1 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider creating a different COE category for first-time car buyers or for the first car purchased by each household or registered business, where car buyers in this category can enjoy substantially lower COE prices.
2 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many households own two or more cars currently; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering alternatives for a more equitable distribution of car ownership in Singapore.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, Members have asked my Ministry to consider alternative ways to distribute COEs, to favour selected groups with access to cheaper COEs. We have studied these suggestions, whether they merit support and also if they stand a good chance of being implemented effectively.
First, to Ms Mary Liew's question, car ownership has increased significantly. Today, about 45% of all households own a car. That is nearly one in two households. In 2000, around one in three households owned a car. We estimate that between 8% and 9% of households in Singapore have more than one car. In other words, fewer than one out of 10 households own more than one car.
While we understand the intent of Dr Intan's suggestion to favour first-time car buyers, the main difficulty is that it is hard to say why a second-time buyer is always less deserving than a first-time buyer. Consider the perspective of a growing household where the grandparents have moved in to stay, or the family has had more children, and are planning to buy a bigger or second car.
Page: 8
To this family, a COE system which favours first-time buyers would not be fair. They would argue that their needs are greater than first-time buyers who are singles, or who have no children, or have no elderly members in the household. Consider also the needs of a business at an exciting growth phase, having built up a customer base which needs a second vehicle to service. To such business owners, their purchase of an additional vehicle is no less deserving than for a start-up buying its first vehicle.
As a response to such a policy, the example of the family cited above may register the vehicle in the name of another family member who has not yet owned a car or a relative living in a different household. A business can easily set up a new subsidiary to own another vehicle as a first-time buyer. It is not hard to see how a COE allocation system which favours certain groups is likely to induce behaviour to get around the policy and defeat the purpose of the policy.
In land scarce Singapore, unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of letting everyone own a car. We also cannot put car ownership in the same category as housing, health or education which are basic necessities. Our current Vehicle Quota System (VQS) is not a perfect system but is still the most appropriate way to allocate a limited and non-basic resource.
Let me assure Members that the Government is mindful of the wishes of Singaporeans to enjoy a high degree of mobility. The solution lies not in unrestrained growth of private car ownership but in improving our public transport and taxi systems. Therefore, we will focus our efforts and invest more resources on building up our mass public transport system – more rail lines, more bus routes and more reliable services. We will also continue to encourage premium bus services and improve our taxi system to help bridge the gap between private and mass public transport.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Even though I understand that there are limitations, I hope that there are also ways to help certain families who really need that first car but for whom the prices of current COEs may be out of their reach. At the same time, would the Ministry consider looking at how the car loan structure can be changed where possibly the first car can be obtained at 100% loan and the second car at 80% or 90% loan, and so on?
Page: 9
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, we thank Dr Intan for her suggestions and we will certainly look at them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Car Ownership Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of \tMs Irene Ng Phek Hoong –\t
3 To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what is the trend of the car population in Singapore, in terms of its growth over the last five years, the number of cars per household and the profile of households owning cars; (b) whether that growth is sustainable; (c) what is the proportion of land in Singapore used for roads and carparks; (d) what is the projection of the car population for the next five to 10 years; and (e) whether a study on the environmental impact of the rising number of cars has been conducted.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar: Question No 3, please, Madam.
\tMrs Josephine Teo (for the Minister for Transport): Madam, Ms Irene Ng asked about the growth trend and the household ownership profile of the car population in Singapore. Over the last five years, the car population increased by an average of 4% per annum, from 514,694 cars at the start of 2008 to 617,556 cars at the end of 2012. The growth rate in the last two years has come down to 1.9% per annum, in line with the lower allowable vehicle growth rate. As of 2012, about 45%, or nearly one in two households, own a car, up from about 40% in 2008. We estimate that between 8% and 9% of households in Singapore have more than one car. In other words, fewer than one out of 10 households own more than one car.
Our Vehicle Quota System aims for sustainable growth in our vehicle population. Today, our road infrastructure already takes up close to 12% of our land space. Going forward, given our land constraints, we must endeavour to moderate further road growth. Hence, we decided to reduce the allowable vehicle growth rate from 3% per annum, which was the rate since we introduced the Vehicle Quota System in 1990, to 1.5% per annum in 2009, and we have further reduced it to 1% per annum in 2012 and to 0.5% per annum in February 2013.
Ms Ng also asked whether a study on the environmental impact of the growth of our car population has been conducted. This was done for the
\tPage: 10
National Climate Change Strategy 2012, which is a multi-agency plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Singapore, including those from the transport sector. One of the measures introduced to reduce emissions from the car and taxi population is the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS), which was implemented in January 2013.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Affordability of New HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –
4 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what has been the core and guiding principle in pricing new HDB flats to ensure the affordability of new HDB flats for Singaporeans; and (b) what can HDB do if the existing pricing policy is inadequate to ensure that HDB flats remain affordable for Singaporeans.
\tMr David Ong (Jurong): Question No 4.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Madam, we build new flats to meet the housing needs of citizen families, especially those applying for HDB flats for the first time. Only citizen families are eligible to apply. They are heavily subsidised so that these families can afford them. This is to meet the strategic intent of helping Singaporean families own their homes.
The core principle for pricing these new flats follows from the strategic intent: their prices must be affordable for these families. In operationalising this principle, we set the price by taking into account the typical household income of these families, the market price of similar resale flats in the vicinity and the attributes of the flats, including their size and location. We apply a substantial price discount to ensure that the flats will be affordable. In addition, to give eligible first-time home buyers a leg-up, we provide them with significant housing grants of up to $60,000.
In this way, first-timers who buy new flats in non-mature estates will find them affordable. The quantum of the price discount and the size of the housing grants are within our control. By varying them, we ensure that we achieve the strategic intent of helping Singaporean families own their homes.
\tPage: 11
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. If I heard correctly, the Minister mentioned just now that the resale price of the flats in the vicinity is taken into consideration. I thought the Minister mentioned recently that the price of the new BTO flats has just been delinked from the resale price. May I have a comment from the Minister, please?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Madam, the Member has not heard wrongly. Both statements are correct. We take into account the resale price and then we apply a discount. And we further give an extra grant. In recent months, when I say delink the new flat price from the resale price, the meaning of delinking is I vary the discounts so that the prices can remain steady.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Amount Collected from HDB Resale Levy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development over the last three years, (a) what is the annual amount of HDB resale levies collected; and (b) what is the number of appeals received by HDB for such levies to be reduced or waived.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: On average, HDB collected about $22 million of resale levy per year. The number of appeals to waive or reduce the resale levy averaged about 2,900 per year.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to ask the Minister if he agrees that the resale levy represents a significant barrier to homeownership for some residents. This was especially so when the resale levy was changed from March 2006. Before that, it was a floating amount. After the change, it was a fixed amount. Madam, I have a resident who sold his flat before that, and was told he has to pay $40,000 in resale levy. He booked a new flat last year and was told that he has to pay $72,000 in resale levy. The reason given to him now is that there is an interest rate attached to the resale levy and this has accumulated. I hope that the Minister can comment on this; whether the Minister will consider harmonising this resale levy for the entire market to see how to help those who have problems with the resale levy to have homeownership.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Madam, yes, indeed, there are some families where the resale levy has become a barrier. These are essentially those who sold their flats quite some time ago when the levy was computed based on a certain
\tPage: 12
formula. The formula was revised in 2006 and it is now a fixed quantum. It is hard to harmonise both formulae because many have paid using the old formula. If we apply the new policy, it would not be fair to all those tens of thousands of people who had paid based on the previous formula. But we try to be as helpful as we can. So, upon appeal, we have approved many such cases. We will have to take into account family situations and circumstances. There are many ways to help them. Sometimes, we reduce or even waive the interest charges. If the transaction happened many years ago, the interest charges can be very large. That is where we try to help.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Minister, just following up on the issue of the resale levy, like the hon Member Dr Lim, I have residents who find the resale levy a significant barrier to a subsequent purchase. Can the Minister consider the resale levy, because it is a cash component, to be paid in instalments, for instance? I have residents, the low-income in particular, who just cannot afford to stump up the $30,000 to $40,000 in resale levy. This is quite common in quite a few low-income cases.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Mdm Speaker, as I said, there are several ways to help deserving cases. Reducing and waiving interest is one. Incorporating the levy into the price of the new flat so that they can then subsequently pay by instalments or out of their CPF is another. We have used either approach quite frequently. We have to look at individual cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Public Transport Fare Increases on Transport Workers' Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked \tthe Minister for Transport (a) whether the bus and train drivers' salaries will be part of the public transport fare revision formula; and (b) whether the financial operations of the public transport operators will be scrutinised by the Public Transport Council before approving any increase in bus fares.
7 Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Transport whether the industrial unrest caused by unhappiness over the remuneration of SMRT's Chinese bus drivers is a timely wake-up call for a serious review of the set-up of our national transportation system to move away from profit-oriented transport companies.
\tPage: 13
8 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of transport fare hikes that have been implemented in the last 10 years; and (b) whether public transport employees benefit from wage increments every time a fare hike is implemented.
9 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is a reasonable return on equity (ROE) for privatised public transport operators (PTOs), below which the Government will deem it necessary to raise fares or provide additional subsidies; and (b) whether the Government considers the ROE of the two PTOs over the past five years to be reasonable.
10 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are in place to ensure that SMRT will not be distracted from its primary role as a public transport operator as it takes on retail operations at the Singapore Sports Hub; (b) how will its revenue and profit from retail and other non-core businesses be channelled to subsidise public transport operations; and (c) whether the Ministry is studying the successful models of nationalised public transport operators in other countries for adoption in Singapore.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Mdm Speaker, with your approval, I would like to take Question Nos 6 to 10 together.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Madam, various Members have raised questions on the profitability of our public transport operators, public transport fare revision, and our public transport model.
Our public transport operators (PTOs) are profit-oriented entities and they are, on an overall basis, profitable. Unlike many of the nationalised systems, like for example, the London Underground or New York Metro, our PTOs are incentivised to keep costs down, to improve productivity, and also develop new revenue sources, such as rental and advertising, so that they remain financially viable. If we restrict the ability of the PTOs to make profits, there will be less incentive for them to do all this. Ultimately, the concern is that this will lead to higher fares or larger Government subsidies, both of which are not to the benefit of Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk of Parliament to give a handout to Members because we have put together a couple of tables to show the data of comparative studies on both bus and rail
\tPage: 14
operations in Singapore to be among the most cost-efficient compared to other major cities, and that commuters in Singapore pay fares that are among the lowest, as Members see in Slide 1. [Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members. Please see Annex 1.] These include cities which provide huge operating subsidies to run their public transport system. So, we have done a comparison with Hong Kong, London, New York as well as with Tokyo.
In response to questions by Dr Lily Neo and Mr Baey Yam Keng, whatever we do to our public transport model, it must try to provide for cost efficiency and financial discipline, and having the PTOs that are commercial entities with a profit-orientation to run the day-to-day operations helps us achieve this. As for the public good considerations for the public transport system, this is the responsibility of the Government, in how we plan and invest public monies to build up a comprehensive and high-quality public transport infrastructure, as well as to keep fares affordable.
Mr Gerald Giam asked whether the Government considers the Return on Equity (ROE) of the PTOs to be reasonable. Let me first say that the ROE is not the most appropriate financial metric to assess the level of profitability for PTOs. The ROE is actually a measure at the corporate level. It covers all of the company's businesses, including businesses which may not be related at all to their rail and bus operations, and their overseas businesses. More fundamentally, the ROE is also a function of a company's financial arrangements and capital structure. Hence, it does not always correlate closely to profitability at the operating level of a PTO's public bus and rail businesses, and these are the areas of which we are concerned. It would not be an appropriate measure to compare bus and rail profitability across different PTOs. For asset-heavy companies, such as PTOs, a more common measure of profitability is the Return on Total Assets (ROTA), which assesses the level of profits the company generates for every dollar of assets invested. This metric was also recommended by the 2005 Fare Review Mechanism Committee.
SMRT and SBST's current ROTA for their public transport businesses are about 7.6% and 4.9% respectively, which are generally in a range we see for some other PTOs. Here, I wish to add that, actually, the profits from related non-fare revenue like advertising, rental and so on are included in the ROTA figures.
I want to add also that, even for the ROTA, there are limitations in its utility. First, the lumpy nature of investments needed for public transport, particularly for rail, means that we should avoid being overly-seized with the ROTA on a year-to-year basis. Secondly, the ROTA, as currently determined for the PTOs,
\tPage: 15
does not include those assets which they are already using to generate revenue but have yet to buy over from the Government.
For instance, under the current financing arrangements, SMRT will need to invest in more trains for the North-South East-West Line (NSEWL), the Circle Line (CCL) and the Bukit Panjang LRT. SMRT also has to pay for the re-signalling project for the NSEWL. These are all major investments to which SMRT has either committed or are in the midst of implementing. In addition, under the CCL licence, SMRT would have to buy over from the Government the first set of operating assets in 2019.
That said, we are mindful that the PTOs should not be earning excessive profits at the expense of commuters. Our public transport system is based on a balance of responsibilities between commuters, PTOs and the Government, in order to achieve quality service, affordable fares and a viable and sustainable system.
The key to achieving this balance is to have a robust regulatory framework. Our regulatory framework requires the PTOs to comply with prescribed service standards and maintenance requirements, failing which, penalties will be imposed. This helps to safeguard commuter interest through requiring the PTOs to invest sufficiently to meet these standards. For example, when LTA completes its regulatory review in a few months' time to further tighten rail service standards, the PTOs will need to invest more to deliver the higher levels of service and reliability required of them.
However, beyond just imposing the more stringent regulatory standards and heftier fines, LTA is taking a deeper look at the engineering and maintenance systems and processes that rail operators have put in place. This is an added safeguard following the Committee of Inquiry's report. Let me assure Mr Baey that we are mindful of the concern that he has raised, that the rail operator might get distracted from its primary mission, or for that matter, simply focus on short-term profitability while scrimping on maintenance.
I will now turn to the queries by Ms Mary Liew and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on transport fare hikes over the past years, whether public transport employees have benefited from the fare increases, and if bus and train driver salaries should form part of the fare formula going forward.
Public transport fares have been adjusted in small amounts seven times over the last 10 years from 2003 to 2012. That is the period that I am looking at
\tPage: 16
– seven times over the past 10 years by the Public Transport Council (PTC). There was also an occasion in 2009 where the PTC reduced fares because of adverse economic conditions despite the fare formula yielding a fare increase.
From 2006 to 2011, fares increased cumulatively by 0.3%. Diesel prices for that same period went up by about 55% and national wages by over 25% for this same period from 2006 to 2011. This has caused a significant shortfall between fare increases and operating cost increases, and put downward pressure on wages for public transport employees. While the PTOs have increased bus driver salaries recently, against the backdrop of worsening bus industry financials, I expect that going forward, it will be a challenge for the PTOs to do more without fare increases or some form of Government subsidy.
On whether bus and train driver salaries should be included as an explicit component in the fare formula, this is an issue for the Fare Review Mechanism Committee, chaired by Mr Richard Magnus, to consider. I know that the FRMC is very focused on making sure that whatever fare formula is proposed, there is assurance that we safeguard commuter interest in affordable public transport fares. Mdm Speaker, may I request the Clerk to now distribute the next handout?
Mdm Speaker : Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: I wanted to show a table, in Slide 2 [Please see Annex 2] on how our fare increases compared with the similar cities that I mentioned earlier. When we put together the comparison, we noticed that our fare increases over the last few years have been lower, compared to cities like Hong Kong, London and New York. As I mentioned earlier, our fares today are generally comparable, and, in many instances, they are actually lower.
The bottom line is this: the Government is fully committed to keeping public transport fares affordable. Indeed, we want to carefully study this issue in greater detail for different income levels and various special groups that may be more vulnerable and may require special help should fares have to be raised in future. This, certainly, will be a priority for us moving forward.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Madam, I understand the Ministry ensures the service quality of PTOs based on the performance standard as well as penalties meted out when they do not meet those standards. I would like to ask the Minister how does MOT ensure that the money that is being used to pay for penalties is not drawn from commuter fare revenue but from the profits of
\tPage: 17
non-transport operations and, hence, shareholder dividends?
My second question is: given that the public transport operations receive Government grant injection and, hence, are not as lucrative as commercial operations, such as retail malls, would a situation arise such that the PTO becomes more motivated and interested to make more profits from non-transport operations and does not mind paying for the penalties for service lapses because it just makes economic sense for them as a listed company? How does MOT ensure that this situation does not happen?
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Madam, let me thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. On fines, first, the fines are put into the Public Transport Fund and that is used to issue vouchers that we provide to the more needy residents. Secondly, when the Public Transport Council looks at fare increases, they take into account what the fare formula recommends, as well as what the financial performance of the operators are, for example, looking at the ROTA and the trend of the ROTA. There is no component in the fare formula that looks at the fines that they have paid to the regulator. So, that is not taken into consideration in any fare increase.
The situation that the Member mentioned, where PTOs pay more attention than they ought to their commercial operations, is something that we must safeguard ourselves against. Hence, not only must we set very high performance standards and hold them to account for this, fine them when necessary, but LTA is also now more closely involved in their processes – operations, as well as in maintenance, to make sure that throughout the organisation from the top down, they pay sufficient attention to these areas which are of greatest concern to us.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: I have three supplementary questions. Of course, we should not deny PTOs from making profits. But if we were to look at the Annual Reports of the PTOs, the dividends given out to shareholders have been increasing every year for the last 10 years. I would like to ask the Minister: since we are in the process of reviewing the formula used by PTC, can the profitability of the PTOs be included in the formula? That means, if they make a certain profit or give out a certain amount of dividend beyond a certain figure, there should not be any increase in the fare at all. The second question is: since we are in the process of reviewing the formula, can we take into consideration the concession rates for Polytechnic students as well? And the third question: Minister mentioned just now that SMRT needs to buy over the assets from the Government. How much does SMRT need to pay to buy over assets from the
\tPage: 18
Government?
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Speaker, let me thank the Member for her usual penetrating questions. First, on profitability, in the past, they looked at ROTA and used that as a gauge. Therefore, indeed, there were years when, for example, they would give a fare increase to the buses but not to the rail. This was before we had distance fares. The actual mechanics going forward – this is something that we can ask the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC), chaired by Mr Richard Magnus, to take a closer look at. Indeed, they are doing so on concessions for the different groups, including students, Polytechnics as well as others.
On the Member's third question, which is how much SMRT has to pay for the assets, let me read carefully what I said here. I said that SMRT will need to invest in more trains for the North-South East-West Lines, the Circle Line and the Bukit Panjang LRT. They will also have to pay for the re-signalling project for the North-South East-West Lines. That amount is about $750 million. So, that is the first component that the Member asked about.
The second component is that they will have to buy over from the Government the first set of operating assets of the Circle Line in 2019. That is the second component. They buy over at Net Book Value because there is a certain depreciation of those assets from when it was purchased initially and, operated over the years, there is a certain depreciation. Our estimate is that come 2019, they will have to pay about $1 billion to buy over those assets.
So, these two components that I mentioned earlier in the reply in response to your supplementary question will be about $1.75 billion.
\tDr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Three supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that public transport is an essential service that may affect the lives of many Singaporeans and the state of our country's economy? Therefore, is it not better to move away from the profit-oriented business model that is answerable to shareholders' interests which may further add on to the cost of our public transport services?
Secondly, will the Minister consider targeted subvention for the sectors of our population, such as the retirees, students and the needy, rather than the blanket subvention for all, including tourists and non-Singaporeans, so that
\tPage: 19
subvention goes to those that need it most and appreciate it most?
Lastly, at the stage of formulation and implementation of our public transport infrastructure, are enough considerations given to after-care maintenance, such as the engineering maintenance and cost maintenance, for the long-term sustainability and smooth operation of our public transport here? Are there synergy and communication between all the stakeholders concerned?
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Speaker, let me thank Dr Lily Neo for her three supplementary questions. On whether we consider public transport an essential service, certainly we do. The question is whether we should move away from the profit-oriented model. I think the difficulty really is whether we can move to something that is as efficient and as cost-conscious as what it is today. I think that is, indeed, the challenge.
When we look at what other cities have done – those that are operating nationalised models, we find actually that – at least in the examples I have given you – the fares are higher and, on top of that, there are subsidies that are provided by the government. It is quite a heavy burden on the state and, ultimately, on the taxpayers. The question we have to ask ourselves is that if I can find something that is alternate to what we have today, that can run just as efficiently or even better, I would really like to consider that. What we have seen in a number of cities actually is that they have moved away from a nationalised model to a privatised model. In some cities, like those in Australia, when they run bus services, part of which is provided by a nationalised entity and part of which they have privatised, they have told us that actually there is a benefit, a more efficient way and, hence, lower cost when the private companies take over the running of such services.
On targeted subventions, the Member has raised a good point. Indeed, today, there are concessions that we provide to the elderly so they have a full-day concession for travel on the transport system. There are some concessions given to students and so on. The question is whether we should do more, how much more, and how that ought to be funded by other transport users, or it ought to be something that is borne by the Government. And that something is obviously something that can be discussed and debated further.
The third is a very good question because really we want to make sure that the operators pay enough attention not just only to the immediate maintenance problems but also making sure that they do a sufficient amount for the long-term sustainability of the transport system. So, when we look at what they do
\tPage: 20
and we ask for their plans, we also look at whether they are planning for upgrades, mid-life upgrades, end-of-life upgrades to the trains and so on. Infrastructure, for example, now the third rail, the claws, that is something that we are also paying much more attention to than in the past. In the past, it used to be that we hold them accountable to the OPS performance standards. Now, we not only do that and have tightened that, but we also go down more to look at their processes and their maintenance plans.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I thank the Minister for his explanation about why ROE is not used as a measure of the profitability of the transport operators. But my question is: are the commercial operations meant to cross-subsidise any shortfalls in fare revenue? Or is that meant to be for shareholders to keep and for dividends? Because the fact remains that, for example, retail shops in MRT stations, they benefit from a captured audience or captured market in terms of the number of commuters who are travelling through the MRT stations. So, is it fair that that profit goes to the shareholders and dividends?
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Speaker, let me thank Mr Giam for his question. As I mentioned earlier when I cited the ROTA figures for SMRT and SBST, we take into account also the advertising and the retail revenues that are generated because these are related businesses. When I provided the figures, I think it was 7.6% and 4.9% but that includes it. The ROTA figure is certainly a figure that the PTC looks at when they decide on any possible fare increase.
\tMs Mary Liew (Nominated Member): I would like to thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answers. Before the PTO ploughs back its profit to the shareholders in the form of dividends, which have increased over the years, I would like to ask the Minister: how can he ensure that the transport workers' interests are being taken care of so that they will not be disadvantaged? Ultimately, an unhappy workforce will also be cascaded down to the public commuters as well.
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Speaker, let me thank Ms Mary Liew for asking a question on what is probably the most important resource. Indeed, if we do not have enough drivers, the bus fleet will not be operational. That is, indeed, something that is very, very important.
We do not dictate or prescribe how much the operators have to pay to their drivers. Certainly, this is something that, as commercial entities, they have to look very carefully at to make sure that they not only recruit enough but also
\tPage: 21
retain enough of their drivers.
What we do is we hold them to account as to the service that they deliver to the general public, particularly for the buses which are much, much more dependent on manpower. Indeed, it is not just people at the frontline but also at the backend doing the maintenance, doing the technical support. That, too, is very, very important.
As Members know, there was a salary adjustment last year and we hope to do more in the years to come. Certainly, that alone is probably not sufficient. If we are to push ahead and accelerate the bus enhancement programme that I talked about, then being able to recruit and retain enough drivers, that ultimately determines how quickly I can push that programme out.
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the long replies to all the questions. The Minister was asked about whether there is a way of having an in-between nationalisation versus completely private model; and then the answer is yes. Our NTUC Fairprice seems to be doing very well. Did the Ministry consider whether public transport services can be run as a cooperative instead of a totally private entity?
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: These are all options to be looked at and, indeed, it is not as if we are prepared only to stay with one model but we are always on a look-out for other possibilities, other alternatives, and it is on an on-going basis. Therefore, if there are interested entities like NTUC who may perhaps offer to run part of the bus system – I have talked about bus contestability in the years to come – this is certainly something that we would be prepared to look at very, very carefully.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza, last question.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Minister, when we look at the figures, they are very assuring because Singapore runs the cheapest average fare for bus and rail journeys over 10 km, compared to four other metropolises, and considerably lower than Hong Kong and Tokyo. Therefore, for me ,it is not a debate between whether we should privatise or nationalise, but how we could make our privatised model even better, and that is why I ask two questions.
The first question is in relation to the rentals received and also the advertising revenue, and whether or not Mr Richard Magnus' Fare Review
\tPage: 22
Mechanism Committee will at least be given the liberty to look at how much this yields and whether that justifies a slower pace of increased fares or a capping of fees, or possibly even a reduction of fees. Would that at least be in the liberty of the Committee to deliberate?
Secondly, while I fully appreciate that we cannot be overly profit-driven, one of the concerns that is on the ground is whether there is too much focus on profit and that takes our glance away from the essential service of providing good and predictable rail transport to Singaporeans.
The last point is: I echo Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's call for subsidies for Singaporean Polytechnic students. This is a feedback that has come to me and I hope that Mr Richard Magnus' Committee will also look into this.
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Speaker, I add my thanks to Mr Christopher de Souza for not only his expression of support but, more importantly, some very, very good questions that he has asked in this supplementary. Firstly, I gave the FRMC quite a clean slate. Not only do they deliver a new formula but they are also going to take into consideration quite a number of different other areas. Ultimately, when there is a fare adjustment, it is actually the PTC – the Public Transport Council – that decides on the amount and whether to follow the fare formula rigidly or whether to deviate from the fare formula. If we look at our recent examples from 2006, certainly the PTC has deviated from the fare formula because the accumulative adjustment was 0.3% over those five years. I believe the fare formula would have recommended a lot more.
Certainly, there was a year when the fare formula recommended an increase and PTC decided to reduce fares instead. So, the PTC looks at the fare formula and the prevailing situation and makes a decision on what fare adjustment to allow. So, there is that flexibility there.
The Member's point on whether there is too much of a focus on profits is a very valid concern. And I think it is, therefore, the responsibility of the regulator to make sure that if this is so, we re-orientate the company. I make sure that I have regular meetings with the Chairman and the senior management. I make known my expectations of how I expect public transport service to be provided and the quality and reliability that I expect to see. From time to time, we will have to sit down and talk to them about operational matters and also to make sure that, if necessary, we properly align for the long term.
Page: 23
On subsidies for Polytechnic students and other groups – I hear his call, as, indeed, from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. As I said when I first came in in 2011, these were all on my radar screen but I was more sympathetic to additional concessions for the elderly. That was my first priority and, in the 2011 fare adjustment, we did manage to do something to that and extend their concessions to the entire day. If and when a fare adjustment takes place or is to be decided − because there really is not even a new formula on the table yet and we will have to go through the process of talking about it when the formula is eventually reviewed – certainly Members can be sure that this and a few other areas, including for the disabled, are very much on my radar horizon as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Runaway COE Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are in place to prevent a runaway of the price of a COE, especially for small cars (1,600cc and below); and (b) what can be done to alleviate the transport component of unit business costs for SMEs as a result of rising COEs.
12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry is reviewing the entire COE system with the objective to prevent a runaway of the COE price.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Minister for Transport): Madam, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 11 and 12 together?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, given the limited supply of COEs and our bidding system for COEs, prices would be determined largely by demand. Market demand, in turn, is influenced by many factors, such as how well our economy is doing, the interest rate environment, the loan financing options available, and even the introduction of new car models. In short, prices are a reflection of the COE market at work.
The Government is mindful that some businesses have a critical need for vehicles and that is why several concessions are in place to help businesses with their transport costs. Businesses bid for COEs for commercial vehicles in a separate Category C, and do not have to compete with private car buyers in Categories A and B. In addition, the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) for most
\tPage: 24
goods vehicles is set at 5% of the vehicle's Open Market Value (OMV), instead of the 100% OMV applicable to cars.
Many suggestions have been put forward for tweaks to the COE system. While the suggestions are well-intentioned, it would be important for us to look at them closely, to consider if they can really be effective in promoting lower prices or greater stability in the COE market, without distorting the market inappropriately. I would also add that, left to its own, the market has seen, in the past, instances of COE prices going down, sometimes sharply. This happened in around 2009, likely due to the weak economy. So, in conclusion, buyers do make a conscious decision not to rush in during periods when the market is particularly exuberant. I think it is useful to bear that in mind.
\tMr David Ong: Madam, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the reply. Does the Minister of State agree that with the rising COE prices, even for small cars up to 1,600cc, to over $90,000 now, the COE system is skewed in favour of the wealthy? Will the Ministry also really look at a review and probably a reform of the entire COE bidding system in cognisance of the current socio-economic situation of Singapore, as well as the role of car dealership in the COE bidding process?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, I thank the Member, Mr Ong, for his questions. I think it is quite useful to take a look at the profile of car owners in Singapore. I had shared earlier, in response to the first two questions by Ms Mary Liew and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, that nearly one in two households today own a car. And if we were to look deeper at the one-in-two households owning a car and ask what sort of dwelling these car owners reside in, and then look at car ownership amongst a population group that we are very familiar with, which is the HDB flat dwellers, the ownership of cars amongst HDB flat dwellers is about one in three.
So, if you look at ownership profile, then I would say that, yes, there are some who are able to afford cars to a very large extent but this does not preclude a very sizeable population group that we are very familiar with − what we call the HDB heartlanders − quite a large number of whom also own cars. So, I hope that addresses his concern. We are very mindful of this and that is why there are two different categories of COEs – Category A and Category B – to allow people who are in need of a car but do not need it for status or other reasons. And they really need it for family purposes, and that is what the COE categories are designed to do.
Page: 25
\tDr Lim Wee Kiak: Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State: does she think that the COE prices should be the same for cars with the same engine capacity, for example, between one that is a Toyota Camry versus one that is a Lamborghini, in the first place? I am reflecting the point of the hon Member, Mr David Ong, when he mentioned about parity. The Minister of State just mentioned about people having different needs, different cars for different reasons. The current OMV system does not stratify that. So, when we now see that BMWs and Mercedes are the top-selling cars in Singapore, something is wrong. Toyotas and Nissans used to be the top. It seems that the middle class and the smaller cars are being completely squeezed out of the market. Can the COE system be reviewed and how do we re-balance that again?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: I thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak for his questions. I think what Dr Lim is referring to is that there was a time when the prices of COEs between Category A and Category B were quite different. So, it was quite different in the past, and I hope that I can explain that a little bit further. But, over time, that gap has closed. So, whether it is Category A or Category B, that gap has closed. One of the reasons why this has happened, as has been pointed out by many observers, is that, increasingly, you will find premium makes also in Category A. For example, in Category A, you might find a Mercedes A Class. So, there is a perception that there is some activity going on that is causing the premium makes to also push out cars. This is something actually very worth studying. One contributing factor is that, worldwide, for environmental reasons, even premium makes are pushing out cars of smaller engine capacity. And this might have contributed to a closing of the gap between the Category A COE prices and the Category B COE prices.
Dr Lim mentioned the example of a Lamborghini. I am afraid I really do not know what a Lamborghini costs, but I think the engine capacity of a Lamborghini would not put it in Category A.
\tMr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Madam, a supplementary question. Would the Minister of State also look at the profile of those who own light-goods vehicles under Category C of the COE? I wonder how hawkers and small-time contractors can afford to renew COE or buy a replacement vehicle in order to continue their businesses.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, indeed, that is a group of car owners that we are concerned about and we are looking at various ways in which they can be helped.
