1 Mr David Ong asked the Prime Minister with the large number of Permanent Residents and foreigners residing, studying and working in Singapore, how can the Government better engage them, their employers and schools so that they can be better integrated into our social habits, norms and culture.\t
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker, Singapore has always welcomed foreigners who can contribute to our country and we are enriched by the diversity that they bring. However, we must be mindful that this diversity does not affect our social harmony.
New citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) have chosen to settle here for the long term. As such, we encourage them to embrace our local norms and values, so that they can interact meaningfully with Singaporeans, forge stronger bonds with our community and contribute to nation-building.
As for those who come here to work or to study for a few years, we should also help them understand and respect our norms and culture. Mutual respect and understanding between Singaporeans and foreigners who work or study together enhances social harmony, and ensures that diversity enriches and strengthens our workplace and schools.
To help build relationships between locals and new immigrants, as well as strengthen understanding of local norms and culture among non-Singaporeans, we have set up the National Integration Council (NIC) to drive integration efforts across the public, private and people sectors, including at schools, workplaces and residential communities.
Since 2009, the NIC, through the Community Integration Fund (CIF), has supported more than 280 ground-up integration initiatives and engaged more
\tPage: 8
than 160 organisations, to provide platforms for locals and newcomers to forge friendships and improve their understanding of each other's culture, values and norms.
For example, the NIC has supported our educational institutions in their efforts to help our international students blend into our local environment, even as they continue to foster a climate of international understanding and academic exchange. Our Universities have been stepping up their efforts with activities such as camps to bring together local and international students to build friendships and understanding. The Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) organises comprehensive orientation programmes such as workshops and visits to heritage sites for international students to gain insights into our multiracial and multi-religious society. I encourage other education institutions, especially those with a significant enrolment of international students, such as our Foreign System Schools to help their students and staff enhance their understanding of Singapore culture.
The NIC will continue to encourage its partners to offer a wider suite of initiatives to better meet the integration needs of the various segments of our new immigrants and foreigners in our midst.
However, these efforts alone are not enough. Integration is a two-way process and must occur at all levels of society, involving as many new immigrants and locals as possible to be effective and sustainable. Positive interactions experienced by both locals and newcomers in the course of their daily lives will go a long way in strengthening our bond as a community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dual Citizenship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Prime Minister what are the necessary pre-conditions before Singapore is prepared to accept dual citizenships and what are the implications for Singaporean identity and national service.\t
\tThe Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker, citizenship is a serious matter. Singaporeans enjoy rights and privileges as citizens, and are expected to uphold the duties
\tPage: 9
and responsibilities that come with citizenship.
Foreigners are granted Singapore Citizenship only if they are committed to making Singapore their home, and see their long-term future with Singapore. They should be prepared to give up their foreign nationality.
As Singaporeans, we count on one another to be loyal and if need be, to defend Singapore and fellow Singaporeans in our hour of need. We work together to build a brighter future for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Singapore is a small and young nation. It is all the more important that we are clear that our citizens have a long-term commitment to building a future together here. Allowing Singaporeans to retain or acquire a second citizenship is unlikely to enhance that commitment but could dilute it. We are not in a situation where allowing Singaporeans to hold dual citizenships would strengthen us as a people or a nation.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. In light of the fact that we have a lot more Singaporeans in international marriages – I must say here that I am not an advocate; I am somewhat agnostic at this point in time – would not dual citizenship help to enable children of these international unions to have a connection with Singapore? I know that up to the age of 21 years that there is no such restriction but I think it is important for us to keep an open mind with regards to dual citizenship.
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I do not have a different view from Asst Prof Tan. I agree with him that we should not have dual citizenship at this point in time but that we should always keep an open mind.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Spouses with Children in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr David Ong asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's position on foreign spouses, especially those with children in Singapore in the event of the demise of their Singaporean husband or wife.\t
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) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker,
\tPage: 10
the Government recognises the importance of families and is committed to supporting Singaporeans in getting married and having children.
To help the couple remain together in Singapore, the foreign spouse of a Singapore citizen is typically granted a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) in the first instance. The foreign spouse is allowed to seek employment while on the LTVP.
ICA will then require some time to assess that the marriage is stable, before it considers the foreign spouse for longer term immigration facilities such as Permanent Residence (PR) and citizenship. The factors considered include the length of marriage, whether the couple has children from the marriage and the ability of the Singaporean sponsor to support the family.
Where the foreign spouse does not yet qualify for PR, we have introduced the Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+), an enhancement over the LTVP. The LTVP+ holder is eligible for a range of benefits, including healthcare subsidies for inpatient services at a level similar to PRs, and is facilitated in their job search as they only require a Letter of Consent from MOM. They are not counted towards the foreign worker quota of their employers and their employers are also not required to pay the foreign workers' levy for them.
For foreign spouses who are widowed and have young children who are Singapore Citizens, ICA would generally facilitate their continued stay in Singapore through a renewable LTVP or LTVP+. This is to enable them to care for and raise their Singaporean children here.
Help is available to those who face financial hardship, and the family may also be referred to a Family Service Centre which will help them to adjust and tide over this difficult period.
Mdm Speaker: Asst Prof Tan, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"PSC Undergraduate Scholarships","subTitle":"Acceptance rate","sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the acceptance rate for PSC undergraduate scholarships, overseas and local, for the last five years; and (b) what are the reasons for scholarship offerees
\tPage: 11
declining the awards.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker, PSC scholarships are awarded to outstanding students with the passion and commitment to serve Singapore and Singaporeans through a career in the Civil Service.
Over the last five years, the average acceptance rate for PSC scholarships was about 80%. This covers both local and overseas scholarships awarded by the PSC at the undergraduate level. Generally, students who decline the PSC scholarship offers do so as they have scholarship offers from other public sector agencies to pursue more specialised careers, or are undecided about pursuing a Civil Service career.
This is consistent with the message that the PSC Secretariat has been actively sharing with students, parents and schools – that the PSC scholarship is a gateway to a Civil Service career and that students should think very carefully before applying for or accepting a PSC scholarship.
Mdm Speaker: Asst Prof Tan, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Citizen Faculty Members in the Four Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the proportion of Singapore Citizen faculty members to non-Singapore Citizen faculty members teaching in each of the four Autonomous Universities as of 1 January 2013 in each of the academic tracks of tenure-track, tenured, and non-tenured; and (b) whether there are specific plans to develop and nurture more Singapore Citizen faculty members in all academic tracks to ensure a strong Singaporean Core committed to the long-term development of our Universities.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Education): Mdm Speaker, in NUS, NTU and SMU, more than one in two tenured faculty members are Singaporean, while about one in five tenured faculty members in SUTD are Singaporean.
Page: 12
For tenure-track faculty members, about one in four faculty members in NUS and NTU are Singaporean, while about one in six and one in three faculty members are Singaporean in SMU and SUTD respectively.
For non-tenure track faculty, about half of all such faculty members in NUS, NTU and SMU are Singaporeans. SUTD currently does not have any faculty members who are on the non-tenure track.
To deliver world-class education and research, our Autonomous Universities recruit the best talents possible based on merit, from around the world. However, they also recognise the need to develop local talent and have a range of different talent schemes and programmes to grow the pipeline of Singaporeans in academia.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as an academic at the Singapore Management University. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I am rather disappointed by the low figures. If I got the information correctly, for the tenure track and for the non-tenure track, we have a majority of faculty members teaching in our Universities who are not Singaporeans. I agree with the principle that merit ought to apply but I hope that there will be efforts undertaken by all the Universities to develop a Singaporean Core. I think this is important in light of our attempts to deliver a world-class education and we need people who are committed to the long term.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I do not think there is any disagreement there with the professor that we should develop a strong Singaporean Core, not only in academia but elsewhere. I hear the call to encourage the Universities to have more Singaporeans on their tenure and other tracks. Indeed, that is the position of the Ministry of Education. The Universities are, as Asst Prof Eugene Tan has indicated, autonomous. So, they do have a large degree of autonomy in the way they recruit and in the way they structure. But that said, the Ministry is strongly supportive and encouraging of the Universities getting more Singaporeans onboard for all their tracks and we will certainly encourage them to do so.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Thank you, again, Mdm Speaker. I am pretty concerned about the tenure track faculty in our Universities because the majority are not Singaporeans. One can envisage that, going forward, the proportion of Singaporeans as tenured faculty in our Universities would be even lower. At the moment, it is one in two for most of the Universities, but
\tPage: 13
going forward, given the lower numbers in the tenure track scheme now, that could mean problems in future when it comes to tenured faculty. We need to make a more concerted effort to develop local talent. My call here is not for preferential treatment but rather, a level playing field.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I did not understand the hon Member's comment to be a request for preferential treatment. In fact, I understood it to be a call on merit. And I have no doubt that the Singapore academia are well placed to stand on their own merit and their own right.
Coming back to what I said earlier, and taking the Member's point about developing those who are in the pipeline, the Ministry will encourage the Universities to develop the staff who are in the pipeline. NUS has, for example, the Overseas Graduate Scholarship and the Overseas Postgraduate Scholarship which are for Singaporeans and Singaporean PRs. I understand that NUS also actively tracks and courts overseas Singaporeans to take up positions at NUS and a recent success was the recruitment of Prof Ho Teck Hua who was a professor of marketing at UC (Berkeley)'s Haas School of Business. Prof Ho is now the Vice President (Research and Strategy) and Tan Chin Tuan Centennial Professor in NUS. NUS has also tapped on the A*STAR academic pathway scheme to draw more Singaporean talents in research.
NTU does not have fellowship awards specifically meant to attract Singaporean talents, but it does have awards such as the Lee Kuan Yew Postdoctoral Fellowship, the Temasek Research Fellowship and the Nanyang-DSO Post-Doctoral Fellowship which is opened to all nationalities. NTU has also indicated that it intends to tap on the A*STAR academic pathway scheme to provide a pipeline of Singaporean talents in research.
As for SMU, it has its Faculty Development Scheme (FDS) which sponsors Singaporeans and Singapore PR graduates who are keen academic career and went overseas PhD programme. Upon successful completion of the degree, he or she will be considered for appointment to an assistant professorship at SMU. The School of Accountancy, School of Law, and the Lee Kong Chian School of Business have all made use of the FDS since SMU started in the year 2000.
As for the SUTD, it has been tapping on the A*STAR academic pathway scheme, and currently have one faculty from A*STAR in the form of secondment or joint appointments. They also work closely with Contact Singapore on the international faculty recruitment roadshows to bring back returning Singaporeans. It has had hired three returning Singaporeans from the
\tPage: 14
US and UK in this manner.
That said, however, I think that the hon Member's thrust, really, is that we should do more to encourage the Universities to put Singaporeans on track, and that point is well taken.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy, last question.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her comments. We have seen the current ratios. Will the Senior Minister of State explain whether we see a decreasing trend over a period of time where we will see less and less Singaporean lecturers who are given full tenure? That is the impression that many lecturers have. The Senior Minister of State mentioned retention and how we have programmes to encourage more Singaporeans to be retained. But retention of existing local lecturers whom we can keep can be addressed. And whether we studied whether there is a skills gap, and gaps in meeting the criteria in which we can also help them be retained, while at the same time adding more to build up our Singaporean Core?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I do not have the specific information at the time about the trends, but that can be looked into. Again, I understand the Member's question – his concern is that if there is a declining trend, then you must do something to arrest it. If the trend is on the upswing, it means that the Universities are taking the right track, and certainly that is something that MOE can ask the Universities to look into.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [25 February 2013], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April, 2013 to 31 March, 2014.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
Page: 15
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I rise to speak in the support of the Motion raised by Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
The part of this Budget which resonates best with me is: \"to sustain social mobility and strengthen support for older Singaporeans\". I have mentioned in this House time and again on the plight of our older Singaporeans especially our needy elderly and have been asking for more help for them. I have also expressed my concerns for the children from poorer or less stable families and the issue of social mobility. Therefore, I applaud our Government for this caring Budget to provide more for them. This shows that ours is a Government that listens and responds with a heart for the well-being of older Singaporeans and for lower income families. I shall speak further on these issues at the Committee of Supply.
This Budget Statement had spelled out more measures to achieve quality growth. I agree that this is an important thrust going forward. I am glad that this Budget has given a big consideration to help businesses cope with the tightening labour market through the Wage Credit Scheme, PIC Scheme and Productivity Incentives. I hope to see the success of all these measures with higher productivity to ensure our economic growth with decreasing reliance on foreign labour.
I do not believe GDP growth is not as important as some camps have advocated. I feel GDP growth matters a great deal for a small country like ours. We do not have the vast hinterland for farms and natural resources to fall back on if our economy should falter and result in lesser opportunity or lesser employment for the people. We want our SMEs to thrive well and contribute to our economy and to employ more Singaporeans. We need foreign investments to give more diversity of employment for more Singaporeans and grow our economy. We need good GDP growth to have healthy Government coffers for our infrastructure developments and for our subsidies toward education, medical care and national defence. We do need healthy Budget surpluses to take better care of our disadvantaged citizens.
On the various productivity incentives, may I request the Minister for Finance to better inform and ensure better take-up rate of the available incentives that are targeted to help especially the SMEs? Many small businesses want to innovate for better results and are in urgent need of newer ideas but may not have the \"thinking-out-of-the-box\" ways to survive the present
Page: 16
circumstances. Could the Minister provide a better hands-on approach at assisting them on utilising available incentives and at sharing with them good practices ideas? If their businesses still do not make it despite all these, then at least, it is not from the lack of helping on the Government's part.
I believe in the common vision spelled out in this Budget Statement such as Singapore Identity, vibrant economy, care of the disadvantaged and affordable living. The one that I consider very important but not as easily achieved, at least not with any monetary incentives is a society with a greater sense of togetherness and where the Government and the people have a more collaborative relationship. This is similar to what the Prime Minister alluded to as the \"Singapore Spirit\" in this House only last month. I would like to speak on this common vision for the rest of my speech.
Prime Minister said that the \"Singapore Spirit\" is when we feel together, we are in a cause together and we are committed to create a future for all of us. Thus, it is a society with greater sense of togetherness. Are we deficient in this \"Singapore Spirit\" presently? Will this \"Singapore Spirit\" further decrease in time? How do we enhance this \"Singapore Spirit\"?
I am sure we are all in agreement that the \"Singapore Spirit\" or the vision of togetherness, if embraced by the majority of Singaporeans, can bring us the stronger cohesive community which is the foundation of a strong country. The shared values and the unity will bring out more confidence in Singaporeans. The trust and the concurred vision for the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans will further facilitate peace and growth. Thus, is it not time that our Government takes the initiative to rekindle the \"Singapore Spirit\" to enthuse more Singaporeans towards building a better nation? Since the \"Singapore Spirit\" is such an important tenet for our small city-state, with only human resource to depend on, should we not ensure that it is prevalent and instinctive amongst Singaporeans for the good of Singapore?
I would like to suggest the following three ways to achieve this society with greater sense of togetherness and where the Government and the people have a more collaborative relationship.
One, consensus. I am convinced that our Government designed the best plans and policies to benefit Singapore and Singaporeans. But today with the sophisticated populace, it is not enough just to plan the best options and policies but we must be prepared to accommodate useful feedback to build
Page: 17
consensus.
