Government of the day must fulfil the basic needs of the people − be it in the 1960s, 1980s or 2030 − whether it is housing, transportation or other daily necessities. When everyone sees the overcrowding in public transport, the long queues for public housing and the rising cost of living today, it is very easy for them to associate what they see now with what it will be like in 2030. This is a natural response. Everyone hopes the Government can solve the current issues and let everyone regain confidence. To them, the current issues are more pressing than the vision. We import everything, we grew from having nothing to having everything, and this did not come easy. So they asked: can we still enjoy the same quality of life in 2030? Will the price of housing and COE be beyond the reach of their children? These are serious questions.
Third, integration issues between Singaporeans and foreign immigrants. While it is crucial for the Government to plan for the infrastructural needs of an increasing population, the \"heartware\" is equally important to ensure that Singaporeans co-exist with new citizens/foreigners and live harmoniously and bond together. At the same time, we want to have more human touch in Singapore. The current integration programme has not been as effective as desired. If we want Singaporeans to be united as a whole and support the population policies, they need to see a vision where they can \"share the fruits of growth\". This is particularly important for those who may feel marginalised by the influx of foreigners. In reality, some Singaporeans feel that they have been disadvantaged when competing with the new arrivals.
(In English): Here are four suggestions put forth by the residents. It is proposed that at this year's National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee can again invite Nanyang Polytechnic School of Interactive and Digital Media to present to us the 2030 scenario, the best scenario, a Singapore with 6.9 million people will still be a Singapore with quality housing, transportation, infrastructure and
Page: 95
good jobs, as illustrated by Deputy Prime Minister Teo just now.
Two, the Government should give periodic reports in 2020 and 2025 to reassure Singaporeans that the plan of growing our population is implemented with constant fine-tuning and adjustment.
Three, with the inflow of new citizens and the fact that out of 10 newly-wed couples, four are having foreign spouses, the Government needs to review our current integration to make it more effective. Currently, the agencies integrate new citizens through various programmes, from learning journeys, audio-video presentations, sharing sessions, citizenship ceremonies, invitation to grassroots events and national events. For better integration, more social gatherings and activities can be organised to promote better communication and understanding between locals and citizens. Understanding of local concerns and sensitivity can also be shared. The Government must or should consider granting PR-ship and citizenship to those who have been waiting for PR for a long, long time despite the fact that all the rest of the family members are already PRs and citizens.
Four, with two-thirds of the jobs created going to PMETs and with slower GDP growth, the Government has to ensure that those Singaporeans who cannot catch up with the competition will not be marginalised with the inflows of new citizens.
Conclusion. During the dialogue sessions, some asked, \"Why call this Population White Paper a White Paper?\" Some jokingly mentioned that it was raised by the men in white, thus White Paper. However, as we know, growing Singapore's population is a long-term national issue that calls for constructive debate between all stakeholders. Whether it is the Government, the Opposition or various segments of our people, we all have very big stakes in our future and we must be ready to listen and be persuaded to adjust our positions after listening. More need to be done to explain the rationale and implications of the Population White Paper so that Singaporeans can understand our demographic challenges. I support the Motion.
Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on this White Paper. This is an important document as it sets the way on how we will organise the future Singapore society. In short, Singapore's survival and a perpetuation of the kind of life we have been used
Page: 96
to. In this regard, Madam, I must say I am uncomfortable at the pace at which we are discussing such an important document. Although the White Paper has been published and various quarters were consulted and many Singaporeans have given their views, many more do not understand the need to augment our population and how the various strategies are to play out. More importantly, the rationale and the genesis of a possible 6.9 million population need to be explained further as this big figure headline has generated much anxiety and angst.
Perhaps, this is the reason why there is nothing but negative sentiments abounding from the public. Whether it is speaking to the average Singaporean on the street or listening to Singaporeans giving their views on interviews by our radio stations, there is little buy-in to the proposed population growth to almost 7 million people. Madam, it is, therefore, not surprising to see even Yahoo News reporting fury from some Singapore Citizens to the future projected population to be slightly more than half, or 55%, being Singaporeans.
Madam, most of us accept the necessity and contribution from foreigners brought to the Singapore socio-economy. Let us be honest. Without the vital contribution of the many foreign resident workers, the Singapore skyline, our way of life and, in large measures, the manageable cost of living, would be very different. Very simply, without the presence of foreigners – many of whom are here to augment our workforce – makes the local kopi-tiam food much more costly.
That said, the pace of foreigners landing in Singapore over the past few years has caused some concern, some tension. Yet, we know that a xenophobic Singapore will spell an early end to our economic growth and potential. Foreigners are blamed for any and everything that can go wrong in Singapore, sometimes without any basis. For instance, when news broke of the fatal tragic accident in Tampines, some people on the Chinese version of Twitter suggested the cement mixer truck driver to be another reckless Chinese driver!
We need to compartmentalise and explain better the issues that have been a bugbear for many Singaporeans. The manner that the Government is tackling rising property prices, competition of places in schools, crowded public transport and other societal changes associated with a larger population must be convincing. If we cannot do this well at this stage, I feel that the angst and tension will only worsen if we are to move forward with the strategies outlined in the White Paper.
Page: 97
Many Singaporeans are sceptical that we may be able to keep the Singapore Core with slightly less than half of the future anticipated population. It is another point that I suggest the Government explain better. Our core will shrink, given our current situation where couples marry later, delay or not having children, or staying single. We are simply not replacing ourselves. The White Paper has laid out various strategies that will help us grow our pool of core Singaporeans. It will be apparent that this will not be at a pace that will help sustain a viable economy. Therefore, we need parallel strategies to keep our economy going and to keep our competitive advantage.
Singaporeans aspire for good jobs and with good pay. Our education system has been evolving and changing to prepare our students well. Our young folks will enter the workforce prepared and on good footing to take on good jobs. But, once armed with good education and work experiences, the typical Singaporean worker is also highly sought after. This is worrying, in the light of the McKinsey Global Institute Report. In the report, there would be a global demand for about 16 million to 18 million highly educated qualitative staff. Singapore workers would then be in demand and the only question is: will they be open to move elsewhere?
Madam, judging from the first responses to the White Paper, I am concerned that the realities, the dynamics and the co-relations of a shrinking population, ageing society, workforce numbers plateauing and eventually fall, are still not apparent to many. As sure as we want to attract qualified people to come here, our people, along with this group, will be sought after by many other economies elsewhere.
The scenario of a small working population has some realities that are frightening. The local SMEs will leave when they cannot find skilled professionals and workers. Cumulatively, together with the same well-educated Singapore Citizens being seduced to work overseas, will not augur well for us. The shrinking workforce will face pressures in surely having to share and carry a higher tax burden. This may exacerbate the situation further. At the very least, we need a diverse economy with a dynamic workforce to continue to be attractive to foreign investors to set up shop here and vibrant enough for our SMEs to build capabilities and eventually propel themselves into other markets. I might have painted an alarmist scenario of a twin exodus from the Singapore economy of both SMEs and MNCs, but once that begins to happen, we are finished.
Page: 98
What can the Government do to help Singaporeans consider the proposals in the White Paper better? Mdm Speaker, allow me to make some suggestions.
In spite of the many attempts to cool the red-hot property sector in Singapore, the prices of real estate remain stubbornly high. The amount of cash-over-valuation (COV) remains high. I was told the average COV of a 3-room HDB flat in my constituency, Clementi, is more than $23,000. The amount of COV for bigger flats is reportedly even higher. The high COV is in spite of many cooling measures and the announcements of many more HDB flats in the pipeline.
Mdm Speaker, the investment sector is already abuzz with expectations that one of the main beneficiaries of the White Paper would be construction and the real estate related companies. Generally, the average citizens are concerned that with a population of 6.9 million, the immediate pressure would be on the number of HDB flats available and the prices they would have to pay. In spite of the assurances given by the Ministry of National Development, the people are not convinced that there would be adequate flats to meet the rise in demand for housing brought on by its population. More needs to be done to convince the Singapore citizenry on the property front.
One of the first major debates during my first term in Parliament was on the Motion of whether Singaporeans are stayers or quitters when the going gets tough for Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I now ask the same of the 532,000 PRs amongst us. The White Paper envisioned an annual intake of 30,000 PRs which translates into another 200,000 PRs in addition to the 532,000, making it 732,000 PRs in 2020. Of this number of PRs, how many are PRs of convenience? How many are here just because of the environment for employment security that we provide? How many would cash out and sell off their HDB flats, their condos or even their landed properties, the moment the going gets tough? How many are here after getting their PRs?
But on the other hand, Mdm Speaker, I have come across many Singaporeans with PR spouses. Some of whom their children are Singaporeans. In recent years, Singaporeans have clamoured for clear differentiation between Citizens and PRs, this has naturally resulted in some disenchantment of Singaporeans with PR spouses. To increase our core population of Singaporeans, perhaps the Government can consider allowing this group of PRs into Citizenship, joining their spouses and their Singapore-born children. There may not be many of them, but going by the demographics and the
Page: 99
statistics of the White Paper, every PR will count towards the core.
To conclude, the Government needs to convince Singaporeans that their anxiety and angst over the current day issues of a larger population with knock-on effects on property, schools and transport will be addressed, and to explain the rationale in careful detail the need for an even larger population in the future. Yes, there is a national anxiety and some angst but, instead of letting out this National Moan about the projected population numbers, there should be a National Vigour to address the Vulnerabilities of Singapore. Perhaps then, we might look at the \"numbers\" needed with more objectivity and a renewed urgency to move forward on borrowed time.
Our future rests with the three keys: the White Paper has stated that the Heart of our Nation is represented by our Singaporean core. I would like to say that for a Strong Singapore and a cohesive society, we need a strong heart and, better yet, a Big Heart.
The second point mentions that our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities to meet Singaporeans' hopes and aspirations. If our population and workforce cannot be in adequate numbers to sustain an economy for the lifestyle we choose, then our hopes and aspirations will be but a distant and desperate wish.
The third key takeaway is to keep Singapore a good home with high quality living environment. If we fail to do this, it simply means that many may make their homes elsewhere and many more will not even come, let alone become PRs for the possibility of us integrating them and making them part of our core. This is my worry, the projected conversion of 17,000 to 25,000 to Citizens from the 30,000 PRs yearly may even tail off, making that strategy to augment our core fall in the medium to long term. This effect on augmenting workforce numbers, sustaining a meaningful tax base, a sustainable economic environment will not be foreseeable and Singapore will certainly stop dead in our tracks. We need not worry about crowded trains or expensive properties then. Madam, with this, I support the White Paper.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, this debate may be one of the most critical Parliament will have. It is not just about population. It is about nationhood, the meaning of being Singaporean, how we want to face the future
Page: 100
as a country. It is about reclaiming back Singapore.
Since 1990, Singaporeans have been subject to drastic population increases in a short time. From a population of 3 million in 1990, we had 4 million in the year 2000, and in 2010, 5 million. The share of Singapore Citizens now stands at 62%, meaning that out of every 10 people, nearly four are foreigners. Indigenous Singaporeans feel under siege, wondering what happened to the Singapore they grew up in and whether they have a place at the table.
The Workers' Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge. The roadmap proposed in the White Paper will further dilute our national identity; it will also place us on a course towards needing even larger population injections in the future, which we do not believe is sustainable. While we accept that trade-offs have to be made, we believe such trade-offs should be made in favour of the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets. Let me elaborate.
First, what is a Singaporean \"core\"?
A key plank of the White Paper is its claim that it is proposing to keep a Singaporean \"core\" in the roadmap. It is proposing that Singapore Citizens form 55% of the population as at 2030, which is significantly down from the 62% currently. Fifty five percent is too close to the all-important threshold of 50% majority. Further, a closer reading will also show that the 55% includes new citizens. Singapore Citizens are projected to make up 3.7 million at 2030. If we were to look at the number of new citizenships given out since 2004, and add the new citizenships to be given out from now till 2030, what percentage of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Would not this figure be below 50%? Is this what the Government means by retaining a Singaporean \"Core\"?
The White Paper states that \"Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of the nation\", with the word \"heart\" printed in bold italics. It further states that: \"to be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean Core.\" Mdm Speaker, instant citizens can be Singaporean in name and have all citizenship rights, but for the Singapore Core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, worldview, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family. This can only be cultivated over time, in institutional settings, such as schooling, national service and community service. A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who
Page: 101
grow up in and with Singapore.
Therefore, the policy of \"topping up\" shortfalls in our total fertility rate with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean \"core\" is flawed. The fact is that we are already facing integration issues with new citizens we have, with a Government department looking into the matter. Madam, you yourself as a backbencher had raised concerns about how new citizenships were given out and whether tests should be instituted to ensure that the new citizens understood our way of life. Speaking personally, I count some new citizens as my friends; while they make good contributions to Singapore's economy, I know they see Singapore through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change.