Page: 26
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. The first question is about the equitable distribution of COE in different categories. One of the reasons why there are more luxury cars in Singapore is because of Category E. If you add Category E and Category B together, we note that Category E is almost used exclusively to buy big cars; the combined COE in both Categories B and E is 50% more than Category A COE for August 2012 to January 2013. If we compare the figures about 10 years ago for the period from 2001 to 2002, the COE in Category A itself is a lot more than that in Categories B and E added together. The second question is whether the Minister of State would consider pegging Category A to the OMV of the car rather than just the engine capacity, so that cars are cheaper and could be made more affordable to Singaporeans.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: I thank Mr Ang for his two supplementary questions. His first question relates to the distribution of COEs in the various categories. Precisely for the reasons that he articulated, the number of COEs that are recycled back after they are de-registered has been adjusted. It used to be that for de-registered COEs, 25% of them went to Category E. And precisely for the reasons that was cited by Mr Ang, we have reduced that percentage and now 15% goes into Category E, while the rest goes back to the categories from which the cars were originally registered. So, that is one way in which we are seeking to rebalance this.
On his second question of whether COE categories ought to be redefined, not based on engine capacity but perhaps based on OMV or some other measures, indeed, we recognise that these are valid ways in which we could rethink how the COE categorisation can be done, and we are open to reviewing them. So, I would urge the Member to be patient.
\tMr Christopher de Souza: The road is a livelihood for many. And for construction companies, food sellers and logistics companies, they have fed back to me that they do find the COE prices quite high and it does eat into their bottom line considerably, if not very considerably. I appreciate the Minster of State stating that there are existing schemes to help this group and they are grateful for it.
However, I would like further thought − hence, my supplementary question – on the current segregated bidding mechanism for these commercial vehicles. If we are focused on road usage and the number of vehicles on the road and part of that computation includes sedan cars and household cars, then would it be possible to disincentivise through a higher COE for households which have
\tPage: 27
three or more vehicles, such that there is more space on the road for people who need roads because of their livelihoods? If this could be at least considered, we may have some room to reduce COE prices for those who really need the roads for a living.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, before Mr Christopher de Souza came into the House, there was an earlier question that was filed by Ms Mary Liew and Dr Intan essentially proposing the same thing – whether we could create, for example, a mechanism that will allow first-time car owners or first car buyers to have access to lower COE prices, and I had explained the difficulties in doing so.
In quick summary, Madam, it has to do with two things. The first is that it is hard for us to say, definitively, why a person who is buying a car for a second time is always less deserving than one buying it for the first time. I cited the examples of families which have grown in size because they have had more children or elderly members have moved in. There could also be businesses which are growing very well and they need that additional vehicle to service their expanding customer base.
One difficulty is with how we can say, definitively, certain car buyers need a car more than other groups of car buyers. The second difficulty relates to the fact that this is a policy that will be quite easy to circumvent. Today, if a family was forced to register a car in the name of first-time car owner, it would be quite easy for him to ask a relative to stand in and be registered as the first-time car owner. Similarly, a business could set up a subsidiary to own just a car. So, there is a practical difficulty with implementing policy of this nature. That is something we have to bear in mind, whether it can be effectively implemented, otherwise, we would be doing something that gives the impression of helping first-time car buyers when, in fact, it does not really. That is something we have to bear in mind.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measuring Social Mobility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how social mobility in Singapore is defined, measured and monitored; and (b) how has Singapore fared on these measures from 2003-2012 and in the preceding decade.
\t
Page: 28
The Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, social mobility is an important objective for our society to ensure that people from different backgrounds have the opportunity to improve their lives over time.
Social mobility can be interpreted in absolute or relative terms. In absolute terms, we seek to track improvements made by individuals over time. Typical indicators may include educational attainment and income.
In education, the percentages of Singaporeans who did not complete Secondary education 20 and 10 years ago were 10% and 4% respectively. Today, it is less than 1%. The percentages who went on to post-Secondary education 20 and 10 years ago were 60% and 86% respectively. Today, it is 94%.
For full-time employed residents, growth in the median gross monthly income from work, including employer CPF contributions, over 2002-2012 and the period 1996-2002 was 1.3% per annum and 2.7% per annum respectively. The equivalent figures at the 20th percentile from 2002-2012 and the period 1996-2002 were 0.1% per annum and 2.2% per annum respectively. These figures are in real terms, having adjusted for inflation. They do not take into account Government transfers, such as Workfare Income Supplements, that Singaporeans may have received during these periods.
Relative social mobility may be interpreted as the proportion of people who move up or down the socio-economic scale relative to the rest of their cohort over time. This reflects the churn amongst income groups in our society. We do not have data on such churn as it requires longitudinal studies over a long period of time.
To create opportunities for Singaporeans to build better lives for themselves and their families, we must continue to create good jobs, invest in education for our young and skills upgrading for our workers, and also create opportunities for our people to fulfil their potential in other ways beyond educational and income attainment. We are also committed to provide additional support for those who need help and develop more upstream measures to help the low-income families and their children improve their lives.
\tMs Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member): I thank the Acting Minister. Madam, the numbers for Singapore are very good and also very bad. We have an average GDP per capita of over US$60,000, which is excellent, but a median income per adult of only about US$30,000, which is very low. Hence, with the
\tPage: 29
highest Gini coefficient around in the world, my question to the Acting Minister is: does he look at inter-generational income elasticity?
The Straits Times had an article that said that Singapore's inter-generational income elasticity is 0.58, which means that we are less socially mobile than Hong Kong, at 0.4, or the Scandinavian countries, at 0.3. Hence, are there any proactive measures taken by the Ministry to try and stop this vicious poverty trap to lift the bottom 20% of Singaporeans out of this vicious cycle?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Ms Tan for her supplementary questions. Indeed, we have gone through quite a few of the studies to try to track inter-generational shifts. Because of the varying assumptions made by the different studies, we have not found any of them to be particularly complete, in the way that they have done so.
What the Member has mentioned is correct, that, indeed, we are most focused on the bottom 20th percentile, to make sure that even if they are not as well off in this generation, their children will be able to get out of the situation that they are in. And, indeed, this is the focus of my Ministry's work to make sure that we do not just look at the families in risk but also to look at the families at risk, so that before they get into trouble, they have the best opportunities available to get out of the situation that they are in.
To this end, we are focusing a lot of our efforts on childcare and education to make sure that the next generation has the best head-start possible and to be roughly at the same starting point before they go onwards with the rest of their lives and go into the workforce.
There are also some studies that have shown and have tried to track to see whether the top 10 percentile of our income earners – how do they correspond with, say, their fathers' generation. From the limited data that we have, we are roughly in the same situation as the US and the UK, but we are not totally satisfied with the data yet because they took a cohort from some years back. What we want to do is to be able to consistently track cohorts going forward, and that will require us to conduct some longitudinal studies which will take some time.
We are, indeed, very concerned with this issue and we share your concerns that we should do more to help those people at the lower socio-economic strata. I hope that this House and the members of the public will agree with us that, actually, going forward, our help needs to be much more targeted.
\tPage: 30
We need to give more help to those people at the bottom and, perhaps, not so much to those people at the top end. So, it will not be a case whereby everything is universal, but we really should focus more help to those people at the bottom. And if we look at some of the policies that we have rolled out in recent months – indeed, that is what we are doing, to focus more help on those people at the bottom 20th percentile to bottom one-third of our population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Achievement Awards for Special Education Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider allowing Special Schools to (a) award the Achievement Awards for Special Education Students (AASED) to students under their parents' name, given that the child is unable to open a bank account due to his or her disability; and (b) re-issue the cheques for the AASED under the student's parents' name for last year's award recipients.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for Education): To recognise and encourage students with special needs for their achievements and progress, MOE provides an annual lump-sum grant from the Edusave Endowment Fund Income to each Special Education (SPED) school to disburse school-based Achievement Awards for SPED students. The awards are disbursed in the form of crossed cheques issued in the names of the student awardees to ensure that the awards directly benefit the students concerned. Since the inception of the awards, SPED Schools are allowed to issue cheques in the name of their students' parents where the students are not able to open bank accounts due to the nature of their disability.
\tMr Christopher de Souza: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response. The question relates to those who are in special schools. For example, we had within our constituency children who would not qualify for SPED schools but are being taken care of by their mothers, predominantly single mothers. We surfaced this to MOE. Would there be some form of support that MOE could give to the students, whether financial or some form of care, or some form of encouragement? In my constituency, we give book prizes from funds raised by the community to this group. But it would be nice to have the Government come in and also say, \"Well done, keep on being courageous.\" Is this possible?
\tPage: 31
\tMs Sim Ann: Madam, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his supplementary question. The vast majority of students with special needs – if the needs are mild in nature, they can be in our mainstream schools. But if they are moderate to severe in nature, the vast majority of them are being educated in our SPED schools. I imagine the cases that Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned may be very specific in nature. For every child, we want to see how best we can support his or her learning, whatever the case of the difficulty and whatever the individual's circumstance that he or she may be in. So, we would like to look at such cases separately and in a very customised way.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effective Date of Enhanced Baby Bonus and Medisave Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister how is the effective date of the enhanced Baby Bonus and Medisave grant for newborns in the Marriage and Parenthood Package determined and if it can be extended to cover all Singapore citizen children born on or after 1 January 2012.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the question and I am also happy that she is very focused on the issue of marriage and parenthood.
The enhancements to the Marriage and Parenthood Package were announced on 21 January 2013. Many of the enhancements are effective from January 2013. These include the enhanced co-funding for Assisted Reproduction Technology treatment, alignment in accouchement fees, and the Government-Paid Maternity Benefit which took effect from 1 January 2013, as well as the Parenthood Priority Scheme and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme which were launched by HDB in the last week of January.
The Government also encouraged employers to voluntarily grant the new and enhanced leave measures to their employees from 1 January 2013, and employers will be reimbursed by the Government if they do so. In other words, if they voluntarily do so before the legislation is passed, we will also honour and give them the grants that we have promised. These include Paternity Leave, Shared Parental Leave and the Extended Child Care Leave.
\tPage: 32
To be inclusive, the Government has exercised flexibility for the enhanced Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the new Medisave grant for newborns to apply to births on, or after 26 August 2012. So, although we announced the package in January, we have decided to make the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the Medisave grant effective on or after 26 August. This was the date of the National Day Rally when these enhancements were first mentioned.
We recognise that couples wish to receive as much support as possible and may be disappointed that they have missed these start dates. However, we seek the public's understanding that we have to specify the start dates because this is important for us to have administrative efficiency when we make public announcements.
While we have tried to be as inclusive as possible, whichever start date is chosen, there will be always be some who will marginally miss the start date. Those who do not qualify for the latest enhancements will still be eligible for the existing benefits under the Marriage and Parenthood Package. These include the existing Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Child Development Account co-savings, tax benefits, the foreign domestic worker levy concession, as well as existing leave provisions, such as the 16-week maternity leave and childcare leave of six days per year for parents with children aged 0-6 years.
Parents of children born before 26 August 2012 can also benefit from the extended childcare leave of two days per year for children aged 7-12 years, and the enhanced infant care and childcare subsidies.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the reply. I have four supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Minister agree that 26 of August 2012 is a date that is too arbitrary?
Secondly, could there be a better defined criteria, for example, dated from the date of announcement earlier this year, one year back? This is so that parents of children who are at least one year or younger can benefit from the Enhanced Baby Bonus Package.
The third question: would the Minister think that this is fair to the parents who had heeded the previous calls for more babies, since they have already given birth and contributed to the baby pool? Would it not be unfair to them in this instance?
\tPage: 33
And lastly, would the Minister agree that the Baby Bonus, in general as a concept, would help to encourage more babies in a family, given that couples who already have babies are more likely to have more babies?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Is 26 August 2012 arbitrary? I think, for most Government policies, it is very rare for us to implement measures or policies retrospectively. But for this particular case, we have taken cognisance of the hopes of many couples and we have actually back-dated the policy to the day when these measures were first alluded to by the Prime Minister.
So, it is not an arbitrary date. In fact, we have, in a way, back-dated these measures for baby cash bonus, as well as Medisave grants, to a date that is before the details were actually announced. Whether we should have a defined criterion of one year prior or two years prior, as I mentioned earlier, we would prefer not to have measures that are retrospectively applied. I am sure that if we had heeded the call of the Member and applied the effective date to one year prior to the announcement in January, those who have just missed the deadline would also say that it is unfair to them. Taking all views together, we believe that it is just good practice not to retrospectively apply measures as much as we can.
Whether it is fair to parents, I would like to say that we have to adjust our measures from time to time. Whenever we improve or change our policies and incentives, unfortunately, some people may feel that they have not been able to take advantage of the new enhancements, but this is how things work. It is not possible for us to back-date all future announcements and make the commitment to apply benefits to all cases retrospectively. My encouragement to the parents who feel that they are disappointed by these measures, that we have not back-dated, that perhaps they would consider having more babies, and then these new babies would benefit from the enhanced package.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development of Sports Administration and Management Expertise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether talent development in the fields of sports administration and management is a key priority for the growth of the local sporting sector;
\tPage: 34
and (b) if so, how will these areas be developed.
\t
The Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, good sports administration and management are, indeed, important to the development of sports in Singapore. So, the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) works closely with the National Sports Associations (NSAs) to help them upgrade their administrative and management capabilities. SSC does so in a few ways.
First, SSC provides the NSAs with grants which allow them to pay their key management staff competitive salaries and send them for relevant training.
Secondly, SSC has an NSA Organisational Excellence (OE) framework which helps NSAs assess how well their organisation is performing and identify areas where they need to improve their administrative capabilities.
SSC also continues to work with local and foreign educational institutions to offer diploma and degree courses in sports administration and management. Examples include the Sports Science and Management Degree offered by the Nanyang Technological University, and opportunities for local students to gain sports-related education and industry experience under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Oregon.
In the coming year, my Ministry and the SSC will be undertaking a study to address the longer term manpower needs of the sports sector. As part of this study, we will look at further measures to ensure a stable supply of expertise in sports administration and management.
\tMr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and thank you to the Acting Minister for the reply. It is heartening to hear that SSC does focus on administrative excellence when it comes to the NSAs' management. I declare my interest as President of two NSAs. I would like to point out, though, that through my own experience helming two associations, and also from feedback from other similar federations, that the financial support given to the associations to hire staff is not significant. In a lot of cases, they are not matched to market and, in some cases, they do not even keep pace with inflation on a year-to-year basis. So, it is very hard for a lot of us to attract good talent.
As we move forward to professionalise sports in Singapore, and as we expect more from our athletes in terms of dedication and sacrifice, it only
\tPage: 35
benefits to have good administrative support to make sure that organisations are well-run, and athletes can benefit from that. In terms of a broader basis to develop administrative excellence, would the Ministry consider implementing more dedicated educational options for sports administrators, specifically, maybe a university course or even to having a dedicated university for sports administration as we move forward, with the development of the Sports Hub and other similar initiatives?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, as I have mentioned, we would like to do a more comprehensive study on the manpower needs of the sports sector, looking at the competencies and skills that we would require for sports administration and management. We would have to engage stakeholders, the NSAs in particular, and the sports industry, to find out what competencies and skills we are lacking, what sort of salary benchmarks we are aiming for, and then what implications this will mean in terms of our financial support and resources.
On the supply side, in order to provide sufficient manpower with these sorts of competencies and skills, we would also then have to engage our Universities and our institutions of higher learning to look at what new programmes we will need to put in place, whether at the diploma or the degree level. These are plans that we have as part of this broader manpower study.
\tMr Christopher de Souza: Mdm Speaker, I would like to speak as a sportsman. I had the privilege of representing Singapore for over 16 years in hockey. When the Singapore Hockey Federation was well-staffed by administrative assistants and manpower assistants, the Singapore Team performed better. It has a direct impact on how we performed on the pitch for our country. And therefore, I would like to ask whether more can be done to give grants – whether full grants or partial grants – especially for administrative assistants or manpower assistants to manage fixtures, overseas trainings, friendly matches, personal development of players, and so on. A good and well-staffed federation, from personal experience, translates into more goals on the scoreboard for Singapore and more podium finishes for our country.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I thank the hon Member for the follow-up question. As I mentioned, it is something that we are looking at. We are aware of the importance of administration within the NSAs and the impact that good administration can have on the quality of performance of our athletes and teams. Grants or support from the SSC is one aspect of it, but we think it has to be looked at in a more comprehensive manner, looking at the organisational
\tPage: 36
excellence within the NSAs, looking at the competencies and skill-sets that are required in sports administration and management. So, we hope to do this in a more holistic fashion, and if indeed more support and resources are required, we would be prepared to do so.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Nicholas Fang, last question.
\tMr Nicholas Fang: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. One last supplementary question. As we move forward in terms of fund-raising efforts by the different sports and sports associations, would the Ministry consider highlighting sports administration excellence as one of the key factors that supporters of sports corporations would want to consider when they look at giving financial support, and not just dedicating only to having their logos on athletes' jackets and uniforms and things like that. It is in helping everybody understand, as Mr Christopher de Souza also mentioned, that good administration would contribute to the results as a whole; it is not purely just the training or the equipment anymore.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Member for the suggestion. It is something we will take up and consider with SSC, and we will see how best to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Help for Families with Children to Buy Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –
17 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether an additional cash grant can be considered for HDB first-timers with at least a child; and (b) whether priority can be given to families who want to upgrade to a bigger HDB flat as a result of having more than one child.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Question No 17.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Mdm Speaker, HDB's housing subsidies, grants and priority schemes for new flat allocation are generally designed to help all eligible home buyers, whether they have children or not. To encourage child birth, we have a separate Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package which has just been significantly enhanced. When the M&P package is next reviewed, we
\tPage: 37
can think about the two and other proposals.
18 Mr Alex Yam asked \tthe Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many claims of work injury compensation have been filed with the Ministry since the changes to the Work Injury Compensation Act took effect on 1 June 2012; (b) how many claims have been awarded in favour of workers; (c) what are the main causes of work injury; and (d) what action will the Ministry take against employers who do not pay compensation to their workers after the award of claims.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi) (for the Acting Minister for Manpower): Madam, the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) is a no-fault liability system that provides a low-cost and expeditious alternative to common law to settle work-related injury claims. Last year, the Ministry of Manpower made amendments to the Act to ensure that it continues to strike a fair balance between compensation for employees and the obligations placed on employers. We increased the compensation limits, clarified the requirements for insurers and also made revisions to ensure that the WICA framework remains expeditious.
Since the amended Act took effect in June 2012, we have received approximately 7,300 claims, out of which about 5,400 cases have been resolved. The remaining cases are in various stages of processing. About 80% of the cases are straightforward cases and typically take between one and six months to resolve. More complex cases may involve disputes between parties or injuries that require more time to stabilise. These cases take longer to resolve as we need to work with the various stakeholders, such as the worker, employer, insurer and the treating hospital, to ensure a fair outcome.
Of the 5,400 claims resolved, about 94%, or about 5,100 claims, were awarded in favour of the injured employees. The remaining 6%, or about 300 claims, were either found to be non-work related, or were withdrawn. The majority of claims awarded in favour of employees were for injuries that resulted from being struck by objects or from slips, trips and falls.
Page: 38
Under WICA, employers are required to pay the compensation determined by the Commissioner for Labour to the claimant within 21 days from the service of the Notice of Assessment or after the Order is made. The vast majority of employers are compliant with the law and none of the cases reported since the amendment of the Act has failed to compensate their employees. MOM takes a strong stance against errant employers who fail to compensate their employees and regularly conducts audits to ensure that employers comply with the Work Injury Compensation Insurance requirements. Errant employers will be prosecuted and may also be barred from hiring foreign workers. If convicted, employers face a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 12 months. Over the last five years, MOM has convicted six employers for failure to pay the compensation.
MOM will also not hesitate to take action against workers who exploit the system by making fraudulent claims. Such claims are not only deceitful, but also take up precious investigation resources and delay the resolution of genuine cases. If found guilty, they face a maximum fine of $15,000 and/or a jail term of up to 12 months.
As we continue to safeguard the interest of injured workers and ensure that WICA remains an expeditious process, I would like to remind all stakeholders not to view compensation as a justified end to accidents. No amount of money can alleviate the pain and suffering inflicted on injured workers and their families. Our primary goal should, and must always be, to prevent accidents and make workplaces safer and healthier for all.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19, 22, 28-31, 33, 37 and 39 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 20-21, 23-27, 32, 34-36, 38 and 40 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 6 February 2013.]
Page: 39
","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":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [4 February 2013], (proc text)]
[(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.\" – [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Health and Manpower (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mdm Speaker, at the risk of over simplification, this debate is a bit of an anomaly. In many parts of the world, countries are struggling with little or no economic growth.
Governments are racking their best brains on how to spur growth, create jobs and balance their books. Here, despite economic slowdown in countries like the US and the EU, we are in a happy position of having a generally tight labour market, a sound fiscal position and substantial household wealth.
Yet, there are many voices urging the Government to pursue lower growth targets while many elsewhere are crying out for a diametrically opposite outcome.
The reason is that many Singaporeans think that the cost of growth is too much to bear and prefer less to more – less growth, lower immigration, lower house prices, less congestion and so on. These are real concerns that must be addressed.
At the same time, we are facing a demographic time bomb that creates a conundrum for us – how and to what extent can we reverse the population decline from low TFR while safeguarding Singaporeans' interests and maintaining an environment that supports a high quality of life? Underlying this conundrum is the fundamental question implicit in the Population White Paper – what kind of Singapore do we want?
Page: 40
Contrary to what some critics have charged, the Population White Paper is not fixated with economic growth per se. Economic growth is never and should never be an end in itself.
The White Paper is, in fact, about Singaporeans – about ensuring Singaporeans' well-being into the future. It seeks to enable Singaporeans to continue to live in a harmonious society, with strong supportive families, good jobs and a good quality of life. By any account, the Paper's assumption of GDP growth of 3% to 5% up to 2020, falling to 2% to 3% in the next decade, is less than half of the 5.6% average annual growth in the 2000s and the 7% growth in the two decades prior. Partly, the reduced GDP numbers recognise that with a higher base today, and as we mature further, our economy cannot grow at the elevated levels we had enjoyed previously. Equally important, it also highlights that the premise of the White Paper is not a \"growth at all costs\" strategy. That growth, and the increase in foreign workforce accompanying that growth, must be socially sustainable.
The Workers' Party has proposed to moderate the GDP growth projections in the White Paper down by 0.5% to 1%, thereby bringing the GDP growth to 2.5% to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and 1.5% to 2.5% per year in the next decade. They assume similar productivity growth assumptions of 2% to 3% per annum this decade and 1% to 2% per annum next decade. But – and this seems to be the key plank of their programme – they propose to grow the resident workforce by at least 1% per annum by encouraging older workers, foreign spouses and economically inactive women to join the workforce. With this, they project that the population in 2030 will be 5.9 million, or one million less than the 6.9 million figure in the Paper.
The hon Member for Aljunied has a point. We should tap on the pool of older workers, back-to-work women and foreign spouses for our workforce. Already, foreign spouses who are on LTVP-Plus are allowed to work.
Also, we have been promoting the employment of older workers and encouraging economically inactive women to return to work with a host of initiatives, such as the Special Employment Credit, Advantage, Flexi Works! and WoW! And will continue to strengthen these schemes. The employment of older workers aged 65 to 69 years, for instance, at 36.9% as at 2012, is one of the highest in the world and behind only South Korea and Japan. In fact, our assumptions for the resident workforce's percentage point contribution to total workforce growth, which is at 0.7% for the rest of this decade, have already taken into account that more older workers, women and so on, will continue to work or return to work. So, one doubts how much more we could increase the
\tPage: 41
workforce through this means.
In the next decade, our projections of the resident workforce growth are close to zero, as the number of Singaporeans expected to join the workforce is barely enough to offset the numbers expected to leave the workforce.
Any increase in TFR, if we are successful in our efforts to this end, will only be felt after 2030 since babies born this year would only be 17 years of age by 2030.
Hence, it will be useful to understand how the Workers' Party proposes to grow the resident workforce by at least 1% per annum.
Based on the Workers' Party's proposal of moderating GDP growth, the corresponding total workforce growth actually works out to 0.5 % per annum for the next two decades. This is less than one sixth of the 3.3% total workforce growth over the last 30 years. Based on our estimates, our resident workforce's contribution to total labour force growth could reach 0.7% per annum up to 2020, whilst the Workers' Party proposes to grow this by at least 1% per annum, and yet only have 0.5% total workforce growth from now till 2030.
If this were so, is the Workers' Party proposing having no or negative growth in foreign workers each year from now till 2030?
Businesses are already feeling the pain of tighter foreign manpower restrictions over the last few years. They have collectively expressed horror over the White Paper's projected slowdown in workforce growth to about 1% to 2% in this decade and then to 1% in the next decade. Many companies, especially SMEs, are reportedly scrapping expansion plans or thinking of moving out their plants. They are understandably worried that further foreign manpower restrictions will cripple their businesses. Whilst raising productivity through innovation, technology and process improvement can help reduce their dependence on labour, there is also a limit as to how far this can go. Already, the productivity targets of 2% to 3% per annum till 2020, and then 1% to 2% after 2020 to 2030 are stretch targets.
By comparison, we have, on average, only managed productivity growth of just 1.8% per annum over the last decade. This is despite generous incentives for companies to take advantage of and numerous discussions with business groups and employers to refine the schemes and ease the path for firms to
\tPage: 42
access them.
Hence, the Workers' Party's proposal to sharply cut workforce growth to 0.5% per annum would exact punishing cost on our local businesses and even some MNCs and, in fact, there will be a flow-through on cost to the average Singaporeans. Under this scenario, many companies are likely to fold or move out of Singapore whilst others will not be attracted to set up shop here, resulting in fewer jobs for Singaporeans. Hence, to curb immigration or foreign workforce growth with such a proposal in order to help safeguard Singaporeans could, in an ironic twist, hurt the very people this reversal is intended to help.
It will be instructive to find out from our Workers' Party Members of Parliament what this proposed 0.5% per annum workforce growth will translate into in terms of growth in resident and foreign workforce, as well as the number of new citizens and PRs per year.
Be that as it may be, we are also committed to continue to look at ways to further improve productivity, increase our resident labour force participation rate and, of course, increase our TFR so that we can reduce the need to augment our population and workforce with new immigrants and foreign workers. This could then result in a lower population than projected in the future.
One of the key goals of the Population White Paper is to maintain a strong Singaporean Core. But what does it mean to maintain a strong Singaporean Core? Who forms the Singaporean Core? I submit that the Singaporean Core must comprise all Singapore citizens, local-born or otherwise, who have pledged allegiance to Singapore and share our key values, such as hard work, meritocracy and multiculturalism.
Singapore has historically been an immigrant society and has benefited from the diversity and energy that new citizens bring. New citizens, drawn to the peace, harmony and security Singapore has to offer, will need time to adjust to life here. As strangers in a strange land, they will continue to seek comfort among their own kind in as much as we Singaporeans tend to cluster when we live or work overseas. Their backgrounds, habits and cultural norms may sometimes puzzle us, or even grate us.
We need to develop a healthy sense of mutual respect not to allow differences to divide us. This should also not detract us from what they can offer. Indeed, Singapore would not be the thriving city it is without the contributions of our forefathers, most of whom were migrants. Many new citizens continue
\tPage: 43
to make good contributions to Singapore. Hence, all citizens should be treated equally and with respect, as they have made the conscious decision to take up the pink identity card and forge a common future with us here. It is unhelpful and unfair to distinguish between local-born Singaporeans – or, as the hon Member for Aljunied said yesterday, \"indigenous Singaporeans\" – and new citizens and cast doubts on the loyalty of the latter. To do so will generate a sense of unwelcome to future groups of people who seek to build their lives and families here.
Like many in this House, I myself was not born in Singapore, but I decided to cast my lot with Singaporeans. So, does that make me any less of a Singapore citizen than someone born in Singapore?
As much as any new citizen could pack up and leave Singapore, so could any other Singaporean. Instead, we should continue to enhance our integration efforts to help new citizens adapt to our Singaporean way of life and sink deep roots while adding to Singapore's rich diversity. It will take time, perhaps one generation, for the children of these new citizens to undergo the same rites of passage as our home-grown children – schooling and National Service – to develop a stronger Singapore identity.
As Deputy Prime Minister Teo and many others in this House have noted, the best way to strengthen the Singaporean Core must be to encourage Singaporeans – new and old – to marry and have children. The Marriage and Parenthood Package was first introduced in 2001 and then enhanced in 2005 and 2008 to strengthen the pro-family environment in Singapore.
The latest round of new measures and enhancements announced is the third incarnation of the Marriage and Parenthood Package and has taken extensive feedback received from Singaporeans over the past year. It will increase the cost of the package from $1.6 billion to $2 billion a year. The enhanced package includes measures which signal paradigm shifts, such as paternity leave and MediShield for newly-diagnosed congenital and neonatal conditions. Hence, far from being half-hearted in promoting Marriage and Parenthood, as the hon Members Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faishal Manap have claimed, I would say that the Government has put much effort and heart to promote Marriage and Parenthood.
The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim brought up the example of South Korea as a country that has successfully reversed their falling TFR from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. She highlighted some measures adopted by the Korean
\tPage: 44
government which could have contributed to their success, such as institutional support for family life and promoting gender equality within the family. I thank her for highlighting this example but I would like to note that the NPTD, in crafting the Marriage and Parenthood Package, has, in fact, looked quite exhaustively at the policies of many countries, including South Korea, and will continue to monitor them. Whilst it is commendable that South Korea has managed to raise its TFR to 1.23 in 2010 and, in fact, 1.24 in 2011, this is still far below the replacement rate, and not much higher than that of Singapore's 1.2 in 2011. In fact, I understand that the preliminary estimate of the TFR for 2012 in Korea is 1.23. This compares to our estimate of between 1.28 and 1.3 for 2012, due to the dragon year effect. Moreover, while Singapore is a city-state, South Korea is a large country, and one would expect that the TFR within a major city like Seoul could well be lower.
Undoubtedly, the Government will continue with its efforts to promote marriage and parenthood as a fundamental means to strengthen the Singaporean Core, but, clearly, based on the experiences of other countries, reversal in TFR is a challenge and will take time. We will need all Singaporeans to do their part for this to happen.
Many Singaporeans have expressed discomfort not just with the projected upper bound population of 6.9 million in 2030 but also that the Singapore citizen population is estimated to comprise only 55% of the total population in 2030. Will we Singaporeans be strangers in our own land? Will this irrevocably change the character of our society and dilute our national identity, as the Workers' Party has also argued? Will we eventually become like the Middle East oil states where locals constitute only 10% of the entire population and the rest are contract workers, with all the attendent social problems this might bring? This is a legitimate concern, but somewhat misplaced, because, as noted by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, the 6.5 million to 6.9 million population figures are estimates, with the 6.9 million as the worst-case scenario necessary for planning purposes.
If we succeed in reversing the TFR, improving productivity beyond our targets, harnessing technology and innovation, as well as getting more older workers and women to join the workforce, then our population may not reach 6.9 million and the number of foreigners allowed in will be lower. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo noted, if we can ensure the well-being of Singaporeans 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 at the upper end of the range so that we do not get caught out.
Page: 45
Moreover, the Singaporean Core itself is not homogenous like the Middle East or Japan. The core, in fact, comprises several ethnic groups with distinct characteristics but which are bound together by common experiences and shared values. It has always been porous, allowing others to enter and enlarge the core. We should be mindful of not creating an \"us\" and \"them\" mentality.