We need to simultaneously design ways on forging the shared visions. We need to get our ideas across on why certain policies, especially those that may not be too popular, are so made for the desired outcomes. It is only with the support of our people that all the policies executed will bear the outcomes that they were originally set upon. Thus, there is a need for a specialised team of public relations experts that are working daily on feedbacks and negotiating on policies with one or multiple Ministries involved to accommodate the end-users. They are then to engage the people and explain policies to them comprehensively.
I feel that this cannot be just left to the concerned Ministry of each policy-maker to execute as is being done today. It must be a more concerted effort involving the various Ministries that may be subsequently affected. We need a dedicated team of people to execute it well with targeted outcome. Most importantly, we need the resources and to quickly set it up as a priority agenda.
One good example is the enhanced PA Scheme MSF announced 1 March 2013. This enhanced policy was well thought out to reach the recipients who have many needs; many of which are health-related. It is a not the usual \"one-size-fits-all\" kind of policy. It should be rightly so and I hope many of our new policies can be so designed to better target the end users. This new policy has many healthcare components and the success of it will benefit not just MSF, but also MOH. This policy enables patients to live in their own homes with better support and care, thereby reducing the demand for institutional care. There is good synergy between MSF and MOH here.
Two, forging unity. As our society ages, we may have need for more facilities that others in the society feel otherwise. Different groups of the population have different agenda that may be of opposite directions to each other. Nonetheless, we need to cater to the various needs of our residents and we therefore may need more dementia homes or Senior Activity Centres in areas where the locals may prefer not to have in their neighbourhood. Thus, we really need to have a considerate and caring society that is willing to accommodate the needs of others. We must find ways to promote this and prevent the \"not in my backyard\" syndrome to flourish.
Our people living in the HDB homes are living in harmony except for the few disputes that have arisen from inconsiderate behaviours occasionally. We have a finite land area here and people know that they have to live with many
Page: 18
neighbours in our city-state. We really have to revive the old kampong spirit for things to become better.
I feel that going forward, we just cannot leave forging our unity to chance. Our society is subject to demographic change and the various needs of different groups will get more variant and may be more incoherent. The fast pace of life today may leave people with lesser time for interaction and rapport with their neighbours. Many people today have no time to do more than taking care of their own space. There is therefore a need for more Government effort towards encouraging more consideration, better neighbourliness and good rapport among the residents.
Such mindsets may be promoted through campaigns or ways that discourage unacceptable neighbourly behaviour. We may need stern measures in place to discourage unreasonable behaviours, especially for recalcitrant cases that are very disruptive to their neighbours. Members of Parliament and grassroots organisations can take more initiative to promote bonding with residents and among residents.
I feel that our Government should invest in this pillar that promotes a cohesive society. This cannot be ad hoc efforts, and we need continuous action plans that set out policies backed up with adequate resources.
Three, assimilation of new Singaporeans. Singapore is now taking in about 20,000 new citizens each year. This intake is necessary to stop our citizen population from shrinking. There is a need to better integrate our new citizens into our Singapore society. It really takes two hands to clap and we must have a conscious effort from both the new immigrants as well as locals to make this work. Our Government can play a vital role in this area and, for a start, our Government must send the right signals to all concerned. It is necessary to prevent any discord among new citizens and Singaporeans, and for that matter, any discord between Singaporeans. This is so vital for our multiracial society.
The unity among Singaporeans, be it the inherent or the new citizens, must be the basis of the \"Singapore Spirit\" and the common vision of togetherness. I have been fortunate that I was included in the Singapore Core, although I was not born and bred here. The truth is that I grew up and stayed in four different countries before settling down in Singapore. I made Singapore my home, raised my family here and my son has done National Service like any other Singaporean. I am wholly committed to Singapore and will do the best I can to contribute like any other Singapore Citizen. Thus, I hope that more people like
Page: 19
me will come and make Singapore their home just like what I have done, but more importantly, that they can be truly included in the Singapore Core.
My fear is that the rhetoric of future Singapore Core being \"only those born and bred here\" may resonate with some people and may fester into more support of such suggestion in the community. Such views amongst political parties here may invariably promote discord amongst the citizenry. It is crucial that our Government ensure that discord among political parties here does not spill into discord on the ground.
That said, I believe that policies are made for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans and the granting of permanent residence and citizenship is discerning enough to ensure positive contributions and not otherwise from the newcomers. The interest of Singaporeans must come first in any formulation of policies and, more importantly, the policies must ensure that we do not attract people with wrong motives. I would argue for a relook at our policies and tweak them so that immigrants welcomed to our shores cannot take undue advantage of our goodwill and be detrimental to Singaporeans. One such relook would be on the criteria for PRs to own homes in Singapore. There had been laments that PRs have bought HDB properties here at subsidised prices, though lesser than Singaporeans, and landed homes, which other foreigners are not eligible, only to sell them at great profits several years later and leave Singapore with their windfall. Should we not offer such benefits only to those who really intend to make Singapore their permanent homes, and thus incentivising only those who want to sink roots here?
Lastly, Mdm Speaker, the three areas of consensus, forging unity and assimilation of new Singaporeans need a lot of continuous efforts in planning and execution. They therefore require a lot of commitment and resources to ensure results. It is a worthwhile and important pursuit for a better tomorrow. It is building a strong social infrastructure for our country. I would like to suggest that we form a new Cohesion Ministry in order to ensure sufficient emphasis, continuity and outcome. Denmark has a \"Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration\" for coordinating the government's efforts to promote civic citizenship and integration. I hope our Government will set up a similar Ministry to ensure cohesion, national identity and integration for a stronger Singapore.
Mdm Speaker, the other bedrock of a cohesive society is the provision for the less well-off group of our society. I am glad that this Budget has provided much for their needs in many areas.
Page: 20
I applaud Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on what he said, and I quote, \"We also want to do more to enable our seniors to have a sense of economic security and fulfilment in their retirement years.\" With our impending demographic changes of a growing number of elderly populations, the number of the elderly poor will increase in the future. May I beseech our Government to have another safety net for this group to give them peace of mind as they grow old? I would like to suggest having an \"Elderly Endowment Fund\" to ensure that no elderly Singaporean will be deprived of their daily living due to the lack of means, similar to the Medifund that ensures that no Singaporean will be deprived of medical care due to the lack of funds. On this note, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.
Ms Low Yen Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this year's Budget. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last year, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to go to Qufu in Shandong province with a group of senior Singaporean management executives studying a postgraduate course.
We all know Qufu is the home town of Confucius. In Qufu, I was rethinking a famous quote from Confucius which goes: \"At age 15, I was determined to learn; at 30, I stood on my own; at 40, I had no confusion; at 50, I knew what fate was; at 60, nothing can offend me; at 70, I could do as I wished without violating the rules.\"
When I was listening to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's Budget 2013 speech, this line from Confucius emerged in my mind. We will soon celebrate Singapore's 48th birthday. In terms of human life, Singapore would have reached middle age and would have felt how quickly time had gone by and started to relook at the value of life.
Since Independence, Singapore have worked hard in its younger days and achieved much at the age of 30, gaining a presence in the international arena. Going forward, we will be stepping into the golden age when current conditions are better than before. We should explore how to make Singapore even more vibrant and how social development can be more meaningful, more fulfilling and more valuable.
Page: 21
Through Budget 2013, I can see how the Government is planning to transform Singapore and make her more attractive, creating more value for her people. Meanwhile, we should also explore how we can develop our middle-age workforce so that they can become a vital force in transforming Singapore into a smart economy with quality social development. Here I would like propose the four Ps – Purpose, Priorities, Potential and Passion. Allow me to continue in English.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, Singapore is at an inflexion point where the crossroads of review can redefine our purpose, realign our priorities and recapture potential and possibilities. Budget 2013 is a timely effort to restructure and shift our economy for Singapore to achieve quality and inclusive growth.
Today, I would like to explore how four Ps could help us move in this direction: Purpose, Priorities, Potential, and Passion.
The first one, purpose. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman shared that many Singaporeans hope for, and I quote, \"A Singapore with a robust and vibrant economy, with good jobs that enable a more fulfilling pace of life.\" The inclusive Singapore that we all seek to build has gained much ground, especially in the recent years. Besides taking care of the disadvantaged and lower income Singaporeans and older workers, let us also look at how we can also be inclusive towards the technical and trade vocations. From aircraft engine mechanics to electricians, glassmakers and building maintenance workers, the one who fixed our problems, keep things going and ensure the normality of our daily lives, something that we often take for granted.
This year's Budget will, through the expansion of Workfare Income Supplement, help older and lower income Singaporean workers gain higher wages. Some of the craftsmen benefit from this if they fall under this category. The basic monthly wage for rank-and-file jobs under MOM's Craftsmen and Related Trade Workers category ranges from $900 for glassmaker to $2,200 for aircraft engine mechanic. Some of these craftsmen are self-employed, workers or sole proprietors of a small business. As this year's Budget rolls out plans to help SMEs with the schemes such as Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT), I urge that we also look at how our craftsmen' vocation tradesmen and sole proprietors be engaged to innovate, upgrade their skills and increase their productivity.
Take the ITE example. As we all know, ITE has been transformed into a very well respected educational institute today. Likewise, let us move upstream and
Page: 22
lead the way for skilled craftsmen to shine in their vocation trade and for society to respect their technical and vocational jobs as valued occupations in Singapore. This will be a mark of a truly inclusive Singapore.
The Government or NTUC can set the ball rolling by working with trade associations to raise the professionalism of their vocations, skills and image. Better perceptions of such trade vocations can attract new entrants, create higher quality apprenticeship, like in Germany, and re-invigorate sectors straining under manpower shortages.
To realise our vision of an inclusive Singapore where we help each other achieve a better life, we need to make job redesign a key priority, the second P. During last year's Budget debate, I spoke about how redesigning jobs can future-proof our workforce. This year, I would like to highlight it again as I wish to stress the urgency to institute job redesign as a permanent feature or function in organisations and businesses. We not only need to make job redesign a key priority, we need to make it pervasive, across different sectors and industries. Job redesign helps companies adjust to the slowing flow of foreign labour and also better cope with the tight labour situation. As we restructure our economy and workforce, we need job redesign to become an integral part of businesses and organisations. As we all know, due to technology and the increasing speed of change in the globalised economy, business cycles are getting shorter and job roles evolving faster than before. Workers are being made redundant faster and businesses have a shorter response time for workforce re-deployment.
Some economists have highlighted how technology has hollowed out the jobs of middle-class workers. An Associated Press analysis of employment data from 20 countries found that millions of mid-skill, mid-pay jobs have already disappeared over the past five years. Economists are wondering whether middle-class jobs will ever return when the global economy rebounds to health, or whether they have been lost forever. The \"jobless recovery\" in the US has been a headache for its government struggling to improve the labour market.
While we do not have such a problem in Singapore right now, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We need to re-prioritise the training needs of our workforce and institute job redesign as part of an organisation or company's growth to effectively compete in today's dynamic world. In the larger scheme of things, let us explore how job redesign can be instituted at various levels of the workforce. We want to avoid the scenario of high middle-class unemployment, social discord, falling living standards and unmet aspirations
Page: 23
as we can see in Europe and US.
Job redesign has so far proven to benefit companies and employees. It has helped older Singaporeans and also women to stay and re-enter the workforce through schemes such as ADVANTAGE! or Flexi-Works!. The lessons from such job redesign schemes should be quickly expanded to other segments of the workers, especially those in mid-skilled jobs. Not only can job redesign improve productivity, it can also help maximise resources and improve employability of the workforce. Labour market shortages could be eased by efforts to adapt or redesigning the skills of workers in declining industries to meet the needs of growing sectors.
I understand so far the ADVANTAGE! scheme has benefited more than 25,000 mature workers and provided $24 million in funding to companies for job redesign. My question is: could MOM and MOF examine if job redesign can be included as part of the PIC scheme? Second question: would MOF consider increasing the amount of resources and funding for job redesign to be instituted in broad majority of businesses and organisations?
Government agencies like SPRING and WDA can also assist by: (a) beefing up the HR sector's capabilities and expertise in job redesign; (b) review how SMEs can be made much more aware of the benefits of job redesign and what it can do for their business; and (c) expand job redesign specifically into sectors with a high demand for workers, such as healthcare and early childhood education.
Another key priority that is getting the much-deserved attention is the area of early childhood education. I am greatly heartened by the Deputy Prime Minister's recent Budget announcement on how the Government will dedicate a significant sum of $3 billion over the next five years to the development of our young children. In Budget 2012, I raised the need for more resources and expertise to be invested in early childhood education. And as the Government increases its investment and resources in this important area, I would like to suggest an area of consideration that could help us to unlock the potential, which is the third P, and passion, the last P, in every child and teacher.
As we seek to unlock the potential of the early childhood years, research can play an important role in improving the quality and delivery of early childhood education. While there is a wealth of research available from all parts of the world, we need to boost the repository of our own local research that can deal with the conditions that are unique to Singapore. For example, many of
Page: 24
our childcare centres are located in common void decks and some are housed in private estates.
The 2013 Budget outlined plans to expand capacity and have more pre-school centres located closer to homes and workplace. This makes it even more important for us to examine the impact of tight space constraints, adapted facilities and limited play areas on our children's development.
Research could also reveal how we can overcome the challenges and barriers posed by locations such as HDB void decks and office compounds in a dense and urban environment. What other ways to maximise our physical environment to nurture our children's passion for learning? That is the key question.
To this end, researchers from Australia have developed the Early Childhood Physical Environment Rating Scale that is designed to assess the quality of the physical environment of early childhood centres in relation to their potential for children's development and learning. The quality of the child's physical environment has been linked to positive learning. Other research findings from Australia suggest that children's exposure to natural and green settings can improve social interactions and motor skills, as well as alleviate stress for our children. When we talk of stress, research can also help us confirm what are the top stress contributors on our young children in highly urban Singapore. And how can we tap on our experience of building a garden city to benefit the future of early childhood education?
As MOE sets up a few kindergartens to develop best practices, I hope one of them will showcase how physical environment can be maximised for optimal early childhood learning in Singapore.
Understanding and applying research findings from early education to classroom practice is an important step in achieving effective outcomes for our children. Educational research findings can improve classroom practice and form the foundation for quality early childhood programmes. In an article on the success of the Finnish model of education, the newspaper TODAY noted – two days ago − the view of the Finnish National Board of Education's Head of Professional Development, Ms Anneli. She attributed research-based teacher education as the factor that accounts for the high quality of teaching in Finland. As the world's speed of change is accelerating all the time, research in learning would keep us at the forefront of the acquisition of knowledge.
Page: 25
The way we learn is no longer constant. Previously, it was thought that our educational foundation could last us our whole lifetime. We all know that this is no longer true. In today's hyper-connected world, the speed with which every job and industry changes has trebled or quadrupled. Technology and super computing power is making the knowledge, skills and tools we use obsolete faster.
As Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote, and I quote, \"The winners tomorrow won't just be those with higher IQ. It will also be those with more PQ\" – not our PQ, but passion quotient – \"and CQ\", or curiosity quotient, \"to leverage all the new digital tools to not only find a job, but to invent one or reinvent one, and not just to learn but to unlearn and relearn for an entire lifetime.\"
Being \"middle age\" at this point in history can be advantageous for us. The urge to do something different, to learn a new skill or sport a fresh look is something that is quite welcome in today's hyper-connected world. This is the time for reinvention and for redesigning the work we are doing, for researching new ways to improve early childhood education, and for adopting a new perspective as we restructure our economy for a better Singapore. On this note, I support the Motion.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, life must surely be more than just about ranking and lists alone, but today I am not going against the grains, so here is yet another one for us to ponder. In the list that was recently published in the Economist magazine, Singapore was ranked as the best country in Asia to be born in, and was named sixth overall, losing out only to Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Hong Kong came in at 10th, Japan at number 25. Fundamentally, this list tries to predict the countries that \"provide the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead\", and looks beyond economics, focusing equally on such diverse factors as security and the health of family life. I think particularly that this list is remarkable, because while most lists focus on the here and now – how competitive you are, how happy we are, or how unhappy we are − this survey attempts to quantify the future prospects of a newborn child in any given country.
So, I see this Budget as an important step in ensuring that Singapore remains a great place to live in, and a place where our children can look forward
Page: 26
to a future where they can realise their full potential and lead fruitful and fulfilling lives. Some of the ways towards securing this future are enunciated clearly in this Budget, which is focused on promoting quality growth while still ensuring that such growth is inclusive and social mobility is encouraged. This Budget sets forth further measures to nurture the young, support workers and families, and look after the needs of our growing cohort of seniors.
I was particularly heartened by the announcement of the Wage Credit Scheme − like many of my Parliamentary colleagues – which I see as a proactive step by the Government to support wage increases for the majority of Singaporean citizens, covering up to the 70th percentile in terms of salary. During last year's Budget proceedings, I expressed my concern that when companies did well due to the improved innovation and productivity of their workers and with support from the Government, it sometimes seemed that improvements in profitability did not translate into significant wage increases for the employees, and I asked the Government to do more to support initiatives to boost wages, especially for the lower income employees. The Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) is a good start, but I also think that it has the potential to be so much more.
Right now, there are already many Government transfers, such as Workfare, various vouchers and rebates that significantly raise the real wages of lower income workers and families in Singapore. And I also welcome the broad and generous improvements to the WIS scheme which has just been announced. This is something which indices of income inequality, such as the often quoted but often incompletely understood Gini index, frequently fail to fully address. The headline wages of lower income Singaporeans in certain sectors do appear low and may not have increased as much as we would have liked over the past few years but, in real terms, many of these workers are the beneficiaries of substantial Government transfers. So much so that some workers I have spoken to are sometimes hesitant about wage increases at the inflexion point, as the increase in their salary may push them over the ceiling such that they no longer qualify for some of these benefits, which could be worth more than the salary increments that they have earned.
I would like to propose that the WCS be expanded to support the progressive wage model championed by our trade unions, and that part of these Government transfers, such as the WIS and others, be used to support a minimum wage for certain segments where wage growth is in fact lagging. This may not mean an unsustainable increase in Government expenditure since it already leverages on transfers that are already in place. Here I support many of the points that have already been raised by the hon Member Mr Inderjit Singh
Page: 27
yesterday.
This is not your normal minimum wage system, where a blanket wage guideline is summarily imposed, leaving employers to comply. This is a fair wage system on steroids, grounded on a sectoral approach, and supported by a wise and just Government, determined to uplift the wages of the lower salaried members of our Singaporean workforce. This fair wage support system can buffer employers and safeguard jobs for Singaporeans as we transition into a higher wage workforce across the board.
This fair wage support system also honours our workers by allowing them to earn a decent wage without needing to always rely on Government transfers directly. This fair wage support system can be calibrated to different age groups as is the case with the Workfare system, with bigger transfers for older workers. I share Mr Alex Yam's concerns for young Singaporeans entering the workforce, as younger workers could become relatively more expensive to hire in the beginning, but we would expect these younger workers to be more adept at improving themselves and becoming more productive, so that their future wage growth would be more dependent on their own self-improvement, rather than due to Government aid.
As part of the efforts to strengthen our Singaporean Core, I also applaud the moves to raise the S Pass salary qualification to over $2,200 per month, as this would ensure that young Singaporeans just entering the workforce will be suitably advantaged when looking for a job. Like my colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Patrick Tay and other Members of Parliament, I would also like to renew the call that we take a relook at labour market affirmation and testing for Employment Pass applicants, to ensure that PME jobs for citizens are suitably safeguarded. While there are already fair employment practice guidelines in place and the unions are working overtime with employers to advance such fair hiring practices, I believe that some degree of legislation mandating that companies consider Singaporean Citizens first for PME positions should be enacted. Many developed countries − the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and Hong Kong, to name a few – already have some form of legislation to this end, but this has not led to significant drops in workplace vibrancy or competitiveness, and has not resulted in these countries being labelled as closed or anti-foreigner. Such measures, if applied in a sensitive and sensible manner and on a sectoral approach, should not adversely affect the autonomy or competitiveness of businesses, but will nudge them towards a reduced reliance on foreign employees, and I believe this will leave them in a more robust position in the final analysis.
Page: 28
Additionally, I would also support the creation of a fund to specifically support Singaporean PMEs who are in transition, between jobs. Finally, part of what it means to be an ideal place to be born in, and to live out a full and fulfilling life, is to stay healthy. I have spoken in this House on several occasions about how we can refine our healthcare system to better serve Singaporeans.
I believe that, as many do, the public healthcare system in Singapore is of a quality that is world-class, and is both accessible and affordable to all. We have a \"Heal First\" policy in our public healthcare institutions which guarantees that all Singaporeans receive the medical care they need even if they are ultimately unable to pay for it.
However, some Singaporeans are still concerned about affordability, and I welcome the announcements made earlier about top-ups to MediSave and Medifund, and eagerly await further announcements regarding the fine-tuning of the healthcare financing framework.
One key issue concerns the cost of outpatient care for chronic conditions. Although the Chronic Disease Management Programme has gradually been liberalised in terms of the use of Medisave for chronic conditions, and the Community Health Assistance Scheme helps Singaporeans who wish to remain under private care with their family doctors, many patients actually suffer from multiple chronic diseases, which unfortunately also means multiple costs. Many of these diseases need regular laboratory tests for optimum management, and these tests can be costly. Hence, I would like to call once again for CDMP financing to be further individualised to the needs of the patient and be calibrated to the age of the patients. I again renew my call that the Government consider adjusting subsidies according to the age of the patients, meaning that older Singaporeans should be able to receive more heavily discounted healthcare. This serves to recognise the contributions of older Singaporeans to nation building, and takes into account that older Singaporeans with chronic illnesses are more likely to have less in their Medisave accounts and would also be more likely to be limited financially.
Some have criticised our country for spending too little on healthcare, having too few hospital beds and so on. While I fully agree that we need to pay attention to infrastructure and forward planning, I think that this misses the point somewhat. Amongst developed nations, there is actually a poor correlation between healthcare expenditure or indeed infrastructure volume, and the overall health of the citizens. Again, I draw your attention to another list where in a well-respected and widely-cited report by Bloomberg published last year, Singapore actually topped the list of the world's healthiest countries,
Page: 29
comfortably trumping many other developed countries with significantly higher per capita healthcare expenditures. The key here is that in the long run, it depends less on how well you treat sick people, but more on how you keep people from falling sick.
Health maintenance and promotion is a key strategy for ensuring the continued wellness of Singaporeans while ensuring that healthcare costs do not spiral out of control, even given the challenges that an ageing population presents us. Much of the expenditure on health promotion and maintenance may not be captured under the key numbers for healthcare spending, which thus may lead to an underestimation of how much a country spends on health rather than healthcare. Given that fiscal measures can be strong behavioural modifiers, I hope that this Budget and future Budgets will support a wider range of wellness and health promotion initiatives that will result in not only a stronger but healthier Singaporean Core.
There is much that can be done to nudge Singaporeans to take greater ownership of their health. Anti-tobacco measures should be stepped up, and while some may argue that unhealthy behaviours should be penalised, by the same token, healthy choices can be incentivised. I have previously asked that we consider the imposition of a \"junk food tax\" on sweet, sugary and high-fat junk foods and beverages, but by the same token, we can perhaps make healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper through targeted subsidies. In schools, the foods that are sold in the canteen could be more closely regulated to help stem the menace of childhood obesity. Singaporeans who participate regularly in approved wellness programmes or can demonstrate that they adhere to a healthy lifestyle with regular exercise, for instance, could receive tax rebates or pay discounted rates at public healthcare institutions. Similarly, patients with chronic diseases who adhere to their treatment programmes and clinical pathway could receive extra credit for their medical expenses.
Finally, I would support expanded recognition and benefits for volunteers who help to promote healthy lifestyle choices. For instance, the Health Promotion Board has a network of health ambassadors who are volunteers who go about promoting a healthy lifestyle. They could have a system of benefits perhaps similar to the system for frequent blood donors.
In closing, the title of the article with which described the results of the survey on where to be born in 2013, which I mentioned at the start of this speech, was actually entitled \"The Lottery of Life\". Although where we are born can be likened to a lottery, the lofty position Singapore has achieved on this list did not happen by chance. A good life with good prospects is predicated on many
Page: 30
factors. But, surely, the ability to find and hold on to a good job with a good wage, and to be in possession of good health, are two very important determinants. Although I am asking for more in this Budget, I do support this Budget, because it continues the fiscal and social narrative that ensures that Singapore will remain a choice place to be born in, and to live your life in, for many years to come.
Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.
It is heartening to know that the Government's direction in this year's Budget has striven to build a better Singapore through quality growth and building an inclusive society. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has clearly set out the various visions of Singapore that Singaporeans want and I am also glad to see that the Singapore that we are building takes its point of reference from \"Our Singapore Conversation\" platform. It is only through the active engagement of the various segments of society that we can truly derive a common vision of Singapore for Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, this is indeed a progressive and inclusive Budget. However, I do believe that there are several areas that we can do better. As Deputy Prime Minister Tharman rightly points out, there are segments of the society that have been disadvantaged and, thus, need more assistance. I would like to turn our attention to these subaltern or marginalised groups in Singapore. The reason is simple. We, in Singapore, have pledged to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. Through our parliamentary and judiciary systems, we have achieved the first two. While we have endeavoured to meet their needs in this year's Budget, I am particularly concerned that inequalities still persist in our society. I will highlight specific groups of people whom I think we, as a society, can do more to help improve their lives.
Mdm Speaker, I shall first touch on the needs of persons with disabilities. I am glad to note that this year's Budget has announced that the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession will be further reduced from $170 to $120 for families caring for children, elderly and persons with disabilities, in addition to the $120 caregiver grant announced previously. There is also a renewed focus on the disabled with the setting up of a new social agency to look into their needs.
Page: 31
I also applaud the Government in leading the way with the two Enabling Masterplans. However, in areas of employment, education and transportation, there remain challenges for persons with disabilities. How can we make society more understanding in the employment of persons with disabilities, in seeing them as equal members of the society, and remunerating them fairly? In transportation, can we also look into providing transport concessions for people with disabilities? What is the progress on the provision of more wheelchair-accessible buses on the roads? Have we done enough in ensuring barrier-free accessibility in our public places?
Having said that, I do think we are building a more and more inclusive society. This is exemplified by the fact that just weeks ago, paralympian, Laurentia Tan, who is deaf and has cerebral palsy, won The Straits Times \"Athlete of the Year\" award for 2012, edging out three other nominees, namely, table tennis player Feng Tianwei, bowler Shayna Ng and footballer Shahril Ishak. It is heart-warming to see how Singapore and persons with disabilities have come so far in the journey to inclusion. Yet, while we build a more inclusive society for all, more can be done to meet the aspirations of the disabled and make Singapore a cosier home for them.
First of all, more attention can be paid to groom and develop persons with disabilities from a younger age to allow them to develop to their fullest potential. This would mean that society at large also needs to be more understanding of their needs. I do not want to take anything away from the achievements of Laurentia Tan, or belittle the things that our Voluntary Welfare Organisations are doing in Singapore today, but I wonder if she would have been given the same level of support, education and acceptance, as well as accomplish as much, had she remained in Singapore. She had after all, at the age of three, moved to London, remained there, where she received her education and was introduced to horse riding. The mindset in the United Kingdom towards disability is very different from that in Singapore after all. Can we, as a society, work towards acceptance of persons with disabilities, to build better schools, facilities and programmes which will enable them to feel that Singapore is their beloved home, too?
Mdm Speaker, the disabled today are gradually finding acceptance in our changing society. I believe most of us here have heard of Esme, the guide dog, and her owner Cassandra. Through their Facebook site, we have seen how they have highlighted aspects of society which have caused concern for them in their everyday lives. I am glad to see how society at large also speaks up for them, notably in the episode regarding a fashion retailer here. With this heightened awareness, more and more retail outlets in Singapore are becoming guide dog
Page: 32
friendly.
On the contrary, I was aghast to hear of the case of Mr Kua Cheng Hock, whose guide dog was recently denied access on board an airliner. As Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has pointed out, we are a society in transition. This is the time to think about ensuring persons with disabilities get access to equal opportunities and treated fairly in all aspects of life. This should also go hand in hand with the building of infrastructure for the disabled.
Mdm Speaker, I am also glad to know that there are plans to review healthcare financing in Singapore, to reduce out-of-pocket costs to Singaporeans, broaden insurance coverage and the use of MediSave and Medifund. As Singaporeans grow older, there is a need to ensure that our healthcare sector remains relevant to the needs of Singaporeans and this is indeed a step in the right direction.
I came across an article last week which related how a 41-year-old man in America had to resort to crime and re-incarceration after being released from prison in order to receive the medical treatment he needed for his condition. This man was diagnosed with aneurysms in the artery of his liver while he was in prison, which required life-saving surgery. Fortunately or unfortunately, he was released from prison one week later. When he returned for his pre-operation visit, he was told that since he had been released from prison, he no longer had insurance to cover the surgery. When he asked the doctor what he should do, he was told to figure out how to get insurance instead. But not knowing what else to do, it occurred to him that the easiest way to get the care he needed would be to get back to prison.
The week after, he went to a department store and, making sure a security guard saw him, pocketed some moisturising cream. He looked at the guard, smiled and walked out. After he was arrested, he wrote a note to the judge saying that he needed to get back into prison for a year, to get an operation.
Absurd as it may sound, we must not fall into the same trap in terms of healthcare provision and finances. We must ensure that healthcare will not be denied to certain groups of people because of their inability to pay. Affordable and accessible healthcare must remain a basic right for all Singaporeans. In our review of the healthcare system, we must adhere to certain basic principles that have served us well.
Page: 33
Mdm Speaker, while I am still on the topic of elderly and persons with disabilities, it is important that we acknowledge that there is a group of Singaporeans who have devoted much of their time to care for these people. We, as a society, have improved in the past years to meet the needs of informal caregivers. We have a caregiver training grant, respite care options and have gradually begun to change perceptions about caregiving. Yet, can we still seek to do more to assist them? Caregiving is never easy and the stress on the caregivers, financially and emotionally, can be enormous. I have raised this issue many times in the last six years and I would like to raise this again. Can the Government consider providing some form of caregiver allowance to these caregivers, just like what many countries, including Japan and Australia, have done? This could take the form of cash payouts or even MediSave or CPF top-ups.
Mdm Speaker, the recent changes to the economy are also a step in the right direction, as we seek to reduce our dependence on foreign labour, increase productivity and transit to a high value, knowledge-based economy. As the transition takes place, I applaud the Budget for helping our SMEs make the painful but necessary change, to become less dependent on foreign labour, and in helping our lower wage, lower skilled workers, through increasing the employer CPF contribution, and Workfare. These schemes will undoubtedly help to ensure that Singapore is more ready to deal with the changes ahead.