Accordingly, we do not agree with the Government's definition of what would constitute a Singaporean \"core\". Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever.
Next, Madam, focus instead on Total Fertility Rate (TFR) recovery. How, then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population? In our view, the best way is to improve Singaporean TFR. The Government has invested somewhat in marriage and procreation incentives. However, so long as immigration remains the Government's key plank for population growth, the measures to improve TFR will remain half-hearted, since one can always resort to immigration top-ups.
Why is Singapore a global champion in low fertility rate? There are structural problems which have not been addressed. These include lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and others. The Government seems resigned that TFR is not within their power to raise, saying it \"hopes\" to reverse the trend. However, other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.
For instance, South Korea, too, was facing a low fertility rate. However, it has been successful in reversing the declining trend and its TFR recovered by 0.15 in five years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. Instead of just \"hoping\", the Korean government recognised that procreation was being discouraged not by individual choice but due to structural institutional factors. The Korean government then set explicit hard targets to remove institutional obstacles to boosting TFR. These targets centred on providing institutional support for
Page: 102
family life and promoting gender equity within the family. The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents' share of child-rearing costs, increasing GDP share of family-related spending, promoting arrangements for mothers to continue working, and even encouraging fathers to share housework. The commitment and approach of the Korean government are worth some study.
My colleagues will speak more about the TFR issue later in the debate.
Next, Madam, promoting Singaporean-friendly immigration. We are not against immigrants becoming Singaporeans per se. One way to do this in a natural, organic manner is to prioritise citizenships to those who marry Singaporeans. As noted in the White Paper, 40% of marriages today are between a Singaporean and a foreigner. These non-Singaporean spouses are much more likely to integrate and be committed to Singapore. They will interact with Singaporeans and be parents of Singaporean children.
Currently, many Singaporeans apply repeatedly, year after year, for their foreign spouses to be given citizenship status. Many are on Long Term Visit Pass which makes employment very difficult. Has the Government studied how far this pool of foreign spouses in Singapore is an untapped economic resource? Could this be a good alternative to bringing in more foreign labour?
Next, do we really need a population of up to 6.9 million? Since the release of the White Paper last Tuesday, the public has been fixated on largely one issue – the prospect of Singapore having a population of 6.9 million. The Government has justified the population growth projection largely due to its GDP targets. It is gunning for GDP growth of 3% to 4% from now to 2020, and 2% to 3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The Government also justifies these targets by citing the ageing population and the declining old-age support ratio.
The Workers' Party does not endorse proceeding headlong onto the Government's suggested path. Underlying its plan is that the population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. The proposal has severe ramifications. First, the economy is but one aspect of the nation's quality of life. To quote a population expert, Frederick Meyerson, immigration is \"essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations\". Second, immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. Who will support them when they grow old? By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve
Page: 103
our population needs through improving TFR, but instead have another White Paper to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants.
What about land resources? The implications of planning for 6.9 million on our land use are instructive, and worrying. If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Ministry of National Development shows how little room we would have left to move. Under the plan for a population of 6.9 million, we will use up significantly more land. From 2010 to 2030, we will consume much more of our land bank, leaving the balance land under the \"Others\" category down from 14% to just 4% for future generations to cope with.
In short, are we simply kicking a big can down the road for our grandchildren?
At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution. It is still not too late now to continue the discussion with Singaporeans on this fundamental issue, instead of pushing this White Paper through.
Madam, on our part, the Workers' Party would like to suggest an alternative approach to address the demographic challenge. Instead of the trade-off proposed by the Government to achieve its GDP growth targets, we propose a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the Government is proposing. This approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy. Let me sketch this out and let my colleagues expand further in the coming days.
We believe that Singapore should work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5% to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5% to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by at least 1% per annum, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the Government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development,
Page: 104
preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.
This more modest GDP growth rate from now to 2030 would require a lower population to sustain it. We have done some estimates and believe that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less. My colleagues will elaborate on these projections later in the debate.
Madam, our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the Government's projections, in exchange for a reduction in GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singaporean identity, and less stressful labour market competition. This, in turn, is likely to have knock-on effects on TFR recovery. It will also not be at the expense of market competitiveness, as our economy continues to restructure to push the proportion of Singaporeans in PMET jobs from half to two-thirds.
Let me conclude: what the Government is proposing in this White Paper is to aim for its GDP targets and grow the population to achieve it. The Workers' Party believes that the well-being of Singaporeans, our quality of life and our very identity will be put at peril under the Government's proposal. Is it worth it?
The Government's White Paper is entitled: \"A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore\". While sustainability and dynamism are indeed important, we believe that the Government has gotten these priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, we should have \"A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore\".
For these reasons, the Workers' Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population and will oppose the Motion.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. The release of the Population White Paper is indeed timely – matters of birth and ageing are not dealt with by near-term planning or sudden course corrections. They take years to effect, so we have to begin to shape today the Singapore that we want to see years later. I congratulate the Government for having the courage to raise this difficult but important subject for debate – it was always going to be controversial, but we need to tackle the issues head-on without pushing the burden to future generations.
Page: 105
Ever since the release of this Paper, the media and public have focused on the \"magic number\" of 6.9 million people by 2030. Many are worried about what this would mean in terms of the influx of foreigners, changes to their lifestyle, increased competition for education, jobs, health care and transport. They find it difficult to embrace this vision of the future, particularly in light of the unresolved pain points resulting from rapid population growth over the last 10 years. To some, it is unthinkable to accommodate any more people on this small island of Singapore.
But what is less often discussed is the hard truth behind the headlines: That if birth rates remain low, and with no immigration, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo shared, the ratio of working-age citizens to those above the age of 65 would reduce drastically from 5.9 to 2.1 by 2030. If we do not address this situation, we will head towards the dire consequences associated with a shrinking and ageing population.
The White Paper sets out a roadmap to steer Singapore away from the path of stagnation and decline, and paints a vision of how our nation may continue to be a vibrant global city to accommodate the likely population trajectory. We have heard much about the \"hardware\" improvements, such as infrastructure developments, but little on \"software\" considerations, such as the impact on our national identity and social cohesion.
Mdm Speaker, one of the biggest concerns that many people have expressed is how we can ensure a strong core of Singaporeans. The White Paper projects that the ratio of citizens to total population may be diluted from 62% to 55%, with the number of foreigners ballooning from 1.5 million to 2.5 million, by 2030. These numbers are alarming; they conjure up images of Singaporeans being crowded out of their own home.
There will be even greater dependency on low-skilled foreign workers in 2030, to deliver services in many areas of society – construction, manufacturing and social services. This heavy reliance on foreign labour carries with it a high risk.
As economies in these workers' countries grow and develop, will a low-skilled job in Singapore continue to be attractive? What is the social impact of having so many of these foreigners with different social and behavioural norms, on our culture, security and way of life, as they live in close proximity to us? We should re-assess how some of these jobs are rewarded to make them attractive
Page: 106
to Singaporeans.
The Government has said that their projection of 6.9 million is a \"worst case\" scenario, to guide infrastructural development so that we are well provided. This implies that determined and sustained interventions are needed to put Singapore on a different trajectory. To this end, I would like to call for urgent action to ensure a stronger Singaporean core in our population strategy. I offer two key priorities for the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration so that we do not arrive at 6.9 million people.
First, take bolder steps to improve Total Fertility Rate.
Second, tap on our own talent pool, especially amongst the economically inactive women and older workers.
First, I would argue that reversing the decline in birth rates should be the key plank in our population strategy. As the White Paper states, I quote, \"Strong families are the bedrock of our society, through which we pass on our values and sense of belonging from one generation to the next.\" Although the ultimate decision to have children lies with the individual, the Government should take bold steps to support child birth and the raising of children. We should not be discouraged by what we have observed in East Asian countries, but thrive to learn from the Scandinavian countries and France, on how they reversed declining birth rates with strong pro-family and work-life balance measures provided by their governments.
Mdm Speaker, the recent Marriage and Parenthood package is definitely a step in the right direction, but it needs to be much more transformational to materially change the trajectory. We need to develop a culture in which would-be parents are motivated by the sheer joy and excitement of parenthood, and encouraged by the persuasive pro-family employment practices and easily accessible childcare.
Singaporeans work amongst the longest hours in the world, and one of the biggest concerns amongst couples contemplating parenthood is how they will juggle work and family commitments. We must change this. So, I propose that the Government set clear guidelines on pro-family employment practices as an integral part of Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. Employers should put in place progressive HR policies that are pro-family, and recognise that they need to cater to the changing priorities of their employees at different
Page: 107
stages of their lives, whether they are men or women.
Flexi-work arrangements should be readily available and widely adopted, where employees are allowed to request for a change in the number of hours, when and where they work. And employers should measure job performance in terms of outcomes expected of the jobs rather than in terms of the time an employee spends in the office.
The Government should help companies, especially SMEs, with the implementation of flexi-work arrangements and debunk the myth that flexi-work is detrimental to productivity. Many companies have experienced how sensible work-life policies make good business sense, as these lead to increased employee engagement and morale, low turnover, and access to a wider talent pool.
Mdm Speaker, the recently announced childcare subsidies are useful, but couples struggle to get a place for infant-care or childcare to start with. To ensure accessibility, the Government should consider setting building guidelines for developers to dedicate space for childcare centres in places of a certain density in residential and commercial hubs.
Our Primary schools should offer after-school care programmes within the school compounds so children have the option of remaining in a safe and supervised environment up to 7pm. They can rest, receive supervision to complete their homework, or participate in enrichment classes. Apart from better aligning the child's school hours with their parents' working hours, this arrangement will help promote family time in the evening as all the homework would have been done by the time everybody reaches home. Just imagine – no homework and no tuition after dinner!
Mdm Speaker, even as we agonise over the declining birth rates, we should be reminded that 12,000 babies are aborted each year – this amounts to about one-third of total live births. Is there room for the Government to step up efforts in counselling women who wish to terminate their pregnancies? Can the Government play an active role in encouraging the adoption of children from unwanted pregnancies?
Mdm Speaker, I would like to turn to my second topic: to meet the manpower challenges highlighted by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, I would like to champion that employers tap into our local talent pools more effectively,
Page: 108
particularly with respect to women and older workers.
Despite recent gains, Singapore's women labour force participation rate remains low at only 57.7% compared to that of men at 76%. Sixty two thousand five hundred female university graduates, and 474,000 women of all education backgrounds below the age of 60, are economically inactive.
As for older workers: more than 900,000 Baby Boomers will enter their silver years between now and 2030. With advances in healthcare and standards of living, many Singaporeans over the age of 65 are likely to be still healthy and active. \"Sixty-five\" may be the new \"45\", but with plenty of experience on offer. And many may still be keen to work, earn a wage, and feel that they are still contributing to society.
By structuring work and compensation with more flexibility, I am confident that we can tap into the ready pool of women and older workers. Incentives should be given to companies to re-design work arrangements necessary to cater to them. The Government should also consider offering special incentives to employers who hire, for example, women returning to the workforce, to help offset the cost of on-the-job training for these women.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to the profile of our projected workforce in 2030, where two-thirds of Singaporeans are expected to be filling PMET jobs, up from the current 50%. Whilst it is comforting to know that our people will be shifting to higher-end jobs, the question always remains: Will Singaporeans have the best jobs? Many consider the current Employment Pass system somewhat liberal in its assessment of foreigners vying for attractive PMET jobs – if that remains unchanged, how can we ensure that Singaporeans are considered first for the best opportunities? Could we ensure that employers invest to train Singaporeans for good jobs in order to qualify for employment pass for their foreign PMETs?
Mdm Speaker, this White Paper is pivotal to the vision of a future for all Singaporeans – those of us who decide on it today will set the pace for our children tomorrow. Is there only one answer to our population challenge, or can we, through breakthrough thinking and bold ideas, find a viable solution for Singapore to continue to be the vibrant global metropolis of the next generation, one where Singaporeans feel they belong, and are proud to call home? I believe we can do more to maintain a strong Singaporean core in our population strategy. With this, I support the Motion.
Page: 109
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the Singapore pledge is an oath of allegiance to this nation. My eldest son and my second son, together with many other students across the island, recite the pledge every morning. They end off with the following creed, \"to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.\" Members of this House will agree with me that this is neither youthful idealism nor an ideological aspiration. It is a promise made by all Singaporeans to their fellow Singaporeans, a promise to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for Singapore.