Mdm Speaker, the polarised reactions to the Population White Paper by individual Singaporeans and businesses show dilemmas that both the Government and all Singaporeans have to grapple with.
The Government is taking a bold step to bring this highly contentious topic to the table for Singaporeans to debate, fully cognisant that it will generate much heat – as, indeed, it has – when many other governments have largely chosen to shy away from the issue. This goes to show that our ageing and shrinking population that will affect the future of Singaporeans and Singapore is a matter of grave concern to the Government. We do not want to shirk from our responsibility by sidelining strategic issues. It is important to surface this issue early and plan ahead. The White Paper lays the foundation and guides the demographic course for our nation so that our young people today can have a good future tomorrow.
It is as much about building a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore as it is about a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore. The two are intertwined. Madam, I support the Motion.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, like Members before me who have spoken, I struggled through the various trade-offs and the dilemmas that were presented in the White Paper. As a Member serving in a ward that also experienced under-provision of transport infrastructure, bus services and other amenities, I find it difficult to contemplate that we need even more headcount to stay viable as a country and it will bring a higher quality of life for our fellow citizens. This is what my heart tells me. Can we really take in more? That is the question.
But let us take a step back and use this White Paper to search the truth. Let the head and logic do the work first. Thereafter, we can hear what our heart tells us and see how we could adjust.
Page: 46
What we are debating in this House is a long-term challenge that has real implications on the lives and well-being of Singaporeans when they grow old and younger Singaporeans who would shoulder the responsibilities of taking care of our fast-growing number of ageing citizens.
To start with, we are faced with hard choices and we know all too well that there are limited options available.
So, let us go through the decision tree. The first decision is, given the grim ageing demographic, should we have a policy of zero population growth? We are not even talking about negative, I think that is out. But let us say zero population growth. What would happen if we have zero population growth? The truth is, come 2020, the number of working citizens will decline because the number of citizens retiring will be more than those entering the workforce. It will have direct contraction effects on the economy. It would also mean a heavier economic load to the smaller base of working citizens who have to support a much bigger base of retired citizens. Inevitably, taxes will need to be raise not just because of the smaller base of tax-paying citizens but also the expected higher social spending for a larger base of retired citizens.
Even at a slower workforce growth rate of 1% to 2%, as projected in the White Paper, the Singapore Business Federation is already warning of devastating consequences for many companies; mostly SMEs. Companies will not have the headcount to grow their business. Given our circumstances as a small island state with no natural resources, if we are faced with a prolonged stagnant economy, would we still have the competitive ability to earn the foreign exchange to pay for what we import? Our food, energy, raw materials, basic needs are almost all imported and paid for by the foreign exchange that we earn because of our competitive economy. Consumers of the world do not owe us a living and we have to earn our keep. So, it is also about economic security.
With a low fertility rate, ageing population and shrinking labour force all coming together, we are, indeed, facing a demographic time bomb and it had already started ticking away last year when the first batch of the Baby-Boomer generation entered 62 years of age.
So, I think most Singaporeans would agree that zero population growth is not tenable at this stage of our development. Not at a time when a mega Baby-Boomer generation is entering into retirement in the next 20 years.
Page: 47
If population growth rate cannot be zero, then the next decision would be – what should be the acceptable rate of growth: 1%, 2%, 3% or more?
In the last 30 years, the country's population grew at a rate of 2.5% per year. I do not think we can continue to grow at that rate. Neither should we grow at zero percent. Indeed, either extreme of 0% or 2.5% growth rate would be considered as worst-case scenario. So, the answer is probably somewhere in between.
The White Paper projected that we grow at a lower rate of between 1.1% and 1.6% over the next 18 years; about half the growth rate of the last 30 years. At that population growth, our projected total workforce growth would be between 1% and 2% from now till 2020 and 1% from 2020 onwards; a rate of growth that worries the businesses a great deal. This is much lower than the 3.3% per year in the last three decades. So, it is a major squeeze to the businesses, but we have to face up to the constraints.
So, from a pace of growth standpoint, the 1.1% to 1.6% range appears logical. Well, some would argue we can have a bit more or less but it does not change the stark trade-offs that we are confronted with.
Like what Deputy Prime Minister Teo said yesterday, we are talking about major shifts that will significantly slow down the growth rate of our workforce and population. It will definitely have significant ramifications on our economy, including employment and inflation.
Even with a slower rate of growth, it would still mean that more foreigners will be entering the workforce in Singapore and more foreigners will reside in Singapore; a touchy point for many Singaporeans. The key concerns are: competition, crowdedness and a weakened Singaporean Core. These are all valid concerns.
The key thrust of strengthening our Singaporean Core in the workforce is to help enhance the employability of Singaporeans and prepare Singaporeans for the competition. We need to help our citizens better maximise our so-called \"home ground advantage\" and benefit from the job opportunities available and get higher salaries. What would work against the strengthening of the Singaporean Core is where foreigners are seen to be taking up jobs that Singaporeans can do. There are clearly still many examples of that in some sectors. We need employers to be conscious of that.
Page: 48
Notwithstanding the foreigners in our workforce, Singapore still enjoyed one of the lowest citizen unemployment rates in the world at about 2%. And it is not by accident. Our bustling economy is, of course, one key factor. But the optimal combination of local workforce complemented by foreign labour is also another key competitive edge of our companies here. It helps us earn a slice of the global economic pie.
Having a foreign workforce does help to buffer the citizen workforce against the economic cycles. In a downturn or an economic slowdown, we can always tighten the work permits and Employment Passes to trim down the foreign workforce. It has happened during the downturn in 2001 and 2009 where foreign labour was significantly reduced then. I am sure the Government will again use this tool in similar circumstances so that citizen unemployment will be kept to the minimal. There is no point keeping the foreigners here if there are no jobs and also no jobs for Singaporeans. So, that would be a good buffer for us.
Above all, we must never abandon those that are left behind from the competition. In an increasingly competitive landscape, we need an even stronger safety net so that no one is left behind. It is every such effort that reinforces our social compact so that Singaporeans form the core and heart of our nation.
Madam, we need to invest big to create space and capacity to cope with higher population and to sustain a high quality of living environment. We also need a long-term economic strategy that can continue to create good and fulfilling jobs for our citizens, bearing in mind, come 2020, we will have at least 16,000 Singaporeans per year graduating from local Universities and many others from the Polytechnics and ITEs. We need to keep creating good employment, good jobs, for these graduates every year. No mean feat. Economic growth sustains our financial ability to pay for the higher social spending so that our retired citizens can age with dignity and security. Too low an economic growth will change that equation and things may not balance out.
This is exactly what this Population White Paper and Land Use Plan are all about. And I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Teo that it is about doing the balancing acts. And that every issue is interlinked with one another and so you cannot just take one piece and say we should do more or do less. Every piece is linked.
On the land space to accommodate the upper end of the projected population number; we have to have trust and faith in our planners'
\tPage: 49
professional judgement that the island can accommodate the top end number comfortably and our city will still be liveable even with the top end being met. I think that is important. Even at the upper end of the population limit, our population density is still lower than many of the cities in the world. However, like Members before me, I am more concerned about the high proportion of foreigners relative to citizens residing in this island come 2030. I cannot imagine what kind of Singapore it would be like where we have a high proportion of foreigners, as high as 45%.
Due credit must be given to the White Paper for pointing this out so that we know this possible scenario. And we still have time to prevent this from happening. Besides, stronger incentives to improve citizen fertility rate and increase productivity to reduce dependence on foreign workers, we should test-bed new business ideas, models and technology where foreigners can work for us and yet remain in their home country, for example, by way of off-shoring. Given our domestic constraints and our small domestic markets, we need even more local-bred companies who are deeply rooted in Singapore but yet derive more of their revenue from overseas through their regionalisation efforts. A GNP output concept would be a more meaningful indicator than the GDP for Singapore going forward.
In fact, this possible threat with regard to Singaporean Core being weakened can be a rallying call or \"call-to-action\" where we mobilise our citizens to work together to prevent this dreadful scenario from happening. The key is to prevent the citizen population from shrinking. We can still act now.
I agree with the Government's approach to be open and truthful with our people on the long-term challenges that we face and sharing honestly with our people what are the tough choices to tackle the challenges. The White Paper has generated strong reactions but I rather that the Government be honest about what it intends to do rather than keep this as classified information, and that our stakeholders would not need to second guess what are the scenarios that the Government envisages and what the Government's plans will be.
But I would urge the Government to consider the feedback and suggestions thrown up in this debate as we seek deeper understanding and consensus on this complex challenge. Where possible, the Government should be open to making changes and adjustments to our plans. That way, there will be a stronger sense of ownership to this national challenge where we can all work
\tPage: 50
together to overcome.
Hence, I suggest we should carry on medium-term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changes in domestic and external circumstances. This has to be ongoing.
Madam, the next part of my speech will focus on the short-term issues that are related to the White Paper.
Without demonstrating that we can resolve our current bottlenecks and the under-provision of infrastructures and services, the long-term plan, however exciting it may look, will be less meaningful to Singaporeans.
For Singaporeans caught in daily congestions on the roads and the crowded public transport, it is difficult to comprehend that we need even more people on this island and that all these will get better in the long term. The housing imbalances of the last three to four years have caused lots of angst to would-be home buyers. High COVs, long waiting time for BTOs and the fear of being caught behind the curve as property prices rise, are real problems and what many Singaporeans live through. Lack of affordable eateries has led to higher stall rentals and, as a result, higher food prices.
The current strains on our infrastructure, particularly in transport, has somewhat dented public confidence in the Government's ability to deliver good and reliable public infrastructures and services. We need to restore this confidence. The Government has a long track record of delivering excellent public infrastructure in the past and I am confident we can solve these bottlenecks. It requires the resolve, cutting the red tape and, of course, the resources and the necessary funding.
The Government needs to act decisively and swiftly, particularly in the area of transport. We need to speed up the bus capacity enhancement programme. Buses are still very crowded during the peak hours and chaotic scenes at bus stops are daily occurrences. Feeder services are inadequate and prolong the overall commuting time. While there are new MRT lines being constructed and planned, it will take many more years before they are ready. In the interim years, we need a major step-up in the provision of buses. The first-round implementation of BSEP, while good, hardly moves the needle too much and we need a stronger dose to see real meaningful improvements. If need be, the Government must be prepared to upsize the $1.1 billion BSEP if it is inadequate.
\tPage: 51
If the current two public transport operators are incapable of increasing the bus fleets fast enough, we should look to other private operators to do the job.
In 2010, I remember seeing how the Resort World Singapore was able to step up their free shuttle bus services from the heartlands to the IR, all in a matter of a few months, with their services running as late as 2.30 am. In fact, they were looking to expand their free shuttle bus services to more HDB towns until I raised this concern in Parliament and then the service was halted. Why is it that the IR operator could build up such an extensive bus service network so fast while our two experienced public transport operators are unable to cope and deliver? I am glad I pushed for the stoppage then as it not only made it less convenient for heartlanders to gamble at the casino but it also freed up bus drivers that would otherwise be driving for the IR operator. If the existing two PTOs do not have the bandwidth to expand bus service capacity under BSEP, we should look to other private operators to do the job.
We also need to urgently solve the road transport bottlenecks. One of the frustrations when dealing with agencies like LTA and HDB is that they seem to have their plates full and they have limited bandwidth left to attend to and resolve the local bottleneck issues. Even if a solution has been identified, I get the sense that they are either having problems getting the necessary funding or the funding will take a long while to come. These have to change if we are serious about building a high quality living environment for a growing population.
If we have not already noticed that LTA and HDB are already up to their brim, I think we have to give them the full support so that they can do the job. In all fairness, they are all overwhelmed by the numerous requests, piling up from different quarters all over the island. At the same time, they also have their mega projects to oversee. So, clearly, the frontline agencies like LTA and HDB need to be given more resources and more funding if they are to quickly solve our current bottlenecks and ease the strains. In particular, greater approving authority should be delegated to lower levels so as to speed up the implementation of improvement projects, and more resources and funding are set aside to specifically solve local infrastructure problems.
Madam, besides transport, another major concern is the lack of affordable eateries. I am glad the Government has resumed building hawker centres, but the timeline to build 10 hawker centres in 10 years is far from aggressive and not aspiring enough. Hawker centres serve many purposes and, among others, help keep cost of living low. Given the expected population build-up, I would urge the Government to really build more and build faster. Instead of 10 hawker
\tPage: 52
centres in 10 years, we should be looking at building 20 hawker centres in five years. And hawker centres are not major capital expenditure items and does not take up significant construction capacity.
Madam, we need to agree on a roadmap to address the challenges of an ageing population and to articulate our land use plan to support future population projections. It is a matter of survivability for a small island state. I fully agree with Deputy Prime Minister Teo that it is more responsible to surface the issues and plan ahead while we are able to do so. It is a difficult choice but we must do what is right for Singaporeans of today and tomorrow. Hence, I support the Motion in the name of Deputy Prime Minister Teo.
However, reflecting the concerns raised by Singaporeans since the release of the White Paper, I propose amending the Motion to further reinforce the point that the House supports maintaining a strong Singaporean Core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children.
I also propose adding clarity to the Motion by recognising that population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructural planning and not a population target, a point that was further made clear by Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his speech yesterday.
Lastly, Madam, my belief is that we will not get buy-in from Singaporeans on our long-term plans if we do not demonstrate and commit to Singaporeans that we are serious in resolving our current bottlenecks and that, going forward, we will plan and invest in infrastructure ahead of demand.
We also need to assure Singaporeans that our population policies are meant to benefit our citizens and that we will carry out medium term reviews on our population policies to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans. So, Madam, with your consent, I would like to propose an amendment to the Motion.
Mdm Speaker: Can I have a copy of the amendment, Mr Liang?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mdm Speaker.]
Page: 53
Mdm Speaker: The amendment is in order. Are copies made available to Members of the House?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Yes, Madam, I do have copies. May I request the Clerk to distribute the proposed amendment to the Members? [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Liang, please move your amendment.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Madam, I beg to move,
[(proc text) Amendment No 1, in line 3, to delete the words \"population policy\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment No 2, at the end, to add \"projections; and supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking; and recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target; and calls on the Government to: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) place priority on resolving current strains on the infrastructure, particularly in transport; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (c) ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (d) carry out medium term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changing domestic and external circumstances.\" (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: The hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa has proposed two amendments. The first amendment is that in line 3, to leave out the words \"population policy\". The second amendment is that the words proposed by the Member be added at the end of the Motion. The copies are before Members. It may be convenient that the debate on the Original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single Question. Do I have hon Members' agreement on this?
Page: 54
Hon Members [(proc text) indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: The Question is, \"That the words proposed to be left out, be left out.\" Mr Zainudin Nordin.
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, the Government's White Paper on Population has drawn great public attention, and understandably so, because it outlines what Singapore will be like, and what Singaporeans can look forward to by 2030. I must congratulate the Government for a very comprehensive document, and the bold planning parameters and thoughtful policies that are outlined in the Paper.
As is often the case, the headline numbers are what have drawn public discussion. The biggest of these, of course, is the planning parameter of raising our population to 6.9 million, with 55% of these being Singaporeans. If this scenario comes to pass, and I say again, if this scenario comes to pass, we are talking about adding about 100,000 residents every year, until 2030. Hundred thousand more residents mean that much more demand for housing, transport, medical services, and other strains on our infrastructure. Given the experiences of Singaporeans following recent increases in our population, of overcrowding in our public transport and other public amenities, I was not surprised that many voiced concern, and some even voiced disbelief, over a larger population.
But I believe the Government is doing the right thing by making these planning parameters public as early as possible, so that Singaporeans can give their feedback, and be co-authors of what they want future Singapore to be, for them and for their children. I believe it would be worthwhile for the Government to take greater steps to explain the difference between planning parameters and specific targets or goals, so that Singaporeans can understand that plans are for discussion, and nothing is a foregone conclusion because we know nobody knows what is going to happen in the future.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to touch on three areas that my residents are concerned about. First, even as we plan to grow our population, and to ensure that majority of Singaporeans would hold white collar jobs as predicted in the future, we must assure ourselves that Singaporeans will have the opportunities to be the core workforce in every industry, and in every company. While we appreciate foreign investment, and the technical and managerial expertise this brings, we must strive to ensure that in addition to white collar work,
\tPage: 55
Singaporeans must be allowed to, over time, systematically take over core technical and management functions previously held by foreigners. The Government could put in place requirements to not only transfer technical knowledge, but also administrative and managerial functions, personal networks and other soft skills, so that even foreign companies in Singapore can be run by highly qualified and competent Singaporeans. With Singaporeans holding more senior positions, we would be able to see a narrowing of income gaps between high-income foreigners and locals, which is one stress point that makes foreigners less welcome here that we often hear about.
Secondly, in order for this to happen, we must ask ourselves whether our education and training systems are producing the right type of talent for the future. There is no doubt that our local institutions are ranked very highly for their academic quality, but we must be equally assured that we are equipping our future workforce with not only the right knowledge and skills, but also the right attitudes and worldviews to take on these higher level roles. Are we confident that our education system is forward looking enough to anticipate what knowledge and skills will be needed in 2030? It is really a challenging proposition. Let me just give an example. Someone who is 10 years old today, and in Primary school, will probably be a new worker in 2030 at the age of 27.
And yet, at the same time, someone who is 40 years old today would still be looking forward to be gainfully employed in 2030, at the age of 57. So, we will have to look into the future to account for the needs of the economy and reverse engineer education programmes for our young and for our current workforce. And if we are to expect our 40-year-olds to be relevant in the future, we will also have to train and have re-education programmes, so that he is not redundant in the future Singapore. It would be worthwhile to take a hard look at our education and training systems to see if they allow enough flexibility to take into account individual preferences, and yet are sufficiently geared towards the needs of the economy.
Mdm Speaker, as you probably also know, many residents are unsure if they can keep up with the demands of the future Singapore. Many are concerned about their low skills, and yet may not have the wherewithal to upgrade – for many of these reasons. So, even as we plan and prepare for the future, we must take care of the present, and assuage the fears of many ordinary Singaporeans who are concerned about their livelihoods today.
Finally, I want to touch on our policy responses. I believe it has become amply clear that an incremental or linear approach to policies can no longer work. So, we cannot simply say that an increase in our population, let us say,
\tPage: 56
for example, by 30% requires an increase in accompanying infrastructure, for example, MRT lines, by 30%. It is clear now that in this Paper, our policy makers are beginning to challenge themselves to make quantum improvements in their policy responses, and put Singaporeans at the core of every policy decision. Having good policies alone is not sufficient. It is important to be able to explain these policies and their assumptions, and the attendant constraints to the public, and to leave sufficient room for good suggestions to be incorporated. No longer does wisdom lie solely among our policymakers, but it also lies amongst Singaporeans, who are well-educated, who have travelled widely, and who have excellent suggestions, and these can also help to shape our policies in the future. And not least, we must make every effort to hear from the common man, who would feel the brunt of our policies, and ask them whether their lives are improved or made worse by our policies.
Mdm Speaker, many in this House may not want to hear this, but we are still some way away from regaining the trust and support of Singaporeans, and we will have to work doubly hard, and maybe triply hard to convince Singaporeans that our decisions are made with the best interest of every Singaporean at heart. Only then can we renew our social compact, and work together to achieve our vision of future Singapore.
Be that as it may, with this White Paper, the new land usage plan and the pro-family measures that had been announced recently show the clear intents of the Government and all aim to directly benefit Singaporeans and Singaporean families. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Mr Faisal Manap has raised the issue of equal opportunities for the Malays in Singapore in Parliament yesterday. I would like to emphasise that the meritocracy system gives opportunities for all Singaporeans without taking into account their background or race.
If we look at the achievements of the Malay community, I would like to give an example. The Malay/Muslim community in Singapore should be proud to have achieved significant progress in recent years under the meritocracy system. Malay students have achieved good results and the number of \"O\" and \"A\" Levels passes has increased. I am also proud because the number of MENDAKI Award recipients has also increased in recent years. Last year, 407 students received this prestigious award for their excellent academic achievements. This is an increase of 3% compared to 2011.
Page: 57
Mdm Speaker, I think it is not fair to give a perception that there is a quota system in the local Universities. Our educational system is based on meritocracy. Every student gets a place in the University because of his grades and performance. Is the Workers' Party saying that our students are not qualified to get places in the University? I would like to know his opinion.
We know the percentage of PMETs in our community has also increased from 7.2% to 27.8%, from 1980 to 2010. More training opportunities are given and we encourage Malay workers to join training and development programmes so that they will be able to upgrade their skills and employability and competitiveness. The employment opportunities in Singapore are given based on merit. We also have a system to have fair and equal working practices.
The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) was established to encourage the employers and employees to practise fair working policies. Any complaint on discrimination, whether it is based on gender, sex or race, is given serious concern.
Opportunities given by the SAF, just like other opportunities, are also based on meritocracy.
I believe last March, the Minister for Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen, had given an assurance to Mr Zaqy on the position of the Malays in the SAF. We have seen many Malays who have been appointed to higher and more challenging positions in the SAF, in line with the higher educational qualifications in our community. There are more full-time Malay SAF personnel holding high posts in the SAF. As long as they are capable and committed, Singaporean Malays will be given the opportunity to serve the country.
In a written answer to Ms Sylvia Lim in November 2011, Dr Ng also said that there is no policy to give an exemption based on religion. Graduates from religious schools of all faiths are required to serve National Service. However, MINDEF received applications from male students of all religions to postpone their national service so that they will continue with their religious education, or to become a teacher or religious leader.
Mr Faisal has also quoted Berita Minggu newspaper about the Suara Musyawarah, which I think is not accurate in context. Just like other Singaporeans with various backgrounds, Malay/Muslims also want equal opportunities in the schools or in their workplace, whether in Singapore or overseas. It is human nature to want equal opportunities. I am very glad when
\tPage: 58
informed that the some Suara Musyawarah participants feel that there are equal opportunities for Singaporean locals, including the Malay/Muslim community. What is important for them is whether one is prepared to seize the opportunity, and chase their dreams and ambitions.
Mdm Speaker, the Malay/Muslim community has achieved progress as a result of their merits, ability and hard work, not because of any ethnic quota or policies that gave priorities to a certain community. I am saddened by the comment by Mr Faisal that the meritocratic system has no positive effect on our community. Is he suggesting that we should have an affirmative action programme for the community? Is this the stance of the Workers' Party?
(In English): In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the Government's White Paper on Population has given cause for optimism – real optimism, but also real concern among Singaporeans. Optimism because many can see the potential dynamic and vibrant Singapore with spanking facilities for Singaporeans, where residents can fulfil their hopes and aspirations, and achieve a better standard of living but, at the same time, they have concerns because some of my residents are asking whether there is enough space and also room for them in the future Singapore. These are residents from all walks of lives who are from low-skilled and low-income families to the high-income earning professionals. They are concerned and these are real concerns.
Let us work together because these legitimate concerns need to be addressed and the Government would be well advised to pay attention to these in its policy formulation. At the end of the day, we are working towards a vision where Singaporeans can enjoy the fruits of Singapore's future. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify. Please allow me to do it in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I did not say that whatever I said yesterday is the view of the Workers' Party. But whatever I said is the view of the community, that I, as a Member of Parliament voted in by the community, have to explain. And going back to the questions that I mentioned, it did not only come from me or Ms Sylvia Lim, but also from the hon Member of Parliament from Chua Chu Kang, Mr Zaqy Mohamad. So, what I would like to say is that the equality issues are still lingering in the minds of the Malay community. I hope the Government can do something to provide an explanation, or to find a way to explain, so that these matters can be reduced
\tPage: 59
within the minds of the Malay/Muslim community of Singapore.
Mr Zainudin Nordin (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I would like to say that it is dangerous to give a wrong impression. As Members of Parliament, we will have to explain what is actually happening in the community, to give good examples. If the views given by the Member of Parliament Mr Faisal are the feedback from the community, did he bring it to Parliament so that the Workers' Party can bring about better improvement? Is this his intention? Or is it to give a wrong impression in Parliament?
Mdm Speaker: I would like to remind Members to ask for clarification on what is said by the other Member. It is not to make a speech on any points. Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Madam. Like I said just now, the matter that I raised yesterday, is not only from me or Ms Sylvia Lim. In fact, the SAF issue, which is very sensitive to the Malay/Muslim community, was raised by Mr Zaqy Mohamad based on feedback he received from the Malay/Muslim community. That is what I said. Thank you.
Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Members of Parliament, good afternoon. Firstly, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
The White Paper on Population released by the Government last week has reflected the Government's position and resolve regarding the population issue. This has not only generated much concern in all corners of society, but has also sufficiently indicated the Government's resolve to create better employment opportunities for Singaporeans and an even more ideal living environment.
However, many people may not adequately comprehend the White Paper nor its intrinsic meaning. According to my personal understanding, before the Government plans any major reform, the Government would usually issue a White Paper to invite public opinion from Singaporeans to chart an even better policy. In the past few years, the population issue has been brewing, and has given rise to a chain reaction in many areas. Releasing a White Paper on
\tPage: 60
Population is timely and commendable. Sometimes, problems are not necessarily a bad thing. The presence of problems gives an opportunity for policies to be fine-tuned and amended. In my capacity as a representative of the business community, I would like to raise three points of view on the content of the White Paper on Population.
My first point: Singapore can only solve the social problems created by an ageing population if it were to continue with its stance of being an immigrant nation. Without sufficient numbers of foreigners, Singapore's enterprises would lose their competitiveness because of manpower shortage.
Changes in the population policy have an important impact on the Singaporean workforce. Singapore is a classic example of an export-oriented economy and has always been an immigrant nation. We lack natural resources, and manpower is a key factor of production that can help us to sustain economic growth. In the past decade or so, many economies in Asia have enjoyed high growth. In the midst of this dynamic region, we should remain competitive. Singapore should not go into recession due to our manpower shortage. Japan is a case in point.
Japan has been experiencing an economic slowdown over more than two decades, and is still unable to emerge from the doldrums. One key factor is the population structure. The ageing of Japan's population and its corresponding problems is a signal to us that if we do not plan ahead for the ageing population, the problems we may face in the future could be even more acute.
To be inclusive and innovative are unique characteristics of an immigrant nation. If we do not welcome foreigners, or if foreigners are unable to integrate into our society, our society would suffer, followed by the economy, and eventually everyone would be implicated. Hence, I feel that the Government has chosen to release the White Paper on Population at this time, based on a likely population scenario by the year 2030, is timely as it is the basis of a long-term view to avoid risk, and seeks to improve infrastructure, housing and transport facilities. In the past eight years, we have already experienced the bottlenecks of having our population grow far too quickly. These plans suggested in the White Paper are to redress these problems and avoid their recurrence.
In reality, any change in public policy would affect various sectors of society in different ways. Any gaps in implementation would have a bearing on society, and eventually the Government would have to take the responsibility.
Page: 61
Nothing is ever perfect, and there is no exception in the case of Singapore. We cannot expect to grasp both the fish and the bear's paw at the same time. In the same way, policy implementation has to consider all options. For example, the F&B and retail industries have encountered manpower recruitment difficulties for the past two years. Although everyone has attributed this to the tightening in the foreign worker policy, and that the younger generation of Singaporeans do not wish to work in the services sector, I feel that the difficulties of hiring staff for the F&B industry had begun even before this. When the Government was intent on promoting the tourism industry, and allowed two integrated resorts to be set up in Singapore, the two large investors both expressed being able to individually provide 10,000 employment opportunities for local Singaporeans, making a total of more than 20,000 jobs. As this happened during the financial tsunami, this news brought great relief to all. It was a rosy picture as it attracted foreign investment, created employment opportunities, and brought in tourist revenue. Looking back, there is only a limited supply amongst the local population which can be absorbed into the services sector. After the two integrated resorts started operations, the inevitable outcome was that other SMEs in the services sector started having an acute manpower shortage.
The second point I wish to make is that local enterprises form the core of the Singapore business community, creating not only employment opportunities for Singaporeans but providing services for MNCs. I urge the Government to regard local enterprises as a targeted group to groom and support.
Local enterprises are Singaporean enterprises and are key factors which eventually help to sustain the livelihood of Singaporeans. There are 151,400 local enterprises which employ 70% of the workforce and contribute to 50% of the GDP. MNCs and local enterprises contribute equally to the Singapore economy. However, we should realise that not all Singaporeans are able to excel in the MNC playing field. Thus, although local enterprises cannot match up to MNCs in productivity or economic contribution, they still form the core of the Singapore business community. Even if their pace of growth is slower than that of the MNCs, they are still Singaporean enterprises which help to create employment opportunities for Singaporeans and provide services for the MNCs.
In the future, when the ageing population grows more evident, the impact on local enterprises will be even greater. On the one hand, the number of older workers will increase, and energy levels and productivity would drop; on the other hand, because of the curbs on foreign workers, manpower supply would be diminished. Having said this, I would urge the Government to put greater
\tPage: 62
emphasis on local enterprises in the future. Singapore practices fair competition. In the economic race, those who are superlative would be richly rewarded. However, the Government's responsibility is to help those who lag behind complete the race.
In the White Paper, the Government would be increasing the ratio of PMETs to provide even better employment opportunities for Singaporeans. By 2030, two out of every three Singaporeans would be professionals, managers, executives and technical workers. As I view this idyllic blueprint, I also begin to worry. If our local enterprises cannot provide enough PMET jobs, do the white-collar jobs that require two out of three Singaporeans need to fall back on foreign investors to provide? If SMEs provide employment opportunities that do not fall under the PMET category, then would the SMEs' labour shortage problem become even more critical?
My third point is this: I hope that going forward, when the Government intends to implement a policy, it should use a more consolidated approach and increase the coordination efforts among Government agencies. I also hope that Singaporeans would adopt a more gracious attitude towards the Government's restructuring efforts and on the contribution by an immigrant population.
When the fertility rate of Singaporeans started to show signs of decline, the Government expedited its immigration rate in 2005. This was the right move at the time. However, while one Ministry had been increasing the number of immigrants into Singapore, the other Ministries in charge of transport, housing and other areas had not kept pace, and created the problems of over-congestion in the infrastructure.
Clearly, the just-released White Paper on Population has shown that within a short period of eight years since 2005, the population has increased by 1.1 million, and lowered the percentage of Singapore citizens to the current 62%. This percentage is likely to continue to plummet. This accelerated growth of immigrants and the problems of cultural assimilation has created social conflicts. The first illegal strike in 26 years is an example of such a social conflict that exists. Both the foreign workers and the companies paid a price.
Social integration is a process that takes time. Regardless of their length of stay in Singapore, new citizens or foreign workers have contributed to Singapore. We live in a globalised world. If Singaporeans can adopt the inclusive approach to foreigners, whether they are here to work, study or be tourists, including the 40% who are foreign spouses, they will have a good
\tPage: 63
impression and continue to contribute to Singapore even after they leave the country. When we are determining the ratio of Singaporeans in the overall population, apart from quantity we need to consider quality. We need a longer time frame to complete the population composition and to be vigilant on whether the social integration process is a smooth one.
I really appreciate the Government's candid admission of its mistake and admire its vision to review the entire scenario to put together a more long-range plan on population and related areas. I do hope that this plan would be a coordinated one and bring all Ministries and Government agencies together to look at the problem holistically and with requisite support.
To sustain the population and to create a dynamic living environment in Singapore is not only the responsibility of the Government but the responsibility of every Singaporean. While Singapore is still an immigrant society, we must still maintain a Singaporean Core in the population. Those Singaporeans who live here for more than two generations should not only be the largest ratio, but have to make up a significant core that has influence over the immigrant population. There are many grouses on the increasing numbers of foreigners. However, when social cohesion is facing such conflicts, should we not move beyond the complaint mode and move quickly into action, forming families, getting married and having children, so as to ensure that the Singaporean Core of the population does not get eroded because of the ageing population?