At the same time, I would like to caution that while we make changes to the economy, let us learn from the lessons of the past. In the late 1970s and early 1990s, we had restructured our economy from a labour intensive, low skilled, to a less labour intensive, higher skilled economy. At each stage, there were Singaporeans, especially the older and less educated ones, who were unable to adapt to the new mind and skill sets needed. As a result, they lost their jobs, and were unable to find new ones, as their skills were no longer relevant. Such structural unemployment is of particular concern. As we make the current changes, let us keep in mind how to minimise such problems and to provide a helping and guiding hand to these Singaporeans to overcome any challenges in the course of this transformation.
This year's Budget has also sought to better promote social mobility in Singapore and to ensure better redistribution of wealth to lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. I applaud the Minister for Finance for adopting a more progressive version of taxation. At the same time, I also welcome the revamped assistance scheme, with the increase in the primary cash assistance rate, and introduction of two new tiers of assistance and the enhancement of Workfare to include more low-wage workers. This will help more low-income families
Page: 34
cope with the higher costs of living in Singapore. More importantly, the initiatives taken to enhance the pre-school education scene and provide more support for disadvantaged students in school would ensure that social mobility is maintained. In many ways, this would allow us to maintain the ideals of meritocracy and equal opportunities and build a better Singapore.
Yet, when we speak about \"meritocracy\", which has been one of the cornerstone philosophies of our society, I would like to draw our attention to an article written by Donald Low in the IPS Commons. He argues that meritocracy in the education system in recent years has favoured certain types of people, because of our emphasis on sorting the best from the rest. He also argues that when that happens, people who are better off and well-to-do have a higher propensity to succeed because they have the means to access resources. While I do not agree with all of his argument, I think that there is a certain truth to it. After all, parents who are well-to-do have the means to send their children for such enrichment classes. In fact, popular tuition centres have also started to offer headstart classes, beginning as early at K2 level. Yet most of these are affordable only to parents of the upper middle-income group.
The emphasis in the Budget on levelling this playing field is commendable, but I do think we can do more to provide low-income Singaporean children the same access to enrich their children's abilities outside the mainstream education system. Can we not take a leaf from Edusave and to think about the possibility of a means tested central pool which will fund enrichment classes for those less well off?
Madam, besides the under-privileged families, elderly, disabled and their caregivers, I would also like to speak briefly about another group of people in society who are often left in the lurch. This group is the single parent, either male or female. The single parent faces many challenges in life as he or she takes care of the children. For one, the myriad of schemes and subsidies available to married Singaporeans with children are not available to them. Often than not, the single parent is faced with a double whammy of sorts. Apart from the lack of Government support, some are also cut off and \"abandoned\" by their families. Take, for instance, the Baby Bonus is only eligible, according to MSF guidelines, if the mother is lawfully wedded to the father. The case is the same for maternity leave, childcare leave and income tax relief, where marriage is one of the eligibility criteria. HDB BTO policies are also skewed against those who are single parents. I think we should relook the way we see parents who one way or another have to raise their children on their own. Let us remove our \"biasness\" and make avail to them all such schemes and subsidies that are available to married couples. We must remember that some of them are single
Page: 35
not by choice and we should not further add to the problems they face in raising a child single-handedly.
A transiting economy is not the only transition that we need to manage today. Events in the past years have also shown that our society is undergoing significant changes. I think we can agree that there are segments of our society that have become more progressive, more vocal and who are more interested in liberal ideas than others. We have seen how Singaporeans have shown their passion on various issues, such as the death penalty, animal rights and Green Corridor, just to name a few. We should, in building a better and more inclusive Singapore, also provide the space to accommodate the views and aspirations of these Singaporeans.
In conclusion, I would like to take this moment to recall the lyrics of one of my favourite songs, \"Home\" by Kit Chan:
[(proc text) \"This is home truly, (proc text)]
[(proc text) where I know I must be, (proc text)]
[(proc text) where my dreams wait for me, (proc text)]
[(proc text) where the river always flow. (proc text)]
[(proc text) This is home truly, as my senses tell me, this is where I won't be alone, (proc text)]
[(proc text) for this is where I know its home\" (proc text)]
\"Home\", as this familiar song goes, is defined not by the infrastructure, the wages or the jobs, but our senses, our feelings, our emotions. We are Singaporeans because we feel connected. It is truly inspirational in defining what \"home\" is. As we endeavour to build a better society, let us ensure that while we make the material changes to ensure fairness and inclusiveness, we also need to pay more attention to the intangible, the emotive. After all, it is the experience of being a Singaporean that counts the most. With that, I support the Budget.
Page: 36
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Mdm Speaker, the Budget means different things to different people. Over the last few days, we have heard many hon Members of this House express different views, different perspectives on the Budget. But at its heart, Budget 2013 sets out a vision to build a better Singapore for Singaporeans not only in the shorter planning horizon, but in the longer. We have to deal with the shorter term needs as well as meet the longer term aspirations of all Singaporeans.
In striving to meet these objectives, two key concerns have been identified in this Budget. They are not new issues. In fact, they are rather quite old chestnuts, but they need tackling with more urgency today.
The first is a growing income inequality, as our economy develops. We have one of the greatest income disparities in the world and this has caused serious societal tension. The direct, tangible result of this is really that the poorest households in Singapore have been hardest hit by inflation. Higher healthcare and housing costs have contributed largely to this. Real income growth at the lower end of the income scale has also been a challenge and it looks like it will continue to be so.
Second, at the same time, we have a declining population resulting in a workforce that is growing in number all too slowly, but growing old all too quickly. This affects the ability of the workforce population in our economy to generate GDP and consequently real income growth.
Madam, these twin concerns are formidable issues. Not too long ago, this House debated the White Paper on Population. Many of us sitting here vexed over the population strategy and some even asked if the relevance of GDP growth and economic progress had been overstated as we debated the Population White Paper. Yet, we sit here today in this debate and we now angst over the cost of living, and how slow income growth has been and how much it has not kept pace with society.
Well, Madam, the two points are related and I hope that those who think that our workforce population strategies can be decided in a vacuum and without a real hard look at how it affects our economy will think again.
Another example of how the population strategies are linked to the economy. The hon Member Ms Lee Li Lian argued yesterday that there must be more \"affordable access to foreign domestic workers\" and all families with a child or elderly have to have access to a foreign domestic worker. She says
Page: 37
domestic help is a necessity. I tend to agree, and I think the Budget recognises that in making foreign domestic worker levy concessions and help make domestic help even more affordable. But what she may have forgotten is that her suggestion alone will see an increase in the number of foreign workers in Singapore. Based on information that we can obtain from the MOM website alone – public information – this suggestion means that there will another approximately 250,000 foreign workers in Singapore, just on that suggestion alone.
How then does this square off with the Workers' Party's proposal made not quite so long ago in this Chamber of having zero foreign labour growth? It simply does not. So, it tells us that the policies have to be looked at, on a macro level. We cannot just go about making politically expedient points without linking it to the larger picture and making sure that it is consistent and that it works.
Madam, I want to come back to the income disparity and a growing Gini Coefficient. This is an inevitable consequence of Singapore being a global economy. We have high wages to attract the best talent and retain them, but also lower wages so that we can keep ourselves competitive. We face the same concerns as cities like New York and Hong Kong.
The array of measures introduced in this Budget shows that the Government is determined to close the gap. It has deployed a blend of both short- and long-term measures to achieve the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans today and their dreams of tomorrow. Income inequality, however, threatens those dreams and aspirations. If we believe the results of some income elasticity studies that are made across generations, then one of the consequences of an acute inequality, left unchecked, is that social mobility will be diminished resulting in poverty being transferred across generations.
The Gini Coefficient in 2012 has gone further up to 0.478. The Department of Statistics put out a press release about two weeks ago to say that there are different methods of calculating the Gini Coefficient and by some standards, it could be lower than 0.478. But by whatever method we use, it is quite clear that income gaps today have become even more pronounced. Indeed, if the trend of the last 10 years is anything to go by, then we can expect that in the next 10 years, it will go up further. Looking back 10 years, it has gone up from 0.43 in the year 2000 to 0.459 in 2012 even after accounting for some Government transfers. It is true that the more advanced Asian economies such as Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong, have also experienced rising Gini Coefficients in the same period. But what is troubling and significant for us in Singapore is that
Page: 38
the rate of that increase over the last 10 years has been faster than these countries.
Hence, a very tangible and marked emphasis in the Budget this year is the deliberate stepping up of social policies, to provide what Deputy Prime Minister calls \"Direct Assistance\" to a range of less advantaged Singaporeans in our society. It is a deliberate and focused tilt in favour of the low- and middle-income Singaporeans via a combination of progressive taxing and social transfers.
Take GST Vouchers, for example. At last year's Budget, I noted that the Budget then introduced – I believe for the first time – a permanent transfer scheme by way of the GST Vouchers. This was distributed to Singaporeans in a variety of measures. This year's Budget reinforces that in two ways. First, by having an extra GST Voucher this year which doubles the payout and, second, by topping up the GST Voucher Fund by a further $3 billion so that it is sustainable each year until the year 2020.
It is likely that social policies and transfers aimed directly at helping the low-income will become a regular feature of our future Budgets. Indeed, the GST Voucher Fund is an example of a permanent feature of our fiscal policy and not just a temporary offset measure. This signifies the Government's assessment that the income gap will not be significantly bridged anytime soon, and, by extension, we are also likely to see progressively enhanced social policies to assist lower income Singaporeans.
Madam, these enhanced social policies, which are an integral part of an inclusive Budget, have received widespread cheer when Deputy Prime Minister announced them, and I support them. I particularly support these measures where they assist the disabled and the elderly who may find employment difficult to come by. However, much as I support them, we should equally be careful not to see transfers as a long-term solution to income inequality.
Singapore is not unique in having an acute income inequality nor are we unique in seeking to address that by increasing the level of social transfers. It would thus be useful to consider briefly the experiences of two comparable economies which have spent gradually increasing amounts on social transfers over the last decade. Take Hong Kong and South Korea as examples. These are two of the Asian Newly Industrialised Economies which the Deputy Prime Minister referred to as comparison in looking at the real growth of median total household incomes against our own.
Page: 39
Hong Kong has had a new government. About the same time as we did, they announced the budget for 2013. Hong Kong too grapples with rising property prices and a widening income gap, and it too seeks to bridge this gap with increased social spending. Hence, in the latest budget, they have put aside HK$50 billion into a package of measures aimed substantially at alleviating poverty and they include measures such as outright rental housing waivers and direct electrical subsidies.
South Korea, which has also seen a new President installed recently, faces the same issues, perhaps on a more aggravated scale. The income divide is somewhat more stark and acute particularly for their ageing population. As at 2011, 45% of those aged 65 and above were living with less than 50% of median household income. The gap is so pronounced that the South Koreans have now planned to introduce a further means tested National Happiness Pension that comes on top of the existing pension scheme. All of this, Madam, comes with a cost. It becomes an economic and social burden that the future generation of South Koreans – the younger generation – will have to carry.
But the real lesson in this is that in the last 10 to 15 years, the social spending budgets of Hong Kong and South Korea have grown steadily. Yet the income inequality in those economies remain wide, if not became even more acute.
These experiences tell us that social transfers address only the symptom, but not the cause of income inequality. They help alleviate poverty, but do little to fix the underlying issue of income stagnation or minimal income growth.
Madam, I am not suggesting that social transfers in this Budget form our only strategy – far from it. But at the same time, we have to be careful not to end up on the slippery slope of welfarism and becoming overly dependent on handouts.
I was troubled last year, as I said, by the permanent transfer – introduced by our GST Vouchers – and I had raised that concern in my speech then. This year, this has been reinforced in the ways I have described earlier until 2020. I am concerned that we do not create a dependency on such transfers which are not paired with co-funding or co-payments. In contrast to off-set packages, once we introduce a permanent transfer, especially over a sustained period, it will be difficult to withdraw or even re-calibrate. Come 2020, we may either have to find a way to top up this fund, or create another one.
Page: 40
We should therefore place more emphasis on other ways of closing the income gap. A key pillar of the Budget is the need to ensure a fair and inclusive society. Central to that must be social mobility. Stripped away from the jargon, what this means is that all Singaporeans regardless of background or station in life must be given equal opportunity and access to be able to improve themselves and move up the socio-economic ladder.
I used to believe that meritocracy alone was enough. In fact, when I was introduced as a candidate for general election in 2011, I said exactly that. I now think that that is not entirely right because there will always be children who are born into different family backgrounds that will carry very different relative advantages and disadvantages. I realise how much of an effort my own parents have made to put me here. But it will be very different for different families – some better, some not so good. So, we have to apply a bit of the socialist brush to meritocracy, to nudge it slightly to the left in order to find the right equilibrium and balance. Not everyone will achieve the same success – that is in the nature of life. But everyone must, as far as possible, start from the same point.
Education has been said to be the great leveller. It is supposed to be, but that may not always be true in our system. Children who come from well-off backgrounds inevitably get a head-start. They start in brand name kindergartens and get enrolled in extra-curricular classes to improve academic as well as soft skills. By the time they get into Primary school, there is often already an appreciable gap between those who are more well off and those who are not. This is sometimes further exacerbated at the Primary school level where students are almost expected to have some sort of tuition or other. If they do not, then they may lose out further.
So, it is on that score that I am very heartened by the latest initiatives to strengthen opportunities, especially for the low- and middle-income pupils in our education system. In particular, the emphasis on pre-school education is, to me, a significant step in the right direction.
On the topic of pre-school education, this is not a new debate. There have been previous calls, even in this debate on the Budget, to nationalise early childhood education. The Ministry has previously resisted a system where pre-school education merely becomes an extension of the formal school system, where numeracy and literacy skills get emphasised at the expense of other developmental goals.
Page: 41
Madam, I agree with that, and I am not advocating an extension of formal education, but to borrow a phrase from MOE itself – \"Teach Less, Learn More\". But I do believe that more could be done to start the process of inculcating core values and character development from an early age.
It has long been recognised that children between the ages of three and seven have a strong cognitive ability and that this can be nurtured through play at that age. The pre-school years are a critical period for the development of our children. We must not lose them. They lay the foundation for our children's education prior to formal schooling. I hope this will be seriously considered by the MOE and the Early Childhood Development Agency when formulating the kindergarten curriculum.
Pre-school curriculum content is not currently regulated by the Government. Hence, in addition to expanding capacity and having more anchor operators, could the Government also consider initiating a character development program which starts at a child's pre-school years and also investing more in training and equipping pre-school teachers specifically to be able to help our children in character development and building a strong value system at that age. Those are the formative years in a child's learning path, and I feel we could do well to take advantage of it.
Madam, this Budget has been well received in many sectors, and it is easy to see why. It is balanced, with immediate steps in place to arrest pressing issues, and longer term measures to restructure our economy to remain competitive and to remain ahead of the curve.
To me, however, the key to a successful Singapore and a successful Budget is best encapsulated by some of the Deputy Prime Minister's final words when he concluded the Budget, and they are, \"But our policies will ultimately succeed by building on the strengths of Singaporeans – the skills and mastery in every job, the compassion, the sense of collective responsibility, and the belief in this country. They each tell us something about our strengths, and about why we will have a better Singapore ahead.\"
We have to instil in each Singaporean a strong fighting spirit, a determination and resilience to overcome the competition, and there will be stiff competition. Our people have always been our best resource and it remains the case. No amount of rebates, vouchers, credits or other social transfers can help if we do not play to our strengths and work hard and with the courage of
Page: 42
conviction, to succeed.