Mdm Speaker, our Government has placed its nation-building emphasis on our economy and the relentless pursuit of GDP growth. Singaporeans have been reminded time and again that a healthy GDP will bring about a better life for all. The negative consequences will be minimised and relieved with the onset of economic growth.
It was on this note that between 2008 and 2011, our Government widened the door and allowed the large influx of foreigners and immigrants into this tiny nation state. The Government argued that we need a critical mass in our workforce to ensure the vibrancy of the economy. However, Singaporeans today face a widening income gap, a rising cost of living, increased social friction, unhappiness at the direction this country is taking, worried about their employment prospects. Singapore ranks consistently near to the top in any international benchmark on GDP per capita but sadly, many people do not seem to be happy. What went wrong?
Mdm Speaker, this is my understanding of the White Paper. In order for Singapore to have critical mass for its continued economic growth, there is a need to attract more immigrants and enlarge the foreign workforce, especially in light of the current Total Fertility Rate of 1.2. This will ensure that Singapore continues to stay relevant in the midst of globalised pressures. I am for a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore, buttressed by a Singaporean core, a Singaporean Singapore. Here, I would like to express my grave concern on the approach that the Government is adopting and the direction that this Government is bringing the country.
Madam, as a parent of three, I can empathise with the fears, discomfort, anxieties and insecurities that many Singaporean parents share about the future that is in store for their children in a 6.9 million Singapore. The fears, anxieties and insecurities are not irrational. You can feel it, especially so when
Page: 110
the rate of immigration is exceeding the capacity of the country's infrastructure. Despite the many pleas by the Government to not worry, there is no doubt that parents are concerned about the future of their children as the Singaporean core gets increasingly diluted. What will happen to the Singapore that we have grown up to know and loved? In 2030, is Singapore still worth fighting for? These are concerns that the Government must adequately address. Singaporeans must believe in Singapore again.
Mdm Speaker, The Economist observed in 2006 that the world's lowest fertility rates are in super-crowded Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore. That suggests the role density plays in affecting the fertility rate of a country. Given that Singapore will become increasingly denser by 2030, this is an issue that we must address.
A recent study in 2010 also indicated the negative correlation between density and fertility. Professor Francis T Lui from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology pointed out that \"the small size of Hong Kong's residential quarters is likely one of the factors causing the low fertility rate.\" This is also consistent with the finding in a recent paper by Murphy, Simon, and Tamura (2008), which provides evidence indicating that population density, or price of space, is negatively correlated with fertility rate in the United States.
Madam, what is my point? In 2030, there will be a denser Singapore and as these reputable studies point out, a reduction in Singapore's total fertility rate. The most worrying aspect of this is the increase in the non-Singaporean portion in the population, especially with immigration top-ups. The Singaporean core will be compromised. The fact is we will be further from a Singaporean Singapore in 2030. In the 18 years leading up to 2030, I think we will see this worrying trend developing before our very eyes. The Government has thus far failed to address this relationship between density and fertility, which has wide ranging implications on the identity of Singapore and Singaporeans in 2030. As things stand now with this White Paper, there is a fundamental disconnect between the aspirations of Singaporeans and their children with this 6.9 million figure.
Madam, it is stated in this White Paper that one of the three key pillars for a sustainable population is that of Singaporeans forming the core of our society. The best way or approach to maintain a Singaporean core that is strongly Singaporean is to improve the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). I believe that as long as there is the easy and enticing option for immigration top-up, there is the moral hazard of taking the path of least resistance that will end up with half-hearted promotion of TFR recovery. And sadly, I can say that this is already
Page: 111
happening.
It is natural for two individuals who are in love to get married and procreate. It is the dream of every couple to start their own family and see their own children grow up under their nurturing care. Many surveys have indicated that most Singaporeans want to get married and have more than two children. However, circumstances pose as obstacles to them.
The current Marriage and Parenthood Package has its criticisms. Critics mentioned that this package is an expensive third-round of band-aid solutions that do not address the structural problems causing the low TFR in the first place. Among the structural problems are (i) the lack of work-life balance and (ii) the lack of financial security due to the escalating housing costs and the long housing wait for newlyweds.
Madam, my work experience as a marriage counsellor has provided me with many insights and enabled me to understand very well the worries, concerns and fears of young Singaporeans who intend to marry and start a family as well as the problems faced by married couples. The most common issue raised is the factor of time.
Couples whom I have come across in the course of my work shared with me that while they have anticipated the demands of work and marriage on their family life, this lack of time has often taken a toll on them and prevented them from carrying out their spousal roles and parental responsibilities. The emotions and psychological needs are affected and the quality of family life is consequently compromised.
I acknowledge that the Government has expressed its support for policies to improve work-life balance and increase flexi-work options. But I believe that the Government can do more and they must make a stronger commitment in this area.
Mdm Speaker, the House may wonder, what is the price that Singapore may have to pay as a result of half-hearted social policies? In a study on emigration attitudes of young Singaporeans in 2010 conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies, it pointed out that, I quote:
\"In the endeavour to retain Singaporeans, it is important for policymakers to complement the current emphasis on national obligations with policies that would encourage stronger family and friendship ties, which emerged as critical
Page: 112
factors of rootedness. It is also necessary for policymakers to address the work-life balance in Singapore, which came up as a key area of dissatisfaction in the study.\"
Our next generation cannot afford for this generation of leaders to get this issue wrong. A Singaporean Singapore is at stake here and the stakes are high.
Mdm Speaker, the Government should commit to reducing the number of working hours to 40 hours a week. I have called for this in one of my previous speeches in this House. This can be done by improving productivity by adopting technological innovations and changing our work practices. I am of the view that, if the Government is serious about improving the work-life balance of Singaporeans, then it must lead the way through action and legislation. The Government should increase the support and create stronger incentives for employers to implement better work-life balance practices and flexi-work arrangements. The civil service should set the example for the private sector to follow.
Mdm Speaker, apart from a healthy work-life balance, ownership of a house is also high on the priority list for couples, especially newly-weds. A house provides a comfortable and conducive environment for the development of a family nucleus. Social scientists have long traced a connection between housing and fertility. When a home is scarce or beyond the means of young couples, couples delay marriage or have fewer children.
Newly-wed couples also find it challenging to own a house due to high costs. On this matter, I would like to propose the Government to grant a housing grant of $10,000 for the birth of the first child, $15,000 for the birth of the second child and $20,000 for the birth of the third child. The availability of these grants may help to lessen the financial burden in their consideration to start a family. According to Seth Sanders, director of the Maryland Population Research Centre at the University of Maryland in a New York Times article published in 2008, I quote: \"If you lower the cost of housing, you're going to lower the cost of raising a child.\"
Madam, in conclusion, population is a complex issue and there are no easy answers to such a multi-faceted issue. No efforts should be spared to improve Singapore's total fertility rate and the infrastructure to cope with the projected increase in our population. The Government must know that this is an irreversible process and generations after may suffer missteps this Government
Page: 113
is taking in 2013. Madam, with this, I would next speak on the Motion in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, in a Berita Harian report dated 30 January 2013, the Minister in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, gave assurances that the Prime Minister has promised to maintain the balance in racial composition after the Government presented the White Paper on population. Dr Yaacob then said that the Prime Minister spoke about this twice. Madam, I would like to ask the Government two questions regarding this matter.
Firstly, what are the steps or efforts that will be taken by the Government to maintain the balance in racial composition so that the proportion of Malays is not affected or does not decrease? This is seeing that the total fertility rate of Malays has gone down year after year, and that the Prime Minister has previously said during \"Our Singapore Conversation\" last December, that the Government have really tried and worked hard to attract Malay talents from Malaysia and Indonesia, but the numbers are very small each year. My second question is what is the number or the rate of Malay immigrants that is being planned for, or estimated by the Government, to maintain this balance in the racial composition.
Madam, one of the reasons contributing to the decrease in the percentage of Malays is emigration. When answering my question in Parliament on how many Singaporeans have renounced their citizenship from 2001 to 2011, as well as the breakdown according to each race, Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Teo, said that around 10,900 Singapore Citizens have renounced their citizenships, where the average is around 1,000 per year. The breakdown according to race is as follows – half, that is, 500 are Chinese and the rest, around 500 are a combination of Malays, Indians and other races. Madam, even though the answer does not state the actual number of Malays, but from what I observed, the number is quite high.
Madam, when I was studying in Melbourne, Australia, for three years, I found many Malay families who have emigrated there. After speaking to these families, I found that among their reasons for emigrating was that they felt that they were not given equal opportunities when they were back home in Singapore. Madam, I refer to the front page of yesterday's Berita Minggu with the headline \"Aspirations to Build a Better Future\". This article reported that the chairman of the Suara Musyawarah committee, Mr Sallim Abdul Kadir, said that the conclusion of the participants from a recent forum is about the issue of \"Equal Opportunities\" and not the issue of discrimination. Later, he said that
Page: 114
\"This is a new issue that he has seen that has become a topic of discussion during the dialogue session held by the Suara Musyawarah committee\".
Madam, perhaps the issue of equity is something new for the Suara Musyawarah dialogue session. However, from my own interaction, experience and observation, the issue of equity has existed all this while among the Malay community in Singapore. In March 2012, in a speech by a Member of Parliament, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, during the COS debate, he spoke about the discussion between some Malay individuals who asked about the Government's policy on the role or position of Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces, and he requested that the Ministry clarified this matter.
My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, had also queried in this Chamber whether there is a Government policy that gives exemption from National Service to Madrasahgraduates. In the meantime, I myself have asked whether there is an ethnic quota for the admission of students in public universities in Singapore.
Madam, these questions were asked because these are the feedback that my Parliamentary colleagues and I receive from the Malay community. From such feedback, we have to admit that the issue of equity is still lingering in the minds of the Malays.
Madam, the Government's White Paper titled \"A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore\" explained that to build a dynamic Singapore, we must have a sustainable or substantial population. We, the Workers' Party, think otherwise. We believe that to achieve a sustainable Singapore, it will require that a dynamic population or society be built.
Lastly, my view is that to build a dynamic society and sustainable Singapore, \"inclusivity\" – that is frequently mentioned by the Government – must be applied correctly and sincerely in the sense that everyone, regardless of race, language or religion is given equal rights in all aspects of life in our country. Madam, with that, I end my speech by saying that I oppose this Motion.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, thank you for letting me be part of this debate. The Population White Paper released by the Government last week has provided Singaporeans a glimpse into what to expect in the near future and some challenges that we may have to face and
Page: 115
need to address with regard to our population.
Most of us are aware that with a low total fertility rate and an increasing population of senior citizens, our economic growth may be difficult to sustain. However, I hope the Government will help Singaporeans achieve a few things first before even considering bringing in more foreigners to boost our population and sustain our economic growth. These are: first, helping our Singaporean parents and young couples start and take care of their family through additional measures to mitigate the cost of living; second, helping our childless Singaporean couples have children; and third, helping our older Singaporeans stay gainfully employed even in their golden years.
For a start, I must commend the Government for introducing the Marriage and Parenthood Package recently. The comprehensive package that introduced new measures ranging from additional financial support to co-savings to leave entitlement is useful in making it easier for Singaporeans to have children or have more children. As a working mother myself, I must say that the new measures are indeed generous.
However, I would like to urge the Government to consider a few additional recommendations to complement the slew of measures that have been introduced. First, while parents or households with children below 12 years old can benefit from a reduced Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) levy of $170 per month, a further concession to the FDW levy, or better still, a waiver of the levy altogether, will be useful, especially for households where both husband and wife are working. While some may advocate not having FDWs in raising our children, the reality is that households where both husband and wife are working need the help of FDWs to manage their household chores so that they can spend quality time with their children when they are home. The further concession to FDW levy will help them to better manage their household expenses and may even encourage more stay-at-home mothers to go back to work, hence contributing to our economy.
Second, I would also like to request that the Government allow expectant couples, that is, either the husband or the wife, to use their Medisave to pay for their pre-natal medical and health checks at restructured hospitals or polyclinics. As a mother myself, I know that the cost of pre-natal medical and health checks can be quite substantial, even in restructured hospitals. The flexibility to use one's Medisave during the pregnancy period will be useful for expectant couples to mitigate the cost of having children.
Page: 116
While the Government has introduced measures to help childless Singaporean couples have their own children through assistive technology and the necessary co-funding, I would also like to urge the Government to consider looking into the process of adoption for these couples. There is quite a number of childless Singaporean couples who are seeking to adopt babies or toddlers so that they can start their own families. The approval process for adoption can take quite long, ranging from a few months to even more than a year. Some may find the wait frustrating and the time that has lapsed could have been better spent establishing a strong parent-child bond. I strongly urge the Government to look into how the adoption process can be made easier so that Singaporeans can nurture the adopted child to grow up with the right values and contribute back to our Singapore society when they are older. Hence, contributing to our Singaporean core.