Ageing and a decreasing birth rate is the root of our current predicament. This root has also exacerbated the predicament of manpower shortage in the business community, and the Government has no choice but to bring in foreign workers. Following the Marriage and Parenthood incentives rolled out by the Government, I urge all young Singaporeans to respond by having more children. If the Singapore birth rate can increase, it would put less pressure on the problems created by the ageing population, and social problems would also decrease. Thus, the bottom line is to encourage young Singaporeans to have more children!
The feedback I have gathered from businesses over the past few days can be summarised into the following three points. First: the workforce growth of between 1%-2% cannot be further reduced, otherwise enterprises cannot survive. Second: Singapore is at the heart of Asia, a region of rapid growth. The White Paper projects that Singapore's GDP growth will likely be between 2%-3% per year from 2020-2030, and this is also a target that businesses should aim to achieve, however challenging it may be. If we are unable to meet these targets,
\tPage: 64
Singapore will lose its attractiveness to investors, local enterprises will lose their competitiveness, and the Singapore economy would be badly affected. Third: in order to solve the manpower shortage, businesses are already trying their best to utilise the latent manpower pool, recruiting older workers and getting housewives to re-enter the workforce, but the reality is due to limitations of age and physical strength, they would not be able to take on certain jobs.
There is a Chinese saying that one strand of hair can affect the entire body. The population policy and manpower policy are interrelated, and the manpower policy is directly related to business. Without people, the best opportunities would be lost. Hence, we support the Government's long-term planning for the population problem, to ensure that our population and the workforce could benefit from economic development. I hope that Government would strengthen its consolidation efforts. At the same time, I hope every segment of society would give its frank feedback so that all viewpoints can be considered and lead to the most effective outcome. With this, I support the White Paper on Population.
Mr David Ong: Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the Population White Paper debate.
Like many Singaporeans, my first reaction to the White Paper's recommendation of 6.9 million Singaporeans was one of discomfort and anxiety. Singapore is a small country and citizens are still facing real issues on affordability and accessibility. Crowded trains and buses, high property prices, competition at the workplace, cost of living are some issues confronting Singaporeans today. Hence, Singaporeans feel that there is a glaring disconnect between the present realities and the narratives of the White Paper. That drive towards economic growth and sustainability comes at the expense of Singaporeans.
The White Paper has, since its release, caused tension amongst average Singaporeans, the business community and the Government. Whilst tension is being pulled in different directions, we are in fact reining in towards the same destination – towards a better quality of life for Singaporeans and ensuring that our young and old will continue to have a bright future.
Ultimately, the question we are asking: \"Is having more people good for Singapore and Singaporeans? How can we ensure that having more gives hope
\tPage: 65
and improves the quality of life of its core citizens?\" To do so, we must remain adaptive to the changes around us. Certainly none of us would wish Singapore to be shrinking, ageing, stuck in protracted economic gloom and losing our economic competitive edge and hope for our young.
I am concerned that by settling for lower economic growth of 2% to 3%, Singapore's long-term vitality may be impacted, not only by a possible stagnation in our standard of living but also a deterioration in our quality of life. But, more importantly, the sapping of our fighting spirit which we may find it hard to recover from. There are suggestions of even lower economic growth and this will push our future even grimmer. As echoed by our hon Member Mr Teo Siong Seng with regard to SMEs, with acute manpower shortages and reduced population size, I think Singaporeans' livelihood will ultimately be affected.
Mdm Speaker, it is an undeniable fact that we have to grow our Singapore Core. We must work on improving our TFR. Gone were the days when in 1966, KK Hospital delivered 39,835 babies, earning it a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for the \"largest number of births in a single maternity facility\".
Whilst I am heartened that the recent Government's Marriage and Parenthood package may stall the falling total fertility rate and help build the core of Singapore citizens, I am equally cautious that there is a limit to how much impact it will have in the long run. Whilst I want to be optimistic, the current social trends and norms make me doubtful. The global fertility rate makes it unclear the latest package of benefits will bear fruits to achieve an acceptable level of birth rates. With the projected enlarged population size of 6.5 million to 6.9 million, against a backdrop of persistent lower fertility rate, the future population prospect of the Singapore Core appears to be grey.
We have put some of our best brains behind this issue and have thrown in a lot of resources in solving our TFR problem in the past but with very little results to show forth. Lower birth rate is not a phenomenon that affects Singapore alone as many other Western and Asian countries are confronted with similar problems. But for Singapore, the effects of this would be felt more acutely and quickly due to our limited size. How else can we look at boosting and growing the Singapore Core first before growing our new citizens?
In 2011, 9,000 Singaporeans married foreigners. Some immigrant families have sunk their roots in Singapore or immigrants have formed new families with Singapore spouses. We want to start building the Singapore Core with this
\tPage: 66
group. In this way, there is greater possibility of a foreign immigrant being more rooted and integrated to Singapore through marriage.
It is an interesting fact that the number of additional births this nation needs to replace itself is nearly the same number of babies or pregnancies that we see aborted each year. One solution to boost our low birth rate is to improve our family and social support to unwed mothers or even mothers in families caught in a difficult situation. The Government can do more to encourage and support married women who account for more than 50% of the abortions in Singapore to keep and raise their children.
For unwed mothers and those who for one reason or another cannot raise their child, we must help provide a viable and worthy option of placing the child for adoption. From feedback gathered from VWOs, many couples want to parent a child but are unable to have one of their own.
Mdm Speaker, preserving the Singaporean Core workforce is another important key component of this Population White paper. While the White Paper forecasted that foreigners will make up slightly less than half of Singapore's population by 2030, this is likely not the whole picture.
With about 900,000 baby boomers reaching the age of 65 and exiting the workforce by 2030, I am concerned with the Singaporeans' share of the labour force. Accordingly, I would like to ask the Minister to share with us what would be the Singaporeans' projected share of the labour force by 2030?
Mdm Speaker, more can and should be done to encourage more Singaporeans to join or re-join the labour force. For many of our seniors, they do not suddenly become inactive or less productive at their workplace just because they had reached the prescribed retirement age. In light of this, contrary to the general stereotypical perception that an ageing workforce will be unproductive, I strongly believe that they are a force to be reckoned with.
The retirement age is nothing more than a number that is arbitrarily arrived at. With advancement in medical science and our people living longer, our retirement age had moved from 55 years to now 62 years. As people continue to live longer and enjoy better healthcare, the retirement age is likely to change again. An ageing workforce can be productive and valuable. This should be harnessed to continue their contribution to their companies and the economy.
Page: 67
We need to step up efforts with our Tripartite Partners – to change employers' mindset to accept older workers as an invaluable pool of manpower resource. Employers must embrace a new mindset and treat them not as liability but as a valuable resource equal if not better than any staff. Employers can pay them a fair wage for the value they bring. Employers can also help re-engineer job functions and re-design workplace so that they can create a conducive environment for older workers to continue to contribute effectively.
Many seniors I met have expressed their ability and willingness to continue to work with the same vigour and energy. They desire to work as long as they want and are disappointed that they have to either retire or be re-employed at a lower level, take a pay cut and a reduction of the employer's CPF contribution.
These older workers have a wealth of experience at their disposal and it is a waste to eliminate these experiences through retirement. Older people who are still able to work pass their retirement age should be supported to do so. With a growing greying workforce, I would like our Government to consider the relevance of the prescribed retirement age. Perhaps, it is time we did away with age discrimination at our workplace.
In addition, we can also tap on our latent workforce of stay-at-home mothers and housewives to attract them back to the workforce with flexible work arrangements. We should also provide more opportunities for our youths. Such initiatives of growing our workforce by placing the interest of Singaporeans first can also be adopted to attract overseas Singapore talents back to Singapore.
Mdm Speaker, I am in agreement with the White Paper that adapting to our population changes is an important policy matter. The trend of a greying Singapore population would march on regardless of what we throw in its path. We cannot stop preparing for this eventuality.
Madam, while planning future demands necessarily involves some amount of crystal ball gazing, there are some things with probable outcomes that we can plan for. Take for instance, even without the projection of a larger population size of more than 6.5 million in 2030, we can expect a population of 900,000 people aged 65 and above.
There will be greater demand and consumption of healthcare and eldercare products and services. We can zero in on certain types of medical care such as renal care where there is a growing number of people suffering from diabetes
\tPage: 68
at a regular pace of 11% of our population or more than 400,000 people currently. There are probable outcomes that we can foresee with some definite certainty.
As in healthcare, transportation, housing and cost of living, we are currently constantly chasing after needs and catching up on demands. We would have failed the trust of the people have in us if we do not have the infrastructural needs in place when the needs arise.
While the advantages and necessity of an increasing population will bring economic growth, prosperity and progress for Singapore, we should not side-step the increase in social costs and social tension. The current economic indicators, like GDP, focus on material consumption and do not measure quality-of-life factors. Thus, it is important that the Government strives to strike a balance in managing the population growth and social well-being of Singaporeans.
I agree that it is difficult to have a 20/20 vision in projecting demand and supply against a population over a medium and long term. However, we need the Government's assurance that it can solve today's issues on affordability and accessibility with its current population size for Singaporeans to have a bigger \"buy in\" on the White Paper.
Our population challenges are complex and multi-faceted. Global scenarios are ever changing and one cannot assume that Singapore will always remain an appealing destination to attract foreign talent or labour. Should big economies like the US and China reinvest in their own countries, their appetite for workers will rise against a shrinking population. What will then be our Government's contingency plan should that happen?
I believe the White Paper on Population is a living document and not a plan cast in stone. I am hence glad that many key Ministers have given assurance that projections of the White Paper are for a \"worst case scenario\" and a basis to frame its infrastructure planning and investment. Although we have started on our national conversation, it is important that we continue to communicate changes and be upfront with our citizenry on the challenges and changes confronting Singapore. More importantly, Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans should be able to define the agenda of this conversation.
While the visceral response to this White Paper has been rather negative, there is still cause to be optimistic. It does illustrate that most Singaporeans
\tPage: 69
care and are willing to invest in time and energy to help build a better Singapore. It is thus my wish that this White Paper will serve as a catalyst to help bring forth the aspirations of the Government and Singaporeans for a better Singapore into a reality. For this, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the White Paper states that \"to be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean Core.\" It also states that \"our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities.\"
Our experience over the past few years suggests that to achieve these objectives would require much planning. Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island's space.
It would be more responsible to plan now for economic growth that would rely on fewer labour inputs, while maintaining a Singapore Core, than to leave the underlying economic and social issues till later.
The Workers' Party proposes that we target to increase our resident workforce growth by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. This includes Singapore citizens and permanent residents. The foreign workforce should be held constant and should increase when we do not achieve our target for growth in the resident labour force. We should focus on growing our Singapore Core of workers over time through efforts to increase our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR).
The Government has recently announced additional incentives for having babies. However, there are structural problems that require longer term solutions, which also affect Singaporeans' decisions to have babies. These include the lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and even a crowded environment and others.
Other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.
How will we grow our resident workforce if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? We need to look into ways to increase our LFPR so that more residents of working age are encouraged to
\tPage: 70
enter the workforce.
Our current LFPR was 66.6% in 2012. There are 1,063,400 economically inactive residents, 306,100 or 29% due to family responsibilities, 163,800 or 15% are retired. The numbers for the latter will increase due to an ageing workforce. Both represent scope for LFPR increase – getting stay-at-home parents to re-enter or enter the workforce and re-employing elderly workers.
Historically, in the last 10 years from 2003 to 2012, LFPR increased by 3.4% points, or 0.34% points per year. We should focus on fostering LFPR increase in the future.
Under the Workers' Party's proposal, assuming the Government meets its current productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5% to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, and 1.5% to 2.5% GDP growth per year from 2021 to 2030, which is in line with the growth rates of most mature economies.
In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 million to 5.4 million in 2020, and 5.6 million to 5.8 million in 2030. Most importantly, we will not need to take in so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local workforce, which will help us maintain a Singapore Core.
The Workers' Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the Government's suggested path. Underlying its plan is that population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. Instead, we believe we should focus on growth through a Singapore Core. To quote a population expert, 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\".
The land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority shows how little room we have to move if the White Paper is endorsed. Under the plan, we will use up significantly more land, with only 4% of land reserve left for future generations. By then, we would be even worse positioned to meet the challenges of a sustainable population policy, we would have less room for error in planning, with a population of 6.9 million on the island. At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution.
(In English): Madam, the Workers' Party is not being facetious when we reversed the wording of the White Paper title to \"A Dynamic Population for a
\tPage: 71
Sustainable Singapore\" to describe our alternative approach.
For the White Paper, population growth has to be sustained to feeding through a dynamic economy like so many pieces of coal into the furnace to drive the Orient Express. For the Workers' Party, the people is at the heart and soul of the nation and it is the duty of the Government to provide the conditions for a dynamic people to thrive. A sustained economy is a must, but it is one that serves the dynamic Singaporean workforce. Not the other way round. Our model hinges on resident workforce growth over the long term through the encouragement of local labour force participation, the principal aim of which is to get more Singaporeans to be economically active and independent, and, also, structural reforms to set the total fertility rate on the path of recovery to replacement rate.
For the Workers' Party, a dynamic Singaporean population is a very populous and meaningful of our existence as a nation and economy and existence that should be sustainable. We believe that any labour force growth should take place via a targeted 1% per annum growth in the resident labour force. Over the longer term, we should target to increase the existing labour force participation rate currently at 66.6%, instead of immediately turning towards importing new workers. Over the short term, our resident labour force grows when young citizens or permanent residents enter the labour force. We can target different groups about our existing population that are currently economically inactive and focus on removing the barriers that may be keeping them from entering or even re-entering the labour force. These include resident foreign spouses, stay-at-home parents and also the elderly.
At present, resident foreign spouses who are on Long-Term Visit Pass or Dependant's Pass are not eligible to take up employment. If they want to do so, they need to apply for work passes and be subject to the qualification criteria and are tied to a specific job. Those on the new Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) Scheme do not need to apply for work passes, just a letter of consent for a specific job. These requirements may make it difficult for these pass holders to enter the workforce and indeed an average of 19.5% of work pass applications by these foreign spouses on LTVP+ were unsuccessful. It could be even more difficult for them to meet the requirements if they are hoping to work part-time or on a flexible schedule because they have other responsibilities at home.
As for stay-at-home parents, encouraging them to re-enter the workforce can be in the form of, as many have pointed out, introducing better, more affordable and convenient childcare support. Perhaps, it can be in conjunction
\tPage: 72
with incentives to employers to have such facilities in the workplace and, as some had mentioned, also in terms of making flexible working arrangements more available. If we look at some of the OECD economies with high TFR, some of them have higher TFR and female labour force participation rates than us.
Clearly, more can be done and the public sector should lead the way. While current Government programmes include initiatives aimed at providing incentives to get economically inactive Singaporeans into the workforce, more can be done. Perhaps, structural changes are needed in our workforce and family-friendly support structures in order to allow a greater proportion beyond the 35% of employers who were offering at least one form of work-life arrangements in 2010.
The last group is the elderly. The Government has been trying to get more elderly people to remain in the workforce for a longer period. Indeed, the employment rate for older workers aged 55 to 64 has increased in recent years. But as we pointed out before in Parliament, these numbers may not tell the story of unemployment. Studies have shown that older Singaporeans are also healthier. We believe that our elderly should be able to work for as long as they want to and are able to, and there is scope for older workers to help grow the resident workforce. The male labour force participation rate for those aged 60 to 64 was 74.6% and 52.6% for those aged 65 to 69. For women, the figures in 2012 were 41.7% and 26.3%. We have age discrimination in hiring and in the workplace, which is a common concern of many Singaporeans.
The Singapore Workforce Report mentioned employers' discrimination, preference for young workers as a major reason why discouraged workers have given up their search for jobs. We should actively investigate if additional administrative or even legislative measures could be taken to remove this impediment through our older workers re-entering or staying in the labour force. In addition, incentives for businesses not only to hire older workers but to redesign jobs, processes and also workplace specifically for older workers should play a larger role in our measures to improve productivity. More targeted measures can be done to help older workers remain as productive as their younger counterparts. When older workers are able to be more productive, employers will be more inclined to retain or hire them. We have been shown charts for growing old age dependency ratio which is the ratio of persons aged 20 to 64 years to persons aged 65 and over. When we look at that, we should also bear in mind that with improvements in health and life expectancy, many of our elders, as many had pointed out, are healthy and able to work longer and indeed they want to, not to mention that many have economic resources of their
\tPage: 73
own, they are not all economically dependent.
Madam, an ageing population is a triumph of development. We should stop seeing elderly Singaporeans as a drain on our economy and a hindrance to our growth to keep Singapore dynamic. Older Singaporeans have much to offer us and not all of it can be measured in economic terms. In fact, our elderly Singaporeans are essential to maintaining a Singapore Core. Older Singaporeans are custodians of culture and, as some had suggested, can be employed in schools to teach subjects such as social studies in National Education or be encouraged to volunteer to do so. This is also a way of encouraging cross-generational sharing and learning, particularly in a society where family trends are shifting and there may be less opportunities for inter-generational sharing within the family.
The White Paper warns us – a shrinking and ageing population would also mean a smaller less energetic workforce and a less vibrant and innovative economy. Young people would leave for more exciting and growing global cities. We need to ask ourselves the reasons why Singaporeans are leaving. Are they leaving because they feel that Singapore does not offer them the right economic opportunities that they would need to support their ageing parents and other elders if they stayed? While many of them are leaving because they feel that Singapore is becoming overly crowded, costly, competitive and that they would like to live somewhere and bring their children up in a place with more space and greater well-being.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Chen, you may want to round up your speech now. You only have a few seconds.
Mr Chen Show Mao: Yes, Madam. How does increasing the population up to 6.9 million by 2030 allay these concerns and make it less likely for Singaporeans with such concerns to decide to leave the country of their birth and search for a better life for themselves and their children? Madam, the assumptions and conclusions laid out in the White Paper need to be looked into again. I oppose the Motion.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Two questions for the hon Member. The first is I understand the Workers' Party's aim is to reach the population of 5.9 million in 2030 and the focus of this would be growing the domestic workforce participation. But how much immigration does the Workers' Party envision within this 5.9 million number? Is it zero or is it some growth and, if so, how
\tPage: 74
much, because we do not have the breakdown? That is the first question.
Mr Chen Show Mao: We will provide the breakdowns of the kind the Member asked for, and more details later on.
Mr Vikram Nair: The second question – and this is just to understand how the Workers' Party runs the shop when it is in charge – does the Workers' Party's Town Council either directly or indirectly hire foreign workers? \"Indirectly\" meaning through the managing agent.
Mr Chen Show Mao: I do not know which part of the speech the Member is seeking clarification on. Like many Town Councils, the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council is managed by a managing agent who in turn helps the Town Council sub-contract a lot of its functions to service providers, including those who perform cleaning functions. Yes, they have foreign workers on their staff, although I understand from them that they are making every effort to try to reduce that number.
Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Madam, I would like to ask the hon Member for a couple of clarifications. He made some proposals about increasing labour participation of our elderly. I would like to ask specifically what does he envisage as the average retirement age under his proposals. What proportion of 70-year-olds is he expecting to be within the labour force under his proposals? And how many active workers would this actually add to the economy under their proposals?
Mr Chen Show Mao: Madam, we are not counting on increases in the labour participation rate to achieve the numbers that we have been talking about. And perhaps later, the Member will get more information. We expect the resident labour force to grow at 1% over the next few years.
The Acting Minister for Manpower and Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, as the Acting Minister for Manpower, I was listening very intently to the proposals that Mr Chen was espousing. The first point of clarification, the 6.9 million number is not a target. We have spelt out the boundaries in terms of potential population growth. We are looking at 6.5 million to 6.9 million. The objective – and we totally agree with the Workers' Party – is about the people. It is about the quality of life that can be provided at that stage, not just material but non-material. What are the stepping stones to get there? The economy, the state of the
\tPage: 75
economy, the level of population growth needed and so on.
I am more interested in their initiatives or the intent of getting there based on the Workers' Party's proposal. Mr Chen went on at length with a lot of things about our elderly which actually I have spoken about and I totally concur with. I think we can age well. I think we should look at encouraging women to come back to the workforce, the economically inactive, older workers who contribute in many meaningful ways. I have said that very often. I am not sure whether the Member has checked the MOM website. We do have many initiatives. We do intend to strengthen them and to continue to build on them.
The Member has described the outcomes. He has described the positives, the values in encouraging older workers and how they contribute. I am actually interested in how he intends to actually bring that about. We have the ADVANTAGE! scheme where we incentivise companies, re-design work arrangements. We have the Special Employment Credit (SEC) which has worked very well. I am not sure if he has read about those initiatives but I am very interested to know the specific programmes he has in mind, obviously because he has been talking about the elderly for a long time. Surely, he has very concrete ideas which I will be very happy to look at and to see whether we can adopt to increase the participation rate along the lines that he has talked about. So, if he could perhaps share some of these suggestions and ideas, we would very much appreciate it.
Mr Chen Show Mao: Madam, I am reminded of the person who says quitting smoking is easy because he has done it hundreds of times. We may well have programmes in place to say increase our TFR, to say increase our productivity, to say bring more elderly workers back to work. But unless we are saying that there is no more room for us to go in these directions, I think what we are proposing is that we focus the resources at our disposal on these important directions and policies. Instead of importing workers even over the longer term, let us plan to grow the resident workforce through increases in the labour force participation rate than in the total fertility rate.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran): Madam, I appreciate the Member's explanation. I just have one point of clarification to seek from the hon Member. Is it the Workers' Party's position that its growth forecast is premised on productivity as we have described it in the White Paper, plus 1% growth purely from the Singapore citizen and Permanent Resident components of the workforce in Singapore, with no
\tPage: 76
additions from foreign workers? Is that the Workers' Party's position?
Mr Chen Show Mao: Madam, no additional contributions from the current foreign worker population that we have in Singapore.
Mr S Iswaran: Zero increase?
Mr Chen Show Mao: Zero increase when we can maintain a 1% increase in growth in the resident workforce.
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again 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]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Dr Lily Neo: Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I see this Population White Paper as the pre-emptive step to read ahead and plan for the better future of tomorrow. It takes a responsible Government to make such a move and act on it for the sustainability of Singapore in the long run in order to benefit Singaporeans.
While I applaud our Government on this move, I have my own reservations in some areas. I know that the outlines of policies will be beneficial in the long run but I am not convinced on the feasibility of the possible population of 6.9 million by 2030. What kind of city-state will it be with our land area of about 700 sq km to be shared by 6.9 million people? How are we going to achieve the quality living environment that we aspire for?
Page: 77
How can we allay this fear of overcrowding in our city-state, especially when such sentiment is already felt with a 5.3 million population?
In the past week, young residents are lamenting that in the future their children will face competition in getting into good colleges and places in the universities. They are also concerned that the availability of affordable housing will be further compromised. The older residents are worried of higher medical costs and strained medical facilities. These are legitimate concerns. Our Government needs to explain in detail and to show the solutions for the future.
I feel that we need to make adjustments to our policy-making that caters to the sophistication of today's populace. Better skills on interpersonal nuances that help connect better with the end users are an important tool. Government needs to convince the majority with its planned policies during the formulation stage and to get acceptance from the communities at large during the implementation stage.
What are the plans in place to better explain and to disseminate our policies across our population? Will these policies be further fine-tuned and taking public's input before implementing them?
Mdm Speaker, for the rest of my speech, I would like to concentrate on the demographic challenges with regard to the ageing population.
It is PAP's style of governance to plan for the long term. Today, I would like to stress on the road maps we must put in place to cushion the challenges ahead regarding care of the elderly. This is essential to provide better care for our future elderly that is ballooning to 900,000 people above 65 years by 2030.
The following are the three areas of my concerns and I would like to suggest solutions for them.
First, the care of the frail elderly. I feel that it will not be sustainable in the long run to have one-to-one care of a frail elderly, especially one who is homebound with a foreign worker as is the norm of today. The family carers of tomorrow for the frail elderly will be getting fewer in view of the smaller-families trend. Moreover, we will need all our young and able individuals to be as economically active as possible in view of our already dwindling working population ratio. But our small land space will be a limiting factor in getting the increasing numbers of foreign workers to care for the growing numbers of frail
\tPage: 78
elderly; the imported foreign carers will thus be a challenge.
We need to better plan on ways to solve this. I feel that better community living environment is the way to go in order to reduce the reliance on foreign labour. The earlier we start this, the better success we shall have. I have the privilege to be working with many elderly in Chinatown for more than 10 years. I found that active and healthy living in the community with friends, supported by VWOs and grassroots community; keep our elderly happy and healthy. Even when they were struck with severe illnesses, early intervention with care and assistance enabled many to recover quickly to be able to live independently. Thus, facilities to enable healthy community living should be made available. The purpose of such facilities is to enable independent living lifestyles for as long as possible for our elderly. This is also to enable future tapping of resources of the community elderly to care for their buddy frail elderly. This is one good way of self-help and using previously untapped extra resource.
The rendering of assistance on other frail ones will become easier and with more compassion in a community of elderly that have known each other for a longer time. There is also merit to get support from voluntary group organisations and grassroots organisations for such facilities. For a start, all studio apartments should have such facilities.
Such facilities are based on the tenet of preventive care in keeping active and healthy living for as long as possible in the community, thus reducing the need for dependent care or expensive institutional care.
Two, the care for the elderly poor. With the growing number of elderly population, and especially with smaller families and fewer children to give the elderly the financial support, the number of the elderly poor will increase in the future. The retirement age has to be further raised so that people can keep their jobs for as long as possible to support themselves. But, as in any society, there will always be those that are disadvantaged. These numbers will increase in the future for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The Government's coffers may be decreasing with slower economic growth of the future. May I beseech our Government to have safety net policies entrenched to ensure that the needy elderly are taken care of? I would like to suggest the setting up of an elderly needy endowment fund, similar to the Medifund, when our economy is still growing. The Medifund gives the assurance that \"no Singaporean will be deprived of medical care due to the lack of means\" and with the establishment of needy funds, we can add another assurance: \"No Singaporean will be deprived of their daily living due to the lack of means\". I am convinced that Singaporeans will support it and, by this provision, it will show that ours is a
\tPage: 79
Government that cares. People can understand and relate to the need for continued growth in Singapore's economy so that we can continue to take better care of the less fortunate citizens.
Third, healthcare. Many elderly are concerned about healthcare costs. I am glad we have our 3M-system in place, which is the envy of many countries. The new Community Health Assist Scheme is also another medical subvention scheme especially for the elderly. The recently introduced yearly Medisave top-up for our elderly is laudable indeed. We need to explain all these schemes to more people, especially the elderly, to allay their fear.
My concern on healthcare is on the provision of medical professionals and the physical medical infrastructure to cope adequately and timely on the increasing demand of an ageing population. The need for nursing homes, community hospitals and acute hospitals will increase exponentially. Thus, it is necessary to have a good postulation on demand with the possible 6.9 million people and an ageing population. Early planning and proactive measures must be in place. Preventive healthcare and prevention of long-term care in institutional settings should remain the hallmark of eldercare.
Step-down care facilities such as community hospitals, nursing homes, day-care centres and community-care centres must be adequately provided so as to reduce the overload on expensive acute hospital beds.
I feel that, ideally, the care of the elderly will be in assisting them to live as independently and for as long as possible in their own homes with appropriate support as in homecare. It is possible, as in England, to have affordable healthcare workers that can be trained in their specific scope of medical care in a matter of months for homecare. They are trained to do simple homecare such as wound dressing, changing of catheters, nasogastric tubes and so on. This will relieve the total dependence for doctors and nurses for homecare.
May I also suggest that all our future HDB flats, especially studio apartments, should be designed such that adaptations can be done and mobility assisting equipment can be fitted when the need arises? This will facilitate independent living for the frail elderly and also to facilitate homecare for those who are sick.
In closing, Mdm Speaker, I hope that our Government will continue to give higher consideration for our elderly in future Government subventions. One good example is that instead of a blanket subvention for our public transport
\tPage: 80
fares, our Government's subsidy should be given directly for the elderly, such as free public transport for retirees. This will encourage mobility of the elderly to keep them active and healthy. Perhaps then, there will be less clamouring for CBD-housing as the elderly in the CBD can now travel freely to their children's homes island-wide.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I speak in support of the amendment Motion moved by hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. I think it clarifies the Government's intention and takes into consideration many of the concerns expressed by Members.
I particularly would like to mention the two sub-points that are contained in the amendments: that the Government is called upon to ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans; and carry out a medium-term review of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans. I think these are important additions that will help us to clarify our thoughts and also guide us going into the future.
Mdm Speaker, many Members before me have spoken from the heart about the concerns expressed by Singaporeans. Do we need to have so many immigrants? Are we getting the right immigrants? Can they be integrated into our society? I would like to address these concerns. I will focus on the need to sustain a strong Singaporean Core, and how we will work towards achieving this.
Last month, I visited an eldercare centre and met a lady there. She described her family to me. She has six children. Of the six, four are married and two have remained single. The four married children gave her five grandchildren. So, from large families of six children just a generation ago, more are remaining single, and those that are getting married are having significantly fewer children. This is quite typical amongst families in Singapore and it reflects our marriage and parenthood trends, and the demographic challenge of Singapore.
The demographic challenge of Singapore, in my mind, is an issue, an outcome of a facility not of today, not of the last three decades; it is of our yester
\tPage: 81
years, the years before we became an independent country. We had a baby boom and this is where we will see a Silver Tsunami hitting us.
To illustrate why we need to address this demographic challenge, I would like to introduce Members to a family, the Ng family. Mr Ng is 43 years old and his wife Mrs Ng is 40 years old. The two of them have six siblings in total. The couple has two daughters. The younger daughter, Michelle, is four; the older daughter, Joelle, is turning 10 this year. Joelle and Michelle have several cousins, uncles and aunties, as shown in Chart 1 [Please see Annex 3. Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Come 2020, this is how the family structure would look like in Chart 2 [Please see Annex 4.] Fast forward to 2030, Joelle will be 27 and Michelle will be 21, Chart 3 [Please see Annex 5.] Their parents will be 60 and 57 respectively. Their four grandparents will be in their 80s. With longevity and better healthcare, they are expected to live longer but may require some help. Looking at their immediate family structure, Joelle and Michelle would eventually be caring for six family members above 55 years old. If we look at their extended family on screen, Joelle, Michelle and her seven cousins – nine children today – would eventually be supporting and providing care for 17 family members in the previous generations. Over time, we will see a reversal of the typical family structure that we have today, one that is bottom heavy to one that is top heavy. The generations before us have more members than the next.
At the national level, more than a quarter of the citizen population will be aged 65 and above by 2030, compared to 11% today. The old-age support ratio will be 2:1. What does this support ratio mean to the Ng family? Physically, although I think the hon Member Mr Chen Show Mao has said that the elderly these days are probably better off, they are happier, they are engaged, they can live longer with healthcare and scientific developments. I agree, but there will be a day when they will become frail and they will need care, as Member Dr Lily Neo has so vividly described, the care that is needed on a very close basis, one-to-one. Even if we can move it to an institutional setting, we need more people in the institution giving care to our elderly.
It means that more of the Ng family who are in the working ages, would have to become the primary care-givers of an elderly family member. The ratio is about 10:14 or about one to one-and-a-half. The social cost of healthcare and other eldercare facilities for the elder family members will have to be paid
\tPage: 82
through the taxes of Joelle, Michelle and their seven cousins.