Singaporeans cannot depend on the Government alone, and we have to ensure that all the handouts and transfers which the Budget provides for that they do not make for a softer and less resilient population. Madam, having said all that, at the same time, we must continue to look out for many individual Singaporeans who may, for one reason or another, have fallen through the cracks of our policies.
I have a resident who is in her 50s, Mdm J. She is single. She is employed and lives in a one room rental flat. She has no dependents, but also no family to support her. She is physically disabled and wheelchair bound. She has been so since birth. But she endeavours to be self-sufficient so she is gainfully employed. She has worked hard and recently got a pay rise. In the weekends, you will find her at the marketplace in her wheelchair, peddling little knick knacks and other wares to make some extra income.
She came to see me several times as she is facing mounting costs of living like many of us do. But unlike us, she cannot walk to work or even take advantage of the free public transport proposals that some of my colleagues here have made. She has specially arranged transportation. She has to have this transportation specially arranged, but she was just told that the cost of that transportation will double next month. Her HDB rental will also go up, because of her salary increments – she is now at the next band. She is not entitled to Workfare because of the level of her salary, especially after her raise. In truth, she is probably better off without the pay increment and that is a travesty. In fact, she tells me that she is almost better off not being employed and just getting the benefit of assistance schemes.
Madam, we must not lose sight of the fact that even as we applaud this Budget, even as we say that this is an inclusive Budget, many Singaporeans continue to need help. I hope that the Government will look at all appeals for assistance carefully and compassionately and pay heed to the particular circumstances of each individual case and not just issue standard replies.
I started this speech by saying that the Budget means different things to different people. All that is right, but it cannot mean nothing to some people in Singapore. Madam, with that, I support the Budget.
Mdm Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Tharman.
Page: 43
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mdm Speaker, first, let me thank Members for their very thoughtful comments and suggestions made in the debate over the past two and a half days. As usual, the comments covered not just the key thrusts and key policy initiatives in this Budget, they also covered a range of other issues that we will be discussing in the Committee of Supply (COS) and which will be taken up by the respective Ministries.
For instance, many Members spoke on the importance of pre-school and supported the initiatives that are being taken in this Budget, which MOE and MSF will be talking about in their COS. Mr Christopher de Souza, Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Mr Yee Jenn Jong, Miss Penny Low, Asst Prof Eugene Tan and many others spent a good part of their speeches on the pre-school sector.
Sports and arts – Mr Baey Yam Keng, Mr Nicholas Fang, Ms Janice Koh made useful points which will also be taken up.
Environment – Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Ms Faizah Jamal and others spoke about the environment and this too is increasingly important to us as we go forward, and which will feature in our COS as well.
I want to say this because I am not going to cover all the issues that have been raised in the debate, but will focus on some of the key policy initiatives in this Budget.
I will focus essentially on two main issues. First, why SMEs are at the heart of what we are trying to achieve in our shift to quality growth. Why SMEs are at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. Second, what is our approach towards progressivity and social spending. We know social spending will have to go up, but what is the right approach? \"How far\" and \"how\" is as important as \"how much\". So, what is the right approach?
In particular, how do we help low-income Singaporeans on a sustainable basis? How do we help the broader base of middle-income Singaporeans who are also at the core of what we are trying to achieve in a better Singapore?
Let me start with the first theme, which is on helping our SMEs make this transition – this difficult but important transition. Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Dr Lily Neo just awhile ago had spoken about the criticality of the SME sector
Page: 44
and how we have got to make sure that they are able to make this transition. If they cannot make the transition, we will not achieve quality growth in Singapore.
I agree with them. We want our SMEs to succeed and not just for economic reasons; not just because they comprise roughly half our GDP. We also want them to succeed because they are part of the lifeblood of our society. They are part of Singapore and they contribute to the vibrancy of Singapore, as Mr Teo Siong Seng pointed out as well. So, we must transform and revitalise our SMEs in this next phase of our development as a country.
We are intensifying the restructuring of our economy. But that does not just mean intensifying the tightening our foreign worker policy. It is not just intensifying the pain. We are in fact intensifying our support, for our SME sector in particular, during this transition period. Put simply, of the $5.3 billion three-year Transition Support Programme, about two-thirds of the monies are expected to go to our SMEs. I will elaborate on this in a short while. About two-thirds, roughly in proportion to their share of employment.
The first issue which we have to think hard about is the pace of restructuring. Not moving too fast, but also not moving too slowly. Several Members spoke about this – Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Seng Han Thong, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Inderjit Singh. Many were concerned about the pace with which we are tightening foreign worker policies and what the impact will be on our SMEs. Mrs Lina Chiam had another view – she was disappointed that we were not tightening more significantly and across all sectors.
It is an important issue. I agree with Mr Inderjit Singh, for instance, that restructuring is not something to be achieved in two or three years. But we are not starting from today. We started in 2010. We started in a very determined way in 2010, made clear our directions: that we are to grow on the basis of productivity and much less on the basis of manpower growth. We had to do it to sustain wage growth for Singaporeans and we also had to reduce our reliance on foreign manpower – to slow down the growth of foreign manpower.
We made clear our directions then and we also made clear that we were not going to turn back. And I made it a point, in fact, in Budget 2011, one year after we started this, to emphasise that we will not any longer – as we had done many years in the past – vary our foreign worker levies for cyclical reasons, that is, if we had a slowdown or a recession, we lower our foreign worker levies. We
Page: 45
made it clear that the new direction was here to stay, and the direction was clear. We have to keep tightening and keep leaning on firms to do more to reduce manpower demand and to invest in productivity.
So, we started in 2010. This three-year Transition Support Package is for three years, after the three years that have already taken place – of significant tightening, in levies as well as reduction in dependency ratio ceilings.
As I mentioned in the Budget Speech, to be quite frank, we are making this next set of adjustments in full knowledge of the difficulties that businesses will face. But there is no choice. If we do not achieve momentum in the next three years, there is real risk that three years from now, we will be in exactly the same position. Both workers and businesses will in fact be worse off.
So, we have to gain momentum in the next three years. There is no choice. That means giving strong incentives for our businesses, large and small, to reduce dependence on manpower, both by tightening our foreign worker levies and selective cuts in the dependency ratio ceilings, as well as by providing enhanced support for every form of investment in productivity, including training up workers and developing new capabilities. So, that is what the Quality Growth Programme is about, with its three-year Transition Support Package, taken together, $5.9 billion over three years.
The question has come up: will SMEs benefit from this $5.9 billion Quality Growth Package? In fact, as I mentioned in the Budget Speech, we intend to flow back to the business sector all the additional revenues we are collecting from foreign worker levies. Specifically, if we take the increases in levies, starting from January this year, which actually was announced in 2011, and if we include the increases in levies that take place this year, next year, and the year after – the next three-year period of levy increases – we will flow back to the SME sector more than twice that amount of money. More than twice the cost of the increased levies will be flowed back to the SME sector – through the Transition Support Package as well as through the other measures in the Quality Growth Programme.
Let me explain this for each component in turn. Wage Credit Scheme. The question came up in the debate – I think a few Members asked if SMEs will benefit from the Wage Credit Scheme. There was another view that for the large companies that benefit, maybe we do not need to be supporting them because they would have paid their workers more anyway – so there is some deadweight
Page: 46
cost in this. And those are good questions.
First, let me make clear that wages will have to be market-determined. They have been and they have to continue to be market-determined. But what is the market? It is not an unchanging labour market. We have tightened foreign labour policy. It is a tight market and as long as we keep Singapore competitive, it will remain a tight market. In that market, our businesses, and especially our SMEs, are going to face wage pressures. The wage pressures will be there in a tight labour market. That is why we want to help the SMEs see through this period of transition with the Wage Credit Scheme, and, at the same time, prevent inflationary pressures that will otherwise result from higher wage costs being passed through into higher consumer prices.
Mr Lim Swee Say spoke about this yesterday – what is the right approach? The right approach for businesses, to sustaining wage increases beyond the three years, is to take full advantage of all the Government schemes that are on the table to raise productivity. Take full advantage of them.
We are making them accessible. We are making them easy to apply for. We are even pushing some of them in front of firms. Take full advantage of all the schemes – Wage Credit Scheme, PIC Bonus, and, of course, the Corporate Income Tax rebates which come in automatically, and all the other enhanced productivity incentives. Incentives not just for investments locally, but also to expand abroad.
Taken holistically, SMEs will be the largest beneficiaries of the Quality Growth Programme, because we have designed it that way.
Wage Credit Scheme – two-thirds of Singaporean employees who earn gross monthly wages of less than $4,000 are, in fact, employed by our SMEs. So, that is where the core of the full workforce below $4,000 is. I looked at the data – we do not have data yet for 2012 that is disaggregated in detail, but for 2011 we have the data and it gives some indication. The SMEs are paying their share of wage increases.
In 2011, more than half of our SMEs gave wage increments and amongst those that gave wage increments to employees earning below $4,000, the median wage increment was over $200. That is for the very small SMEs, those with 50 employees or so. A median wage increment of $200 for that group of employees whose pay was below $4,000 and whose wage increased. So, they are already paying wage increases, and with a tightening labour market as I
Page: 47
mentioned, the wage pressures will be there and may, in fact, rise. We can expect SMEs to have their full share of the Wage Credit Scheme.
Should we have designed the Scheme only for SMEs and left out large companies? It is a meaningful question. In principle, you would expect larger companies to have the means to improve productivity on their own and to share productivity gains with their workers. In practice, it is very hard to draw the line. How, for instance, do we distinguish between a company that is small with a small number of employees, but is in fact highly profitable, and has no problem sharing gains with its workers, compared to a larger enterprise which may be in a sector with very thin margins, for whom the Wage Credit Scheme can be very helpful in allowing them to free up resources to invest in productivity and also to share the gains with their workers? It is very hard, in practice, to say who deserves it more than someone else.
It is not simply small against large. It varies widely according to sector and even for companies of the same size, it varies widely. So, it is much better to be clean about this. Our basic motivation is to flow additional foreign worker levies back to the businesses, but flow it back in the right way and not flow it back indiscriminately. The right way means flowing it back in ways that support productivity and productivity gain-sharing with workers.
For other components of the Quality Growth Programme, SMEs were also foremost in our minds when we designed the measures. Corporate income tax rebate – the 30% corporate income tax rebate is higher than we have done before. We decided to do that but to impose a cap at $30,000. Because the higher the percentage rebate, the more the SMEs benefit. The higher the dollar cap, the more the large companies benefit. So, 30% per Year of Assessment for three years. SMEs will receive an estimated 90% of the total amount of the corporate income tax rebate.
PIC Bonus – I will not go through all the details, but, frankly, the $5,000 per year, or $15,000 over three years, is not a large sum for the large companies. But for the SMEs, including micro-SMEs, it is very meaningful. For this PIC Bonus, we estimate that the SMEs will receive about 95% of the PIC Bonus. It was not designed for large companies.
The other enhanced schemes – the $500 million worth of enhanced productivity schemes on top of what we are already doing. Again, they were designed for SMEs. For example, the industry collaborations linking up large firms, not just MNCs, but large local enterprises with SMEs up and down the
Page: 48
supply chain – it is a very meaningful scheme to share expertise, develop best practices and even to have technology innovation in the SMEs. Developing or helping SMEs to strengthen their brands, helping them to expand abroad. That $500 million is a very meaningful scheme, which MTI will be talking about in the Committee of Supply (COS).
How can we help the SMEs recruit people – especially to recruit Singaporeans who have been economically inactive? This is a very important issue and there were useful suggestions from Members during the two-and-a-half days' debate. Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Mary Liew mentioned the PAP Women's Wing's recent proposal to give a special Back-to-Work employment credit to help the employers hire women who are returning to the workforce. They gave the example of giving a credit for one year, but those are details. Mr Gerald Giam mentioned a New Hire Wage Credit Scheme, somewhat similar in concept – one-quarter of the first six months of salary of a new hire, for a longer period of the next three years. I think Mr Giam can become an honorary member of the PAP Women's Wing.
Ms Jessica Tan had another very interesting proposal on training subsidies for PMEs – a very important group, not economically active but some of them may have lost their jobs or been dislocated temporarily. We must help them to come back in. Every form of training subsidy, including helping them get jobs in Singapore with companies that can use them abroad in their operations because companies are very short of Singaporeans abroad.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa had another suggestion to help PMEs, which goes back to what we did during the crisis in 2009, where through an EDB and MAS scheme, we helped the companies pay for the salaries of re-skilled PME workers.
These are all ideas which we can consider. Some, in fact, had been tried before. We introduced the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme in 2001, more than 10 years ago, to encourage employers to hire older workers. We terminated it. I will explain why. First, the programme provided wage support to employers for hiring unemployed mature workers. In fact, it is somewhat similar to the New Hire scheme and the other proposals that were mentioned. We discontinued it after three years because there were very low retention rates of the workers that had been hired on the basis of this initial wage subsidy. It does not mean it will not work again, but this has been a problem that many countries face, in what they call active labour market policy, when you provide a subsidy initially and you hope it works out and the person will stay, and the employer also wants the person to be part of the team. So, this is a concept that
Page: 49
we tried out before, but which we will continue to study.
But we have other schemes that we have since introduced, which are quite significant. The Special Employment Credit, as you all know, is very significant – 8% of the pay of our older workers is paid for by the Government; a very strong incentive for employers to go out and look for older Singaporeans who can work part-time or full-time, and give them a meaningful and fulfilling job. The Place-and-Train Programme that the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) runs, which helps job seekers to re-skill themselves – first get hired by an employer, then go for structured training paid for by the Government. It is very heavily subsidised by the Government. This is another very useful scheme.
The ADVANTAGE! Scheme, which helps firms redesign jobs. There are some sectoral schemes too, like SPRING is working with the F&B industry to develop a part-time pool of manpower that they can tap on. Flexi-Works!, which many Members are aware of, gives employers 80% of the cost of putting in place flexible work arrangements. Some Members spoke very passionately about this, and I know Members like Ms Irene Ng have been talking about this since 2004, if I am not mistaken. Others made very strong points about this. If we want to attract the economically inactive, particularly people who have family responsibilities, we must have much more flexible work arrangements. We have to be very serious about this. MOM will be talking about how it is going to enhance a whole range of schemes. Many of the things are covered already. They are going to make some enhancements to help our companies, and especially our SMEs, attract and retain Singaporeans and to help Singaporeans to have meaningful jobs, part-time or full-time.
Productivity has been weak. Last year, it was miserable. Minus 2.6%. That was the preliminary data. One reason was cyclical – we were in a very unusual situation where we had very slow economic growth but a very tight labour market. It was quite an unusual situation. In such a situation, firms do not shed workers. They do not retrench workers. They would rather not lay off workers because they are not sure they would be able to get them back. So, firms keep workers despite a slowdown in the economy and that was part of the reason for the slippage in productivity, in both manufacturing and services.