At this point, I would like to address what the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap brought up earlier regarding housing and how it co-relates to having children. I think housing or not, having children is a serious choice made by a couple. There are many factors that the couple would have to consider. Housing may be just one of them, but I am happy to share that when I had my first child, I was without a flat of my own and I was staying with my parents. So, housing or not, there are a lot more factors to consider.
Finally, in helping our older Singaporeans stay gainfully employed even in their golden years, I would like to urge the Government to pave the way in helping our seniors in their jobs. Just as expectant mothers are now being given greater employment protection during and immediately after their pregnancy, I hope that our older Singaporeans can also enjoy better employment protection as well as the protection of employment benefits and wages. The Government can also pave the way for our seniors to embark on a second career in their golden years, such as becoming allied educators in our schools, or becoming caregivers in student care centres. I am sure the benefits that our young ones can reap from interacting with older Singaporeans extend beyond just having someone take care of them – they will certainly learn valuable life lessons and core values from our senior Singaporeans, and this point has been brought up before by other hon Members of this House.
Page: 117
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"In Parliament","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes to facilitate the completion of business. Dr Intan, please proceed with your speech.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The White Paper on Population, which was recently introduced by the Government, has presented a number of challenges that we have to face together in the next 15 to 20 years. Among the concerns of the Malay/Muslim community is the ability to cope with the cost of living and the proportion of Malay/Muslims in Singapore as compared to the other races or communities.
I admit the Government has laid out a number of initiatives and assistance programmes to help Singaporeans cope with the cost of living, especially for those with low income and who have relatively large families. The assistance programmes, such as ComCare, CHAS, CFAC, KiFAS and so on, have been implemented. These schemes are comprehensive but there may be many more of us who are not aware of these assistance schemes. So, I would like to urge the Government to collate all the information on these schemes, and to see how an individual or a family that needs help from one scheme can be automatically considered to receive assistance from the other relevant schemes. This will require close cooperation between the Government bodies and departments.
Here, I would also like to take the opportunity to touch on the perceptions that the Government has ignored our Malay/Muslim community in terms of not making enough effort to look for new citizens or permanent residents of Malay origin from Malaysia or Indonesia, or Muslims from outside the Southeast Asia region.
Personally, I know a Javanese Indonesian student who graduated from our local university and who was offered to be a Singapore Permanent Resident. He
\tPage: 118
accepted the offer but told me that he will not accept the offer of Singapore citizenship, if it was offered later. He wanted to remain as an Indonesian citizen because that is where he came from, that is where his family resides and because he sees a brighter future for himself in Indonesia as compared to Singapore.
On behalf of our Malay/Muslim community, I feel this is an issue that needs closer attention from the Government. How can we attract Malay university graduates or Malay professionals from Indonesia and Malaysia to become Singapore permanent residents or citizens, especially when the Singapore population needs to be augmented? Many Malay/Muslim Singaporeans are concerned that the number of the Malay/Muslim citizens or population will decrease further, at a time when the overall population in Singapore needs to increase.
A common feeling amongst many members of the Malay/Muslim community is that a decrease in our population will affect racial stability and inter-racial relations in Singapore. How Malays see their place in Singapore will also be affected if they become the smallest group of minorities here. This issue requires a suitable solution and I am touched by the Prime Minister's promise that the Government will ensure that the proportion of Malays in the overall population of Singapore will be monitored and will be maintained.
To address this perception, what the Government can do next is to share information and data about the number of new citizens and permanent residents of Malay origin from this region, or who are Muslims, as well as initiatives taken by the Government to attract more citizens, permanent residents or new immigrants that can increase the number of our Malay/Muslim community in Singapore. With that, I would like to end my speech in English.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, I wish to reiterate that I hope the Government will implement measures to help Singaporeans start their families and manage the costs involved in doing so and help older Singaporeans be gainfully employed even in their golden years, before we resort to bringing in more foreigners or new Singaporeans or PRs. I am confident that when the Government continues to make strides in demonstrating this, Singaporeans will be assured that the Government truly has the interest of Singaporeans and our shared future above everything else which I believe is really the case. And unlike the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap, I think the measures are anything but half-hearted. I hope that the Government will take into consideration these
\tPage: 119
recommendations to the White Paper.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Yes, our TFR is low. Yes, fewer are getting married. Yes, we have to convert to being a global city. Yes, the Government has the guts to push a necessary though unpopular measure through.
But, let us not dilute ourselves into an identity-less group of Singaporeans. The Singaporean core must remain strong, vibrant; that core must be in the cockpit, that core must be the driving force, not in the passenger seat. If we achieve that, then ratios and figures are much easier to manage and justify as being to the Republic's advantage.
Mdm Speaker, we need to preserve, nurture and progress a Singaporean core as we move to converting our island into a significant global city.
We must not dilute our Singaporean identity – Singaporeans must be the key ingredient to how Singapore is portrayed to and understood by the rest of the world. This responsibility and privilege must be accorded to Singaporeans, with PRs and residents playing a complementary role. Every few years, Singaporeans must be able to look back and say \"My life, my family's life has improved; there is a happy future for us.\"
We cannot just become stronger economically. We need to become stronger as a people, as a Nation of Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans have understandably raised their concerns as to the projected 6.9 million population by 2030. These include increased competition for jobs, an influx of foreigners to the possible erosion of our unique Singaporean heritage and identity, as well as very real infrastructure constraints, especially in housing and transport. This is why it is essential to stress from the outset of the debate that what we also want to preserve is a high quality living environment for all Singaporeans. We want Singapore to continue to remain one of the best cities in the world to live in, and a country we can proudly call home.
Important questions to be asked are: how are we going to continue to build and nurture a strong Singaporean core that retains the nation's values of resilience and hard work? How do we do this while being held together by a strong and cohesive national identity that will stand us in good stead against
\tPage: 120
the challenges of a global world?
While economic growth is essential to our continued survival and thriving as a nation, we have to ensure that such growth is sustainable. Topping up our population with foreigners cannot be the sole or even main means by which this is achieved. An unregulated population explosion will bring with it attendant ills, such as the dilution of our Singaporean identity and heritage, not to mention longer term economic disadvantages, such as lowered productivity and suppressed wages for lower income Singaporeans, if left unchecked.
The second point, Mdm Speaker, the key tenets of meritocracy and multi-racialism cannot be harmed. In a large population, people will try to climb to the top through contacts or clan-nish ways. I have seen this in Europe in my time there spent over four years. This segregates rather than unites. Meritocracy, that is, hard work, honesty, perseverance – must continue to be a cornerstone of the Singapore way; it should be applicable to foreigners in the exact way it applies to Singaporeans. No two paths.
The importance of meritocracy as a guiding principle for Singapore's public policy formulation must be underscored especially in the context of our multi-racial society where perceived racial inequality can give rise to unwanted tensions and divisions.
As our Prime Minister Lee put it when some Singaporeans questioned the value of meritocracy during the debate on the academic system of the PSLE last December, \"If we're not looking at merit, what are you going to look at?\" It is this system that allows individuals and communities to progress regardless of their disadvantages or disabilities and, more importantly, levels the playing field across the different ethnic and racial groups that make up the core of our Singaporean society.
Crucially, this principle of meritocracy must apply without discrimination to Singaporeans and foreigners.
Third, Mdm Speaker, Armed Forces and Police, and the Civil Service must be staffed with Singaporeans of high calibre. Foreigners cannot dominate – even indirectly – the heart of defence or policy making. No compromise must be made here, even as we move to the next lap, 2030. I am sure the Government and I are on the same page on this.
Page: 121
Fourth, the Singaporean core must benefit – roads must get better, not worse. Rail lines must get better, not worse. Public transport must over accommodate high load, not fall short. The Singaporean must feel he or she is benefiting – otherwise why are we doing this?
To add some balance, I add that before we can talk about raising our standard of living, we must realistically acknowledge that a higher standard of living that goes towards the welfare of all Singaporeans can be achieved only if there is a strong foundation for sustainable economic growth. So, growth – it is a pre-requisite. This will, in turn, ensure that the nation is able to thrive and compete amidst the challenges of an increasingly globalised world.
However, if we accept that economic growth fuelled in part by population growth is an objective of the White Paper, then it goes without saying that such growth must translate into tangible benefits for the Singaporean core. At the most basic level, we must ensure that our domestic infrastructure and amenities have sufficient inbuilt capacity to take on the projected increase in population without being unduly strained. Good and affordable housing must continue to be one of our top priorities. We must keep in line with our aspirations to build one of the best public transport systems in the world – a key feature being the doubling of our public transport network to about 360 km by 2030, so that eight in 10 homes will be within a 10-minute walk of an MRT station. This is an excellent aim – and timely.
While improvements to the system cannot be made overnight, the Government must also take into account the legitimate concerns of the people and provide concrete benchmarks and timelines against which our progress on this front can be measured. Given Singapore's unique space constraints, we must continue to invest resources to tackle our land challenge and come up with practical solutions to create new land capacity while keeping Singapore a highly liveable Garden City for work and recreation.
Fifth, Mdm Speaker, with a flood of non-Singaporeans beaching on our shores, the demand for property will sky rocket. If left unregulated, prices will gallop away, leaving Singaporeans who may not have as much liquid cash left unable to afford such high prices. This will be foolish. We need a stringent way of regulating the property market beyond the combination of Additional Buyers Stamp Duties (ABSDs) and loan-to-capital ratio. We need a predictable system which allows Singaporean demand to predominantly dictate the prices of resale private and HDB homes. How? One possible way is tailoring the Australian model to our local needs. I have spoken about this twice in Parliament and three times counting to date. Foreigners there can only buy select new developments
\tPage: 122
and, thereafter, can only sell to locals. This way, a large foreign resident population will not be able to hijack control of property prices. Presently, our policies are reactive. What we need is a forward foot stance – anticipatory, predictable and sustainable regulation. We must get this right.
The mega increase in the supply of flats is again an excellent cure. But, my point here is, let us be armed with a predictable regulatory regime.
Sixth, which is my last point, Mdm Speaker, if the Government believes this slew of policies, including a possible 6.9 million by 2030, is necessary for the Republic's very survival, then couple that belief with a concerted effort to allow Singaporeans to enjoy the fruits of the policy by ensuring more than adequate public infrastructure built in advance of demand. Otherwise, we will just be chasing our tail right through to 2030. Chasing one's tail is a meaningless pursuit. So, let us ensure we do not.
As mentioned earlier, we need to focus on building good and affordable housing, and implementing creative solutions to work around our space constraints. We should strive for greater mobility with enhanced transport capacity and connectivity. Above all, we need also to ensure that different groups across society are well-protected and taken care of. Singapore must continue to be a city for all ages and a place we are proud to call our home.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, yes, our TFR is low. Yes, fewer are getting married. Yes, we have to convert to being a global city. Yes, I say this again, the Government has the guts to push a necessary but unpopular measure through. But, let us not dilute ourselves into an identity-less group of Singaporeans. The Singaporean core must remain strong, vibrant – that core must be the impassioned driving force. If we hold the reins, together, as one united people, then Singapore's definition of what is possible will continue to ensure our continued and relevant sovereignty in a rapidly changing world. Then ratios and figures are much easier to manage and justify as being to the Republic's advantage.
Page: 123
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Madam, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
[(proc text) Resolved, that the debate be now adjourned. – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker:\tResumption of debate, what day?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mdm Speaker: So be it.\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 12.30 pm tomorrow.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.14 pm.
\tPage: 124
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Singaporean Public Enforcement Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Prime Minister (a) currently, how many enforcement officers are deployed by Government agencies including those outsourced through service providers to deter littering, traffic offences and illegal parking; (b) what proportion of these public enforcement officers are made up of foreigners; and (c) whether he will consider making it a policy to have all public enforcement officers either Singapore citizens or Permanent Residents.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): As at 31 December 2012, there were about 20,000 enforcement officers deployed by various public sector agencies, including those in areas outsourced to the private sector.
Enforcement work includes maintaining law and order, policing our borders, conducting site inspections and issuing parking fines, among others.
Currently, 2% of our enforcement officers are foreigners and they are largely deployed to deter littering and illegal parking.
Effective enforcement work ensures that Singapore's laws and rules are observed for the safety and well-being of Singaporeans.
It is important that our enforcement officers have a good understanding of the laws and rules in Singapore so as to discharge their responsibilities competently and effectively.