As society ages, there will be fewer working Singaporeans for every elderly Singaporean. The working Singaporeans will have to support and take care of the older members of their own families, as well as contribute to maintain essential services to sustain our way of life. We will also need more polyclinics, eldercare centres and hospitals to provide care for the elderly. This requires more healthcare workers to provide physical care for the elderly. At the current fertility rate, our citizen population will start to shrink beyond 2025, the result of that inverted family structure that you have seen earlier on, if we do not have some immigration.
But let me assure Members of the House that contrary to what the Workers' Party understands of our population policies, I would like to stress that encouraging marriage and parenthood is fundamental to ensuring a strong Singaporean Core, and this is central to our population policies. The most important way to strengthen the size of the Singaporean Core is through encouraging marriage and parenthood.
Several Members have raised suggestions on initiatives that could help to improve our birth rate, including improving work-life balance and better and more affordable access to housing. These are all good and useful suggestions. We have studied many alternatives over the course of the year, including what other countries have done, and have adopted what we think is right and feasible for Singapore at this point of time.
Our fertility rate has been below the replacement rate of 2.1 for several decades. The reasons are complex and we are not alone. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have similar trends like ours. In 2012, our total fertility rate was 1.29, which is good news, as it has moved up from the 1.20 that we had seen in the year before, but somewhat attributed to the dragon year effect.
Similar to East Asian economies, Singaporeans are marrying later, or remaining single. And with later marriages, they are having fewer children. We often look to the experiences of many countries to understand how we can improve our measures. South Korea, as mentioned yesterday by some Members of the House, was one of the countries which we studied. While the country's TFR may have moved from a low of 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2012, it may still be early days to conclude that they have successfully beaten the TFR decline.
Page: 83
As we know, TFR is affected by many factors. Parents who have children derive much love and joy from parenthood. The Government, however, understands the cost burden that they have to bear in raising their children. We have, therefore, set out to help shoulder some of the cost to support parenthood. The Marriage and Parenthood package announced recently is an enhancement to the packages implemented in 2001, 2004 and 2008.
Members have asked if our efforts in promoting marriage and parenthood have been effective. Last year, we consulted widely and engaged many stakeholders to gather views on how we can encourage marriage and parenthood. Our latest package took into consideration these suggestions. The package serves to address the common concerns of Singaporean parents arising from a variety of needs. From marriage, to the cost of delivery, to children's education and healthcare needs; from working couples, to families with stay-at-home parents; the package is designed to be comprehensive, addressing the different needs, yet targeting the subsidy at areas to benefit the most people, especially those who need more help. Also, as with many other countries we have surveyed, our measures are designed to support three broad outcomes: (a) support parents in balancing work and family life, (b) support shared parental responsibility in raising children, and (c) defray the costs of raising children.
These measures are not designed to replace the responsibility of parents, nor to reward Singaporeans for having children, because we believe that it is the responsibility of parents to raise and be responsible for their children.
We have enhanced the cash incentives: Baby Bonus, Medisave grant. Other enhancements broke new ground. For example, paternity leave and shared parental leave that signal strongly the important role of fathers in child-raising and shaping employers' perceptions of shared parenting responsibility.
How does this package help Singaporeans? Let me introduce another family, Mr Madjali's. Mr Madjali Bin Ahamadi, who works in retail sales, and Mdm Sharifah Shamsudin, a housewife, have two children. This is a lovely picture of the family with their newborn. [A slide was shown to hon Members.] Their elder son Imaan is five this year and their younger son Ihsan is four months old.
Mr Madjali's family has benefited from a range of measures under the Marriage and Parenthood package, such as the Baby Bonus cash gift and Child Development Account co-savings valued at $22,000, childcare leave and
\tPage: 84
childcare subsidies. As Ihsan was born in October 2012, he will also be eligible for the new Medisave grant for newborns. In addition to the existing six days of childcare leave per year for the first seven years, Mr Madjali will also enjoy the extended childcare leave of two days per year when their youngest child is between seven and 12 years old.
To recap, the recently announced enhancements provide support in the following areas:
First, enabling couples to get housing faster and more easily;
Second, providing support for medical-related conception and delivery costs;
Third, further defraying child-raising costs, including healthcare costs;
Fourth, enhancing work-life measures to help working couples balance work and family commitments; and
Fifth, signalling to fathers to play a bigger role through paternity and shared parental leave.
Mdm Sharifah appreciates the measures in support of joint parenting. She has shared that she appreciates her husband being around when she takes her children for their regular check-ups. I am very encouraged to hear that Mr and Mrs Madjali are open to having a third child within the next few years, and I wish them all the best in their efforts. If they do have another child, the family will fully enjoy our most recent enhancements.
If Mr and Mrs Madjali have their third child, Mr Madjali will have more opportunities to spend time with the newborn. He will get to enjoy one week of paternity leave paid by the Government, with the option to share one week of his wife's maternity leave if she returns to work. He can also take the six days' childcare leave and the one-week no-pay Infant Care leave. All in all, up to one month of leave from work for him to spend time with his newborn.
In addition, the children can also benefit from our efforts to improve the pre-school sector. The Minister for Social and Family Development will elaborate more on the affordability, accessibility and the quality of childcare
\tPage: 85
and infant care services later in the debate.
Members Ms Foo and Dr Intan, as well as other stakeholders in the society, have mentioned the need for more family-friendly work practices. To complement the enhancements announced in January, the Government is studying incentive schemes to encourage employers to offer flexible work arrangements for their employees. More details will be announced when ready. This enhancement, together with the existing Work-Life Works! Fund, will support employers in putting in place work-life friendly measures, including flexible work arrangement. Minister for Manpower, Mr Tan, will speak more on this later.
Now, please let me address the issue of marriage. Getting our young people to marry is an important objective. The desire to get married and have children remains strong amongst young people. Our Marriage and Parenthood Study in 2012 showed that 83% of singles desire to get married while 84% of married Singaporeans intend to have two or more children. Also, most respondents, more than 80%, felt strongly that only legally married parents should have children. Yet in 2011, four out of 10 men and three out of 10 women in the 30-34 age group remain unmarried. Not finding the right life partner, no time to date and the need to be financially secure first, are often quoted as reasons. Members and contributors have shared with us the importance of social attitudes and family values in shaping marriage and parenthood decisions. We have received good feedback on the attributes needed to encourage marriage and parenthood.
At the personal level, we need to address the importance of the family in our value system. At the family level, involved parents being good role models to their children, building strong bonds between family members, giving a safe and loving environment in the family, a supportive extended family. At the workplace, employment practices that are family friendly, recognising the responsibility of both parents. At the community level, a socially inclusive society, supportive of the less fortunate or the needy, and empathy for others. These are all positive societal values that will help encourage marriage and parenthood. The Government will set the direction and provide leadership but cannot achieve mindset change on our own. We need all stakeholders in the society to help us.
It would be useful to frame the mindset shifts needed as three questions.
Page: 86
First, why should Singaporeans get married and have children? Second, what mindsets do we need to change? Third, how can we support change in these areas?
Why should Singaporeans get married and have children? The answer simply is because we want to have children. Most Singaporeans want to have children. It is an extension of the love from our parents and a way of leaving our legacy by nurturing our own. Settling down and starting a family is a life goal that many Singaporeans want. Parents often speak of the fulfilment and joy that come with parenthood. A Lianhe Zaobao reader wrote in December last year how he changed his mind about parenthood. \"Having children has made our lives more fulfilling,\" he said. \"Every little step they took brought us elation and joy, and we were amazed and moved by every small change in them as they grew. Thanks to our children, our lives are now more complete and more meaningful.\"
In another article published just recently in a weekend edition, Mr Cai and Ms Lin shared about their experiences as a family with three children, and how they brought them great fulfilment. Ms Lin said and I quote, (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \"The sense of achievement of being a parent comes from helping to shape a human being, watching the children grow and hearing their laughter. A hug, a kiss or an 'I love you' from them could relieve you from any kind of anger or frustration or depression that you experience.\"
(In English): I hope that more Singaporeans will have the opportunity to experience the unique joys and fulfilment that only parenthood can bring.
What are the key messages to bring about mindset change? First, we should re-emphasise marriage and parenthood as key life goals. As individuals, we should ascribe importance to these life goals and give them priority in the early part of our adulthood. Ms Anita Fam, Chairman of Marriage Central, reminded young couples that they should not wait for the \"perfect timing\" to get married. Instead, it was more important that both partners share the belief that they would face life's challenges and burdens together.
Second, we need to highlight the benefits of having children early and the risks of leaving it too late. In the 2012 Marriage and Parenthood Study, 77% of married respondents indicated that couples would have little problem having children even when they were over 35 years old. This is of course not true, as fertility already starts going into decline in our late 20s. We need to make
\tPage: 87
couples aware of the need to prioritise starting a family alongside career and other aspirations. Left too late, fertility treatments will not be able to overcome the age-related decline in fertility. The success rates of Artificial Reproduction Technology treatments are only about 25%.
Third, emphasising that raising children is the responsibility of both parents. Ms Foo spoke on the importance of joint parenting. Our study showed that 99% of married respondents agreed that fathers and mothers are equally important as caregivers for children. If this is already the case, why the need to emphasise shared responsibility? It is because the majority of the women in Singapore still see raising children as their main responsibility and therefore feel the stresses of balancing work and raising children, especially the education of their children, more so than the fathers. They would be encouraged to have more children if fathers could take on a greater role in raising children. Societies where parenting is shared more equally between men and women tend to have higher fertility rates. Shared parental leave and paternity leave are signals that the Government send to employers and couples about where the society stands on this issue. Which leads me to the fourth message.
Employers should see the value in having a family-friendly work culture to support better work-life balance. Again, 77% of married female respondents preferred to be employed after having a child. Also, respondents were quite equally split between part-time and full-time employment options, with about 40% preferring part-time employment. Our recent National Work-Life Harmony survey found that respondents who scored high on the Work-Life Harmony Index continued to report better work, family and personal outcomes. Notably, the study also found that people with high work-life harmony scores want more children than those with low scores.
On the whole, the benefits of supporting a family-friendly culture are manifold. Besides supporting the needs of working parents and helping them balance their family and work commitments, employers also stand to benefit from having more engaged and productive employees who are more likely to stay with the company. Companies with flexi-work and flexi-time arrangements can also attract more women to stay on the job, thus meeting the manpower needs in a tight labour market situation.
Fifth, we need to recognise the stress that parents feel in raising children and give the assurance that we will try our best to address the causes. We have received a fair amount of feedback on the education system and would like to reassure parents that we have heard their feedback. MOE has started to rebalance our education system. For example, schools have reduced emphasis
\tPage: 88
on examinations in Primary 1 and 2. They are placing greater emphasis on non-academic programmes like Physical Education, Art and Music. We have introduced diverse educational pathways in our system to cater to those with different areas of strength and different learning needs. MOE is making changes at a steady pace that is appropriate for the children. We hope that the changes will reduce the competitiveness in the system and refocus our attention on giving our children a holistic education and one that is values based. We should give our children and parents the confidence and assurance that their children will be brought up with good knowledge and skills that will prepare them for a wide range of job options later.
How can we support these changes? Values and societal attitudes are wide-ranging and are influenced by many stakeholders in society – from the parents who are role models for their children, to the teachers in our schools, to the employers. The various Ministries are heeding the feedback of Singaporeans and are taking steps to address them. MSF and MOE are addressing pre-school needs; MOM is addressing issues in the workplace just to name a few. Some issues require the involvement of the greater community. For example, the Government works closely with our community partners to spread pro-family messages and reach out to Singaporeans. These include:
(a) I Love Children which hopes to see a Singapore that is children-plenty and children-friendly;
(b) Dads for Life serves as a focal point for all activities of the national Dads for Life movement to inspire and involve all Dads to play a more active role in their children's lives for life;
(c) The National Family Council and Marriage Central, just to name a few.
Some contributors have suggested we use the media to further highlight the importance of family. The media have been putting in effort on this front, such as by drawing attention to the value of a family-friendly workplace culture. For example, The Straits Times published an article yesterday highlighting the importance of workplace flexibility and how employers can benefit from changes in mindsets. Other suggestions range from having more television programmes and commercials to seed the idea of marriage and parenthood, such as game shows to encourage matchmaking. We will explore all new ideas.
But above all, everyone has a part to play. Our study showed that singles were most comfortable meeting members of the opposite sex through: (i)
\tPage: 89
recreational, sports and social activities; (ii) friends or fellow students; and (iii) colleagues and work acquaintances. This tells us that every one of us, in our capacity as family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours have the potential to make a difference in somebody's marriage and parenthood journey. So, I hope that Singaporeans will actively help one another to prioritise marriage and parenthood as key life goals.
While we are pursuing efforts to increase marriage and parenthood, at the same time, we are also realistic about how quickly birth rates can improve. We are hopeful on this front and ambitiously looking forward to improving our TFR to 1.4-1.5. But realistically speaking, this will take time. In the meantime, we continue to have to address the shortfall of births and our approach has been to supplement our citizen population with a calibrated pace of immigration. Allowing immigration does not mean that we do not take our marriage and parenthood objectives seriously. Members have spoken on the risks of taking in too many immigrants too quickly. It takes time and effort for our immigrants to understand and adapt to our norms. If the texture of society changes too quickly, we will experience a sense of displacement and an erosion of our national identity. We fully understand the concerns of Singaporeans feeling displaced in our own country.
Over the years, we have calibrated our immigration policies to achieve a slower rate but better-quality immigration. We adopt a set of comprehensive criteria which includes the individual's economic contributions, qualifications, age and family ties. We tightened our criteria in 2009 and have brought down the number of PRs granted from a high of 79,000 in 2008, to an average of 29,000 per year in the last three years.
We will continue to take a measured approach in taking in immigrants who can contribute and integrate well into our society.
Basically, we can look at our population as one of three concentric circles.
First, at the core of it all is our people. All our policies are designed to ensure that citizens get the lion's share of any privileges and benefits, in recognition that this is their home. We have relentlessly improved our healthcare, education, marriage and parenthood, and other benefits given to Singaporeans only. For example, in the past year, we introduced greater differentiation in healthcare subsidies, school fees and in balloting for Primary 1 registration. We also recently raised the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) for foreigners and introduced an ABSD of 5% for PRs acquiring their first property. Each year, we
\tPage: 90
will grant citizenship from 15,000 to 25,000 individuals, PRs making the vast majority of successful applicants. The PRs who are granted citizenship would have met our criteria in terms of their ability, assimilability, family ties and would have stayed in Singapore for some time. These new citizens make a solemn commitment to our nation. They sever their ties with their birth countries. It must have been a difficult decision. As the late Mr S Rajaratnam put it, \"Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice.\" Once they have made the decision to sink roots in Singapore, we do not distinguish their status from the rest. As Minister of State Amy Khor has said very, very passionately, \"they make great contributions, they are part of the community and we are grateful for their participation in this country\".
This leads me to the second ring which comprises PRs – many of whom have worked or studied in Singapore for several years before becoming a PR. So, to become a Singapore citizen, they will have spent a few days as PRs and before that a few years in Singapore. When assessing their applications, we consider a holistic set of criteria to evaluate not only their economic contributions, but also their ability to integrate and sink root into our society as well. So, Members, we can see that actually with a PR selection, with citizenship selection, both of these steps do consider the assimilability, the years they have spent in Singapore, their ability to integrate, their linkages, their family ties and the years they spend in Singapore. Both these criteria have that in the consideration as part of the framework. Many are also dependants who go through our school system and serve NS. Others are spouses or children of our citizens. The number of this group will stay stable at around 0.5 million to 0.6 million. When the basis for becoming PR no longer exists – for example, if they are staying for a prolonged period of time outside Singapore – we may decide not to renew their re-entry permits (REPs).
Next, the outermost ring which comprises non-resident workers. We can control the number and the length of stay through a range of administrative measures – quotas, salary criteria, levy, and so on. The ones with better qualifications, not more than 30,000 a year, can become PR after a period of time working and contributing to Singapore. So, this is really a transient group. Their numbers may be increasing but they come and go and we can reduce the numbers when economic situation requires.
Mr Seng Han Thong, Mr Arthur Fong and Ms Sylvia Lim asked if we could do more for the foreign spouses of Singaporeans or tap on them for our manpower needs. Most foreign spouses who apply for a long-term immigration facility are granted at least a Long-Term Visit Pass. Earlier on, Minister of State Amy Khor had spoken about the privileges of the Long-Term Social Visit Pass.
\tPage: 91
We had also introduced the Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) last year to provide more support to Singaporean families with foreign spouses.
Mdm Speaker: Order. Dr Ng Eng Hen, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Speeches","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 time limit be removed in respect of Minister Grace Fu's speech.
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 item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Minister Grace Fu'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":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Ms Grace Fu, please continue.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and thank you Members of the House for your indulgence. We introduced the Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) last year to provide more support to Singaporean families with foreign spouses. The LTVP+ entitles them to healthcare subsidies at restructured hospitals pegged to the level of PRs, greater certainty of stay and employment benefits. Last year, around 4,000 spouses were granted the LTVP+.
\tPage: 92
Citizens' spouses on LTVP+ can also receive job sourcing assistance and training advisory services from the WDA.
As their situation stabilises, these families may subsequently apply for PR and citizenship. When assessing such applications, we evaluate factors, such as the length of their marriage, whether they have Singaporean children and whether their sponsor is able to support the family financially. All else being equal, applicants with a Singapore Citizen (SC) spouse or children stand a higher chance of being granted PR or SC. The Government will continue to look at how we can better assist such foreign spouses as they seek to integrate into our society. Singaporeans are and have always been at the heart of our immigration strategy.
Mr Muhd Faisal Manap and Dr Intan commented on the need to maintain the Malay proportion within our population.
We recognise the need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population in order to preserve social stability. The pace and profile of our immigration intake have been calibrated to preserve this racial balance. The proportion of Malays in the citizen population has been stable over the years. In 2000, it was 14.9%, and in 2010, it was 15.1%. In fact, it has increased slightly. It is our policy to maintain the ethnic balance in the citizen population as far as possible.
Our integration efforts are a critical complement to our immigration policy and are important in strengthening our Singaporean Core. Many Singaporeans have shared with us their deep sense of belonging to the country and their desire to safeguard our unique society – one that has cultural diversity, yet anchored by a set of common values, norms and languages.
We have heard calls for new immigrants to be rooted, active members of our community. Many Singaporeans would also like new immigrants to be able to communicate with Singaporeans of all races and embrace our way of life. We agree with these views. The Government will continue to encourage and help newcomers integrate into our society by strengthening integration efforts across our schools, our workplaces and community.
We will continue to tap on natural platforms to foster integration. New immigrants who study in our local schools, for instance, are fully immersed in the Singaporean way of life through their close and frequent contact with their local schoolmates and teachers. They also learn more about our heritage and
\tPage: 93
core values as part of their school curriculum. Like many of us, lasting friendships and bonds are forged among these young new immigrants and their local schoolmates. Among them, many grow up sharing the same dreams and aspirations of Singaporeans, working together with the rest of the country to make this a better home.
In addition, our Universities have taken on a more proactive and comprehensive approach to foster integration. Camps are being organised to bring together local and international student leaders to promote cooperation and bridge differences among them. These student leaders will be instrumental in reaching out to the wider student population and help build meaningful relationships between local and international students.
We will also explore the use of more creative platforms such as the arts to spread the message on integration.
At the workplace, more efforts will be put in place to help Singaporeans and foreigners relate better with one another, both socially and professionally. Some efforts are already in place include a diversity management toolkit to assist staff to better understand different working styles due to nationality differences as well as bonding sessions in some private companies where staff learn more about each others' cultures.
We will step up our efforts and urge new immigrants and PRs to make an effort to engage Singaporeans in the course of their daily lives so that they can better understand and adapt to our way of life. Integration takes time and every effort counts. Singaporeans can also help move our efforts along by extending a helping hand to newcomers and to interact with them.
Minister Chan will also be speaking further on the topic of integration, and he will share more information later.
In closing, I would like to go back to the pointed I started with. In our deliberations on what is the best way forward for Singapore, Singaporeans were at the heart of our considerations and a strong Singaporean Core was our objective. What does it mean? In my view, a strong Singaporean Core is one where Singaporeans have a sense of well-being and belonging, in a place where we can all call home. Well-being comes both from the tangibles – having fulfilling jobs and a good quality living environment, as well as the intangibles – strong supportive families, values that connect us, and a collective hope for a
\tPage: 94
brighter future.
I bring up Joelle and Michelle again. Joelle once mentioned to her parents that she aspired to be a cartoonist. What kind of Singapore in the future holds the most opportunities for Joelle, an aspiring cartoonist?
How can we manage our population and immigration policy to give the many young Joelles amongst us as many opportunities, as wide a variety of jobs, and as high a chance of succeeding in the future, while not over-consuming our resources, our infrastructure and our living environment? What we are proposing in our White Paper is a path which we believe will give our children the most options in the future; where we will tighten the inflow of foreign workers at a calibrated pace that is half the growth rate of what we were used to; encouraging new businesses and new industries to start up, giving our Joelles and Michelles opportunities for good-paying exciting jobs, sometimes working alongside foreign employers or foreign colleagues who have the required expertise and learning alongside to progress in their careers; helping businesses, like the one owned by Mr Ng, to transform through new equipment, technology, or out-sourcing the labour intensive, low value-added activities to other countries; encouraging employees like Mrs Ng to upgrade through training and adoption of new technology. This option allows Singapore to be one that remains relevant to the global economy, so that Singapore can be Joelle's spring board to the region or to the world with her talents. This option has a higher chance of meeting the career and family aspirations of Joelle and Michelle in their adult lives. Mdm Speaker, may I speak in Mandarin?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] How can we help Joelle to fulfil her cartoonist dream? How can we manage our population and immigration policy to give the many young Joelles as many opportunities, as wide a variety of jobs, and as high a chance of succeeding in the future, while not over-consuming our resources, our infrastructure and our living environment?
What we are proposing in our White Paper is a path which we believe will give our children the most options in the future; where we will tighten the inflow of foreign workers at a calibrated pace that is half the growth rate of what we were used to; encouraging new businesses and new industries to start up, giving our Joelles and Michelles opportunities for good-paying exciting jobs, sometimes working alongside foreign employers or colleagues who have the required expertise but still learning to progress in their careers; helping businesses, like the one owned by Mr Ng, to transform through new equipment, technology, or out-sourcing the labour intensive, low value-added activities to
\tPage: 95
other countries; encouraging employees like Mrs Ng to upgrade through training and adoption of new technology. This option allows Singapore to be one that remains relevant to the global economy, so that Singapore can be Joelle's spring board to the regional or global market with her talents. This option has a higher chance of meeting the career and family aspirations of Joelle and Michelle in their adult lives.
(In English): What is my hope for Singapore? I would like to see Joelle and Michelle happy to go to school, finding exciting careers ahead of them in Singapore, feel confident about their future, to find the loves of their lives and have children of their own. It is the continuation of the Singapore story, one that has brought us to where we are today. Our proposal today is to give Joelle and Michelle as many options as possible; this is to ensure that we as a people will continue to be united and strong; that as a country, Singapore remains an attractive place to live, work and play; that our children and their children will find this country a place worth fighting for.
To realise this dream, I believe in building a strong Singaporean Core, creating a good opportunities for Singaporeans and planning and building a high quality living environment.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, at the heart of everything we do and every policy we develop, we must consider how they will affect Singaporeans and their families. In this White Paper, we acknowledge the different trade-offs that we may have to make in terms of immigration, economic growth and overcrowding. I would like to begin by addressing what I view as the root cause – the lack of procreation and whether we have provided sufficient support for our Singaporean families.
First, I would like to thank the Government for accepting a number of NTUC's proposals in its broad measures in encouraging Singaporeans to marry and have children and also protect pregnant women. I am sure that the enhanced package will be useful for many married couples who plan on starting a family and even having more children. The challenge remains as to how we can get our young people started onto the path of marriage and then having children.
As the Minister shared earlier, in a 2012 Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) study, 83% of the single respondents indicated that they would like to get
\tPage: 96
married and more than 80% of the single respondents indicated that they would like to have two or more children. I am not sure how reflective those figures are, but residents I speak to lament that the high costs of living have significantly changed the dynamics of how people work and raise families. With higher costs of living, both men and women are now required to work to support their families and to juggle both work and family responsibilities.
Ultimately, getting married and having children is a personal choice and belief. It is often difficult to explain the joys and fulfilment that come with parenting and raising children until you have children yourself.
By the same token, not every family has elderly parents who can help or can afford to engage a domestic helper or care-giver to look after their children. As such, added measures to make childcare more accessible and affordable will be a great boon.
There are facilities that employers and the Government can work together to provide for parents and parents-to-be. With support from employers, businesses and Government, more infant-care and childcare centres can be opened nearer to parents' workplaces rather than just in the HDB heartlands and residential areas.
I appreciate the Government's support to implement paternity and shared parental leave. In fact, the father's more active role in childcare has already been taking place, even before the enactment of any legislation. I am aware that in many employment contracts and collective agreements, many pro-active employers are already providing paid paternity leave from a range of two to three days to some a week.
With Government stepping in to fund one week of paternity leave, I urge employers and companies to be enlightened to top up and not level up. With this, I mean that, for example, if an employer or a company is already currently providing two days of paternity leave, they should top it up by a week to one week and two days since there is no or minimal cost impact to employers for the first week.
Aside from leave enhancements, what would be more critical, in my view, is how we can implement flexible work arrangements in the workplace. I urge all employers to fully embrace and implement flexible work arrangements in all workplaces. This will also help encourage homemakers to return to their
\tPage: 97
workforce after their children have grown.
In my view, enhancing the WoW! Fund alone in the new Marriage and Parenthood package may not translate into a change in mindset on the part of employers that family life and well-being is important. I await the details and plans listed in the Marriage and Parenthood package on how the enhanced WoW Fund will help to encourage more companies to adopt family-friendly work practices. Company culture and its management philosophy play an overriding role in determining whether flexible work arrangements will be effective.
Taking care of a child in modern society requires the strong support from employers to grant flexibility in both time and work arrangements for parents. At the same time, employee performance should be measured by work objectives fulfilled rather than by face time in the office. If the work objectives are fulfilled, there should not be any changes or deduction in remuneration. Even for existing companies that have implemented flexible work arrangements, have we assessed their effectiveness? How many companies in Singapore have tapped onto the WoW! Fund and how have they used it?
It is interesting to note in the latest MOM report that we have a tight labour market with vacancies rising by 4.4% to hit 56,400 in September 2012. Some reasons that the jobs are not taken up by Singaporeans are because the pay is not attractive enough and the working hours/patterns are not able to fit well with their family commitments. Employers will need to look into how to package these jobs and how to implement flexi-work along with it. There is a common perception amongst employers that flexi-work is not applicable to every job. This would be the easy way out to avoid taking the time and effort to re-design work processes.
Adoption rate by employers is still not widespread today. If employers do not respond to this call for action, we should perhaps look at legislating the right for employees to ask for flexible work arrangements similar to that in Australia. Flexi-work arrangements should not be seen as an exception in the workplace but as a ready arrangement to support working parents and get even more women back to work.
The other main drawback of the Marriage and Parenthood package is the lack of recognition or acknowledgment of the important role of stay-at-home mothers. Many of the incentives listed in the Marriage and Parenthood package are rightly focused on working parents since they face difficult challenges both
\tPage: 98
at home and in the workplace. However, for stay-at-home mums, let us not forget the sacrifices that they have made for their children. These mothers could have highly qualified backgrounds and could have easily risen through the ranks to become successful Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs). Nonetheless, some have decided to sacrifice their careers to be at home with their children to care and nurture them. Their economic contributions whilst not as tangible should not be ignored by the Government.
Child-raising is tough work. For home-makers with two or more children and with no domestic help, they may need to place one or more of their children in childcare for the younger ones or even student care for the older ones. The problem now is that there is no childcare or child minding subsidy for them as they are not gainfully employed. Extending the current subsidy to home-makers who have two or more children will be helpful.
Likewise, for full-time home-makers, the Government should even consider a yearly top-up to their CPF Medisave and Special Accounts. Stay-at-home mums can also be equipped with the right skills and knowledge to set up home businesses to supplement the family income. In this regard, perhaps the Government can also help to provide interest-free or nominal interest micro-loans to these budding home entrepreneurs.
The switch from a stay-at-home mum to back-to-work woman is another area for us to focus on in this tight labour market situation. We need better information and knowledge on what are the challenges and difficulties that they face in integrating back to the workplace. Some female PMEs I met told me that they have been required to take deep pay cuts to re-join the workforce. They are also often being biased against as they are seen to have \"lost touch\". MOM should study the ways that we can properly optimise this often neglected source of talent and manpower. Surely, we can do more for stay-at-home mothers who have devoted their own lives to the next generation, to nation building.
Union leaders I spoke to acknowledge the need for unskilled and low-skilled foreign labour in certain industries where Singaporeans shun. This is crucial for us so as to maintain the costs of living, standards of living and overall well-being for our own Singaporeans. On the other end of the spectrum, there are concerns about foreign PMEs taking away local jobs. Looking at the projected statistics, there will a significant increase in PMET jobs by 2030. By then, 1.25 million Singaporeans will be in PMET jobs compared to 850,000 today. I am glad that the White Paper highlights the need for a Singaporean Core. It is therefore important for us to consider the necessary safeguards that we require
\tPage: 99
to help to put that into action and ensure our local PMEs have job security and fair wages.
PMEs and union members I have spoken to are genuinely worried about their jobs and potential PME openings going to foreign PMEs. Till now, we do not have information about the quota set for foreign PMEs or if there is indeed a foreign PME dependency ratio. In previous sittings, I have also called for labour market testing to ensure that Singaporean PMEs will be considered for job vacancies first. I understand that for any employer bent on recruiting foreigners, labour market testing could be just be a window-dressing or a process that they have to go through.
As a suggestion, I would like to float the idea of whether there are certain sectors with extremely large number of foreign PMEs, where a foreign PME dependency ratio or labour market testing can be meted out. Perhaps even to come up with a COE system for hiring of foreign PMEs – and I do not mean Certificate of Entitlements. COE means \"Conditions Of Eligibility\" for employers to meet before hiring foreign PMEs, with conditions such as fulfilment of certain critical skills gap, labour market testing and having a Singaporean Core in that particular company.
In this global economy, I am deeply worried for mature local PMEs who have to face up to the competition posed by well-qualified foreigners. This is really of no fault of their own as they can be just as committed to the company as any other foreign employee. However, due to global changes and challenges, skills gap and career development by their employers, they can be easily displaced during company restructuring. Sometimes, to their shock, the employers refill the same exact position with a foreign employee. From a career development perspective, there ought to be ready avenues and access to professional upgrades or conversions for them from agencies such as the Workforce Development Agency (WDA). While I am glad to note that Caliberlink has been set up by WDA as a dedicated placement agency for PMEs with career services and support, I am concerned whether we can cope with large numbers of local PMEs being displaced when economic downturn or depression happens.
We need to see greater urgency in the overall development of career support and advisory services in the face of huge increase of PMEs in the future workforce. While the population trajectory will be for 2030, we will need to start our work in engaging the stakeholders to ensure that the PMEs will have their
\tPage: 100
voices heard and concerns acted upon.
I, therefore, endorse and support the amendments raised earlier by the hon Member, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, which will reassure us all in Singapore a strong Singaporean Core and ensure better job opportunities and salaries for our Singaporeans.