It also reflects a broader point that there is a gestation period, as many acknowledged. There is a gestation period before productivity schemes can take off, before firms can customise the schemes that are available to their own needs, and think through what is in their business interests. There is a gestation. We have been tightening foreign labour policies and we have provided generous schemes, but there is a gestation which all countries face in the
Page: 50
restructuring process. It takes a while before firms can respond. The pain has to be enough and the gain has to be quite clear. I think we now have both in place.
We had been careful not to disburse grants from the National Productivity Fund and the other sources too quickly, before firms are ready. These are tax monies and they have to be used well. We have taken pains to work with the industry to develop roadmaps for the future, industry by industry, conducting deep dives, with clear milestones as to what should be achieved and with funds to be disbursed at each milestone.
In the next few years, we are going to see a lot more traction, a lot more take-up, because many of the roadmaps have now been developed and they are ready to roll.
Take construction for example, which is raised by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gerald Giam. It is a good example because it has had poor productivity performance. We have been spending time with the industry to develop the roadmap going forward.
What does it involve? First, of course, the obvious parts on foreign worker policy, controlling the supply of foreign workers and also trying to manage the demand for foreign workers. Second, imposing new regulatory requirements. In this year's Budget, we are taking a significant move on mandatory requirements – buildability standards, constructability standards, which basically mandate manpower-saving techniques.
Thirdly, we are providing very strong incentives, not just disincentives, but incentives for companies to adopt technology and to develop manpower and capabilities, including scholarships schemes for locals to join the sector.
We have developed a set of targets. They vary depending on which component of the construction sector we are talking about. I will give you a few examples so that you know basically what working industry-by-industry involves.
Adoption of drywalls. Drywalls can be built about two and a half times faster than brick walls. Currently, adoption of drywalls in our local industry, if we take condominium projects, is relatively low by advanced country standards. About one-third to, at most, 40% of our local condominium projects involve drywalls. In Japan, it is the norm. By 2020, we expect at least 70% of our local condominium projects to be using drywalls. HDB, too, is piloting the use of
Page: 51
drywalls in its new projects.
Another example is system formwork, which is a prefabricated mould used for wet concrete work. It is employed in just 25% of our projects today. In Japan, it is around 80%. Here, too, we expect adoption of system formwork to go up to 40% by 2016 and 80% by 2020.
We have set aside monies in the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) – the $250 million that has been mentioned. But we have not disbursed much yet. We have committed $85 million and there will be a lot more disbursed over the next few years as we start implementing the road map. It will take place as the tightening of the Man-Year Entitlement (MYE) quota kicks in, which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah spoke about. The 45% reduction in MYE – not much effect so far because it is only new projects that are affected. So, some tightening but much stronger support and mandated requirements.
By the end of this decade, we will see a different construction sector.
Let me now move on to the second major theme, which is our approach to progressivity and social spending.
The tone of the debate was one of supporting a move towards greater progressivity and many Members, like Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Ong Teng Koon, Mr Baey Yam Keng, Dr Amy Khor and Ms Denise Phua, had thoughtful things to say about this. They differed in their views as to how far and how quickly to go, but they felt this was an important issue for us at this stage as we make this transition in our evolution as a society and not just an economy.
We do have a highly progressive system of taxes and benefits. It is designed to be equitable as well as efficient. In other words, it has to support economic dynamism. Let me start by explaining. I will take Members through this briefly because it is very important to understand how the whole system adds up.
Firstly, income tax. We know that for the low- and middle-income group, most do not pay income tax because slightly over 55% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax. But the other important part of the income tax schedule that is worth emphasising is that it is not just a schedule that goes from zero to 20% marginal rates. It is also a schedule that extends backwards from zero to minus 30% because of Workfare. I am leaving out the other schemes, but Workfare is
Page: 52
a negative income tax. If you work and you are in the lower income group, you get Workfare. It is a credit to you and a negative income tax. So, our true income tax schedule is actually from minus 30% to plus 20%. Minus 30% effective tax rate, to close to 19% or 20% effective rate for the very high income earners. That is what our true income tax schedule is – 50 percentage points. It is highly progressive.
Members could look at the charts on the proportion of personal income tax paid by the different income groups. [Please refer to Annex 1.]
I should mention that there were some figures that were mentioned in the debate, and that have been in the press, where there had been some misinterpretation of the IRAS data. It refers to individuals, but I think there was some mention of 11% of individuals paying for 80% of all taxes. Actually, it was income taxes, not all taxes. It also refers not to 11% of all income earners but 11% of people who pay personal income tax. But leave that aside. I am saying that because there were figures mentioned in the debate that I am now clarifying.
If we look at Singaporean households, the top 20% account for 80% of income tax. And that is the way it should be.
Secondly, how about other taxes – not just income taxes but GST? We have discussed GST extensively in previous Budgets. In itself regressive, but GST, together with everything that goes with, GST-Plus, is a highly progressive system when you add the whole system together. Let us add all the other taxes. Besides income tax, if we add all the taxes together – no benefits yet, just taxes – if we take maid levy, car taxes, GST, income taxes, add everything up, still a highly progressive system. The top 10% pays well over a third of total taxes, and the top 20% pays over half of our total taxes.
Then, add in the benefits. Because the true test of the progressivity of a fiscal system is not just about taxes, but taxes together with benefits. It is extremely important to understand that. We raised the GST together with an enhancement of benefits, and made clear the connection – that this was a fiscal strategy to raise revenues to support the lower- and middle-income groups.
So, who gets the benefits? Of course, it is the other way round. The bulk of the benefits are received by those in the lower deciles.
Page: 53
I should explain a very interesting quirk in the data, which shows that those in the first decile get less benefits than those in the second decile. In fact, if we go back to the previous chart, you will also see that the first decile pays slightly more taxes than the second decile.
This illustrates a point which I hope everyone will understand – these income deciles, that we publish regularly in our household income trends and so on, reflect income from work. But many people in the first decile, indeed in all the lower deciles, but especially the first decile, are not people who are poorly off.
They may have stopped work for some reason or the head of the household may have just retired, but 17% of our first decile live in private properties, 16% own cars, 10% employ a maid. So, they may not be very well off, but they are not poor.
The first decile has many people in there who are not poor, and this explains why they do not get as much benefits as those in the second decile, and they pay slightly more taxes. I say this because the statistics need to be interpreted with caution when you look at income by decile.
The basic picture is that the bulk of the taxes is paid for by the top two deciles and the top decile pays its fair share, and bulk of the benefits received at the bottom. That is the way it should be, and we are going to enhance the progressivity of our system further, as I indicated in the Budget Speech.
Ms Sylvia Lim cited an IMF discussion paper – a very interesting paper. I was familiar with it but I looked at it again since she mentioned it. It is a good study. In fact, it is what economists would call a heroic study, because it attempted to find a link between inequality and growth which has been a thorny issue in economic literature. It reached a tentative conclusion which Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out – this study of developing countries found that those that had better equality or less inequality were able to sustain growth for longer periods. And that explained partly why countries in Asia generally had been able to sustain growth for longer periods than Latin America, for example. That was one important conclusion.
But what Ms Lim did not mention was a second, equally important, conclusion of the study, also right there side-by-side in its executive summary, which I will read out because it is an important conclusion.
Page: 54
The first conclusion was that less inequality tends to be associated with longer periods of growth. The second conclusion, however, is that, \"The immediate role for policy, however, is less clear. Increased inequality may shorten growth duration, but poorly designed efforts to lower inequality could grossly distort incentives and thereby undermine growth, hurting even the poor. There nevertheless may be some ‘win-win' policies, such as better-targeted subsidies, improvements in economic opportunities for the poor and active labour market policies that promote employment.\"
This is, indeed, the type of thinking that instructs our approach. Not because it was an IMF staff discussion paper. This is, in fact, what we have been thinking about for some time. We study very carefully what is happening in other countries and we have learned from our own experience. It is the type of thinking that inspires our approach.
We are not going for progressivity, or re-distribution, for its own sake. We are designing and implementing policies that stand the best chance of sustaining economic dynamism and building a society that all Singaporeans can truly benefit from. That is the end objective and we have to keep that firmly in mind.
The litmus test is not how progressive a fiscal system looks. That is not the litmus test. The litmus test is whether it will truly help lower- and middle-income Singaporeans to have better lives. And that is not a question with straightforward answers in tax policy and spending policy, and we have to think very hard about those issues.
Let me, therefore, make four points that start from that premise.
First, when we think about the adjustments we have to make in taxes, we have to think hard about what they mean for equity and fairness. That is important. What do our taxes mean for equity and fairness? But we also have to think about what they mean for economic dynamism, dynamism that is needed to support our lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. That is my first point.
Likewise, secondly, on spending. It is not just about spending more, but spending better to achieve our objectives. It is not just about how much we spend but how we spend. How can we go about it in a way that helps people to stand on their own feet especially, and that targets benefits at those who need them the most? In our context, too, as I mentioned in the Budget Speech and
Page: 55
which many Members have mentioned, we also have to pay special recognition to the situation of our older Singaporeans, the pioneer generation.
So, thinking about spending involves targeting. It involves also how we do and not just how much we do. That is the second point.
The third point: the Government has to work with the community. It is not just about what is in the Budget. We have to work with the community in a way that strengthens our VWOs and civic organisations not just to achieve many-helping-hands but to achieve stronger helping hands on the ground. One reason why Acting Minister Chan Chun Sing has introduced the initiative to have social service offices on the ground is to strengthen the helping hands on the ground, coordinate better, integrate better, work better across Government, but also work better amongst the Family Service Centres (FSCs) and the VWOs, which is a good point that Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap made, that is, strengthen the FSCs.
Fourth point, we have to design policies that can be sustained, not just for one or two electoral terms, but for many years after. This is a fundamental point.
So, those are four points which start from that premise, that it is not progressivity for its own sake that we must aim for, but progressivity that will help to uplift lower- and middle-income Singaporeans on a sustainable basis. We think very hard about these issues.
We also study what is happening elsewhere. There are numerous examples of how you get paradoxical results. Many examples. I will just give you two examples. If you look at any of the advanced countries, a good example is the United States.
Since the 1970s, they have had very significantly enhanced income transfers to the poor, defined in different ways – single mothers, low-income families, sometimes neighbourhood support – many forms of enhanced transfers to the poor. But the poor neighbourhoods have not gotten better; they have gotten worse. Many more families are disintegrating. Not efficient and also not very fair.
Second, unfunded public pension fund liabilities and other unfunded commitments to their retirees. The US is a classic example; Europe is an even worse example. Not just a problem for budgets but actually highly regressive, highly inequitable. If you look at what is happening with the US state-level
Page: 56
pension funds, public pension funds at the state level, highly regressive because they have provided, year after year, electoral term after electoral term, enhanced commitments and promises which they now have to keep to retirees, those who are now going to retire as well as those who have already retired. They cannot meet the budget, so current workers have to pay. They are cutting salaries, jobs and they are also cutting the future promises for current workers. Highly regressive because the current generation of retirees is generally, on average, better off than the current generation of workers. It is an example of what looked good, looked progressive, but actually was bad, not just from a financial sustainability point of view but unfair.
These are just two examples. Spending better is as important, and more important, than how much you spend, and whether we can do it with a view to fairness and with a view to efficiency. We will do more in social spending. We have indicated our priorities and we are doing more especially in the areas that meet our objectives of preserving a dynamic society – education, housing, work support and providing some economic security to our retirees, especially the current generation.
We are not starting from a state of despair. As Dr Chia Shi-Lu just mentioned, it does mean something that in an EIU study, of a whole range of countries internationally, Singapore was placed No 6 as the best place to be born this year. The study has many indicators, you can question some of them, but these are objective indicators. And as Dr Chia also mentioned, in healthcare, the latest Bloomberg index of healthiness, a very large number of countries − I think 100-over countries, I have it here myself − Singapore was ranked No 1 in the world for healthiness. They had 16 indicators of healthiness – risk indicators and other objective indicators. In education, we know how we are ranked. In the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, third best education system. And regularly in the PISA and TIMSS reports, not just because we have top students who do well, but also because we have what is called \"resilient\" students, that is, our students from the lower social economic background do better than expected compared to the way it is in other countries. So, it is quality across the board. That is in education.
So, we are not starting from a position of despair. But we want to do better. We have set out our priorities and we want to do better. Our social policies will evolve, particularly as our incomes grow more slowly and grow unequally, and as our society gets older.
Let me go on now therefore to two key priorities with regard to our low-income group. When we think about the low-income group, those who have the
Page: 57
toughest time are the bottom 10%. Among citizen households, the 10th percentile have incomes of about $1,650 per month – or if you include employer's CPF, it is about $1,800. It is tough to survive, particularly for those who have larger families, elderly or children. And we intend to do more to help them.
But there are two very distinct groups within this lower income segment − those who are older and those who are younger. And our solution needs to be tailored to their distinct needs.
Households who are older, whose heads of households are 55 or above, actually account for slightly over half of this group of households in the bottom 10%. Most of these breadwinners, in fact, six out of 10 of these breadwinners, have no more than primary education. That is the description of the older Singaporean low-income households. And many have seen very little improvement in their pay, especially in real terms, in the last five to 10 years. We know that.
For the younger group, it is very different. If you look at the group aged below 35 years, there are some in that bottom 10% as well, but it is a very small group, a very small proportion of the young and very small proportion of the bottom 10%, nationally, of households. They are very different in description, having benefited from a vastly improved education system − almost all with at least Secondary education, and many with ITE or something further. So, they are in the early stage of their careers. So, the way we think about them and how we want to help them, with regard to work, skills and home, is different.
For older low-income Singaporeans, we have to enable them to have the dignity of work, we have to think about workplace design to suit their needs and we have to provide them with greater economic security in their retirement years.
For younger low-income Singaporeans, we have to provide every opportunity for them to climb the ladder of skills, better jobs and better pay, every opportunity for them to do that. And find every way for their children to do well, starting early in life through their school years.
Let me start with older workers. Mr David Ong, Mr Heng Chee How and several others spoke at length about their needs and how we need to pay more attention to them. What is our approach? These are people who are already well
Page: 58
into their careers, well into their 50s, some 60s.
First, we will supplement their pay using Workfare. We have enhanced it now. Almost 30% of the older workers who are low-paid, almost 30% supplement to pay through Workfare. Second, we are helping their employers to hire them, through the 8% Special Employment Credit. And if you take it together for someone who is earning, let us say, $1,000, a low-income worker, if you take the Workfare and Special Employment Credit together, it means that we are paying about 40% on top of what the employer would have paid. That is a very substantial top-up by the Government.
Then, we have the Workfare Training Support Scheme (WTS). Mr Ang Hin Kee is very familiar with this as he used to run e2i. Mr Ong Teng Koon and several others spoke about this. Even our older workers are benefiting from the WTS and we have to find every way of tailoring it to their needs. No one is too old to learn, to do better on their job and to take on responsibilities at work. We have many examples and we are very serious about this. So far, one in five older workers aged 50 to 64 years have been taking part in the training and we want to up that ratio. MOM will be discussing this in the Committee of Supply as well.
Next, the Progressive Wage Model which Mr Lim Swee Say and his colleagues among the Labour Members spoke about. How do we give them the maximum upside, while minimising the downside, as Mr Lim Swee Say put it. And that is a very important point because for our older workers, the downside comes easily. The downside of losing their job, because they are most vulnerable and they have the least education. It is very easy for employers to discriminate against older workers if they want to, even on what appears to be the basis of merit. So, maximise the upside and minimise the downside, as Mr Lim Swee Say says. Progressive Wage Model − we are putting resources into it, we are helping the companies through the Inclusive Growth Programme together with it, and we are going to find a way of raising their pay, particularly in cleaning and security. And we are working industry by industry.