The affected agencies will review the suitability of foreigners in enforcement functions and consider the suggestion of Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
\tPage: 125
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidy for Enrolment in Student Care Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider a higher subsidy for students who are placed in student care centres.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Government had just recently enhanced the ComCare student care subsidies in July 2012 to make student care more affordable to lower income families. The monthly household income criterion was raised from $2,500 to $3,500. A per capita income criterion of up to $875 was introduced so that larger families can benefit from the scheme.
The quantum of subsidies was also increased, from a cap of $180 per month, to $255 in the highest subsidy tier. Based on student care fees of $260, families with monthly household income of less than $1,500, who enjoy the highest subsidy, would co-pay only $5 a month. Those with income of $2,500 would pay about $75. In addition, a Start up Grant of up to $400 is provided to help families with the initial cost of placing their children in a student care centre.
As at December 2012, close to 3,800 children are benefiting from the student care subsidies. MSF will continue to review the subsidies regularly to ensure that student care remains affordable and accessible to low-income households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Re-Employment Rate among Recent Retirees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many employees who are Singapore citizens or permanent residents covered by the Retirement and Re-employment Act reached the age of 62 in 2012; (b) how many were offered re-employment by their employers; (c) what was the average adjustment to their last wage or salary in the re-employment contracts; and (d) how many cases of re-employment disputes were notified to the Commissioner for Labour in 2012.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Top-line statistics on the re-employment situation in 2012 will only be available in March 2013. The results of the previous ad-hoc survey on the retirement and re-employment practices in Singapore conducted
\tPage: 126
in the last quarter of 2011 showed that most employers were prepared for re-employment even before the Retirement and Re-employment Act came into effect on 1 January 2012.
According to the earlier survey results, some 11,500 local employees turned 62 in the year ending June 2011 in private establishments with at least 25 employees. Nearly all or 97% of the retiring cohort in 2011 were offered employment beyond 62. This comprised 66% who were allowed to continue working on their existing contracts and 31% who were offered re-employment under a new contract. Of those who accepted re-employment in the same job, 17% had their wages adjusted downwards, with a median wage cut of 12%.
As for re-employment disputes, MOM received 32 cases in 2012, mainly over eligibility for re-employment or dissatisfaction over the re-employment terms offered. MOM provides conciliation services to employees, unions and employers to help them resolve these disputes. If the dispute cannot be resolved through conciliation, employees may appeal to the Minister for Manpower if they have been unfairly denied re-employment, or lodge a claim if they have received an unreasonable re-employment offer or Employment Assistance Payment. In most of these 32 cases, the employees and employers have reached a successful settlement. The remaining are currently under conciliation. We urge employers to refer to the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees when making re-employment offers to minimise disputes and to implement re-employment in the right spirit.
On the whole, the results in implementing the re-employment law have been positive. The employment rate of older residents aged 55 to 64 rose from 61.2% in 2011 to 64.0% in 2012, and the number of re-employment disputes that has been lodged with MOM has been low. Much of this can be attributed to the tight labour market situation and the efforts of the tripartite partners in promoting re-employment. We will continue to monitor the employment landscape for older workers with a view to enhancing employment opportunities for older Singaporeans.
Page: 127
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progressive Wage Requirement in Awarding of Cleaning Contracts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether NEA will consider (i) managing the cleaning contracts of all hawker centres to ensure that these contracts are awarded only to NEA-accredited cleaning companies which support the Progressive Wage Model recommended by the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaning; and (ii) making it mandatory for non-NEA managed hawker centres to award cleaning contracts only to NEA-accredited cleaning companies; and (iii) establishing standard cleaning contract tender specifications that are modelled after NEA's cleaning contract tenders for NEA-managed hawker centres, for all hawker centres to adopt in their own tenders.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: NEA currently manages the cleaning contracts for 25 hawker centres directly, while the respective Town Councils (TCs) and Hawkers' Associations (HAs) manage the cleaning contracts for the remaining 82 hawker centres. From 1 April 2013, new hawker centre cleaning contracts called by NEA will only be awarded to cleaning contractors accredited under the Enhanced Accreditation Scheme (EAS). The EAS requires the accredited companies to, among other conditions, adopt progressive wages for their local cleaners. This means that full-time local cleaners hired under the NEA's new contracts will be paid starting basic wages of at least $1,000 per month.
We share Mr Zainal Sapari's vision for all hawker centres to engage only accredited cleaning companies. We are currently engaging the TCs and HAs to encourage them to appoint only accredited cleaning contractors for general cleaning and table cleaning activities respectively. We have also been sharing our cleaning contract tender specifications with the TCs and HAs and will continue to do so. We hope that the TCs and HAs will be able to see the value in engaging accredited cleaning companies which are able to meet the demands of the hawker centres.
\tPage: 128
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Support for Myanmar's Democratic Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how is ASEAN lending support to Myanmar and her people as they face a new phase in democracy.
Mr K Shanmugam: Myanmar's reform efforts over the past year have been significant. At the 14 May sitting last year, I informed the House that the ASEAN Leaders had welcomed Myanmar’s free and fair by-elections of 1 April 2012, in line with ASEAN’s support for Myanmar's implementation of its Seven-Step Roadmap to Democracy. The by-elections brought Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, into Myanmar’s Parliament for the first time.
Since then, the Myanmar government has continued to make progress. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is now an active participant in the Parliamentary and national reconciliation process. Reforms in several areas have been implemented. President Thein Sein has reiterated his government’s commitment to improve governance and bring about people-centred development. Myanmar passed its new Foreign Investment Law last November.
Their government has stated that it is committed to the reform process and the socio-economic development of its people. The road ahead, nevertheless, remains challenging due to Myanmar's many developmental needs, particularly in human resource development. The country needs the continued support of the international community to tackle these challenges and maintain momentum for its reforms. For this reason, ASEAN has consistently maintained that sanctions on Myanmar should be lifted to encourage broad-based development and help Myanmar's government to continue on the path of reform.
ASEAN is thus heartened that our long-standing advocacy has found resonance with the international community. Many countries have recognised and reciprocated the positive steps taken by Myanmar's government over the past year. The US lifted a nearly decade-old ban on most imports from Myanmar in November 2012, just before a historic visit by President Barack Obama, while the EU earlier announced that it would suspend most sanctions. Japan has decided to waive more than half of Myanmar’s debts. Such steps send a clear signal that the international community wants to help Myanmar integrate into the global system, which would in turn improve the lives of its
\tPage: 129
people.
Myanmar will hold the Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014. This will be an important Chairmanship, coming just before ASEAN's goal of achieving an ASEAN Community in 2015. Myanmar is working hard to ensure a successful Chairmanship year with the support of the ASEAN Member States. On our part, Singapore will continue to provide capacity building programmes for Myanmar officials in preparation for their Chairmanship, and to help Myanmar deliver a successful outcome. These are part of the broader support that Singapore, as a neighbour and a fellow ASEAN member, has given to Myanmar's reform efforts. In January 2012, we signed the Singapore-Myanmar Technical Cooperation Programme MOU during President Thein Sein's State Visit to Singapore. Under this MOU and other existing training programmes, we provide training to Myanmar in economic development, human resource development, and public administration, which Myanmar has identified as priority areas for development.
Our bilateral assistance complements the technical assistance that ASEAN continues to provide to Myanmar through the Initiative for ASEAN Integration or IAI. The IAI aims to help ASEAN member states such as Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and indeed, Myanmar, narrow the development gap to achieve the vision of an ASEAN Community. In 2011, Singapore extended our contributions to the IAI for another four years from 2012 to 2015. This is our fourth pledge of S$50 million, bringing our contributions to a total of about S$170 million. Singapore will continue to do what is within our means, both bilaterally and through ASEAN, to help Myanmar with its reform efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"State of Singapore's Manufacturing and Industrial Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the recent weakness in our export and industrial production numbers are indications of a declining trend in our economy's competitiveness and whether there are early signs of hollowing out within our manufacturing and industrial sectors.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Singapore’s sluggish performance in exports and industrial production was largely due to the challenging external economic conditions. In particular, exports to developed economies such as the US and
\tPage: 130
EU were weighed down by the slow growth of these economies. Other East Asian economies that export to these markets, such as South Korea and Chinese Taipei, were similarly affected.
While the small and open nature of our economy has made us vulnerable to swings in global economic conditions, international rankings indicate that our economy remains competitive. For example, Singapore maintained its position as the second-most competitive nation globally, after Switzerland, in the 2012 Global Competitiveness Index by the World Economic Forum. In addition, according to a 2012 report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Singapore is the third-most competitive city in the world, after New York and London.
Our manufacturing sector also remains attractive to investors. In 2012, fixed asset investments totaled S$16 billion, a 17% increase from the preceding year. Furthermore, rather than a hollowing out of businesses, net business and company formation in the manufacturing sector rose by 14% year-on-year in the first three quarters of 20121. Beyond investor interest, industrial production has been supported by our diversified manufacturing base, which limits the impact of global industrial shocks. For instance, the electronics cluster's weak performance in 2012 was offset by strong growth in the biomedical manufacturing and transport engineering clusters.
Going forward, our position as a Global-Asia Hub – where international companies can access opportunities in Asia and Asian companies can expand beyond their domestic markets – as well as our strong fundamentals, such as our highly skilled workforce and excellent connectivity, will continue to put us in good stead to attract high-value manufacturing investments.
At the same time, we will continue to encourage exports directly by facilitating market access for local companies. Besides pursuing good-quality Free-Trade Agreements (FTAs) with key economic partners such as the EU and members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we have also increased our economic linkages with emerging economies in South Asia, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
These strategies will help to keep our manufacturing sector and the overall economy competitive and resilient.
Page: 131
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data on job creation/formation is only available for the first three quarters of 2012."],"footNoteQuestions":["37"],"questionNo":"37"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medical Screenings of Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Health (a) if he will give an update on the Ministry's investigation of the two clinics which provide medical examinations to foreign workers; and (b) what measures are put in place to ensure that medical screenings for foreign workers are conducted properly and professionally.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The medical screening of foreign workers is a requirement of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for pre-employment screening and renewal of work passes. Under this requirement, foreign workers are required to be certified by a medical professional to be fit for work.
My Ministry received a complaint in late December 2012 that foreign workers who were seen at two clinics were being certified as fit without being physically examined by a doctor. My Ministry is currently investigating the two medical clinics to establish if there were any lapses in the processes of the clinics that could constitute a breach of the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics (PHMC) Act.
Investigations are still on-going. Appropriate regulatory actions will be taken against the clinics if they are found to have breached the Private Hospital and Medical Clinics Act and relevant licensing conditions. The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) may also investigate and take actions against the doctors involved if there is evidence to suggest that they may have flouted the SMC's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines.
MOH is working with the Ministry of Manpower to review and identify ways to improve the process of medical screening of foreign workers.
\tPage: 132
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans and Admission Criteria for Special Assistance Plan Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Education what are the Ministry's future plans for Special Assistance Plan schools.
44 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the admission criteria for Special Assistance Plan schools to allow admission of students who do not take Chinese as their Mother Tongue Language, provided that they fulfil the academic requirements for admission to the respective SAP schools.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools play an important role in nurturing bilingual and bicultural students well-versed in the Chinese language and culture.
SAP schools seek to cultivate students’ interest in Chinese language-related studies, and groom cultural transmitters, for example, journalists/reporters for the Chinese media or language specialists like Chinese language teachers.
To provide students in SAP schools with an immersive language environment, assembly periods and most of the non-examination subjects are conducted in Chinese. SAP schools also emphasises the transmission of cultural values that are relevant to our Singapore context. The plan is for our SAP schools to continue to seek more effective ways of nurturing bilingual and bicultural students. This is a challenging task as students are exposed, through the internet and mass media, to a variety of cultural norms.
For students to benefit fully from and contribute in the SAP environment, a basic grounding in the Chinese language is important.
To meet the diverse educational interests and needs of our students, our schools offer a variety of programmes. Each school develops its own initiatives and creates positive experiences that allow students to discover and develop their strengths, and maximise their potential. As the global landscape and our local context evolve, MOE will continue to review our education policies to remain relevant.
\tPage: 133
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progressive Wage Features in Cleaning Contracts Awarded by Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (a) of the ITEs, polytechnics and universities that are under the Ministry's purview, how many have adopted the Tripartite Advisory on Best Sourcing Practices in 2012; (b) what is the total number of outsourced cleaners and security officers currently employed in all the tertiary institutions under the Ministry's purview; and (c) how many of these institutions are currently embarking on the Progressive Wage Model in their outsourced contracts to ensure low wage workers are paid fairly.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Autonomous Universities, Polytechnics and ITE have all adopted the Tripartite Advisory on Best Sourcing Practices in 2012 for the procurement of new outsourcing contracts. As of 1 December 2012, existing contracts under our Autonomous Universities, Polytechnics and ITE covered a total of 2,332 outsourced cleaners and 260 outsourced security guards.