One big worry on the mind of Singaporeans is their future accessibility to healthcare. Each of our polyclinics sees an average of about 1,000 patients per day, a few even see up to 1,200 to 1,400 patients a day. Waiting times at polyclinics, hospital accident and emergency departments and specialist outpatient clinics have lengthened. The hospitals are bursting at their seams. With a greying population and our baby boomers hitting 65 years and above in the next 10 years, I am sure that they will have to cope with more medical and healthcare issues for our population. While there will be an increase of 4,100 hospital beds by 2020 and an increase of support care facilities in our communities, people are generally concerned whether we would be able to cope with the future healthcare needs. By 2020, the population may be at 6 million compared to 5.31 million now. A simple calculation will show that the corresponding increase in hospital beds is less than even 1% of the increase in total population. Is this a realistic figure? While we expect existing hospitals to be able to accept the stretch as well, is this not an unlikely prospect with current healthcare facilities filled to the brim? However, I am glad to hear from the Minister for Health that his Ministry is reviewing and adjusting its strategic plans in light of this White Paper.
As the Executive Secretary of the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) representing healthcare employees, I am also deeply concerned about the huge strain placed on healthcare employees in meeting the healthcare needs of a burgeoning population. There must be concrete plans put in place to beef up the healthcare workforce to cope with this surge in demand. I note from the footnote in page 40 of the White Paper that there will be increases in foreign healthcare manpower for the healthcare sector up to 28,000 in 2030. When I speak to our local healthcare employees and union members, they value the support and help from our foreign healthcare employees. In fact, the HSEU has many foreign healthcare employees as our union members. To meet the healthcare needs of our people, we may well need sufficiently trained healthcare professionals at all levels from various departments − from allied, ancillary, nursing and doctors. The Singapore Core should remain, the healthcare sector should continue to hire Singaporeans First, but, most importantly, we acknowledge the need to supplement with a foreign workforce
\tPage: 101
to ensure we provide the best care for our people.
Since the release of the White Paper, I have also met many Yishun residents and they have given me much feedback via email, Facebook and so on. I would like to touch a bit on creating living spaces for the residents in Yishun. This will include having a good transport network, amenities and green spaces for residents.
To begin with, the current public transport network and system is crowded especially during peak hours and even off peak. It is not just about getting to the train station within 10 minutes that matters. I think what matters is also whether one will be able to board the train, and in my constituency, Nee Soon East, whether one can even board the feeder services.
To further exacerbate the feeder services problem, there are two foreign worker dormitories located in my constituency and they too spill over to the public buses despite much appeal to the dormitories to cater private transport services for these workers. My hope is that the Government can turn Yishun into a regional centre, just like Jurong East with integrated services such as an expanded bus interchange, increased feeder services, well distributed amenities and interconnected parks, to avoid taking away more green spaces.
I am, therefore, happy to note the earlier amendment to the Motion moved by the hon Member, Mr Liang Eng Hwa. The amendment states that the Government will place, as a priority, to resolve the current strains on our infrastructure, in particular transport.
With the above, I support the White Paper and amendments as earlier moved by the hon Member, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, for its long-term strategic view of continuing Singapore's success story.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mdm Speaker, over the past decade, Singapore's population has grown by over 1.2 million people to reach 5.3 million last year. Our GDP growth figures were rosy for most of the last decade. Income inequality has risen significantly. The wages of the bottom income earners were held down in part by the influx of foreign labour while higher income earners enjoyed huge gains in their income and wealth during this period.
Page: 102
The much-anticipated White Paper on Population projects population growth of another 1.6 million people, largely through immigration and foreign workers, over the next 18 years to reach up to 6.9 million by 2030. The Paper positions population growth as necessary for economic growth. Singaporeans are then given a Hobson's choice: accept more new immigrants and foreign workers, or face a declining economy and lower quality of life.
This is a false dilemma. In my speech today, I will outline how I believe we can stabilise the population size, while improving our economic dynamism and ensuring a more sustainable Singapore for future generations to enjoy.
The White Paper sets a goal for Singapore to become a \"leading city\" that can attract talent and enterprise, and set the pace for other cities. It is this goal that seems to be driving the GDP growth target of 3% to 5% per year. This GDP growth probably cannot be achieved by productivity growth alone, so a high rate of mostly foreign labour force growth is needed. This, in turn, will drive up our population size.
Does being a leading city or global city improve the quality of life of all Singaporeans? Global cities attract many young migrants from their hinterlands and around the world. Even though their fertility rates are low, their populations continue to increase through immigration. But it is expensive to live in a global city. Many cannot afford to live in such expensive places upon retirement, so they move to other parts of their country with lower costs of living.
Will our retirees have such options when they are too old to work, since Singapore does not have any hinterland to speak of?
The Government needs to better explain to Singaporeans not only the benefits of population growth, but also the attendant costs that citizens will have to bear. With a larger population, businesses benefit from a larger pool of customers. Their profits increase, and their owners, top managers and shareholders reap the returns and benefits.
On the other hand, the negative effects of population growth are mostly borne by ordinary citizens. They have to suffer through overcrowded MRT trains, buses and public spaces. They continue to pay high prices for housing. They have to compete for jobs with foreigners and their wage expectations must be lowered in order for them to remain competitive. The higher transportation demand pushes up COE prices, which puts cars out of reach for many. Taxpayers also have to bear the cost of infrastructure development to
\tPage: 103
accommodate a larger population.
Has the Government calculated overall cost per new immigrant compared to per capita benefits which accrue to citizens? The Government has spelled out the expected GDP growth, but has it done any projections for real income growth of workers come 2030?
For the last decade in Singapore, GDP growth has been driven mainly by labour inputs. The generous supply of foreign workers has lowered the bargaining power of local workers, forcing them to accept lower wages in order to be competitive. This has led to much of the benefits of our stellar GDP growth accruing to company profits instead of workers' wages. Our workers' wage share as a percentage of GDP is relatively small compared to other developed countries. In 2011, just 42.3% of Singapore's GDP went to workers' wages. In contrast, according to OECD data, the wage share was 47.5% in Australia, 49.2% in the European Union and 52.3% in Canada. If companies here continue to rely heavily on foreign workers, there will be little incentive for employers to think hard about ways to boost productivity.
But if growth is driven mainly by productivity gains, it would lead to higher real wage increases for workers. In a tight labour market, companies will need to pay their local workers more to retain them, as well as to restructure themselves to become more productive. Therefore, higher productivity growth is critical for our next phase of growth, and we should not let up in our pursuit of our productivity targets.
Our population has grown from 3 million in 1990 to about 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010. This is an increase of about 1 million per decade. The White Paper projects the population to continue growing by the same quantum. It is projected to grow to almost 6 million by 2020 and almost 7 million by 2030. What will happen after 2030? Will we grow to 8 million in 2040 and 9 million in 2050?
I am concerned that the Government seems to be proposing a \"population growth forever\" model, whereby each successive generation requires a larger workforce to keep expanding the GDP. This is simply not sustainable.
Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island's space. Eventually, all the reserve land will be used up and we would have reclaimed land to its limit. When that happens, we will have to settle for zero population
\tPage: 104
growth because of constraints in Singapore's physical size.
If we head down the path spelled out in the White Paper, as we approach 2030 we will again be debating about how to maintain economic growth without growing our population. The main difference then is that we would be bursting at the seams with close to 7 million people crammed on this island. We will have less room for error in planning. And that would be a truly worrying situation.
It would be more responsible to restructure our economy now to grow with fewer labour inputs, than to leave it to future governments to deal with this problem. We need to start planning for an economy that assumes a stabilised population, rather than to rely on perpetual increases in labour through immigration and foreign workers. We must invest more in developing the skills of our people, improving our technology and investing in more capital so as to be able to increase productivity and raise wages.
The Workers' Party is proposing a more moderate pace of growth of our labour force, compared to what the Government has planned in its White Paper. We envision a workforce which grows mainly through local instead of foreign labour force growth.
Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk to distribute a table listing our projected GDP, labour force and population growth numbers.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: We will target to increase our local labour force by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2020, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans.
How will we grow our resident labour force if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? One way would be to increase our labour force participation rate, so that more residents of working age are encouraged to work. The Labour Force Survey 2012 from MOM found that there
\tPage: 105
are 418,000 economically inactive residents of working age, of which 90,000 are willing to work. This is a valuable pool of labour that can be tapped.
With slower labour force growth, our economy will rely mainly on productivity improvements to grow. If the Government meets its 2% to 3% per year productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5% to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, which is far better than the 1.2% we achieved last year and the 1.8% average achieved by OECD countries in 2011.
Between 2020 and 2030, if we maintain labour force growth of 1% per year, and productivity grows by the Government's 1% to 2% target during this period, this will generate 1.5% to 2.5% GDP growth per year, which is still in line with the growth rates of most mature economies.
In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 million to 5.4 million by 2020, and 5.6 million to 5.8 million by 2030. This is significantly lower than the 6.5 million to 6.9 million that the Government is projecting by 2030. More importantly, we will not need so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local labour force, which will help us better preserve the Singaporean core.
What would be the trade-offs of having a slower inflow of foreign workers? The Singapore Business Federation has said that slower labour force growth in Singapore will have \"devastating consequences for many companies\" and that if businesses go under, jobs will be lost and Singaporeans will be affected.
I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs on foreign labour. For many businesses it will mean lower profits, as they will need to pay higher wages to their Singaporean workers to attract and retain them. However, companies which are dependent on low-wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure.
Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation's future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry.
Mdm Speaker, the Population White Paper proposes a population policy that continues to increase our reliance on foreign labour, leading to large increases in our population, which is unsustainable in the long run. I cannot
\tPage: 106
accept this as the roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge, and therefore I oppose the Motion.
The Workers' Party instead proposes a plan which places less emphasis on foreign workforce growth and focuses more on local workforce and productivity growth. This will increase the dynamism and real incomes of our local workers, while putting Singapore on a path towards more stable and sustainable population growth trajectory. Under the Workers' Party's plan, I am confident we will have a more dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, may I seek a clarification from the hon Member? Am I right to infer from column one of his chart that was distributed that the implication is that under the Workers' Party's proposal, between 2013 and 2020, there will be no new additions to our foreign worker pool in Singapore? Indeed, if anything, there may be a slight decline. And secondly, that there will be no new Singapore citizens or PRs?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for his clarification. Firstly, under our plan, we have proposed a 1% increase in resident labour force growth. So, we do not envision a need to have additional foreign labour except if we cannot attain that 1% growth in resident labour force growth.
Mr S Iswaran: Just to be clear, the Workers' Party is advocating zero foreign workforce addition for the next eight years, including this year?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Our goal is to reach that 1% of resident workforce growth as a way to —[Interruption]. I will answer that question.
Our goal is to reach that 1%, at least 1% of resident workforce growth. So, our priority is to make sure that we do all we can to increase the labour force participation rate so that we can achieve that 1%. If we can achieve that 1% without having the additional foreign labour growth, then that I think will be a bonus for us.
Mr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, I appreciate the Member's clarification. I paid close attention to this table because it is a serious proposal. And I read the
\tPage: 107
footnote because it is quite clear from the footnote that for the period 2020 to 2030, the Workers' Party envisages some selective top-ups to compensate for any decline in the resident workforce. But there is no such clarification footnote for the period 2013 to 2020. So, it must be assumed that you are assuming zero foreign worker addition, and there is no new Singapore citizen or PR.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I think it would be reasonable to assume that. And I do not think there is anything wrong with having zero foreign workforce growth in the next eight years. But that is not primarily our target. Our target is to make sure that we maximise the local workforce participation.
Mr S Iswaran: State it for the record.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Tan.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, if I may attempt to seek clarifications again. I tried to seek some clarifications earlier. I am actually very interested to increase our labour force participation rate. I think I have said that many times – it is important. We do have a fair number of economic inactives. They are older workers and so on. We have put in place a number of measures. We have shown, in terms of Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) for some of our older workers, after Japan and Korea, we are one of the highest in the world. We can still have some room to grow and we intend to strengthen those initiatives.
But a key component of the Member's strategy is to beef up the LFPR to such a stage that we actually do not need foreign workers in Singapore. I am very interested to know the initiatives and ideas to bring that about and that is key. It is not the rhetoric that is important. Governance is about how do you translate ideas, visions into reality, and that is what it is really about; not just rhetoric, not just pressing the right emotive buttons. It is about making things happen so that we can realise a shared vision about how to make things better for Singaporeans.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Madam, I am not sure why the Minister seems to imply that we are just doing rhetoric. We intend to push for measures to increase the LFPR. We have mentioned things like flexi-work, telecommuting, part-time work. But I think one area that is a very good way of increasing the LFPR is to raise wages. The reason is because it increases the opportunity cost of people staying at home. People will weigh the cost of staying at home versus going out to work and I believe that that is one key way in which we can raise
\tPage: 108
the participation rate.
I am not saying that MOM is not doing anything right now to raise the Labour Force Participation Rate. We appreciate the work-life balance measures that MOM is taking, but I think that there is more that can be done, and this is one way. If we can raise the wages of workers in Singapore, that might encourage a lot more people to go out to work.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: A key component of one of the things the Member said in the latter part of his speech was about retraining, investing in capital and investing in re-developing skills so that our workers could remain relevant. We totally agree. We do spend a lot on our CET training and we do intend to continue to strengthen that. Our productivity and restructuring – those cornerstones. We need to pursue productivity at all cost, as much as we can because that is key for us. We cannot continue as before and we fully acknowledge that. As we have said – very often – with productivity, wages would also go up. That is something we are working on. I would be very interested to know what more and what else.
What I have detected so far would seem to be that all things that the Member has suggested focuses on \"Let us do more\". And those things we are doing more of, but I would like to explore what other initiatives and ideas specifically that will provide that significant delta. That is what we are looking for and that is really important. If there are useful suggestions, I am very keen to explore what those might be.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Madam, I have already mentioned some suggestions. I did not take the time in my speech to outline all the Labour Force Participation Rate increase measures but I believe that if we continue on the path of what MOM is doing, with finding ways to increase the labour force, we can achieve that target that we need to achieve in order to increase the resident workforce. The whole crux of our proposal is that we want to increase the resident labour force numbers. Increasing the Labour Force Participation Rate is one key component of doing that; it is not the only way but it is one key component of doing that.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for your indulgence. I would not fully agree. I would say this: the goal is not GDP growth, the goal is not the number. The goal is to be able to provide a level of economic growth, and the goal is not economic growth. It is to be able to provide a quality of life for our
\tPage: 109
people. We agree with the Workers' Party on that.
The question is how do you bring that about? These things do not happen naturally. There are challenges, there is competition. Whatever we do, other countries are doing as well; so we need to be in cognisance of that. Labour Force Participation Rate is important – and we recognise it not because we do not – we do want to let go on that. There are many things that are on-going concurrently. If we are able to be successful in bringing up Labour Force Participation Rate, if we can improve our TFR, for example, the workforce will only kick in probably in the post 2030-2035 timeframe. What do you do in-between?
If we can increase our Labour Force Participation Rate, if we can also reach our productivity target and even exceed it, that gives us policy space to not necessarily ramp up the foreign labour force, as needed. The target is not to reach that level of foreign labour force; the target is to generate the level of growth that we can provide for our people. We are actively turning our back on economic growth, to scale down because we cannot sustain that level of growth. It needs to be sustainable to meet a range of options that we can provide for our people.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Tan, if you could just close the clarification you seek.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: If we can achieve those numbers, then obviously it allows us flexible space in terms of the foreign labour numbers as well.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Madam, what the Acting Minister said in his last statement is not in contradiction to what we have said. What we are saying is that with increased Labour Force Participation Rate, we can achieve a reasonable GDP growth without having to import a whole lot more of foreign workers.
Mr S Iswaran: Madam, thank you for your indulgence. May I just clarify with the Member? Does the Workers' Party's zero tolerance for foreign workers in this period extend to sectors like construction and others where we are having great difficulties finding Singaporeans to do the job? Secondly, this implies zero immigration; meaning no new Singapore citizens or PRs. I am trying to reconcile that with the statement by the Workers' Party Chairman who advocated extending citizenship and PR to selected groups. Could the Member clarify?
Page: 110
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Two responses to the Minister: firstly, we do not have a zero-tolerance policy towards foreigners. The Workers' Party is not an anti-immigrant party and we welcome foreigners who come here to be able to contribute to our economy, contribute to our life here.
Regarding the specific question on things like construction, we have said that we do not see a need to increase the foreign labour force numbers. It does not mean that we kick out all the foreigners right now. We maintain the numbers that are here and replace those that leave. [Interruptions] I am saying that we can hit zero if we increase our resident labour force. It is not our goal to hit zero foreign worker increment; our goal is to hit that 1% resident workforce and we believe that with that 1% resident workforce increase, we can hit the growth that we need to be able to sustain a better life for all Singaporeans.
Mr S Iswaran: Madam, the Member has not quite given a clear answer but I am surmising from this that the Workers' Party's position is: you presume 1% growth in the resident workforce and, in that context, there is no increase in foreign worker numbers in Singapore, even if it means construction and other sectors that are having difficulty getting those workers from the Singapore pool, are unable to do so.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: The short answer to that question is: yes. And I believe that we can attract workers into the different sectors if the wages are raised and proper re-training is made available to the workers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you, Madam. I would just like to follow up on the assumption of immigration. What is the Member's position on immigration? Are we assuming zero immigration from 2013 onwards?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I believe I answered that question earlier on. We have said that we do not see a need to import more foreigners within the next eight years if we can achieve the resident labour force growth that we need.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Which means there would be no foreign wives, no new PRs, no new SCs from now?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Is the Minister asking about new citizens?
Page: 111
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, that is my question.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I do not expect new citizens to be working in the construction industry. Just to state our position: we are not anti-new citizen and we believe that there is room for up to about 10,000 Singapore citizens to be brought in per year during this period.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: So, 10,000 is the limit for citizens, every year from now to 2020, and thereon as well? Beyond?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thereafter, we will see how our TFR has increased and we can calibrate accordingly.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: And the TFR, I think the Member has noted that he would like to raise TFR. Is there any target TFR that he has in mind?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Our target is as much as possible; and if it can hit 2.1, it is great. We are not chasing TFR targets. We are chasing the measures that will allow Singaporean parents to want to have more children.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: To the extent that we all want as high a TFR as possible, I think we are aligned on that. I would like to see what is in the Member's assumption in arriving at his number. What is the TFR that he has assumed and also I noticed that he has assumed the TFR to increase from 2013 and, therefore, giving him some additional workforce? To have additional workforce from TFR today, it means that the child born today will start working in 2030 and he is only 17.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: The answer to the question on what is our assumption for TFR: 1.3. That is the assumption that we use for our calculation. It is not our target but we have taken a conservative approach because we do not want to assume that we can increase TFR to 2.1 tomorrow. As far as TFR's contribution to the workforce is concerned, it does not factor in to our numbers over here; it factors into the final population number but it does not factor into the workforce participation rate and the workforce numbers. Because even if tomorrow the TFR is increased to 1.3, you would not see these babies working until about 2033.
\tPage: 112
Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the White Paper on Population. While the report has some compelling arguments for the 6.9 million population figure projected, we all know it is based mainly on economic considerations. Had we focused on things like building a cohesive nation with a strong national identity, the outcome would likely be very different.
I feel the time has come for us to find a better balance between economic growth and social cohesion. And, yes, there will have to be trade-offs of economic growth but I would rather trade some of these for a cohesive, united nation where people feel taken care of at home and are confident of their future. I am not saying that we go for low or no growth, as the Workers' Party had proposed. A low or slow growth – in fact, even starting from 2013 is what I am reading from the proposal that they just put up – would mean that most of our SMEs will stop growing and Singapore will stagnate and decline. Some SMEs or most of them may even end up closing down. Every one of us will be worse off, not better, in my opinion.
Instead, I am willing to adjust my growth expectations for a more comfortable life for all Singaporeans; so reasonable growth but not low or no growth. I am confident that we will still be able to pursue a respectable economic growth when companies and Singaporeans are faced with a situation of tightened labour availability, by focusing on improving ourselves through productivity and higher value capabilities. Finland and other small nations have done so, and I believe that we, too, can achieve that.
Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we can take the next step. In this respect, I agree with Mr Gerald Giam that the rate of growth in the last decade, in fact, in the last 25 years, has just been too steep. I call on the Government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems that have been created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans, including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home. But we did not achieve that for most of our Singapore population.
So, I call for a breather in this quest of growing the population and focus on improving the lives of Singaporeans and achieve that promised Swiss Standard of living for most Singaporeans first before we plan our next growth trajectory. I am not saying that we stop growing the population forever; let us
\tPage: 113
take a break; assess the situation; improve things before we start growing again.
The most important thing is for us as a Government to take care of the Singaporean Core and, therefore, I have a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens we are planning to add to the population. That part of the White Paper is something that I cannot agree with.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]
I do not see the necessity for us to be as aggressive when the key consideration of the population growth is the economy. We have already added too many new citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) and need time for integration and social cohesion to happen. Looking at history, our population grew from 2.4 million in 1980 to 3 million in 1990 and then to 4 million in the year 2000, reaching 5.3 million last year. And if we just look at the resident population alone, we grew the numbers from 2.3 million in 1980, 2.7 million in 1990, 3.3 million in the year 2000 and then to 3.8 million last year.
So, in the last decade, we added more than 1 million resident population, and the in last 25 years, which is close to one generation of Singaporeans, we have added another close to 50% more to our resident population. I believe this must be the fastest rate of population growth in the world! And I feel that this is just too much for us to comfortably go back to build a national identity and social cohesion which was progressing very well till the 1990s. And then when we decided to grow very fast, things started to fall apart.
According to the projection of 30,000 PRs per year and some citizens – some of whom may be from the PR pool – we are talking of adding another 500,000 to 800,000 more PRs and citizens possibly and this will be disastrous, in my opinion, and add to our already difficult infrastructure and social problems that they are facing as a result of the past policy.
Sir, if it is economic growth that we want, then just adopt the Dubai model of a transient workforce which will give us a lot more flexibility to manage numbers in the longer term. But according to the Workers' Party's proposal of a zero growth of foreign workforce starting this year and even beyond to 2020, as I have mentioned, it will be a disastrous spell for our SMEs. In fact, they are already victims of a very tight foreign labour policy and they are employing 75% of our workforce – a number of them, as we have read from the papers, have started to move out to places like Iskandar and some of them were even shut
\tPage: 114
down.
We just read from the papers this morning, the letter written to MOM by the various industry associations about the problems that they are already facing with the tightened labour force. And I believe one of them has seen about 5% of the members having already moved out of Singapore as a result. And if you follow the policy that the Workers' Party is proposing, I think we are going to see a rapid decline and I think life will be worse off for everyone because jobs will not be there and we cannot ensure a comfortable life for everyone.
The other thing that the Workers' Party is proposing is that we depend on our resident population to add to the workforce. By my calculations, that means that Singaporeans will have to retire later; we will have people who will work very hard throughout their lives and with no chance of enjoying their retirement after all the effort they have put in to build up their families, their country. I think this basically is also not a solution that is workable. We have to be realistic about this. Therefore, I am proposing that we do not abandon the Dubai model – in fact, adopt it – and depend for our growth on some resident workforce, resident population, but also a transient population that can support future growth.
On PRs, today we already have too many of them, as I have mentioned, and they are enjoying full citizen privileges almost without citizens' responsibilities. Today, far too many of our PR boys skip National Service (NS) when they turn 18. After enjoying the privileges, they have a choice of not doing NS and then leave the country. I believe that only about 30% of PR boys do NS today. Our Singaporean sons do not have that choice but to do the NS. If not, it is an offence for them.
PR children today still study in international system schools, sticking to their home cultures because these schools provide their kind of environment. PRs can buy HDB flats from the open market and this has driven the HDB prices to very high levels.
Therefore, I urge the Government to reduce the number of projected PRs and citizens to just the population replacement levels that we need because of the problematic TFR that we have. And let us be more selective and differentiate the privileges that they are given from citizens. I have a few suggestions for the Government to consider.
Sir, in the past few years, we had tried to draw the distinction between PRs and citizens by increasing school fees and healthcare fees for them. But I
\tPage: 115
wonder if it would not have been better to instead partially subsidise the same fees for Singapore citizens? So, do it the other way round, reduce fees for Singaporeans and not just increase it for PRs so that Singaporeans benefit more, simply because cost of living is already very high for Singaporeans.
Moving forward, PR children must be made to do NS – it should no longer be a choice and we should make it an offence if they do not do it. Send them to jail if we can. We should not grant PRs to families who do not commit their sons to NS.
On HDB, I think we need to manage prices. Definitely, prices have been driven up by many of them buying it from the open market. I suggest that we add a levy of, say, $50,000 – I am just floating a number – if they decide to buy a flat even from the open market and allow them to sell that flat back only to Singaporeans. And if the PRs become citizens within five years, give them back the $50,000 levy that they have put in place. I think this will be a more equitable way of trying to manage the HDB prices and also being fair to Singaporeans, who should be given the first preference for HDB flats.
We should also force all PR children to study in our national schools which will increase the chance of integrating them at the next generation.
On the employment front, I suggest that we implement a Singaporean-First policy where employers will have to prove that they are not able to fill a position with a Singaporean before we allow them to hire foreigners.
I would like the Government to also reconsider the dependants policy. I have come across cases where one child is studying in Singapore, say, from China, and whose parents would come down to Singapore as dependants or to support the child and then who, in turn, bring both of their parents into Singapore. The net effect has been one child that we brought in for our future and six people who are going to add to our ageing population problem in the future. I think we need to be a lot more firm about this so that we do not allow too many to come into Singapore.
Sir, I feel that the differentiated privileges will separate the genuine ones from those who are here for a ride. We should grant PRs to only those who are most likely to take up citizenships so these differentiated privileges should not stifle our plans to attract quality PRs and new citizens.
Page: 116
This brings me to the point of how Singaporeans are feeling about the presence of such huge numbers of new citizens, PRs and foreigners amongst our midst. First, for housing, there is no doubt that the influx of foreigners into Singapore has driven up our property prices, as many Members have brought up. I just want to quote an example.
I had a dialogue session with my private estates residents just last week and, in the dialogue session, one of my Singaporean residents complained about a towering three-and-a-half storey building, semi-detached house that was coming up in an estate that was mainly single-storey and double-storey houses. Their accusation is that the owner-to-be is a foreigner. At the tea break, I had a chat with this owner who also happened to attend my dialogue session. When he identified himself as a new citizen recently arrived from China, a citizen, he mentioned to me that he had bought three landed properties in Kebun Baru alone. I do not know where else, and I felt surprised and saddened because I know that many of my fellow Singaporeans cannot afford to do the same. This new citizen, no matter how he had made his wealth, is able to do so. I think we need to put in restrictions so that Singaporeans do not feel that the foreigners have benefited more than they have, after all the hard work they have put in, in Singapore.
Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce, feel demoralised that many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals, to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans.
I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1,900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years, I could afford to buy a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns just $2,600, that is just $700 more than what I earned when I started 28 years ago. The mathematics is very simple. The cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum in the last 28 years and even more, the cost of owning properties in Singapore did not just go up by 37% since 1985.
Finally, I am perturbed by the banquet analogy used by Minister Khaw. We are talking about lives of Singaporeans here. Our banquet guests come for one night and leave when the function is over. So, we can have that kind of a buffer planning. But there is no turning back when we grant PR and citizenship to foreigners. We must be more exact about the numbers we want to add to the
\tPage: 117
Singapore population and not plan on a basis of \"hoping that we hit some number\". Because if we overdo things and the end population is more than 7 million, as we overdid in the last 10 years and we exceeded what we may have thought that we would have achieved, it may be too late to stop the fast moving train of population growth when we fire up all the engines of growing the population. We missed the mark in the last 10 years, and we are already paying a heavy price for that mistake.
Sir, in my speech in this House in 2008 during the Committee of Supply debate on the population, at that time, I urged the Government to abandon what I called \"the instant tree mentality\" in trying to grow the population in response to declining birth rates. At that time, I did not agree with the rate of growth pursued and we all know the consequences and the hardship that Singaporeans faced as a result of that rapid growth that we allowed to happen here in Singapore. We all know that instant trees cannot grow strong roots and can be uprooted in difficult times.
I, therefore, once again urge the Government to slow down and plan on reaching their population target over a longer time horizon. Twenty-thirty is too soon. I do not think that we can live with 6.9 million population here in Singapore by 2030. We may be able to handle it in 2050, but no one really knows. But the rate of growth is no different from what we have seen in the past, so I think we should slow down. Please abandon the \"instant tree\" mentality as we cannot afford to make Singaporeans' lives more difficult as a result. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for any planning misjudgements in this area.
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to see us take a breather from re-growing our population again. We have too many problems. As the Government, we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us and that we are willing to take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems and our problems, make their lives more comfortable, give them a better quality of life and show them that any future growth of population will not create similar social and cost of living problems that they faced in the past. At this stage, many Singaporeans from all walks of life do not have the confidence that we can handle another steep growth of the population, so let us not push it too hard.
I would like all of us, including the Government, to spend the time creating an environment that gives us confidence in our future and where our young can see a sense of hope and opportunity and if we fail to instil this sense of hope and opportunity for our future generations, we will not be able to root them
\tPage: 118
here and build a strong national identity and a strong nation made of core Singaporeans. This is what building a strong Singapore Core should entail. So, let us delay the plans for further population growth for now and focus on nation-building.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to address one point that was made by the Member that gave the impression that the Workers' Party does not care about companies' folding up because of lack of manpower. I share the Member's concern for the well-being of our companies. But the question is not if companies should go through economic restructuring, but when. So, I would say that there is no better time than now to go through this economic restructuring when our budgets are healthy. Economic restructuring will not come without costs. The Government must be prepared to bear significant part of this burden.
Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, if the Workers' Party cares about SMEs, then I think we would not have seen this proposal of zero growth in the foreign labour, simply because if you have your feet to the ground, you would have got the feedback from the SMEs that they all are suffering right now, with the current policy of still growing but growing at a slow rate. We are not at a zero rate, we are still growing and yet companies are suffering. We just heard yesterday from the Chambers of Commerce that they, too, are going to leave Singapore if we do not address this issue. So, I am surprised because the paper that was presented seemed to show that you do not really care.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, if the Government really cares about the SMEs, they will help the SMEs go through the restructuring and bear the costs of that because that is where the long-term benefits will come to the SMEs, when they can benefit from a more productive environment and rely less on foreign labour.
Mr Inderjit Singh: I own a couple of businesses. I know that restructuring is going to take some time and, in fact, not here that I was going to talk about it, I was going to talk about it at the Budget debate, that, yes, we need to slow down the tightening of the labour workforce and focus on productivity improvements but it is going to take us a bit more time. Because companies have got a certain business model that they are used to. Business models cannot change overnight. If we really care about companies, then we would not tighten the labour workforce any further. Give them a chance, a longer time
\tPage: 119
horizon to restructure and then talk about tightening the labour force. But what the Workers' Party is proposing is just shut off the tap right now. That is not going to accelerate restructuring. It is going to kill companies. [Interruptions]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Can I remind Members to seek your clarifications through the Chair?
Mr Inderjit Singh: In answer to Mr Low, slowing down population growth is not the same as zero population growth. I think the Paper has proposed a certain level of growth. I am suggesting a level of growth that is lower, but I am not suggesting zero growth as the Workers' Party has proposed.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Let us move on, Mrs Lina Chiam.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there has been a lot of media attention on what the 2030 population numbers in this White Paper represent. Is this a target? Is it a projection or \"a worst case scenario\"? Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister has taken great pains to explain that the White Paper is very much an exercise in infrastructure planning for Singapore.