Next, redesign the workplace. I will not elaborate on this because many Members have spoken about it, including just a short while ago, Ms Low Yen Ling. MOM will take up suggestions on job redesign and how we can enhance our schemes. That is for workplace-related initiatives.
The home was always a key pillar of our social support for that generation of Singaporeans. Eighty-three percent of those aged 55 and above who are in
Page: 59
this bottom decile are proud homeowners. Most have paid off their loans, and for those who own a fully paid-up 3-room flat and if they are moving to a studio apartment, they can realise on a net basis, after paying for the studio apartment, housing equity worth $200,000. And on top of that, we are giving them a Silver Housing Bonus of $20,000 as an incentive. So, the home is very important, and helping them to monetise their home and unlock the value so that they can have better retirement years is extremely important.
Finally, the healthcare financing review, which I am not going to discuss in detail, but that generation of older Singaporeans is foremost in our minds. Mr Gan Kim Yong will be talking about this in the Committee of Supply.
Next, the younger group of low-income Singaporeans − they require a different set of strategies. We provide the best education and the best opportunities for upgrading. We must provide every leg-up, rather than handouts.
Social mobility is a key feature of our policies and Members across the board supported the strategy we are taking, including what we want to do to enhance the pre-school sector. But beyond the pre-school and school years, we also need to provide them with a ladder of advancement in the workplace. We have to be a continuous meritocracy, not a meritocracy based on what happened when you left school or a tertiary institution. We have to be a continuous meritocracy. Constant opportunities to upgrade, to switch line, to pick up new skills and develop real mastery. And I think we can do it. We have the resources and we can work together closely on a tripartite basis. We can do this.
Next, housing, which was very important for the older generation but is still a key pillar of our social support for the younger generation of low-wage workers. You know the schemes – the $40,000 Additional CPF Housing Grant, and the $20,000 Special CPF Housing Grant which we introduced two years ago. These are tailored to the needs of the low-income Singaporeans. I just checked the data recently. Since we introduced it two years ago, 1,100 low-income households have taken advantage of the Special Housing Grant. For those who have income below $1,500, which is very low and within the bottom 10% of household incomes, they are eligible for 2-room flats. In fact, one-third of those who obtained 2-room flats using Special Housing Grant, had income of $1,000 or less, which is something that initially people find surprising. How can someone with $1,000 or slightly less obtain a flat? It is because of the Special
Page: 60
Housing Grant and the Additional Housing Grant.
But why do we want to help them this way? For this group, surviving is tough. Why do we want to help them this way? First, it allows them to have more disposable income because they pay for the 2-room flat entirely, or almost entirely, and, in fact, in almost all cases, entirely using their CPF. It gives them the incentive to stay in a job. We will support them in staying in a job while they pay for their housing using their CPF, so that they can use their full disposable income for their other needs.
Second, very importantly, it is not just about immediate cash needs, it is about having an asset that will appreciate with inflation and appreciate with progress. So, they do not get left out and they too will retire with a significant asset for their retirement years. It is a very important strategy.
Eight out of 10 low-income households in Singapore can own their own homes. There is no other country that comes close to it. The Koreans are closest – another country with an East Asian ethic, a roof over the head is very important and you want your own.
But no other country comes close to us. Eight out of 10 of low-income households own their own flats. Those who cannot own because they do not have a stable job especially or there has been family disruption, HDB subsidises public rental flats. Mr Khaw Boon Wan will, of course, be discussing all these issues in further detail in the Committee of Supply.
But I will just clarify very quickly the useful points that Mr Png Eng Huat raised about the \"cliff\" effect, so to speak, when someone crosses monthly income of $800. I would like to reassure him and all Members that for existing tenants, HDB automatically gives a grace period when your income crosses $800.
So, that is basically our approach to helping the younger group. Workfare, once they cross 35 but before that, opportunities to upgrade, helping them own their home, helping their children in school. Every opportunity for a leg-up for this younger group.
Next, let me move on to my third theme which is about the middle-income group of Singaporeans. It is a positive for Singapore society that expectations and aspirations have gone up; aspirations for education, for how well you do in
Page: 61
your job, as well as for your standard of living.
That is a positive. How do we meet the needs of an aspiring middle-income group of Singaporeans? First and foremost, we have got to succeed in achieving quality growth. First and foremost, we must enable income growth for Singaporeans, including especially this middle-income group, besides the lower income group. And all our surveys show that that is the main consideration. All our surveys of Singaporeans showed this: good jobs with income that can go up and more than cover the cost of living. That is their main concern. That has to be a key priority. And quality growth is not just an economic strategy but a social strategy.
Second, we have to ensure a level playing field for Singaporeans, in terms of job opportunities and progression on the job.
Third, we have to make sure they get adequate benefits as well out of our whole fiscal system.
Fourth, we have to do so in a way that keeps overall taxes low, particularly for the middle-income group, and I will come to that in a short while.
The key strategy, as I mentioned, is to help incomes grow. Fortunately, we have been able to do this so far. Many other countries have had difficulty, including countries that are on the same league as us, as I mentioned in the Budget Speech – Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. We have done much better than them to grow median incomes, in real terms, in the last five years.
We designed the Wage Credit Scheme deliberately to include the middle-income group. We extended the Wage Credit Scheme up to pay of $4,000 to help the companies and to help Singaporeans. So, that is income growth. I will not go into it in any more detail because we have covered quality growth. Quality growth is a key social pillar as well, not just in economic strategy.
Second, a level playing field. Many Members have spoken about this. We have to make sure that as more Singaporean graduates enter the workforce, diploma and degree holders, there is a level playing field at the middle- and upper levels of the workforce, besides the lower levels.
That has been a concern. You notice that we have been tightening at the middle end. We have tightened especially for the lower end of Employment Passes (Q1 Passes), and also for S Passes, tightened quite significantly, to
Page: 62
ensure that Singaporeans are not disadvantaged by the presence of foreigners at these levels of the workforce.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Patrick Tay reflected several valuable concerns. Mr Patrick Tay has been talking about this for some time. He is the one who started talking about labour market tests and the variety of labour market tests. We have been studying the proposals. MOM is still studying this very carefully. It is not something that we want to rush but we want to put in place a system that is fair, sustainable and allows the companies to stay competitive. But it is a very important issue for us.
Our younger PMEs have been able to find jobs quite easily. Our youth unemployment rates are the lowest around. It is even lower than in Korea and Taiwan. Very low. For our older PMEs, especially in the middle age and once they lose their jobs, some of them find it tough to get back in. I believe there is an element of age discrimination that we have to tackle. They are also vulnerable to the competition from foreigners. So, we have to be quite careful about this.
We need to do more to ensure a level playing field but very importantly, do it in a way that is sustainable. Sustainable means our firms must be able to compete. They must be able to compete. They must have the teams with the right mix of locals and foreigners with the right skills and expertise – because that is what allows us to compete internationally. The competition is changing. It is not about China 10 years ago – low-cost manufacturing. It is changing dramatically as Chinese cities move up the value chain and large numbers of their own graduates entering the workforce. The competition is also changing in the United States. Re-shoring is now happening. Very significant advantages that the US has – lower cost of power because of shale gas; and technology improvements that have allowed them to substitute for manpower. It is not helping their unemployment situation but it is helping their companies. They are able to base operations in the US on a more competitive basis than even their operations in China in many segments of the industry.
And there are new advancements in technology that Ms Tan Su Shan was talking about – big data and data analytics – which are transforming not just manufacturing but services. They are going to pick up steam going ahead.
The competition is changing and we have to make sure our companies can survive and compete, which means having the right mix of locals and foreigners with the skills that we need to create a strong Singapore team, because the real
Page: 63
competition is outside.
We are determined to ensure a level playing field for Singaporeans, fair to Singaporeans, not just in getting a job but progression on the job – while ensuring that it is sustainable, by enabling our companies to compete.
Next element of how we are helping the middle-income group because I think in the overall Budget Statement, it is not something that received strong emphasis but actually, there was a significant amount of benefits for the middle-income group as well, in terms of actual benefits in this year's Budget. Special transfers as well as some of the permanent changes we have put in place.
I will just give Members an example. Husband and wife in their 40s; middle income; together earning above $6,000 – very distinctly middle-income group; living in 4-room HDB flat; two children – one in Primary school, one in Secondary school; employing a foreign domestic helper. This family, from this year's Budget, would save a combination of $530 through the special transfers, as well as $730 through tax savings, both the personal income tax rebate as well as property tax changes, which are permanent; and a permanent change in the foreign domestic worker concessionary levy.
When we add it together, it is about $1,500 which also happens to be about the same as the increase in their household expenditure as measured by the CPI. About the same. We did not design it to fully offset their cost of living increases, but it is a decent sum – $1,500.
They have benefited from other improvements in recent years. The middle income group has benefited from significant improvements in recent years, especially our childcare subsidies, the increase in our tertiary subsidies including the increase in University bursaries to cover the middle income and our healthcare financing changes.
Last year, we introduced major changes to support the middle-income group in community care and home-based care, outside the restructured hospitals. Going forward, the middle-income group will be a major beneficiary of the healthcare financing review because the low income group is in fact already heavily subsidised. We can improve it, particularly in giving people a greater sense of whether they qualify for Medifund, but the middle-income group is a major beneficiary of the healthcare financing review.
Page: 64
I am not going to go into the initial thinking on the healthcare financing review. Mr Gan Kim Yong, Minister for Health will be covering that, but there were several suggestions in the debate which I can assure Members we will take up. Mr Heng Chee How talked about looking at ElderShield, Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Ellen Lee all mentioned greater flexibility in the use of MediSave. That is close to the hearts of our residents and is something which we are studying as well.
Ms Janice Koh mentioned the issue of capping co-payments, particularly for very large expenses. It is an issue that we are studying, about how we can give Singaporeans re-assurance against very large bills including the middle income group.
Caregivers are also very important. Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Lee Li Lian had spoken about caregivers, including respite care to give caregivers a chance to rest and recharge. Respite care is an important issue as well and Mr Gan Kim Yong will be talking about this in the COS.
Keeping the tax burden low on the middle-income group is also part of this strategy. It is not just the benefits we can give out but keeping the tax burden low. They pay GST, very limited income tax. If you look at those with chargeable income of about $60,000, we have also reduced the income tax rate. They pay income tax but we have reduced income taxes significantly for the middle-income group two years ago. We kept the top rates unchanged but we reduced the middle bands. So, they benefited. This saves about $650 a year.
The Foreign Domestic Worker levy reductions will benefit them. Some also pay taxes for cars but the overall burden when you add it together – maid levy cost, small amount of personal income tax because it is very low rates for the middle-income group and GST – the overall is low by international standards.
We have to keep it low. Keep the burden on the middle-income group low. Through our emphasis on our priority to achieve quality growth and through keeping the tax burden low, we will be able to allow disposable incomes to rise for the middle-income group. That is our basic strategy.
No country has been able to deliver significant benefits for the middle-income group without significant taxes for the middle-income group. There is no country that has done so. There are some countries that are in fact more progressive than us – much stronger slant in their transfers towards the lower and the middle-income groups – but also much higher middle-income taxes.
Page: 65
There is no country that can raise the revenues that it needs to support not just the low-income group but the middle-income group through substantially enhanced benefits by just relying on taxes at the high end.
Taxes for the middle-income group are the norm in many European countries.
The US has somewhat lower taxes than them but higher than us. The European countries have vastly higher taxes. And that is why the VAT rate – the GST equivalent – ranges from about 17% to over 25% in most European countries, including those that have quite admirable social welfare systems but very high rates of tax in the middle-income group. Their income tax rates are also extremely high for the median, not just the top end. The lowest tax rate for the median in Europe is Switzerland – something like 10% for the median. But for most of them, it is 20% or higher. Income tax for the median is 20% or higher, in addition to VAT rates of 17% to 25%. Very high tax burden on the middle-income group.
Our strategy is to do more for the middle-income group, particularly greater assurance in healthcare financing. We are helping them in home ownership too. But the main way is to help them grow their real incomes and keep taxes low. Keep the overall burden of taxes low, even if we unfortunately have to tax cars because of road congestion. Minimal income tax, try to avoid GST going up and try to keep the overall burden low when all indirect taxes are counted.
Let me then move on now to two specific issues. I will not elaborate on housing because Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for National Development, will be talking about it, but it is an important concern for younger middle-income families. House prices have risen faster than incomes, much faster in the last few years. And we are doing something about it. We intend to bring house prices down relative to incomes, not just short term but long term. Mr Khaw Boon Wan will be discussing this issue.
Demand for cars has increased. But this is unlike housing – Mr Lui Tuck Yew, the Minister for Transport, cannot be Mr Khaw Boon Wan in cars. We cannot ramp up the supply of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) the way we are ramping up the supply of housing. We need to manage our vehicle population growth within what we can support with our land constraints.
COE prices have been driven by very strong demand and also the slower growing supply of COEs. That is why we have seen a very sharp spike in COE
Page: 66
prices over the last two years. Last year, there was a 30% to 60% increase in COE prices. Low interest rates and easy credit have fuelled this as well – 100% credit at very low interest rates. Many Members have been speaking about this. In fact, we have been receiving feedback from Singaporeans for some months on this issue of whether we should tighten the loan restrictions so as to cool the market and not have credit so easily available.
A rapid increase in COE premiums poses two types of risks. First, for car buyers, they take on more debt to finance their car purchases, sometimes beyond what is financially prudent. We all know of very unfortunate stories – of young people who have taken loans for cars, although they are not able to service it over time. It does not end in a nice way.
The second risk, however, is that higher COE prices contribute to a higher inflation rate that affects all Singaporeans and the broader economy. This is because the increase in COE prices does not just jack up the price for those who are buying a car, but also shapes inflationary expectations and feeds generally into inflation.
Car prices accounted for one fifth to one half of CPI inflation in the past three years. One fifth to one half of our total CPI inflation. In 2012, car prices contributed one full percentage point of our CPI inflation. So, by helping to dampen the demand for motor vehicles, the financing restrictions that MAS has introduced aim to cool the COE market and to help alleviate overall inflationary pressures in the economy. This is to the benefit of most Singaporeans.
The last time we introduced these restrictions was in 1995. At that time, the loan-to-value ratio was 70%, maximum loan tenure was seven years. Unfortunately, it did not have much discernible effect on COEs at that time and eventually we lifted the restrictions in 2003. This time round, COE prices have risen much more significantly. MAS has, bearing in mind the past experience, unfortunately had to take much tougher measures to make sure that the financial restrictions are effective. However, the measures are not permanent. They are necessary for now, but depending on market developments, MAS will review the loan rules later.
Several Members, including Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Lim Biow Chuan, had concerns about the impact of the new loan rules on families. As Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar had specifically mentioned, families with physically disabled members may face difficulties. This is a valid concern. MAS has therefore decided to exempt a physically disabled person, or his or her caregiver, from the loan
Page: 67
restrictions for one car. The exemption will take reference from the criteria in existing assistance schemes for the physically disabled. MAS will provide details of this exemption soon.