Following the release of the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners' (TCC) recommendations of a Progressive Wage Model for cleaners in October 2012, our Autonomous Universities, Polytechnics and ITE have been encouraging their service providers to pay wages according to the Progressive Wage Model and will be reviewing their future contracts to make this a requirement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Setting of School Tests According to Teaching Curriculum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry supervises its schools to ensure that schools do not test their students beyond what the students are expected to learn within their curriculum.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: MOE recognises the importance of appropriately assessing whether students have learnt the knowledge and skills in the curriculum. Therefore, MOE has established guidelines in the curriculum and engages schools to ensure that they set appropriate and balanced assessments.
\tPage: 134
Each subject syllabus developed by MOE is accompanied by teaching and learning guides, including guidelines for the setting of assessment tasks. Teachers undergo training so that they will be able to set appropriate assessment tasks.
Besides guidelines and training for teachers, MOE regularly engages school leaders on the need for sound assessment practices, including the setting of balanced test and examination papers. MOE also provides feedback on the quality of school examination papers. These help to raise awareness as well as promote good practices.
From time to time, we receive feedback about inappropriate test items. MOE will continue to provide guidance and support to schools to improve assessment practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection of Consumers from Errant Gold Trading Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Prime Minister in addition to MAS' education efforts, whether there are plans to put in place regulatory measures to protect public investors against errant gold trading companies listed on the MAS Investor Alert List.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): As Mr Teo has noted, MAS has taken steps to educate Singaporeans on the risks of investing in gold buy-back schemes. Companies operating gold buy-back schemes, which are unregulated, are also listed on the MAS Investor Alert List (IAL).
Deputy Prime Minister Tharman had previously explained in this House MAS’ approach to regulation. Schemes that involve investors acquiring direct ownership of physical assets, such as gold, land, art or wine, are presently not regulated. These physical assets are traded by various entities for commercial purposes. In the case of gold, these entities include jewellers, refiners, manufacturers and import-export firms. Trading in physical assets has therefore not been included within MAS’ regulatory ambit, which covers financial products.
\tPage: 135
But regulatory boundaries are not static. We have seen cases of physical commodities being marketed in schemes that purport to be an alternative financial investment. MAS is reviewing whether there is a need to refine its regulatory framework to account for changes in the investment landscape.
In its review, MAS will have to balance the cost of extending its regulatory ambit with the need to provide customers adequate protection. An overly-regulated environment will stifle legitimate businesses and innovations that may well be in consumers’ interests. We have to find the right balance.
MAS will also consider ways to limit the scope for entities to mislead or deceive consumers through false advertising. Some of these schemes being marketed as alternatives to traditional financial investments entice consumers through exaggerated claims of returns. MAS intends to work with the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) and other Government agencies to tighten the rules for advertising.
However, the best protection is still the consumer who takes care, and in particular questions how an operator intends to generate promised returns before deciding to part with his money.
MAS will continue to step up its efforts to alert consumers to potential pitfalls when dealing with unregulated investments or entities. Should consumers choose to deal with unregulated entities, they must be fully aware of the risks involved with the investment, the credibility and reliability of the persons they are dealing with, and their channels for recourse should anything go wrong.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workers Who Receive Employers' Compensation after Labour Court Rulings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Acting Minister for Manpower between 2008 and 2012 (a) how many workers did not receive compensation from their employers after the Labour Court ruled in their favour and what recourse do they have if they are unable to engage their own lawyers to claim these payments in the civil courts; and (b) how many companies have failed to comply with the Labour Court's order and what action can the Ministry take against
\tPage: 136
such errant employers.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Between 2008 and 2012, the Labour Court issued a total of about 7,400 Orders for payments in favour of workers. Of these, about three quarters were fully paid and 5% were partially paid. The remaining 20% did not receive payment of the amount ordered. Most of these defaulting companies are small and face financial difficulty or have ceased operations.
Workers who were awarded payment by the Labour Court and did not receive payment from their employers may enforce the Orders by way of writ of seizure and sale through the Subordinate Courts. This process does not require them to engage a lawyer. MOM officers at the Labour Court facilitate the process by advising workers on the procedures involved, and helping them prepare the necessary documents. However, whether the workers get any payment would depend on whether the companies have any assets left for sale.
All companies that default on their Labour Court Orders are taken to task. MOM restricts their access to foreign manpower, and, in more egregious cases, MOM will prosecute and charge the employer in court. In the same period, 115 such employers were convicted in court and sentenced to either a court fine or a jail term or both, while another 23 employers were imposed with composition fines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Accidents near Dunearn Road Exit on PIE","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of road traffic accidents along the PIE towards Tuas between the BKE and the slip road exit to Dunearn Road over the last three years; (b) what are the reasons for these accidents; and (c) what are the measures put in place to make driving along that stretch of road safer.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: For the segment of the PIE towards Tuas between the BKE and the slip road exit to Dunearn Road, there were 32 accidents recorded in 2010, 29 in 2011 and 18 in 2012. The predominant causes of these accidents were drivers failing to have proper control and to keep a proper lookout.
The speed limit at this stretch is 80km/h, lower than the 90km/h for other sections of the expressway. Additional safety measures, such as Curve
\tPage: 137
Alignment Markers (CAMs) and broader lane markings, have been implemented to help motorists in negotiating the bend and slight downward slope at this stretch.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sheltered Links between HDB Estates and MRT Stations","subTitle":"Appeal for Tanjong Rhu Estate","sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider building sheltered linkways between HDB estates and MRT stations and, in particular, from Tanjong Rhu estate to Mountbatten MRT station.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Under the Walk2Ride programme, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will significantly expand the coverage of our sheltered linkway networks over the next five years to connect schools, healthcare facilities, public amenities, offices and residential developments within a 400-metre radius of all MRT stations.
Under the programme, Tanjong Rhu estate will be connected by sheltered linkways to Mountbatten MRT station along Mountbatten Road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Medisave Funds for Preventive Healthcare Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing Singapore citizens to use their Medisave funds for preventive healthcare such as regular medical checks, outpatient treatments at approved general practitioner clinics, traditional Chinese medicine clinics, polyclinics, or restructured hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Medisave is designed primarily to help patients pay for hospitalisation expenses and expensive outpatient treatments such as chemotherapy and dialysis. Over the years, we have gradually expanded
\tPage: 138
Medisave use to include outpatient treatments for chronic diseases at polyclinics, GPs or the Specialist Outpatient Clinics, as well as selected vaccinations such as Hepatitis B and pneumococcal vaccinations and screening such as colonoscopy and mammography, to make these more affordable. Patients can use up to $400 per Medisave account to pay for these every year.
Besides Medisave, MOH also provides Government subsidies for outpatient visits at the polyclinics and Specialist Outpatient Clinics in the public hospitals, and at private GPs through the Community Health Assist Scheme. Screening is also kept affordable through the Integrated Screening Programme (ISP). For low-income Singaporeans, their out of pocket payment is minimal, as screening tests for high blood cholesterol and diabetes are fully subsidised.
Medisave currently does not cover alternative or complementary medicine, including Traditional Chinese Medicine. Any further expansion of the use of Medisave has to be considered cautiously to ensure Singaporeans have enough savings for their healthcare needs, especially after they retire. MOH will continue to regularly review the Medisave scheme to ensure its effectiveness and relevance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for Large Vehicle Parking Lots","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current availability and take-up rate of private and public large vehicle parking lots; (b) what are the Ministry's plans to deal with the overwhelming demand for large vehicle parking spaces and relieve the long waiting list; and (c) whether the Ministry will work with LTA to better manage the demand and supply of large vehicle parking spaces.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In total, there are today 39,500 heavy vehicle parking lots for 33,000 heavy vehicles registered. Three quarters of the 39,500 parking lots are privately operated and located in industrial areas. URA and HDB supplied the remaining lots which are typically located at the fringe of residential areas. Some of the lots are built on Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) land earmarked for future development.
HDB has no plan to build more heavy vehicle parking lots within residential estates itself because there will be many competing demands for infill sites in
\tPage: 139
the residential estates. Furthermore, heavy vehicle traffic poses nuisance and hazards to residents.
LTA's licensing condition for heavy vehicle requires owners to have secured a designated heavy vehicle parking lot before their heavy vehicles are allowed to be registered. Business owners must ensure they have long-term parking solutions for their vehicles and not leaving the decision to the individual drivers. Business owners should consider making arrangement for transportation of drivers between the approved parking lots and drivers' homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of \"Sex.Violence.Familyvalues\" Film Ban on Development of Creative Society","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in light of the arrest of a street artist for vandalism and the revoking of the M18 licence for the film \"Sex.Violence.FamilyValues\" (a) whether Singapore has the conditions necessary to developing a creative and innovative society and a creative culture; and (b) what are some of the gaps and challenges that we face.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As a nation, I believe we all want to support the development of the arts and culture, and promote a more creative and innovative society. At the same time, artistic expression must respect the rule of law and show consideration for others who share the common space in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. For its part, the Government has to bear the responsibility of balancing the interests of different segments of society, who may hold different and sometimes opposing views on issues.
Within this context, the space for artistic expression is not static; it will continue to evolve. Indeed over the years, Singapore has come a long way in the development of a creative culture. Our artists now have more opportunities to develop their craft, and showcase their creative talents. Singaporeans, in turn, enjoy an abundance of options when it comes to arts and cultural offerings. As our society matures and becomes more diverse, I am confident that the space for artistic expression will continue to grow. For this to happen, it is important to have continued dialogue and engagement between the diverse segments of our community, so that there is mutual understanding, tolerance and respect
\tPage: 140
for different views and perspectives.
This is also why we see the need for arts and culture to be part of the daily lives of Singaporeans. This was a gap identified in the recent Arts and Culture Strategic Review (ACSR), which is why MCCY is strengthening our community arts programme, to enable the experience of arts and culture by one and all in the community. A deeper appreciation of the intrinsic value of creativity and the arts will further pave the way for Singapore to become a more creative society.
Another key strategy in developing a more creative and innovative people is to invest more in arts education and a curriculum which encourages creative expression within the context of a holistic education. This will build not only future creative talent, but just as importantly, a discerning audience that is appreciative and supportive of the artistic expression. This will require strong programmes to ensure that our students learn about the value of the arts and acquire the skills and dispositions to express themselves creatively, while maintaining a sense of responsibility and an understanding of our social context. Our efforts in promoting artistic and creative education will lay the foundation for a creative society in the years to come.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age Discrimination in Workplace Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of the perception amongst some older workers in Singapore that they face discrimination from employers due to their age, what is the Ministry doing in order to determine and quantify the nature of the problem, specifically in whether and to what extent older workers suffer from discrimination in areas such as hiring, wages and salary and discrimination in the workplace.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The employment situation for older workers has improved significantly over the last 10 years. The employment rate of older residents aged 55 to 64 rose from 45.2% in 2003 to a new high of 64% in 2012 – comparable to other advanced economies. This is mainly attributed to the tight labour market and measures to improve the employability of older residents, such as the successful implementation of the re-employment legislation. There is also a growing recognition that older Singaporeans can continue to make valuable contributions at the workplace.
\tPage: 141
To address discrimination faced by older Singaporean workers, MOM has been working closely with employers and the unions in bringing about the adoption of fair, responsible and merit-based employment through the work of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices or TAFEP. Recognising that the key to dealing with workplace discrimination lies in changing the mindsets of employers, TAFEP takes a moral suasion approach to encourage fair employment practices. TAFEP also conducts research with employers, employees, job seekers and co-workers to understand and find better ways to overcome the employment hurdles faced by older Singaporeans. Such publications are made available to the public.
From time to time, age-related discrimination complaints, mostly from older jobseekers, have been surfaced to TAFEP for assistance. In the past three years, TAFEP received 151 age-related discrimination complaints. Thus far, employers approached by TAFEP have heeded TAFEP’s advice and made adjustments to their employment practices, for example, by removing age criteria from job advertisements.
Addressing age discrimination is more of an ongoing journey than a destination, and requires the concerted efforts of all members of Singapore society. I welcome ideas and suggestions from the hon Member or others on how we can work together to better address this issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Part-time Work for Foreigners on Student Passes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will consider allowing foreigners on student passes to take up part-time work in designated industries such as food and beverage, to ease the current labour shortage.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: As a matter of principle, foreign students in Singapore should be focused on their studies and not work. Foreigners who would like to work in Singapore should apply for a work pass. Allowing foreign students to work will blur this distinction and encourage abuse, since a foreigner may enter Singapore under the pretext of \"studying\", but with the intent to actually find work.