But make no mistake. The 6.5 million to 6.9 million population range by 2030 is a planning target set by the Government, subject to the economic situation in the next 15 or so years, but a target, nevertheless. The Minister has given us his justification for the target set. As such, the Singapore People's Party do not agree to the recommendation of the White Paper. We are also disappointed that the White Paper which as one Public Policy academic pointed out, \"did not even contain a reference session to show what research the writers of the Paper had done or the methodology employed\". In fact, the only citations we found in this White Paper prepared by the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) were seven of their own papers and briefs. Talk about cyclical reasoning.
The White Paper raises more questions than it seeks to answer. If one of the main pillars of the White Paper is to maintain a strong and stable Singaporean Core, since we are told that the current Total Fertility Rate puts that under threat, then why is it necessary for the non-citizen population to keep growing? Is this so that we will have a bigger pool of foreigners to audition to become Singaporeans? Is the non-citizen population expected to grow after 2030 or stagnate at the 2030 level? If it is stagnant, what will happen to
\tPage: 120
economic growth, as this Government's model would dictate?
Ten to 20 years are, indeed, too long a period to make any realistic policy. But the logic underpinning the White Paper's recommendation necessitates a clearer policy direction for Singapore post 2030 to meet now. Does the Government intend to freeze the intake of foreigners in 2030? Or at the point when it realises that no land use plan will work anymore?
Let us take a look at four assumptions used in the White Paper. Firstly, the Minister has emphatically stated that the Government is not going for \"Growth At All Costs\". Nevertheless, the White Paper perpetuates the mindset of dependency on labour. It assumes that there is still a good chance for productivity growth to get better, whereas all the productivity enhancement schemes have not worked.
Secondly, Singapore is a city-state with no hinterland, a point with many consequences for recreation for national security. This sets our situation apart from just about every other highly developed cities in the world. It will be alright for those cities to have half a population of foreign residents.
For Hong Kong SAR, which is perhaps the only comparable city-state entity, their population density currently stands at only about 6,400 persons per sq km, compared with that of Singapore's current population density of about 7,200 persons per sq km. Even city-state entities like Hong Kong or Monaco do not have to take care of their national defence, a crucial point I will return to.
Thirdly, the White Paper is based on a very unique event in human history, namely, that of the Baby Boomers phenomenon. Given that Baby Boomers is a unique event in history and is transient in nature albeit for 10 years or longer, is it wise to plan for a country's population and infrastructure based on this event? Or put otherwise, can we justify bringing in more migrants to support aged Singaporeans, knowing that the new migrants will themselves contribute to the aged population? Which leads to the fourth point.
The White Paper assumes that bringing in more migrants is the solution to our worrying Old Age Support Ratio (OASR), through increased tax revenue collected and so on. But I do not know how this is applicable in Singapore, where the Government believes families should be the main source of financial and social support for the elderly, where the state is unabashedly anti-welfare.
Page: 121
How then can the new migrants support our elderly? How then can the increased revenue collected from them be channelled effectively to Singaporeans? Even if this is the case, we see no projected figures for the increased revenue expected, for substantiation in the White Paper.
I now deal with four points in the White Paper we take issue with.
Firstly, when the proportion of citizens out of the total population nears the 50% mark, as the 2030 numbers project, I do not know how we can convince our young men of the need for National Service, let alone lay down their lives for the nation. In the worst case scenario of war, they will ask – what are we defending? Why defend a country where so many of its residents can leave if they wish?
But we do not even need to go that far. Even right now, many are wondering why they should sacrifice two years of their lives, and in subsequent reservist cycles, only to be beaten in the job search by foreigners.
Secondly, the White Paper foresees that two-thirds of Singaporeans will take on PMET jobs in 2030, compared to 50% currently. Does it mean that foreigners will take up more non-PMET jobs in 2030, compared to the current numbers? So, is the plan for Singapore to attract foreigners of lower skill in 2030 as compared to now?
Thirdly, Chapter 5 of the White Paper is \"A High Quality Living Environment\", which ties in with the Government's idea that the quality of life can still be maintained in 2030. But what we find in that chapter, instead, is a focus on how our public transport system will be expanded, the new MRT lines that will be built, hospitals and so on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is not what quality of life entails. These are the very basic infrastructure requirements for the influx of people the country wants to bring in! I was hoping to see more relevant indicators of the quality of life, such as a survey of satisfaction with life among Singaporeans. But no such measures seem to be used.
Fourth, if the White Paper is indeed the guiding document for infrastructure planning, are we doing enough? For instance, the stated plan is to increase the number of acute hospital beds by 2,200, or 30%. Considering that the increase in the total number of hospital beds over the last decade was zero, how can 2,200 more beds by 2020 be enough to cater for the 700,000 increase in the
\tPage: 122
population?
I now turn to the Land Use Plan, on which I have two questions for the Minister. Firstly, it was reported by a few media outlets that in this Plan, the Ministry of Defence's activities will be consolidated on Pulau Tekong, so as to free up the space it currently uses on the Singapore mainland, for development. I do not seem to be able to find any mention of this in the Land Use Plan document, so perhaps the Ministry announced this at the press conference.
Now, I have never heard of the armed forces of any country in the world that concentrates all its activities and, presumably, facilities, on one island, away from the mainland. Does that not make it a very easy target for Singapore's defence capabilities to be wiped out by a belligerent force? Perhaps, I have not understood this correctly. I will certainly appreciate any clarification from the Minister for Defence.
Secondly, according to Table 1 of the document, there will be only 4% of land left for \"Others\", in 2030. What happens if the population continues to grow after 2030, and if any effort of the Government to curtail that fails?
Perhaps, the Government thinks we can always resort to land reclamation. Then, the question is, how much more land can Singapore gain through reclamation thereafter? There must surely be a limit.
In conclusion, the Singapore People's Party is most concerned that there seems to be no new substantive initiatives in this White Paper to address Singaporeans' most pressing problems like negative real median wage increase over the last five years, and the relentless rise in the cost of living, particularly for basic goods and services. There is just the same old measures, like life-long upgrading, Workfare, job-matching and placement programmes.
For whom is the White Paper written? It does not address the concerns of low-income Singaporeans.
We are of the opinion the White Paper has framed the issues wrongly. A fundamental revamp of Singapore's economic growth model is sorely needed; not just stop-gap measures to deal with a population explosion which may themselves engender further costs.
Change has to start today. Our immigration policy must change more boldly. Conversion from foreigners to PR and later to Singaporeans must slow
\tPage: 123
down further.
SMEs that perform poorly in terms of productivity should not be allowed to be artificially sustained. The Government must make wise decisions over MNCs threatening to leave Singapore unless supported with foreign worker quotas to their liking.
It is highly regrettable that the Government has decided to rush through the debate and approval of such an important plank of national policy. The Government's programme of the so-called National Conversation has been a PR stunt. And there is no better indication of that than in the formulation of this White Paper. Singaporeans were told that they will start listening more to us, but ultimately, they will not tell us they know what is best.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the Motion for A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore and the accompanying Land Use Plan.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lui.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Deputy Speaker, please let me share our land transport plans in support of the Population White Paper. I would touch briefly on these plans to support a possible population of 6.9 million by 2030. But I think it is more important for me to spend more time talking about the near term plans to improve the situation that we face today.
I try to ride on various parts of the rail network on a regular basis to get a first-hand update on the situation on the ground. I am mindful that this is not a complete experience because, unlike many commuters, when I do go on such visits, I do not face the constraint of getting to a particular destination by a defined time. Nonetheless, I think my conclusions are something that most Singaporeans will share and agree with.
First, during the morning peak hours, outside of the school holiday periods, it is very congested. I can understand why commuters are frustrated because, for them, this is a daily experience. Second, many commuters have to take a feeder to reach an MRT station, or from the station to their final destination. This can add quite significantly to their total journey time. Third, the variable waiting times and crowdedness on buses mean that the journey is less predictable and so it can fluctuate from day to day and this adds to the stress
\tPage: 124
that they face. And fourth, the occasional train disruption can wreck their plans for the day. Therefore, in speaking about our long- and short-term plans, I hope to address and improve on these areas.
By 2030, workers – foreign or local – permitting, we will double the current length of our rail network to about 360 km. We would have completed five more lines across the island – the Downtown Line, Thomson Line, Eastern Region Line, Cross Island Line and Jurong Region Line – to join the four that we already have. Perhaps we may have even more new lines under construction by then. We had a very interesting exchange on workers. I, therefore, ask that whoever is in charge will give us special dispensation on foreign workers for MRT construction, in particular, so that we can bring all these plans to fruition.
So, what, you may ask, about all these new lines that we are adding? Well, what it means is that we will have a much expanded public transport network, we would have added new capacity, and I believe that the travel experience will improve significantly as commuters are distributed over a larger network. By 2030, eight in 10 households will be within a 10-minute walk from an MRT station. Ninety percent of our buildings in the CBD area will be within a five-minute walk. The rail network will bring us to almost all key parts of Singapore and many can be less dependent on the vagaries of the bus feeders to reach their destinations.
However, the 2030 vision of a very convenient and high-quality public transport system is not so easy for many Singaporeans to visualise. What we have experienced in public transport in the last few years has affected how we view the future. We should have invested more in building new lines and buying new trains in the early years of the last decade. As the Prime Minister had explained, this was because of the very challenging economic circumstances, and we also had the difficult experience of the North East Line opening in 2003 and operating for a number of years with ridership well below what was planned for. Because we were too prudent and conservative in public transport infrastructure investment during the early years of the last decade, we now find ourselves doing a lot of catching up.
I, therefore, fully understand the scepticism and unhappiness from the public when the 6.9 million population figure was released in the White Paper. Seen through the prism of the current situation, I can appreciate how unthinkable it may seem that we can accommodate a population by 2030, that is, 30% higher than today, even though we have firm plans to double the rail
\tPage: 125
network over this same period.
But I do believe that we will begin to see a gradual but noticeable and perceptible improvement over the next five years. Why do I say this?
Capacity in our rail and bus network will grow over the next five years. Between now and 2017, the Downtown Line will open in phases and this will add significant new capacity to the east-west corridor. People living around the Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang areas will have a new and faster route to the city centre by 2015. This will help to relieve congestion at Jurong East and along the East-West Line. Likewise, people in Tampines will have a choice of two MRT lines to get to the city centre while others along Bedok Reservoir and along Ubi will no longer need to rely on the East-West Line.
For the existing North-South and East-West Lines, we will complete the re-signalling work to increase capacity during the peak hours by 20%. We will also add about 70% more total capacity to the northeast corridor and 60% more capacity to the Circle Line with the delivery of new trains by 2015.
In total, what this all means is that during the busiest one hour in the morning, our assessment is that we will have the capacity to carry 70% more passengers into the CBD in five years' time compared to what we have today. I do not expect that there will be such a sharp increase in ridership. Hence, what this implies is that, for most commuters taking the train into the city, the journey will be less crowded by then.
During off-peak hours and weekends, commuters can also expect trains to arrive more frequently. I have already announced that during the off-peak hours, no commuter will have to wait more than five minutes for a train, except very early in the morning and very late at night. We are targeting to apply this requirement to the North-South and East-West Lines this year, and we will extend it to the other MRT lines by around 2015.
For buses, we have made good progress in rolling out the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, or BSEP for short. Since its launch last September, we have added about 90 new buses, improved about 50 bus services and implemented five new routes. Feedback has been positive. Recruitment of drivers permitting – again, local or foreign – I aim to accelerate the BSEP. This year, we will add about 190 new buses, which means that half of the 550 buses promised under the five-year programme will be on our roads by the end of the year. This will allow us to roll out more new routes, and improvements to more
\tPage: 126
bus services across the island. Commuters can, therefore, experience tangible improvements in shorter waiting times, less crowding, and better connectivity.
I have also asked LTA to see how we can tap on the resources of private bus operators in specific areas to accelerate this programme. LTA will be tendering some of the new BSEP routes, and I invite private operators to respond. We will contract out more City Direct-type bus services which run during the morning peak hours along the expressways into the city, and we will also work with operators to see if it is possible to extend such contracting arrangements to other new, shorter services, for instance, localised routes in estates that feed to MRT stations. If successful, this will allow us to scale up the BSEP beyond the 550 buses that the two public bus operators are committed to implement, and give us the resources to implement more new routes and other service improvements.
But even with the BSEP, commuters tell me that waiting times for buses at their bus stops are irregular. Sometimes, they wait a long time for their bus, and then two or three buses come together, especially during peak hours – a not-too-uncommon experience, judging by the smiles I see.
Therefore, even as we operate more buses, we will need to work with bus operators to improve the reliability of their buses en-route, so that commuters experience more regular waiting times. There are a number of examples, like in London and Seoul, of how they have implemented a framework and worked with the operators to achieve this. They shared with me how they have managed, with difficulty, to improve bus reliability over a number of years through an incentive-and-penalty system based on commuters' expected waiting times at the bus stop. Their bus operators have to adopt a new mindset, invest substantially in fleet management capabilities to monitor their buses, and make appropriate interventions so buses arrive at more regular intervals along the entire route. This is something that I am keen to try out and LTA will begin to trial this scheme on some services in the second half of this year.
But to derive the full benefits from the measures that I have just mentioned, we must also give more priority to buses on our roads. Today, we have about 180 km of bus lanes and about 200 Mandatory Give-Way to Buses scheme. Over the next two years, we will spend close to $50 million to improve bus reliability, such as adding another 30 km of bus lanes, increasing the Mandatory Give-Way scheme to another 150 bus stops, and quadruple the number of bus hubs from 10 to 40 so that more buses can pick up passengers at the same time. We will also step up bus lane enforcement as infringements will result in delays for
\tPage: 127
buses and commuters.
We will also improve train reliability. A train that has to be withdrawn from service leads to ripple effects like overcrowding and delays throughout the rail network and inconveniences commuters greatly. The Joint Team that was formed between LTA-SMRT has achieved some success over the past six months. Train withdrawals on the North-South and East-West Lines have decreased sharply. Today, we experience about one train withdrawal for every 1,000 trips on these two lines and we aim to improve this by about another 20% by the end of the year. We will improve further in subsequent years, and aim to halve the withdrawal rate to one train withdrawal every 2,000 trips as we upgrade the trains and place more attention on preventive maintenance.
Besides supply-side measures, we also want to encourage commuters to spread out their travel to outside the peak hours, and we have introduced several incentive schemes to do so. Commuters who are able and willing to travel off-peak on the SMRT network today can already save up to 50 cents off their rail fare if they exit at designated stations in CBD before 7.45 am. The scheme has seen some initial success, and we have seen about 3% to 4% of commuters move their travel period out of the peak hours. We will continue to see how this can be made even more effective, and will consider further improvements possibly later this year. Besides this SMRT scheme which gives an immediate discount, we also have a scheme for off-peak commuters to accumulate points for more sizeable rewards, of up to $200, when they travel off-peak. This is the \"Incentives for Singapore's Commuters\" scheme, or INSINC for short, and it has been quite popular, especially among the younger and more tech-savvy commuters. We have seen their membership grow from about 35,000 last October to 60,000 participants today. Our analysis shows that for this group, which is more interested in such an arrangement, about 10% of them has shifted from peak to off-peak travel.
We expect the effect of these schemes to continue to grow, as commuters take time to make arrangements to adjust their travel behaviour, and we will certainly continue to review them for greater effectiveness. In the mean time, we are also working with major employers and institutions, especially in the CBD, to inject more flexibility in their working hours, and to help them understand the travel needs of their employees. This will enable them to implement the necessary workplace practices to facilitate their employees to travel off-peak.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by drawing us back to the longer term plans for public transport. A possible 6.9 million population by 2030 is the
\tPage: 128
parameter that we are using to plan for our land transport infrastructure. We have sized the doubling of the rail network so that there is sufficient buffer for the projected or possible 30% population increase as well as change in travel behaviours. I know that commuters should find travelling more convenient with this expanded network and their journey a more predictable and comfortable one.
But we do not need to wait till 2030 for this to happen. Over the next five years, we will significantly increase capacity with additional trains, we will open a new MRT segment every year, and we will work hard to improve reliability for train and bus services. You have my assurance that I will do my utmost to improve our public transport system. I am confident that we will deliver an enhanced and higher quality transport system for Singaporeans in the years to come.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate and I thank Members, too, for staying on. It has been a long day. I must say that this week's debate is a very important one. I have spent quite a bit of time mulling over the White Paper and thinking through it because the implications are about the future, the future of Singapore – our future and our children's future and that of our future generations.
There has been a lot of discussion around projections, the planning parameters of 6.5 million to 6.9 million population, with a composition of too many foreigners – about one-third of foreigners by 2030 in the population. The White Paper has startled many.
There have been reactions from many segments of the population. I think it augurs well because it shows that Singaporeans are interested. With our current population of 5.3 million, we are already experiencing the challenges in our infrastructure. Minister Lui touched on crowded trains, waiting time for healthcare services, rising costs of housing in our already crowded city, and many are anxious and asking how? How is it going to be possible, as it is already so tough? How is it possible to have more people? It is already straining our resources. What is the impact going to be? What is the quality of life going to be? What are the social implications of integrating more foreigners into our
\tPage: 129
midst?
While many have recognised that Singapore has progressed, their concerns are whether Singaporeans really able to participate in this progress. There is concern on the growing income inequality and how individuals − individual Singaporeans − are affected. There are sentiments that while Singapore has advanced as a country, there are also negative aspects of this progress – congestion, overcrowding, higher costs and definitely a faster pace of life and the tension trade-offs arising from this.
I got caught up personally in all these discussions and I felt the same things myself. But I do implore both the House as well as Singaporeans to take a step back for a while and to understand the key thrust of this White Paper. While the White Paper discusses the demographic challenges and the policy considerations, there is a greater underlying issue. The key issue is that of sustaining Singapore. There is no Core Singapore if there is no Singapore. By 2015, what the implications of our TFR means, say, at 1.2, assuming no change and an ageing population that is living longer, is that we will shrink. We will shrink as a population.
There will not be enough Singaporeans around. So, currently, one of nearly every six persons aged 20 and above is 65 years of age. Come 2030 or 2025, based on the projections, one in every three-and-a-half, and come 2030, one in every three. Why am I calling out these numbers? Because it sunk in on me as well, as to why we are doing this. What is the intent of the Population White Paper? It is about planning. It is about us having to stop and say, what are we going to do about it?
Therefore, it is imperative that we address this. But I also share with all Members of the House who have expressed this earlier, like Mr Liang Eng Hwa and a few others, that we need to pay attention to the concerns of citizens, of what citizens are experiencing today, if we are ever going to get the confidence or the attention of Singaporeans to worry about the future.
Now, let me talk about the Marriage and Parenthood package. I think there has been some discussion about this as a half-hearted attempt. I beg to differ because I know about the outreach that has been done, the consultations with Singaporeans − people who want to have children, people who desire to get married − to understand what the issues and the factors were and to try and address that through the Marriage and Parenthood package. Because younger Singaporeans are better educated, they have more options, and they are
\tPage: 130
investing time in their careers. Many have opportunities to pursue their personal goals. As a result, they are marrying later and often only when they feel they have sufficiently established themselves. Their expectations have also shifted. For example, whereas previous generations did not expect to own a home before starting a family, young Singaporeans today increasingly place priority on home ownership before having children.
In our outreach efforts, to understand what these factors were, many expressed the concerns around costs and affordability of having and raising children, achieving work-life balance and career goals. Getting married and having children, we all recognise, is a personal choice. Hearing our Singaporeans and hearing their aspirations, the policies if done well can help tilt this balance in favour of having children for those who want to have children. So, I am glad to see the enhancements of the Marriage and Parenthood package. I think that we should not belittle that because it is to support young couples who want to have children, who want to get married early and have children.
The introduction of priority housing to make it easier for couples expecting or with young children to get their flats earlier and to be able to rent flats while waiting for their BTO flats is welcomed. Thirty percent of all new flats are reserved for young families who will now have priority in balloting for new HDB flats. Fifty percent of flats for first-timers in HDB sales or balance flat exercises will also be reserved for them. So, with the parenthood priority scheme, effective January 2013, which is now, couples with at least one child below the age of 16 will be boosted, because, basically, they are going to have priority to the front of the queue, or at least they will get priority to the queue on the BTO flats. And that is significant. If we listen to what our young couples are saying, that is significant.
The enhanced Baby Bonus, Medisave and the extension of MediShield to cover congenital and neonatal conditions will help with costs and reduce uncertainties related to conceiving and raising children because we never can tell what is going to happen. Many parents have expressed their concerns when they have children. What does that mean when you have children that need a little bit more care, especially when they are very young? These help to address some of those anxieties. It does not take it all away but it helps to address some of them.
Increasing the support for those requiring assistive reproductive technology will also help alleviate the costs and this is part of the package as well for those couples facing difficulty conceiving. Giving fathers a week of paid paternity leave is a welcomed move to promote shared parenting. And a lot of
\tPage: 131
times, it is not just about the father sharing the load. I am a parent myself and I benefited because my husband is very involved in the upbringing of our children, not in the child caring per se but really the upbringing of the children. And that makes for stronger children, stronger families, and I think that is a very welcomed move. I would say it would have been nice if it was a little bit longer, but, of course, we always want more.
Another factor that is a key consideration for parents is the availability of quality pre-school and childcare for their children. Being a parent myself, when my kids were very young − I have three − I remember every time when my kids were ill, I was at work and if I did not know that they had good care, I would be very concerned and I would be extremely distracted. So, having good quality care, knowing that your kids are in an environment where they can thrive, they can learn, they can also be well taken care of – I think those are factors that will go a long way. So, I am looking forward to hearing what will be shared by the Ministers when they share about the initiatives and what is being done in that space.
To help couples with children, employers need to adopt progressive human resource (HR) practices in hiring, having flexible work arrangements and including part-time work. I think there has been a lot of discussion around that. Recognising that men and women have changing priorities at different stages of their lives, organisations will need to adapt their HR policies to meet these priorities. This will give them sufficient time to adjust to life as young parents, provide relief to those who do not have other childcare options and ease the transitioning into childcare. Employers, I know, will have concerns on the implications on their businesses and the costs if they take on these measures. And it will be an investment on the part of employers to do so and, in some ways, these may seem destructive.
However – as a manager myself and I do have some of these practices in my workplace – I will tell you that employees that have strong families and have the ability to balance their work life, they make for better and more committed employees. And this will have a positive impact in the longer term.
We must also recognise that while the Marriage and Parenthood measures will not, on their own, be able to persuade more Singaporeans to start and grow families, Singaporeans must still desire to have children. What we need to continue is to promote the value of family life and to renew our society's enthusiasm and support for families. When Minister Grace Fu shared earlier the importance of putting the family as priority, I was smiling because she said that we all should get involved, and I thought that we would be helping people get
\tPage: 132
married and all that, and we will all become matchmakers very soon.
Let me now come to talk about the economy and the workforce. Somehow, when I listened to the debate over the last two years, I got a sense that people think that economic growth is a bad word. Maybe they did not say it but I got that sense. So, I am going to say, first of all, maybe we should read the White Paper a little bit better. It does not centre on economic growth, it does not centre on GDP, it centres on Singapore. But economic growth is required if we are really interested in the well-being of Singaporeans.
Let me touch a little bit on that. First of all, I want to say that Deputy Prime Minister Teo did say – in fact, I was a little bit concerned because growth is going to slow down − it is a fundamental shift. So, I am not sure whether everybody read the White Paper well because it says growth is going to slow down. It is not going to be \"growth at all costs\", and it is slowing down. But I think everyone recognises what is 2% to 3%, and I think the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned it is a fundamental shift, while we are growing, we will pay attention to making sure that we take consideration of that. On economic growth, I think we all must recognise and people do recognise it is important.
But let us not take it for granted that growth will just happen. Because just like in business, there are already two levers in any business. One is profit or top line. Let us not talk about profit, let us talk about top line, and one is bottom line. If we all just focus on cost, there will come a time – that is for the short term, it will solve problems – when it is not going to be enough. Then you are going to need to grow and if you do not invest early to growing, we are not going to be able to catch up. So, I think we need to balance the two. Cost management is absolutely important and has to be done but prudence is important. But we cannot stop growing, so we need to calibrate them so the balance is important. Let us recognise that. Because without growth, we will not have jobs. We talk about making sure Singapore has quality jobs. Where are those jobs going to come from without growth?
I want to put my hand up a lot just now but decided since I was going to speak, I would and I have it now. I am not sure whether the Members of the Workers' Party saw today's headlines: \"Several Foreign Firms Prepare to Leave Singapore\". Whether they heard about the Chambers sending in their inputs to the Minister about their concerns, whether they have heard the SMEs – both local and foreign – about the pains they are going through.
Page: 133
Because these people are the ones − they are not just companies, they are not shells − they provide livelihoods for Singaporeans. So, it is important. If they leave, where are the jobs going to come from? And I am not talking about just foreign firms leaving – it just so happens the headline is \"Foreign Firms\", but our local firms, SMEs in my constituency, I have many industrial associations and these are viable businesses. But some of them are either streaming down, they are not scaling, or some of them are shutting parts of their operations because they cannot fill those jobs! So, what happens? SMEs hire about 70% of Singaporeans or offer 70% of our jobs. MNCs, foreign companies, but guess what? Of the large companies, guess what? About 60% of Singaporeans work in these companies. Small companies, again, how many of our locals? About 60%, around there. So, think about it. That is what it means.
I am concerned because just saying, \"let us turn off the tap, let us make it happen\", what happens tomorrow? Why tell the SME who comes to see me, a father of three or four children and employs 10 Singaporeans, \"Sorry, I do not have people for you.\" Every week, I make appeals for SMEs; every week, I make appeals for them to get workers because they provide jobs for us.
So, I want to talk about, besides making sure that quality jobs are available, what do we have to do, what more do we have to do? Just because we get Singaporeans into jobs does not mean they are going to be successful. Why do I say that? I am going to use my own example. I am a sales person. I am in sales and IT. That is my entire career, 20 years. I was successful as a sales person and got promoted to becoming a manager. But if I had applied the skills that I had used as a salesperson to be a manager, then I would have failed miserably. What made me successful as a sales person will not make me successful as a leader, because it is about not me doing any more, it is about me building other people, growing other people, building organisational capabilities, helping them build businesses, build channels, build relationships. A different set of skills.
What we also need to pay attention to is not just about the jobs but how do we prepare Singaporeans for the jobs. It is not that our education system does not prepare our people for it. What we need to do is look at not just continual learning but what kind of career development that we have to do for people, especially if we have a big group of PMETs, we have to prepare them. What we need to do is think about the HR practices, the HR competency in this country. How do we build up that competency, how do we ensure that we work with companies that operate here, local and foreign, in building up HR practices that will allow Singaporeans to continue to grow and develop in organisations, or in professions, or in particular segments and sectors of the population as they
\tPage: 134
progress. That is something that we need to look at.
","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":"Mr Deputy 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. Ms Jessica Tan, you may resume.
","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)]
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, I do hope that we can look at how we can invest in building that muscle. It is not going to happen overnight but it is about building a HR practice – I do not know whether you call it a practice, competency – but I think we need that engine. And we also need the partnerships in organisations to help them to be able to build that.
Now, I would like to talk about costs. That is also impacting our businesses and I was very glad that Minister Lui talked about some of the measures about transport and how it will help Singaporeans but I want to talk about it in relation to how it affects businesses, small businesses. We heard about some of that during Question Time earlier. This is about the COEs that companies are facing for their goods vehicles that they need for their businesses. As the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza said, these are the people who depend on our roads to make a living. Many of our businesses here need vehicles to be able to provide their goods and services and move them around. Many are telling me that they are finding it very difficult when they want to renew the COEs, the cost of which is high.
Let me give you an example. Just a year ago, COEs for the Goods Vehicles Open Category was $30,000 and now it is $60,000. So, it is a double impact for them. If we look at the Open Category as well, the COEs have gone up. We all
\tPage: 135
know the prices there. A lot of these businesses need these vehicles to be able to transport. I hope we can look at a different system that is outside of the COE, for people who need these vehicles, how we can look at managing a more reasonable cost of operating this. There are some of them who are deciding not to continue their businesses because of that. For some, their service levels are affected.
Lastly, I like to talk about the quality of living. The Land Use Plan – I have a lot of confidence in this. From my office, I have seen the way Marina Bay has developed and the space that has been created and the way the walkways have been done. While I am very concerned about utilisation of space, I am confident that with the right planning and the track record, we will be able to do that. But I want to touch on something that is related —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Tan, you might like to wrap up your speech soon.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Yes. While the infrastructure and spaces are being used, we have to pay attention to the side effects of all these developments – the noise, the privacy impacts and just that little bit of attention to detail. With greater density and proximity come greater stress and irritation. And it does affect social cohesion. The way we face buildings, how we place buildings, the proximity of buildings will make a difference. I do ask that we look at that and continue to look at the affordability of our housing. Many of the Members have touched on that so I will not touch on that again.
But I will go back to the point that I started on. This White Paper, as much as I was asking myself, \"why now?\", I recognise that it is an important point that we have to start planning. I will implore that we continue to involve Singaporeans in the details of this plan. The very fact that all different segments have expressed their concerns, I think they have ideas and we should hear them out and we should involve them as much in the plans. It is important and we have to continue to do that. I want to remind the House that it was against the landscape of impossibilities, constraints that Singapore and our people made it possible to be here today. So, let us not forget that. With that and with our people together, collaboratively, I think we can build the future we want for Singapore.
Mr Vikram Nair: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, like many Singaporeans, when I first saw the headline about the White Paper that we were going to have a
\tPage: 136
population target of 6.9 million, I had a very heavy heart. As it is, most of the residents who stay in my area are feeling the constraints of a crowded city. The trains are crowded. There is a shortage of housing and, for some of the older citizens, they were also saying that even getting places in hospitals are difficult. It was certainly with a heavy heart that I read the headlines.
Now, when I actually read the White Paper itself and followed by the subsequent clarifications by Ministers, I had a little bit more reassurance. It is pretty clear that the number of 6.9 million is really a number for planning purposes which actually means that the bigger the number, the more infrastructure we will have, the more houses we will have, the more transport we will have. In that sense, the bigger the number you plan for, the more room you will have and the more ease you will have. If we do not hit that number, for example, that means there will be more space on trains, more space on buses and so on. In that sense, with regard to my initial knee-jerk reaction – that we are going to have too many people and our island cannot deal with it – I am a little bit reassured. Of course, the real proof of the pudding will be if these effects are actually felt by Singaporeans over the next couple of years. So, hopefully this is something that will play out.
Now there are two particular things I want to deal with in my speech. The first is how we can make sure that even as we expand infrastructure capacity and a large number of foreigners come into Singapore, we can continue to preserve opportunities and employment for Singaporeans. The second question I will deal with is immigration and whether we need it, because that seems to be the fundamental difference between what the White Paper proposes and what the Workers' Party is putting forward. And I think both of these are very important issues.
Let me deal with the first point in terms of opportunities. By and large, as Singaporeans age, there will be the risk of a diminishing workforce. But even in that, there will be industries that have opportunities, there will be industries that can grow around helping the old. One area, in particular, for example, is medicine. There will definitely be a need for doctors. I am also hoping that as we expand the opportunities, we also try to preserve more of these opportunities for Singaporeans, specifically. I know many young doctors, for example, one who studied with me in the university who could not get a place in medicine at NUS. His parents were able to afford an education abroad, he was one of the top in Cambridge but he could not get a place in NUS. There were many others who may not have had a chance to study medicine in Singapore, even though they may have had very good grades. What I am hoping is that as we expand the economy, we still do look out for opportunities
\tPage: 137
that Singaporeans will want and expand places there because I know that there are some jobs Singaporeans may not want, but medicine is not one of them.