Page: 142
However, we do allow some foreign students to work in Singapore. Foreign students studying in Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), for example our publicly-funded Universities and Polytechnics, can work in Singapore during their period of study. These are institutions where there are other controls on international student numbers, and where we are assured of stringent admission criteria and quality. Foreign students in these institutions are allowed to work up to 16 hours per week during term time, and with no restriction on the hours during vacation. They can work in any part of the economy, including the F&B industry.
We are aware of the manpower difficulties faced by employers in our tight labour market. We have an estimated 90,000 untapped pool of economically inactive residents2, including older persons and women, who had dropped out of the labour force for various reasons, but who welcome the opportunity to return to work. By having more flexible working arrangements and redesigning traditional job scopes, employers can tap on this pool of latent manpower. To further encourage employers to hire older Singaporeans, the Special Employment Credit (SEC) scheme was also enhanced last year. For each Singaporean employee aged above 50 who earns up to $3,000 monthly, employers will receive an SEC of up to 8% of the employee’s monthly wages3. Additional assistance is also available through schemes like ADVANTAGE, which supports employers by defraying some of the costs involved in redesigning jobs for older workers, such as through automation. To recruit more locals, employers should approach WDA’s network of career centres at the Community Development Councils (CDCs), the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) or CaliberLink.
On a more fundamental level, we also need to re-orientate our thinking, from \"where can we find more workers\" to \"how can we do things differently so that we are able to do more with what we have\". This is because the manpower challenges of a tight labour market are a long-term issue, and the sustainable solution lies in improving productivity and upgrading the economy.
\tPage: 143
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["2 : MOM does not keep a record of all economically inactive Singaporeans. However, we are able to estimate the numbers and profile of economically inactive from the Labour Force Survey conducted on a sample of households in Singapore. The survey showed that in June 2012, 90,000 of all economically inactive residents aged 25 to 64 intended to look for a job within the next two years.","3 : The enhanced SEC will be given to employers who hire Singaporean employees aged above 50 earning up to $4,000 per month. For each Singapore employee aged above 50 who earns up to $3,000 monthly, employers will receive an SEC of 8% of the employee's monthly wages. The SEC payout will be lowered for employees with a monthly wage of between $3,000 and $4,000."],"footNoteQuestions":["64"],"questionNo":"64"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"PSLE Results in 2012","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Minister for Education with respect to the 2012 PSLE results (a) what are the highest and lowest median T-scores recorded by Primary schools (including and excluding students in the Gifted Education Programme students respectively); and (b) given that students are not admitted into Primary schools based on academic merit, what accounts for the disparity, if any, in the median T-scores.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: For the 2012 PSLE, the lowest median aggregate score recorded by a Primary school was 160 while the highest median aggregate score was 240. If we include Gifted Education Programme (GEP) students, the highest median score would be 247.
There are many complex factors that could affect a student’s PSLE aggregate score. Individual motivation, discipline, effort, learning difficulties and academic aptitude of the student all play a role. Parents' commitment to their children's education and amount of home supervision is also important. International studies show that in all countries, students' test scores are correlated with the socio-economic and educational background of parents.
We have 187 Primary schools, spread across the island, each with its own catchment of students. Given the complex factors that affect students' performance and the spread of students, we see a range of students' test scores across our schools. We should, however, interpret the highest and lowest median with caution. The school that had the lowest median also has several students who were in the top 10% of the PSLE cohort. In fact, all Primary schools, even those with lower median aggregate scores, have students who scored in the top 10% nationally for PSLE.
Beyond test scores, our schools, including those with lower median scores, provide opportunities for students to develop themselves. Schools, in their own ways, excel in co-curricular activities and provide academic and other support for the students' overall development. It is important that we move away from
\tPage: 144
judging a school by just its test scores.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Property Cooling Measures on Permanent Residents Owning HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Minister for National Development with respect to the recent property cooling measures (a) how many HDB flats are owned by permanent residents who reside in private properties; and (b) what happens in cases where such HDB flats have existing tenancy agreements which run beyond the six-month deadline for their disposal.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: About 400 flats which are owned by Permanent Residents (PRs) who concurrently own a private property are not owner-occupied. Presumably, they are living in their private properties.
PRs who own HDB flats are now required to sell their HDB flats within six months of buying a private residential property. If they intend to purchase a private residential property but have existing unexpired subletting arrangements, they should time their purchase properly to meet the stipulated timeframe to sell their HDB flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Staff Employed by the National Environment Agency","subTitle":"Breakdown by citizenship","sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources if he will provide a breakdown of the number of Singapore citizens, permanent residents and foreigners currently under the employment of the National Environment Agency.
\tPage: 145
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The breakdown of employees in the National Environment Agency is as follows (correct as at 15 January 2013):
3 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last three years, how many parents faced financial difficulties in paying for (i) childbirth charges in the B1, B2 and C wards in local hospitals; (ii) delivery charges of their fourth and subsequent child due to complications experienced during birth; and (b) what options are there for parents who face these problems, especially for those with insufficient Medisave amounts or those who have reached the withdrawal limit of their Medisave Delivery and Medisave Maternity Package.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Over the past three years, our public hospitals have extended assistance to an average of 1,000 delivery cases per year in Class B1, Class B2 and Class C wards, of which around 95 cases per year involved mothers who experienced complications delivering their fourth or subsequent child.
These cases that received additional subsidies accounted for around 8% of the total number of deliveries involving Singaporeans and Permanent Residents performed at our public hospitals. In addition, patients were also assisted through other arrangements, such as instalment plans, to help them manage the cost of their deliveries.
Patients who require financial assistance can approach the medical social workers in our public hospitals.
\tPage: 146
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allied Health Professions Act 2011","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Health (a) when will the Allied Health Professions Act 2011 (AHPA) come into force and what are the reasons for the delay in the having the Act implemented; (b) what is the expected timeline for the registration of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists; and (c) whether there are plans to provide for the registration of the other allied health professionals as listed in the First Schedule of the AHPA and, if so, what is the expected timeline.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: My Ministry plans to bring the Allied Health Professions Act into force in the second quarter of 2013. In the last 17 months, we have put in place key pieces of preparatory work to implement registration for the physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists. These include finalising the subsidiary legislations required, ensuring that operating systems and processes are in place, and engaging the professionals and institutions to implement registration.
The subsidiary legislations were reviewed with inputs from the professions. The process took more time than expected due to the complexities of regulating multiple professions. Concerns were also raised on the readiness in some institutions to support the supervision of their new therapists. The implementation was deferred to accommodate the plans for ramping up services and arrangements were made to help institutions whose staff will require supervision.
The resources needed for registration of the professionals have now been put in place and we are in the process of formally appointing the Allied Health Professions Council.
We plan to progressively include other allied health professions after the first three, including diagnostic radiographers and psychologists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Medisave Withdrawal Limits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider increasing the withdrawal limits on the use of Medisave so as to allow
\tPage: 147
for a large utilisation of Medisave balances.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Currently, Medisave is designed primarily to help patients pay for hospitalisation expenses and selected outpatient treatments. It is accumulated over the course of one's working life, while the bulk of the healthcare expenses tend to occur when one is older. As post-retirement healthcare costs can vary significantly, we need to strike a careful balance between allowing greater use of Medisave to improve current affordability and the risk of premature depletion.
Medisave withdrawal limits today are generally sufficient to cover the bulk of healthcare bills in Class B2/C wards in public hospitals, after taking into account Government subsidies and insurance. For instance, more than eight in 10 subsidised cases pay less than $100 out-of-pocket for their hospital bill. We have recently revised the annual withdrawal limit for selected outpatient treatment to $400. Setting withdrawal limits judiciously to maintain some cash copayment also helps to prevent over-consumption and moderate cost escalation. Those who still have difficulty paying for their healthcare bills are helped through Medifund and other financial assistance schemes.
MOH regularly reviews the Medisave scheme, including the scope of usage and withdrawal limits, to ensure its continued relevance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Health Assist Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Health whether the application process for qualifying under the Community Health Assist Scheme can be simplified by pre-qualifying all HDB rental flats, HDB 1-room and 2-room flats.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health enhanced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) in January 2012 to benefit more Singaporeans. Singaporeans aged above 40 can qualify for CHAS if their per capita household income is $1,500 or below. Economically inactive households are assessed based on their type of housing, in terms of the Annual Value (AV) criterion, as a proxy to ensure that Government subsidies are appropriately targeted.
Since January 2012, we have also simplified the application process. For example, we removed the need for applicants to submit their income
\tPage: 148
documents, if they consent to having their application processed back-end, with data from the Central Provident Fund Board and Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. We also switched to a single application process for all eligible members of the household instead of multiple individual applications from each household member.
For residents in HDB rental flats, as well as those in 1- and 2-room flats, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has been reaching out to them to encourage sign-ups for CHAS. This way we can also take the opportunity to explain to them the benefits of the scheme. Through AIC and the Health Promotion Board (HPB), MOH will continue to work closely with the grassroots and community partners, including the Family Service Centres and Senior Activities Centres, to encourage more eligible Singaporeans to join the scheme and to assist them in their applications if required. MOH will also continue to look at ways to better target our outreach and simplify the application process for CHAS, including the suggestions by the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporean Seafarers Working Onboard Singapore Registered Ships and Harbour Craft Vessels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Transport what is the current number of Singaporean seafarers working onboard (i) foreign-going Singapore commercial ships registered with the Singapore Registry of Ships; and (ii) harbour craft vessels.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: There are currently 446 Singaporeans serving on board Singapore-registered ships and another 1,159 Singaporeans crewing harbour craft vessels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Leasing of Space In Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Education what are the guidelines on the amount of space in the autonomous universities that can be leased out for commercial use, particularly those unrelated to
\tPage: 149
educational purposes, to ensure that adequate space for curricular and co-curricular needs is prioritised over the need to generate revenue.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The guidelines on the amount of space in the Autonomous Universities that can be leased out for commercial use are set by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).
Under URA’s guidelines, Autonomous Universities are allowed to provide space for commercial uses of up to 5% of the total Gross Floor Area of their campus or 30,000 square metres, whichever is lower.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of GCE \"N\" Level Cohort who Proceeded to Post-Secondary Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Education for each of the past five years, what is the number of students who continue their education in (i) Polytechnics and (ii) Institute of Technical Education (ITE) colleges, out of the entire cohort of GCE \"N\" Level students.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: In each cohort, around 9,500 students who studied in the Normal Technical (N(T)) and Normal Academic (N(A)) courses progressed on to ITE.
Around 7,500 students who studied in the N(T) and N(A) courses progressed on to the polytechnics, some after first completing a NITEC and Higher NITEC in ITE.
Regardless of their initial qualifications, there are opportunities for all Singaporeans to pursue continuing education and training even after starting work.
\tPage: 150
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Direct School Admission (DSA) Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (a) how has the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme added value to students in terms of their sporting capability; (b) over the past three years, how many DSA students continued to pursue their sports at a professional or full-time basis after graduation; (c) what is the lowest PSLE score that will enable students to enter Raffles Institution (RI) or Raffles Girls' School (RGS) by DSA; and (d) over the past five years, how have DSA students in RI and RGS performed academically.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme was introduced in 2004 to promote holistic education by recognising a more diverse range of student achievements and talents as criteria for school admissions, other than academic performance at the national examinations. Schools which admit DSA students based on their sporting talents offer programmes to further develop their strengths in these areas.
MOE does not track whether these students continue to pursue their sports on a professional or full-time basis after graduation. However, between 2010 and 2012, about 250 of current or former DSA students represented Singapore at the national level in their respective sports.
The DSA student must achieve a PSLE result that allows him to be admitted into a course (for example, Express course) offered by the DSA school. As such, the lowest PSLE score that a student being admitted to RI or RGS must achieve is 188.
Of the first two batches of DSA students in RI and RGS, more than 90% had completed their \"A\" levels and were eligible for degree courses in our Autonomous Universities (AUs).
Overall, DSA has broadened the definition of success and promoted holistic education by reducing the emphasis on national examination results. As with all of our policies, we will continue to regularly review and improve the DSA scheme.
\tPage: 151
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Baby Bonus Grant Disbursements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the total amount of public funds channelled into Baby Bonus grants since the scheme's inception in 2001; (b) what is the breakdown of the type of expenditure that families spend on using the Baby Bonus grants; (c) which families, according to ethnicity and household income, have benefited most from the Baby Bonus grants; and (d) for these families, how much Baby Bonus grants are being allocated to those with one child, two children, three children and beyond.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Since the inception of the Baby Bonus scheme in 2001, over 310,000 children have received a cash gift, and more than 240,000 children have opened a Child Development Account (CDA) which enjoys dollar-for-dollar matching of savings from the Government. From 2001 to 2012, the Government has disbursed $2.31 billion of benefits under the scheme.
In 2011, the top three uses of the cash gift were on child-related expenses (for example, milk powder and diapers), vaccinations, and hospital expenses. The top three uses of CDA monies were for expenses at childcare centres, kindergartens and healthcare institutions.
There is no income or ethnicity criterion for the Baby Bonus Scheme. For the 2001 to 2005 birth cohorts, 99% of eligible children benefited from the Baby Bonus cash gift and 97% opened CDAs. The high take-up rate indicates that families of all ethnicities and income groups have benefited from the scheme. There are some low-income households which do not open a CDA. MSF will continue to work with our partners to strengthen outreach to these families.
Baby Bonus benefits are tiered according to the birth order of the child. Families with more children would therefore receive more benefits in total. The table below illustrates the total benefits families can expect to receive, based on the number of children they have:
\tPage: 152
12 Ms Mary Liew asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry conducts periodic visitations to monitor the well-being of children placed under foster care; and (b) what are the steps in place to ensure that these children are not subject to abuse by their guardians.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The fostering scheme provides temporary care for children who have been abused, abandoned or neglected, while long-term care plans are being worked out. Robust processes are put in place to ensure the safety and well-being of the children while they are under the care of volunteer foster parents.
Prospective foster parents and their families are interviewed and screened by trained staff from the Ministry. Those who are selected are provided with regular training to equip them with the preparation and skills to meet the care needs of the foster children. Foster parents can also seek advice and assistance from MSF at any time, including after office hours. Counselling and psychological services are also available to foster parents and foster children who may need such support.
The Ministry also monitors the progress and well-being of foster children regularly. This includes making home visits and telephone calls every two months, or at higher frequencies where necessary. In addition, the child's progress is reviewed by a Committee on Fostering. This is an independent
\tPage: 153
committee comprising doctors, social workers, counsellors and individuals from other fields.
All allegations of abuse are treated seriously. A foster parent can be suspended pending investigation by the Ministry. They may have their services terminated and action taken against them if the allegations are substantiated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints and Claims by Employees under the Employment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in each year from 2008 to 2012 (a) how many incidents were lodged by employees as (i) claims under the Employment Act; (ii) complaints under the Employment Act; and (iii) appeals against unfair dismissal; (b) out of the number of incidents for each, how many were lodged by employees aged (i) 40 to 49; (ii) 50 to 59; (iii) 60 and above; and (c) out of the number of incidents for each, how many were lodged by female employees.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The breakdown of Employment Act-related cases lodged by employees from 2008 to 2012 by age and gender is provided in Table 1 and 2 respectively.
Page: 154
\tPage: 155
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Disputes Lodged for Mediation Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Chen Show Mao asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in each year from 2008 to 2012 as applicable (a) how many requests were lodged by employees for assistance to resolve employment disputes under (i) the tripartite mediation for PMEs and (ii) the Ministry's voluntary mediation service; (b) out of the number of incidents for each, how many were lodged by employees aged (i) 40 to 49; (ii) 50 to 59; and (iii) 60 and above; and (c) out of the number of incidents for each, how many were lodged by female employees.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: MOM provides assistance to help employees resolve their employment disputes, such as voluntary mediation services and adjudication at the Labour Court. Most employment disputes mediated by MOM are amicably resolved between employee and employer.
Tripartite Mediation for Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) was introduced in February 2011 to help PME union members in non-unionised companies address their key employment issues4. Tripartite mediation covers employment disputes in the areas of salary arrears, payment of retrenchment benefits and breach of individual contract by the employer. So far, seven cases have been lodged by employees and almost all have been successfully resolved.
The breakdown of employment disputes lodged by employees for voluntary mediation assistance or tripartite mediation from 2008 to 2012 is provided in Table 1.
\tPage: 156
\tPage: 157
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["4 : PMEs which fulfil the following criteria are eligible for Tripartite Mediation: (i) earn a monthly basic salary of up to $4,500; (ii) an individual member of any registered trade union without any form of representation rights; and (iii) employed in a non-unionised company."],"footNoteQuestions":["14"],"questionNo":"14"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Qualifying Criteria for Employment Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the salary band for experienced foreigners to qualify for an Employment Pass; (b) whether the Ministry will give ample notice for employers to make adjustments to their business operations when changes to manpower policy are introduced; (c) what help is available for those companies whose foreign worker passes are not renewed/approved and yet cannot find local replacements; and (d) whether any Government agency tracks the loss in business due to the tightening of rules on the hiring of foreign workers.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: To qualify for the Employment Pass (EP), applicants will have to earn a salary of at least $3,000, with the exact requirements depending on his qualifications and experience. While young graduates from good institutions can qualify if they earn at least $3,000, more experienced applicants would have to earn more than $3,000 to qualify, commensurate with the work experience and quality they are expected to bring. This ensures that EP holders hired are of good calibre and do not compete unfairly with Singaporeans by coming in at lower wages.
We have not disclosed precisely how much salary is required for what age, and at what level of qualifications, as we expect employers to independently determine what is the value of the job. However, we have provided companies predictability in the EP application outcome via our online Self Assessment Tool (SAT), which will provide applicants with an indication of whether they are likely to obtain an EP or S Pass based on their age, qualifications and salary. Many employers have not tried using the SAT. We strongly encourage companies to take time to use the SAT when shortlisting candidates for interview before the candidate is selected and before submitting an EP or S Pass application. This will avoid unnecessary frustration with rejected applications. The SAT has a high degree of accuracy. In particular, if the SAT outcome is negative, it is almost certain that the candidate will be rejected if an EP application is submitted. Only a very small proportion of positive SAT outcomes will be eventually rejected, and these often relate to cases where the applicant or company has a past adverse history or if there are security considerations.
We have always given businesses time to adjust to foreign manpower policy changes. We have provided a transition period for existing work pass holders. For example, while we announced the higher qualifying salary requirements for EP in August 2011, the changes were implemented for new
\tPage: 158
applications from 1 January 2012 and for renewals from 1 July 2012. For existing EP holders whose passes expired before 1 July 2012, we gave a one-time renewal of one or two years depending on when their passes expired.
Employers who are unable to renew the EPs of their existing EP holders should consider more pro-active ways of finding and attracting Singaporeans to take on such positions, such as by offering Singaporean students internship positions or vacation jobs in their companies to gain experience, and interest them to join after they graduate. In sourcing for suitable Singaporeans, companies can also tap on the Workforce Development Agency's (WDA) network of career centres at the Community Development Councils (CDCs), NTUC-Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and CaliberLink, WDA’s one stop service point for Professionals, Managers and Executives. We also encourage businesses to tap on the many Government support schemes to raise productivity and reduce dependence on manpower.
MTI tracks indicators of business costs and business activity closely. On business costs, we monitor indicators such as the Unit Labour Cost (ULC), rentals and utility costs, and assess their impact on our competitiveness. On business activity, we monitor sector-specific indicators, such as the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) for manufacturing, as well as economy-wide indicators, such as investment commitments. MOM and MTI also gather feedback from businesses and investors on a regular basis.
The Government will continue to monitor the impact of our manpower policies closely and support businesses in making the transition to improved productivity and reduced reliance on manpower inputs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Arts Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the current total floor area available to artists and arts groups under the Arts Housing Scheme (AHS); (b) what is the existing gross floor area (GFA) cap for rental subvention under AHS; (c) whether the availability of space has grown in tandem with the growth in the number of visual and performing groups over the last five years; and (d) whether there is a need to review the GFA cap for AHS.
\tPage: 159
Mr Lawrence Wong: Under the National Arts Council (NAC)'s Arts Housing Scheme (AHS), the total floor area available to artists and arts groups is about 24,000 sqm. This is also the existing cap on Gross Floor Area (GFA) for which the Government provides rental subvention to NAC under the Arts Housing Scheme.
Besides what is available under the AHS, there is an additional 15,000 sqm of space for subsidised arts housing in the Goodman Arts Centre, which does not fall within the GFA cap. So, the total available space for artists and arts groups is 39,000 sqm.
The Goodman Arts Centre is a pilot project under a new framework for subsidised arts housing introduced by NAC after extensive consultations with our artists and arts groups. With this new Framework for Arts Spaces, we hope to make our spaces more flexible and useable. One of the key initiatives is the introduction of more shared facilities, short-term project studios, as well as co-tenancy arrangements. These changes optimise the limited space we have, and allow the facilities to benefit more artists and arts groups, including many new and emerging practitioners.
Since the introduction of the new Framework, the number of artists and arts groups who benefit from subsidised studios have increased from around 90 in 2007 to more than 170 in 2013 with the opening of the new Aliwal Arts Centre. This represents an almost 90% increase in the number of artists and arts groups housed. This is broadly in tandem with the growth in the number of registered visual and performing arts companies from about 410 to 740 during the same period. In addition, there is a wider group of artists and arts groups who make use of and benefit from the project studios and \"pay-per-use\" rehearsal and performance spaces.
While it is not possible for the Government to house all our artists and arts groups in Government-subsidised spaces, we regularly review how we can better meet their needs through initiatives such as the Goodman Arts Centre and the new Framework for Arts Spaces. At the same time, NAC continues to develop alternative options by working with partners such as commercial developers and community centres to co-locate artists and arts groups in their facilities.
\tPage: 160
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework for Arts Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) if he will give an update on the implementation of the Framework for Arts Spaces plan; (b) whether additional rental subsidies are available to help arts groups that are being co-located within commercial developments; (c) whether options to develop low-cost shared storage facilities for arts groups have been found; and (d) what plans are in place to co-locate more artists and arts groups within community spaces, regional cultural centres and schools.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The National Arts Council (NAC) completed the review of the current Arts Housing Scheme (AHS) in late 2010. Since then, it has implemented the new Framework for Arts Spaces.
Through this Framework, NAC aims to create a stronger link between infrastructure support and the different needs of the artists and arts groups. The objectives are to build their capacity and sustain their growth. These spaces will be platforms where artists and arts groups can collaborate with one another, and interact with the wider public to bring the arts to the community.
The Goodman Arts Centre was rolled out in 2011 as a pilot project under this Framework. Home to more than 40 artists and arts groups, the Centre has since its opening, launched more than 200 programmes. The next arts housing development under the Framework for Arts Spaces is the Aliwal Arts Centre, which will be launched in March 2013.
With the Arts Housing Scheme and the Framework for Arts Spaces, NAC currently houses more than 170 tenants. The NAC will continue to look into how best to meet the needs of the arts sector. This will include redeveloping existing properties and identifying new spaces to fill gaps in existing infrastructure. It will also promote shared facilities and short-term project studios that will benefit a larger pool of professional and amateur artists/arts groups.
NAC has been working with Government agencies and commercial developers to facilitate co-location of artists and arts groups in commercial developments under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)'s Community/Sports Facilities Scheme (CSFS). The aim is for these arts groups to engage with and bring greater vibrancy to their community. Under the CSFS, the arts groups need not pay any rental. Instead, artists and arts groups are only required to pay a monthly service charge to the landlord.
\tPage: 161
NAC has facilitated two such projects under this scheme. The first project involves Very Special Arts taking up a space at Changi City Point Mall in 2011 while the second project involves Singapore Dance Theatre moving into Bugis+ mall from early 2013. There has been interest from other commercial developers and arts groups, and NAC will continue to facilitate these arrangements.
Currently, shared storage facilities are available at a subsidised rate in Goodman Arts Centre and the upcoming Aliwal Arts Centre. However, we recognise that affordable storage is a challenge, particularly for dance and theatre companies. NAC will continue to explore alternatives that can be developed with commercial players, and welcome proposals from artists and arts groups.
NAC is currently discussing with partners like the People’s Association (PA) on co-locating artists and arts groups in community spaces. NAC has also been working with PA to identify suitable community facilities for upgrading, integrating arts facilities and better programming into our civic and community centres. To date, NAC has supported two Community Clubs (CCs), Siglap South and Kallang, in both programming and facility enhancements.
\tPage: 162
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":102,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Seng Han Thong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130204/vernacular-New Template - Seng Han Thong White Paper 4Feb2013_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Seng Han Thong White Paper 4Feb2013_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":103,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130204/vernacular-New Template - 4 Feb _ Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Population White Paper.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 4 Feb _ Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap on Population White Paper.pdf"},{"vernacularID":104,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130204/vernacular-New Template - 4 Feb _ Dr Intan on Population White Paper.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 4 Feb _ Dr Intan on Population White Paper.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2213,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Ellen Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130204/vernacular-New Template - Ellen Lee Legal Aid 4Feb2014_chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Ellen Lee Legal Aid 4Feb2014_chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}