Let me go a bit broader on opportunities. The second point is this. I also think there is scope for us to make sure that opportunities come to Singaporeans first. This is actually not inconsistent with the White Paper but it may help us achieve the tighter targets because it will give us measures by which we can reduce the number of foreigners in such a way that it tilts the playing field in favour of Singaporeans. The second suggestion is actually something that comes out of what the EU does, which is, if you want to offer a job to a foreigner, you first have to advertise for it within the whole of the EU. And only if you do not get any applicants, can you then make a case to get a foreigner in. This could be an additional level, an additional barrier we put to companies that wish to employ foreigners. I think this would be particularly important for young professionals, engineers, accountants – and, perhaps, in this area, I should declare my interest, I am a professional working in a foreign law firm.
By ensuring that the opportunities that come out of growth are channelled to Singaporeans first, I think we will make sure that Singaporeans will be able to benefit from this growth. This will be particularly important to young families, to people who are coming out into the workforce, undergraduates. I do not think criteria for employment passes should be based on salary alone because that would still create competition at all levels. Our PMETs are also feeling the strain. They are saying we may earn $4,000 or $8,000, but we are not rich. We should also make sure that we protect the PMETs as well, the young working professionals.
The third thing that I think will be helpful is to provide greater employment security. Now, Singapore's employment laws are very, very flexible. \"Very flexible\", meaning it is very easy for people to fire employees. The good news is that because there are a lot of jobs available, it is easy for Singaporeans to find new jobs. One specific measure that would help, if we give greater employment protection to employees, there are at least three suggestions that I can make on this front. The first is to include a statutory protection period for employees who work for a long period of time. For example, our current Employment Act only protects employees who earn less than $2,000 in general, or $4,500 if they are workmen. So, this means that a lot of the Singaporean workforce do not get the very detailed protection from the Employment Act.
The second, the main protection of the Employment Act, is that it provides minimum periods of notice that have to be provided before you terminate an
\tPage: 138
employee. If you work for less than 26 weeks, you have to provide one day's notice. If an employee has worked for 26 weeks to two years, you have to provide one week's notice and this scales up all the way to employees who have worked for five years, where you have to provide four weeks of notice. What that means is that even for long-serving employees, there is no real advantage to staying a long time because the most you get is one month of notice. On the other hand, if you look at the UK, for example, they have increasing notice period based on the duration of employment. It basically starts at one week of notice if you have two years or less of employment, and it increases by a week for every year of service up to 12 years. So, if you are an employee who has worked for 12 years, that means you get at least three months' notice before you can be terminated. The main benefit of this is that employees will have some certainty. They do not have to worry, \"If I lose my job, what is going to happen? How will I survive for the next month? How will I make my payments?\" This would at least give them a runway of three months or so if they have worked for a long time, and also incentivises employees to stay with the employer longer.
Another aspect is creating statutory protection for unfair dismissal. Now, at the moment, this is not a major form of redress for employees who earn more than the Employment Act salaries because the maximum they can recover in compensation for losing their job is, say, a month of notice period. Most employees do not take action if they have lost their job unfairly but you hear a lot of stories about people saying, \"I lost my job because I did National Service\". Now they do not go for hearing because it does not make economic sense to. But if you have statutory protection for unfair dismissal, then there is a low-cost means by which employees can seek redress for these kinds of unfair dismissals. I guess the point of this is to make sure that Singaporeans do not get unfairly discriminated against. Now, these are the sort of measures that our changes to manpower policy will help to tilt the playing field in favour of Singaporeans and give them greater protection, even as our economy expands and even as we are getting more foreigners. The key point is, getting in more foreigners can create more opportunities but we want to make sure these opportunities stay with Singaporeans as far as possible.
Now, let me deal with the second point on whether or not immigration is necessary because I think this is the crux of the difference between both sides of the House. The choice we face is very stark. We have heard from both Mr Teo Siong Seng and Mr Inderjit Singh about the pain that SMEs are going through. SMEs are not just old-fashioned companies who need time to change and can change miraculously. SMEs also include new businesses. I have a friend from Primary school who was working in the UK for a very long time. He came back
\tPage: 139
to Singapore heeding the Government's call for entrepreneurs. But he said he had a very, very hard time setting up a business here. In particular, he wanted to start a business providing travel services to Central Asia, Russia and Kazakhstan. He had an intern who could speak Kazak, German and Russian – a foreigner. And he said there is no way he could get someone with that set of skills in Singapore. It was almost impossible for him to get a work permit of any sort, even under the current scheme. In the end, my friend appealed through two Members of Parliament – not me; two other Members – and the appeal completely failed, and he said \"Your PAP Government is completely messing up. You encourage entrepreneurs to come here but at the same time you do not let us get the workers we need.\" And his was a new business. In the end, he managed to get a pass after paying $4,000 or more in salary, which he is not happy about because that is a huge strain on his cost.
That is what you get under the current system, with already tightened immigration policies. If you follow a zero new immigration policy – no new passes – then that is it. End of story. He would not even have been able to start.
We have to be very careful in saying no immigration altogether. If we say tighten immigration, then at least we have some room for flexibility. People that may create jobs, that may have innovative businesses, can have the opportunity to do that.
That is just a micro example. If you take bigger examples, such as high precision engineering, German companies that might come in and bring in high quality jobs, they may need some foreigners in the early years, but hopefully they can phase that out eventually, and get more Singaporeans in.
These are all opportunities you have only if you allow some new immigration. If you say no new immigration at all, then all of these will die.
Let us go a bit further because immigration is important not only for existing SMEs, and so on, but also for a lot of the expansion plans the Government is currently undertaking. For example, if we are building new HDB flats and building new MRTs, we need construction workers. Are you going to get a sufficient workforce of construction workers without foreign workers to build all these capacity in the next few years?
One of the things about immigration is this. You have to make decisions on whether or not you allow foreigners to come in on a day-to-day basis. You do not have the benefit of hindsight to say at the end of the year, \"I did not hit my
\tPage: 140
1% growth in workforce, therefore, I will let immigrants in\". You need to make the decision right now. You do not know whether you will get the 1% or not at the time you make the decision. You have to make the decision on projections.
The reality is that you do not have hindsight when you make the decision. If you shut off the tap now, assuming you will get to the 1% growth, you will paralyse the new building, you will prevent new businesses that require the special skills to start and you will kill all the SMEs. This is why I think a tightening is probably the best way forward. I agree with the broad principle we should move the jobs to Singaporeans. I also think we should assist SMEs, and I think SPRING has a lot of schemes, and I hope those schemes can be introduced to SMEs more. I am sure Mr Inderjit Singh would have more details on how that can help and what else needs to be done. But I think the Government should assist with the transition process, but it is not something you can do overnight. It is a long process.
In conclusion, this Population Paper is one that I support. It is the one that I support because, ultimately, the first thing that we will see is a broader expansion of infrastructure which I think is something everyone wants. The second we would see is a tightening of foreign labour and foreign people coming in. I think we can do more things on the manpower side to make sure these opportunities favour Singaporeans. And the third, I think, is the immediate idea of shutting the tap to new foreign labour is something that will pretty much destroy our economy if we do it right now. In that sense, at least gradually tightening it gives businesses a runway and a chance to adapt.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to address two points made by both Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Vikram Nair. First, is this thing about us shutting the tap to foreigners. We are not shutting the tap to foreigners. We are still keeping the 1.4 million foreign workers here who will be able to continue to add to the workforce and continue to keep our economy vibrant. By no means are we saying \"shut the tap to foreign workers\". Secondly, on Ms Jessica Tan's point that we are going to cause the companies to shut down. I am very aware of the sentiments and concerns of our companies. I was a small business owner before and I know the concerns of what small business owners go through. But we have to decide now to embark on this economic restructuring, and not to postpone it to later because it is going to get worse and worse later on, when we have more and more foreigners that we have to
\tPage: 141
depend on.
Mr Vikram Nair: First of all, let me just address the point whether or not we are shutting off the tap to foreigners. The point is that even if we look at public works alone, there is a lot more work that needs to be done for which you need more foreigners. Let us take a smaller example. I asked about the Aljunied Town Council just because I wanted to know whether or not you were actually following your own prescription of paying high wages and therefore you do not need foreigners. The reality is that you are not. But if you were to get more blocks of flats, you will need to expand the Town Council cleaning force. If you had zero additional foreigners, then you have to find some way of getting Singaporeans to fill that. Do you want, say, the spouses, the old folks, and so on, to do the Town Council cleaning works? Some might want to do it. But is that something you want as a matter of policy or do you want to allow more foreigners to deal with the expanded capacity?
The reality is even if you just want to meet your current objectives, you need to grow the workforce and, for a lot of jobs like construction and cleaning, and so on, you may want foreigners to do it. I think there is some scope for raising the wages and getting more Singaporeans to do it, which is what we are doing, but it is a combination of measures. You cannot solve it completely with just one measure.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, the Member is actually proposing a growth model that depends on foreign labour inputs and not on productivity. It is productivity that will help the companies to be able to do more with less. That means, instead of adding a foreign worker or a worker, you automate or use technology in order to be able to do more and be more productive with less labour inputs.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Last clarification, Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair: Sir, I agree that productivity growth is essential. And I think that raising wages is one way that you can encourage that because if it gets more expensive to employ people, you will innovate. But all I am suggesting is you do so on a more gradual way. So, you tighten the tap on foreigners. So, people will get fewer workers in the construction sites. You are not turning it off straightaway. You are moving there slowly, not a sudden cut.
Page: 142
","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":"Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. – [Mr Lui Tuck Yew]. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to tomorrow at 12.30 pm.\" – [Mr Lui Tuck Yew]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.21 pm.
\tPage: 143
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delays to Completion Deadline for Projects under Lift Upgrading Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of Lift Upgrading Programmes (LUP) that has exceeded the stipulated time of completion; and (b) in each of these cases, what are the reasons for the delay.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Most Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) projects are completed ahead of schedule. Last year, 12 projects were, however, delayed. There were three main causes for the delay. First, mid-way through some projects, the residents asked to modify the scope of work and for additional items to be included. Second, while the projects benefit most residents, they may affect some residents, for example, in blocking their view. Additional time was then required to consult the affected residents in order to resolve such competing interests among residents. Finally, in some projects, the service providers encountered some unforeseen site constraints and took more time to complete the underground services diversion works.
In all such situations, HDB will work with the contractors to minimise the delay. As a last resort, HDB may have to seek the Working Committee’s approval to revise the Estimated Completion Date. Residents will then be informed of the revised date and the reasons for the revision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Grants for Town Councils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development (a) over the last three years, what is the annual amount of Government grants given to Town Councils; and (b) what are the implications of the results of the 4th Town Council Management Report (TCMR).
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Town Councils fund their operations mainly through their collection of Service & Conservancy Charges (S&CC). Over the last three years, MND disbursed around $110 million in grants each year to Town Councils.
\tPage: 144
This has helped Town Councils to offset some of their operating costs, and to mitigate the impact of past GST increases.
The Town Council Management Report (TCMR) is to provide residents with objective information about the key areas of estate management. It helps to facilitate discussions between residents and their Town Councils on how to improve the upkeep of their estates.
The 4th TCMR showed that most Town Councils performed well in estate cleanliness, lift performance, S&CC arrears management and corporate governance. However, under estate maintenance, seven out of 15 Town Councils were rated \"amber\".
Hence, estate maintenance is an area for improvement that Town Councils should focus on. In particular, the obstruction of common areas was the most common observation, accounting for 36% of the total observations made. This is serious as obstructions of the common areas caused by cluttering or placing bulky items along the corridors are potential fire hazards, and may hamper evacuations during emergencies.
A safe and pleasant living environment in our housing estates can only be achieved through the joint efforts of both residents and the Town Councils. It is in this spirit that Town Councils and residents should approach the TCMR results, and work hand in hand to address the issues brought up and shape the way forward for their town.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Closure of New York University Tisch Asia's Singapore Campus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the reasons for the closure of the Singapore campus of New York University Tisch Asia; (b) what are the options explored by EDB and Tisch Asia on its continuity; (c) how much has been spent by EDB in loans and grants to Tisch Asia in total; and (d) how will the failure of this partnership affect EDB's strategies in working with and retaining similar institutions in Singapore in the future.
\tPage: 145
29 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how has the Singapore arts and media scene benefited from our partnership with New York University Tisch Asia; (b) how many Singapore citizens and PRs have enrolled in and graduated from its programmes since the Singapore campus opened in 2007; (c) what impact will its closure have on the local arts and media industry; and (d) how will EDB support existing Singapore students to enable them to complete their studies in Tisch in New York.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Tisch School of the Arts Asia (Tisch Asia) was set up by New York University (NYU) in 2007 under EDB's Global Schoolhouse initiative. The Global Schoolhouse initiative aims to develop Singapore into an education hub offering a diverse mix of quality education services to the world and to build industry-relevant manpower capabilities for our economy.
Tisch Asia has enhanced the scope and diversity of Singapore’s education landscape and the vibrancy of our arts and media scene. Several Tisch Asia graduates have received international recognition and awards1. Local talents, such as Adeline Foo, author of \"Diary of Amos Lee\", and Wee Li Lin, filmmaker and recipient of the Honorary Award at the Singapore Short Film Awards, are Tisch Asia alumni. Furthermore, Tisch’s links with influential international practitioners allowed Tisch to bring them in to teach and conduct workshops at Tisch Asia.
Tisch Asia was established on the basis that it would be financially sustainable after a few years. However, the school faced financial challenges in its operations in Singapore. Its revenues turned out to be lower than projected while its costs exceeded projections due to factors, such as the appreciation of the SGD against the USD and the construction boom in 2007. To address this financial gap, NYU contributed over S$20 million in subsidies to Tisch Asia from 2007 to 2011.
EDB worked closely with NYU and various stakeholders to explore options for the long-term sustainability of Tisch Asia's operations. EDB and NYU considered fund-raising and the establishment of an undergraduate programme. Unfortunately, none of these options were viable or sustainable, and Tisch Asia made the difficult decision to close down.
We regret Tisch Asia's decision to pull out, but recognise that this was a decision made after careful consideration by NYU. Investors know their business better than the Government and are in the best position to assess the viability of their plans. There will be specific circumstances that affect the
\tPage: 146
viability of a school’s operations in Singapore. Our role is to facilitate and support projects where there are benefits for Singapore, while ensuring that public monies are used judiciously and that processes are in place to monitor the progress of these projects. EDB provided Tisch Asia with a level of support that was commensurate with the anticipated benefits of having the school in Singapore.
To date, EDB has disbursed S$11.68 million in loans and S$5.3 million in grants to Tisch Asia. EDB stopped disbursements when it realised that Tisch Asia was facing financial difficulties. EDB is in close discussions with NYU on the details of the loan repayment.
A total of 21 Singaporeans and PRs are enrolled at or have graduated from Tisch Asia. NYU has confirmed that Tisch Asia will continue to operate at its campus until 2015 when all existing students in Singapore complete their programmes. This means that no existing students will have their Master’s programme disrupted.
While we regret the loss of Tisch Asia from our arts and media education landscape, there are other institutions which offer quality arts and media education catering to industry needs in Singapore. These institutions include the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), the LASALLE College of the Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) as well as Polytechnics and private schools which offer specialised programmes for media practitioners. There are also existing schemes and programmes – such as MDA's Talent Assistance Grant Scheme and the Media Education Scheme – which provide students and media practitioners with opportunities to further their studies in reputable local and overseas universities and take on apprenticeship stints with global media players. We are confident that these programmes will be able to provide the talent pool for our arts and media industry.
Overall, the Global Schoolhouse initiative has been successful in helping to build Singapore’s brand name in education and provide courses which meet the manpower development needs of our economy. EDB has thus far attracted 11 renowned foreign tertiary institutions to set up independent branch campuses in Singapore. These include French business school INSEAD, the Technical University of Munich as well as the Digipen Institute of Technology2.
EDB remains committed to developing the education sector to support the manpower and talent needs of our economy. Through the Global Schoolhouse strategy, EDB will continue to attract top foreign universities that can
\tPage: 147
complement our local tertiary education landscape and develop and retain talent that the Singapore economy needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These include winning the Grand Prix at the 2012 Short Film Festival, Asia, and being nominated at the Cannes Film Festival Cinefondation Selection in 2011 – every year, more than 1,000 student films are submitted to the Cinefondation and only 15 to 20 are eventually nominated.","2 : Digipen Institute of Technology partnered SIT since 2010 to offer a range of Bachelors-level programmes in areas such as game design, and digital art and animation."],"footNoteQuestions":["28","29"],"questionNo":"28-29"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Psychological Well-being of Undergraduate and Graduate Students at Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number of suicides and attempted suicides involving undergraduate and graduate students at the Autonomous Universities between 2003 and 2012; and (b) whether the Autonomous Universities are providing adequate resources towards promoting the psychological well-being of the students and awareness of psycho-social health among students, faculty and staff.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: There have been 25 cases of unnatural deaths at the Autonomous Universities (AUs) over a 10-year period, between 2003 and 2012. As the AUs do not have access to the coroner’s reports, they do not know how many of these are suicide cases. Attempted suicide cases are also not usually reported to the AUs.
The AUs take the psychological well-being of their students, faculty and staff seriously. They promote the psychological well-being and awareness of psycho-social health of all members of the University community through key measures. First, they make available to students basic education and publicity, such as talks, workshops and campaigns, to raise awareness of psychological well-being. Second, they offer specialised clinical services, such as counselling services and help-lines. Third, they have developed crisis management
\tPage: 148
frameworks, which are activated in time of need.
The Universities also provide additional in-residence support for students who are staying on campus. Such support takes the form of on-going pastoral care, residential programmes geared towards the promotion of the holistic development of students and peer support from student leaders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rates of IVF Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Minister for Health what are the success rates of live births arising from in-vitro fertilisation for Singapore women aged below 35 years of age and those above 35 years of age.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The success rate of live births from In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) using fresh embryos was 23% based on most recent data from 2010. In particular, the success rate of live births from IVF for women below 35 years of age was 34%, while for women 35 years of age and older, the success rate of live births was 14%. These rates have been fairly consistent over the last five years, from 2006 to 2010.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Modesty Outrage on Crowded Public Trains and Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the congestion on our public trains and buses (a) what measures are being taken to ensure that commuters are not harassed or have their modesty outraged; and (b) whether there has been an increase in such cases reported over the last five years.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Over the past five years, the number of outrage of modesty cases reported on public transport has increased. The number of cases per one million passenger trips has remained largely stable, as passenger trips also increased during this period. The rate for 2012 was 0.07 cases per one million passenger trips.
\tPage: 149
Harassment offences are classified under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, and Police do not separately track the number of harassment cases that take place on public transport.
Police take a comprehensive approach to crime prevention. This includes adopting strategies to deter and apprehend potential perpetrators as well as preventing the occurrence of these opportunistic crimes by raising commuter awareness. Officers from the Public Transport Security Command patrol the MRT network and the bus interchanges and conduct checks on suspicious persons. Transit Security Officers employed by the public transport operators provide another layer of deterrence and detection, through their presence at MRT stations and bus interchanges.
Police also collaborate with the transport operators to raise public awareness. Crime prevention posters are displayed at the MRT stations and on trains and buses to remind the general public to be alert and adopt measures to prevent such crimes from happening.
The higher number of reported outrage of modesty cases has to be seen in the context of higher public transport ridership over the same time period. However, I would like to assure the Member that Police are watching the situation carefully and will continue to enhance measures to detect offences within our public transport system and apprehend offenders. We urge all members of the public to be vigilant and to report incidents to the authorities as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Scholarships for Media Studies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many Government scholarships for full-time media-related undergraduate and postgraduate studies were awarded in 2010, 2011 and 2012; (b) why the scholarship scheme was revised in 2012 to encourage co-sponsorship with media companies and to include a bond period for recipients; (c) whether the revised scheme will prejudice media practitioners such as screenwriters, directors and cinematographers who tend to work independently in a predominantly freelance industry; and (d) whether there is any drop in the number of applications and take-up rate of the new scholarships by such media
\tPage: 150
practitioners as a result of the revised scheme.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The Media Development Authority (MDA) has been committed to building and nurturing media talents since it was established in 2003. Launched in the same year, the Media Education Scheme (MES) was open to applicants pursuing full-time undergraduate and graduate studies, either locally or overseas, in any of the seven media sub-sectors; namely, animation, broadcast, film, games, interactive digital media, music and publishing. MES scholars were offered partial scholarship with a cap of $20,000 on tuition fees for local Universities and $100,000 for overseas universities per award.
Since its introduction, the scheme has enlarged the overall pool of local media professionals by attracting and injecting a diverse range of media talent into the industry. On average, MDA received 170 applications per year across the seven media sub-sectors. From 2003 to 2011, a total of 176 scholarships were awarded. Of this, 26 were given out in 2010 and 20 in 2011.
As our local media industry evolves and matures, media companies now look for specific skill sets when hiring talent. For example, companies seeking to develop businesses in the interactive digital media space would seek out talent with business acumen and creative skills. Therefore, the MES was revised in 2012 to better meet the needs of the media industry as well as to focus on establishing a more defined career pathway for MES recipients.
To begin with, MDA partnered established media firms in the animation, broadcast, interactive digital media and publishing sub-sectors to co-offer scholarships under the revised MES. This group of firms included companies, such as MediaCorp, Singapore Press Holdings, SingTel, StarHub and Viacom International Media Networks. The revised scheme was designed to achieve the twin goal of ensuring job placements for the scholars and, at the same time, matching talents with specific skill sets to media companies' needs in the best possible way. One hundred and thirty applications were received for the revised MES, out of which three were award recipients from the old MES scheme that sought conversion to the new scheme. Following joint interview sessions with the participating companies, six new scholarships were awarded in 2012.
The value of this revised scholarship award has more than doubled compared to the old MES scheme. It offers full scholarship, covering tuition fees and other compulsory University fees. Successful applicants also receive an annual living allowance to defray their living expenses during their studies.
\tPage: 151
Recipients are given the opportunity to intern and/or train with the sponsoring companies. Scholars are assured employment upon graduation with their sponsoring companies for a period of three to five years, depending on the value of the scholarship and duration of the corresponding bond.
MDA did receive feedback from the film community that the revised scheme may not cater to the specific needs of screenwriters, directors and cinematographers, who tend to operate on a freelance basis and do not enjoy opportunities to receive mentorship or training. MDA subsequently met up with the film community to hear their concerns. As a result of this public consultation, MDA considered their feedback and has already introduced a film category to the MES, known as MES(Film), in 2013.
MES(Film) is tailored to the unique requirements of independent film-makers and to the nature of the film industry. Awarded by MDA, successful applicants under MES(Film) will be assigned a mentor who will coach, guide, advise and provide contacts as well as opportunities to the recipient upon his/her graduation from full-time film-related study at a reputable university. MDA is currently working with the film community to shortlist mentors who will be involved in the selection of the award recipients.
As MES(Film) scholars are not offered full-time employment upon graduation, they will fulfil their scholarship obligation in a different way, through a two-year service commitment under the mentorship of their assigned film-makers.
As this is the first year that the revised MES is being implemented, MDA will continue to incorporate feedback from the industry to improve the scheme and foster sustained capability development for the media sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MENDAKI Tuition Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the progress of students from the MENDAKI Tuition Scheme at the recent PSLE examinations; (b) how does MENDAKI aim to improve the reach of its programmes in 2013; (c) what plans are there to improve the academic performance of Malay students at the PSLE and Secondary levels; (d) what are MENDAKI's strategies to
\tPage: 152
complement the initiatives undertaken by MOE to help its weaker students; and (e) what is the level of cooperation that MENDAKI receives from schools in its efforts to reach out to weaker Malay students.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: One thousand, three hundred and seventy-seven students in the MENDAKI Tuition Scheme (MTS) sat for the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) in 2012. MENDAKI’s survey of 426 students showed that almost 90% of them passed English, 63% passed Maths and 68% passed Science.
Outreach to students and parents is one of MENDAKI's key priorities. MENDAKI undertook a rebranding exercise last year to create greater awareness among parents about MTS and the quality of its tuition programmes. It leverages on traditional media like radio and newspapers as well as social media platforms to widen its reach to the community.
MENDAKI also works with agencies, such as the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) and mosques, to widen its reach. It also partners the Malay Activity Executive Committees (MAECs) and Malay/Muslim organisations, such as PERTAPIS, and is looking to further these partnerships. This year, a total of 8,770 students have already registered for MTS, an 11% increase from 2012.
Schools are also a key partner for MENDAKI in its outreach and programmes. Since 2011, 58 MENDAKI Champions have been appointed in schools. These are teachers with whom MENDAKI works closely to reach out to those who may need assistance.
MENDAKI works closely with schools in supporting our students’ learning. Schools provide intervention for weaker students and MENDAKI's programmes complement these efforts in various ways. For example, MENDAKI's tuition programmes are designed to further strengthen the students' conceptual understanding, with materials that are customised to meet their needs. Enrichment programmes like camps and learning journeys are also organised to motivate the students.
MENDAKI also supports the social and emotional needs of the students through youth intervention programmes that complement schools’ efforts. Programmes like Youth In Action, Engagement Programme for Boys and Empowerment Programmes for Girls support the students to remain in school and link-up challenged students with role models who can encourage them to
\tPage: 153
complete their education.
MENDAKI will continue to ensure the quality of its tuition programmes by selecting qualified and committed tutors and provide them with customised training. The curriculum for its academic programmes, including MTS, the Collaborative Tuition Programme (CTP) & RoPe (Reach out Progress and Excel) programme will be further customised to meet students' needs.
Improving the academic performance of Malay/Muslim students will remain MENDAKI's top priority. However, for us to succeed in uplifting the community’s educational achievement, everyone, including parents and the wider community, must play their part. Ultimately, with the right support and aspirations towards success, our children will do better in their academic performance. MENDAKI will continue to work closely with its partners and the community for the betterment of our students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Naming Rights of Public Infrastructure and Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider (i) selling the naming rights of public infrastructure and roads to private organisations and persons; and (ii) involving the public in public infrastructure naming exercises to foster a sense of public belonging; and (b) whether he will explain the current process and systems of naming public infrastructure.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Government retains the naming rights of public buildings, roads and other key public infrastructure. It does not sell these rights to private organisations or individuals. Some public buildings or roads may be named after organisations or foundations to recognise their significant philanthropic or other contributions to Singapore. Government agencies have involved the public in the naming of the infrastructure they own. For example, \"My Waterway @ Punggol\" and \"Rail Corridor\" were names that were adopted after public consultations.
Proposed names are submitted to the Street and Building Names Board (SBNB) for evaluation and adoption. Besides ensuring that it provides clear
\tPage: 154
directional cues to the public, the selected name should seek to reflect the character of the place. The historical and cultural contexts of the surroundings are, therefore, important considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land for Golf Courses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many golf courses are there currently in Singapore; (b) what is their total land area; (c) what is the proportion of land in Singapore used for golf courses; (d) whether there are plans to offer more plots of land for developing golf courses; and (e) what are the guiding principles used in the decision-making process for allocating land for golf courses.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There are 18 golf courses in Singapore. They occupy 1,500 hectares of land, or about 2% of our total land area.
There are no plans to offer more land for golf courses. In fact, as our land demands increase in the coming years to support population and economic growth, we will need to further optimise the use of our limited land.
In this regard, some of the land currently allocated for golf course use will have to be put to more productive uses. The Government will be able to do so progressively because all golf courses are on leasehold land, with a majority on 30-year leases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Admission of Polytechnic Graduates to Degree Courses at Local Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number of local Polytechnic graduates who have been admitted to the Architecture, Dentistry, Law and Medical undergraduate courses in NUS and SMU in the past 10 years; and (b) what accounts for the low admission rates of our local Polytechnic graduates for degree courses in Dentistry, Law and
\tPage: 155
Medicine.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Over the past 10 years, about 200 local Polytechnic graduates have been admitted to the Architecture, Dentistry, Law and Medicine undergraduate courses in NUS and SMU.
A Polytechnic diploma is a work-ready qualification. Many Polytechnic graduates, therefore, progress directly into the workforce. Of the local Polytechnic graduates who apply to degree programmes, the majority apply to Engineering, Computing and Business. Far fewer apply to Architecture, Dentistry, Law and Medicine. The intakes for Dentistry, Law and Medicine are also small, and admissions to these programmes are, therefore, very competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Special Credits Given to Employers for Continued Employment of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the total amount of special credit that has been given so far to employers for continued employment of senior workers and persons with disabilities respectively; and (b) how many employers, senior workers and persons with disabilities have benefited respectively from this scheme so far.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: To support older Singaporean workers, we introduced the Special Employment Credit (SEC) to encourage employers to hire Singaporean employees aged above 50 years and earning up to $4,000 per month. For each Singaporean employee aged above 50 who earns up to $3,000 monthly, employers will receive an SEC of 8% of the employee’s monthly wage. The SEC payout will be progressively lowered for employees with a monthly wage of between $3,000 and $4,000. This encourages employers to not only hire older workers, but to also pay them good wages.
Since 2012, the SEC is also given to employers who hire persons with disabilities (PWDs), including PWDs aged below 50 years. For each PWD employee who earns up to $4,000 monthly, employers will receive an SEC of 16% of the employee’s monthly wages, up to a maximum of $240 per month.
\tPage: 156
The SEC is paid out twice a year. Since its introduction in 2011, $268 million has been paid out to 91,000 employers for employing 404,000 eligible employees between January 2011 and June 2012. This includes the $2.5 million that was paid to 2,000 employers for hiring 3,200 eligible PWDs between January 2012 and June 2012. The next payment of SEC will be in March 2013, for employers who have eligible employees on their payroll between July and December 2012.
The SEC is an important initiative to support older Singaporeans and PWDs to gain dignity through work and help them be independent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can review the Workfare Income Supplement to include the lower middle income group and increase the amount of payout to all qualified workers.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme targets full-time income earners in the bottom 20% but the benefits are extended (at reducing rates) to cover earners up to around the 30th percentile. This ensures that a worker’s WIS payouts would not decrease too quickly as he upgrades his skills and earns more.
MOM will be reviewing WIS in 2013. In the review, we will take into account changes in income levels and inflation, bearing in mind that the level of assistance should be meaningful while still encouraging individual effort and responsibility. WIS is a permanent social transfer mechanism which should be targeted at those who need it most.
\tPage: 157
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1661,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/annex-Mr Lui Tuck Yew - Slide 1.pdf","fileName":"Mr Lui Tuck Yew - Slide 1.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":1662,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/annex-Mr Lui Tuck Yew Slide 2.pdf","fileName":"Mr Lui Tuck Yew Slide 2.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":1663,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/annex-Chart 1.pdf","fileName":"Chart 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1664,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/annex-Chart 2.pdf","fileName":"Chart 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1665,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 5","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/annex-Chart 3.pdf","fileName":"Chart 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3361,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainudin Nordin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Mr Zainudin Nordin on Population White Paper.pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Mr Zainudin Nordin on Population White Paper.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3362,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Encik Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap (1).pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Encik Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap (1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3363,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainudin Nordin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Encik Zainudin Nordin (2).pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Encik Zainudin Nordin (2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3364,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Encik Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap (2).pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Encik Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap (2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3365,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Teo Siong Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Mr Teo Siong Seng on White Paper.pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Mr Teo Siong Seng on White Paper.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3366,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chen Show Mao","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Mr Chen Show Mao on White Paper.pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Mr Chen Show Mao on White Paper.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3367,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Grace Fu on White Paper (1).pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Grace Fu on White Paper (1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3368,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130205/vernacular-NewTemplate-Grace Fu on White Paper (2).pdf","fileName":"NewTemplate-Grace Fu on White Paper (2).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}