Besides this exemption for the physically disabled, it is unfortunately not possible for MAS to liberalise further at this point without undermining one of the important reasons for the new loan rules, which is to cool demand and COE prices. As I mentioned earlier, the new MAS rules are not permanent and will be reviewed later, depending on market circumstances.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Teo Siong Seng also flagged the concerns of used car dealers, given the unexpected impact of the financing restrictions on the industry. To help used car dealers make adjustments, LTA will give them more time to find buyers for their cars, by extending the Temporary Transfer Scheme for used car dealers from the current nine months to a full year. MAS has met the Singapore Vehicles Traders Association to listen to their feedback and also to explain the rationale for the measures.
MAS is studying how the depreciation in the value of a used car can also be taken into account in determining the Open Market Value (OMV) for the purpose of applying the appropriate tier within the new loan rules. If Members recall, the new loan rules have a 50% or 60% loan-to-value ratio, depending on the OMV. MAS will study how the depreciation in the value of used cars can be taken into account when determining the OMV. This is something MAS is studying.
I will touch on other tax issues very briefly before I conclude.
Ms Sylvia Lim wanted me to clarify what I said in the Budget Speech about the majority of retirees not being affected by the more progressive property tax structure for owner-occupied residential properties. The Government is especially mindful of this group, as I mentioned in the Budget Speech. That is why we designed the new property tax schedule for owner-occupied properties to make sure that it only meant a higher property tax for the top 1% of homes, or about 12,000 homes. These are homes with annual values of above $59,000. The remaining 99% or 950,000 owner-occupied homes will pay less property tax rather than more.
What is $59,000 annual value like? In other words, those that are below $59,000 would cover 96% of terrace houses and 85% of semi-detached properties. To be frank, in designing this scheme, we even studied it
Page: 68
geographically to make sure that the places where we knew older Singaporeans owned private homes were taken into account carefully. We looked at Serangoon Gardens, Opera Estate and Teachers' Estate. I can tell Members that at least 90% of even the semi-detached properties in these older estates will not face higher property tax rates as a result of this move.
For the small group of retirees who own and live in the top 1% of owner-occupied residential properties, they will be subjected to a higher property tax rate. Even then, the tax increase is modest unless they are at the very high end. For example, a centrally-located condominium with an annual value of $70,000 will see property tax going up by just $120 a year. It may be a meaningful sum for retirees, but in this top 1%, many retirees have other forms of income. They are not earning income from work but they have passive income from interest, dividends and rental. That is the typical profile of people in this top 1%.
Fundamentally, this is a matter of equity. It is the right principle that a wealthy retiree should pay more tax than someone who is less well-off. For example, a wealthy retiree may own and live in a large bungalow with considerable worth, whereas a middle-income Singaporean may own and live in a smaller home but own a investment property, letting it out for rental. It would be inequitable, particularly since we are raising tax rates for investment properties, not to tax the wealthiest of those who live in owner-occupied homes.
Ms Sylvia Lim also had an interesting suggestion about taxing properties based on the total value of properties owned by an individual rather than on a per property basis. Internationally, property tax is on a per property basis. In principle, I think the Member's concept is right − that since it is a wealth tax, why not consider taxing based on the value of all the properties owned by an individual? Not a bad idea in principle, but unfortunately very difficult to implement from a practical point of view. To implement based on the individual and all his or her properties owned, rather than on a per property basis. Properties can be held under the names of different family members or relatives quite easily. And there will also be administrative problems when properties are jointly owned by multiple owners, which is not uncommon – when they are jointly held by multiple owners with no divisible share for each owner. There are many practical issues but the idea was not a bad one.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. We are intensifying our efforts both to restructure our economy and to build a more inclusive society, so that we can achieve a better Singapore.
Page: 69
This is a critical period of transition for Singapore. As Ms Low Yen Ling says, \"We are at the inflexion point in our history\". There is no guarantee that we will succeed. There is no guarantee that any economic or social strategy will succeed. But whether we succeed depends not on incentives, grants and subsidies. It does not depend on the narrative of incentives, but on the narrative of responsibility and values. Whether we take responsibility together, to strengthen the values that matter the most to Singaporeans – that is what will determine whether we succeed in this important new phase of our national development.
The Government has a responsibility. We will play an active role in enabling Singaporeans to achieve their fullest potential and in enabling them to live fulfilling lives.
Employers have a role. And they should heed the call of Members over the last two and a half days to value every worker, including the elderly and women, and to reshape the workplace to allow every worker to have a fulfilling job.
As individuals, too, we all have roles, whatever our vocation. We all have roles. Do better and develop mastery, in every vocation, and stay long enough in a vocation to develop mastery. Each of us, too, has a responsibility in our own ways, to contribute to a better community and a better Singapore.
So, that is what will determine our success in this next phase of development, just like it has done before. It is not about incentives, grants and subsidies. It is about responsibilities and values. And that will determine whether we will transform Singapore by the end of this decade. Mdm Speaker, thank you.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.\" (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
Page: 70
at 2.54 pm until 3.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 3 of 2013","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the Financial Year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014, contained in Paper Cmd 3 of 2013.
For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimates Outlays for FY 2013 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 483 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The guillotine times to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a sitting, the reduction of Question Time and the extended sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day. I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber and Members' experience last year, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members – both from the back and front benches − to adhere to their time limits, as I will be very stringent in my time-keeping.
\tPage: 71
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head U – Prime Minister's Office.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Every motorist knows that whenever he or she travels along the expressway and meets a heavy downpour, there is a shelter nearby for them to take cover. I always admire the planner of this project who has a heart for every single user in mind, especially when I see the motorist taking cover under the shelter.
This is a classic case which shows that for every policy, project and programme that the Government implements, it can always be made more user-friendly and people centric, and people appreciate whenever they use it or even have a look at it.
This Budget and many other policies which this Government introduced are, in fact, formulated with more heart for our people. However, when the policies come to implementation or communication with the public, it may sometimes lose a human touch along the way. The way that our civil servants respond to our residents' requests has been in general too robotic and lacking the human touch. Instead of just playing the role of saying \"yes\" or \"no\" to the application, they need to take a step forward in exploring alternative options to help Singaporeans, as these officers know the background of the case better and also the policy guiding the decision. The residents' problems will not just go away by simply telling them about the rules and regulations, especially when our rules and regulations are becoming more and more complicated. We should work on trying to understand the root of their problem and exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis. We know that we have to strike a balance in doing so, or else it will blur the transparency and consistency of our system. No rules and regulations fix all circumstances, but there is a need for it in order to protect the interests of the majority and order of our system. We should win more hearts and souls of our people through understanding the ground and Singaporeans' behaviour patterns. We should also exercise more flexibility when it comes to implementation. We are doing the right things, but we need to do a review if
Page: 72
we are using the mass approach.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is said that even the wise are not always free from errors. No matter how smart you are, even if you have a group of people pondering over the same question a hundred or thousand times, inevitably, there will still be an error somewhere. When the Government implements key policies, errors will sometimes occur, and this is what we describe as \"even the wise are not always free from errors\". On the contrary, it is also said that a fool may get things right occasionally. Here, the \"fool\" does not mean a stupid person − he is simply an ordinary one. In other words, if an ordinary person thinks hard and long, he may reap unexpected results. At present, the COE prices have risen up to as high as $90,000, but once there was a person who had secured a COE with only $50! This is what we call \"a fool may get things right occasionally\".
The wise and the ordinary person, the \"success\" and \"error\" here are interrelated, not mutually exclusive. The Government and the common people can consult each other and achieve a win-win outcome. Government policies have all along been based on people's interests and are meant to benefit them. Taking into consideration people's long-term interests, the Government will not please the people. It means that the polices are meant to benefit, but not please the people. This is something which we all know.
My view is that policy formulation should benefit the people. However, during policy implementation, the Government should please the people. We should not allow inflexibility in implementation to cause unhappiness. This year's Budget and many other policies have been carefully drawn up. Should we not take some time to consider how to implement these policies so that people will appreciate the Government's good intentions?
Recently, Government agencies have introduced a series of measures to tackle various social issues. This reminds me of a phenomenon called \"beating the system\". From COE, retail prices to foreign worker policy, we see a battle of wits between the Government and the people. However, during this battle, some law-biding citizens' interests will get hurt. Because of this, some ground resentment surfaced. The Government and grassroots representatives should have better coordination. We must understand what is in people's mind in order to build an inclusive society.
Page: 73
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mdm Chairperson, the public service sector is one of the major employers in Singapore, which offers exciting and challenging careers, especially to young recruits in the prime of their lives, and for ladies in the prime of their reproductive lives. Today, we have some 65,000 graduate ladies who are not economically active. In many surveys that have been conducted locally, women who actually stopped work or do not work, have cited family and childcare as the main reasons.
As we are adopting measures to enhance our total fertility rate, what type of flexible work arrangements are available for employees in the public service sector? What proportions of the staff are already on this arrangement? PSD can indeed set the example for many other companies and organisations to follow.
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Mdm Chair, the Civil Service implemented re-employment in July 2011 ahead of the country. We started on 1 January 2012. Because of the size of the Civil Service, it has taken a formula-driven approach to implementing re-employment. There is a limited flexibility, but there are also automatic wage cuts. Re-employed workers are also re-emplaced on a different medical scheme from the Comprehensive Co-payment Scheme (CCS) to the Medisave cum Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) Scheme. The public sector union as well as union members within the public sector have made repeated calls upon the Government to review both these practices, and move away from automated wage adjustments downwards during re-employment. As has been shown in surveys in the private sector – both unionised and non-unionised companies – they do not do so automatically, but they look at the change in the job nature.
With respect to medical schemes, if the re-employment had been substituted by an extension of the retirement age for example, then there would not have been a change in the medical scheme. A 62-plus-year-old civil servant would have continued on the CCS Scheme instead of being emplaced upon the MSO scheme, because it would not have been viewed as a fresh episode of employment. This would be a way of looking at how this longstanding employee can continue to be covered for his healthcare cost in a caring way within the Civil Service. So, we once again call upon the Civil Service to review this practice and allow the civil servants on re-employment to continue on the CCS scheme.
Page: 74
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chairperson, the MSO Medical Benefits Scheme was introduced in 1994, about 20 years ago.
Since then, for outpatient treatment, regardless of pay and job grade, the PSD provides all in the Civil Service with a co-payment cash budget of $350; for treatment at private clinics, the limit is $10 per visit. As for inpatient treatment, the PSD provides 1% additional contribution to Medisave based on an officer's total monthly salary capped at $7,000, that is up to $70 per month, for officers to arrange their own medical insurance coverage.
I would urge the Government to review the medical benefits for civil servants in view of the rising cost of treatments. With rising medical costs, the Government as the largest employer in Singapore should lead by example to enhance its medical benefit provision to keep up with the changing times.
On behalf of the union leaders from the public sector, I urge the Government to adjust the benefits soonest possible, particularly the coverage for outpatient and dental treatments. The $350 cap for outpatient is too low for older officers and those who suffer from chronic illnesses. On dental benefit, an officer is eligible to only 50% subsidy subject to a maximum of $70 per year. This rate of subsidy was set more than 30 years ago in the 1990s. The cost of dental treatment has gone up so much. Madam, it is time to increase and enhance the benefits.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Chairperson, I thank the Members for their interest in, and support for, the Public Service.
Mr Seng Han Thong spoke about the need for \"policies with more heart\". The Government seeks to design policies and services that bring the most benefit to the largest number of Singaporeans. At the same time, I agree with Mr Seng Han Thong that public officers need to have the flexibility and compassion to better understand the particular needs and circumstances of individuals and be prepared to allow exceptions where these are possible. Indeed, Singaporeans must be at the centre of all that we do.
Singapore has largely gone beyond just fulfilling citizens' basic needs. Singaporeans' interests and aspirations are becoming increasingly varied. Sometimes, different groups or people may have interests or needs that tug in
Page: 75
opposite directions and a middle ground has to be found.
The Our Singapore Conversation provides a new and good avenue for Singaporeans from all walks of life to express their heartfelt concerns and aspirations. Just as Our Singapore Conversation provides opportunities for citizens to hear from one another, it also has been offering a good opportunity for public officers to gain a deeper understanding of the concerns and aspirations of fellow Singaporeans so that they can design policies and implement programmes that are better attuned to Singaporeans' needs, taking into account their varied aspirations and interest. Listening to and taking into account different perspectives and concerns will help strengthen us as a community.
Government agencies also have mechanisms for engagement, to reach out to the community, understand their local or unique needs and tailor initiatives to meet these needs. Mr Seng cited a few. Let me give a few more examples. The Land Transport Community Partnership Division helps LTA to understand local road and traffic issues at the constituency level. Ground feedback from the community is systematically surfaced, and LTA can respond more quickly and effectively to these requests. The Singapore Police Force also launched its Community Policing System last year, with more police officers sent to the Neighbourhood Police Centres to tackle local crime. Police officers also go on foot and bicycle patrols to get closer to the community, and play an active role in community safety and security programmes.
This is in line with three new service principles that the Public Service added last year: people-centricity, mutual courtesy and respect and shared responsibility for the public good.
Each year, we give out Excellence in Public Service Awards to recognise public officers and agencies for their efforts in providing good service. One of last year's PS21 Star Service Award winners is Ms Cadence Goh, from People's Association. As the coordinator of the constituency's social assistance programmes, she often delivers welfare funds personally to the sick and elderly whose mobility is restricted. On one occasion, she coordinated responses across several agencies to help a distressed family restore their utilities after clarifying that arrangements had been made for their bills to be paid through a financial assistance scheme. This is a good example of a public officer who has gone the extra mile, many times over, to deliver service to Singaporeans with
Page: 76
a heart.
We also recognise customers – Singaporeans, ordinary citizens – who have been exemplary in contributing to better public outcomes through their partnership with public agencies. The Public Service will continue to work hand-in-hand, wholeheartedly, with citizens for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. Both the public and the Public Service have a shared responsibility for the public good, with both partners working together with mutual respect so that this relationship will thrive and bring about positive results for all of us.
I will now address Members' questions concerning the well-being of our public officers.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about flexible work arrangements. The suite of flexi-work arrangement options offered by the Public Service includes part-time employment, telecommuting and staggered work hours. Today, 95% of public agencies offer flexible work hours. Officers can choose the time they prefer to start work within a time-band, as long as they perform 42 hours of work a week. This flexibility allows officers to better manage their work and personal needs.
All public agencies also offer part-time employment with prorated salaries and benefits. As at 31 December 2012, there were some 1,700 public officers working part-time. One example: just last month, the Accountant-General's Department accepted an applicant's request to work part-time in a role that was originally advertised as a full-time position. The officer is now able to pursue a meaningful career while spending more time with her two young children. I agree that the Public Service, as well as all employers in Singapore, can do a lot more in this area.
Mr Heng Chee How asked for a review of re-employment guidelines with regard to wages and medical benefits, and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked for a review of medical benefits. The public sector re-employment guidelines were drawn up in consultation with public sector agencies and unions. They take reference from the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees. Hence, what the Public Service is practising is not different from what has been discussed and what has been agreed on the Tripartite basis.
Since the implementation of re-employment in the Public Service in July 2011, PSD has made refinements to the guidelines based on the feedback
Page: 77
received. For instance, since 1 April 2012, all eligible Division IV officers are re-employed at their last drawn salaries at the point of retirement. Agencies also have the flexibility to re-employ officers with strong performance at their last drawn salaries if they are still doing the same jobs.
The practice in the private sector remains mixed. Some companies adjust pay at the point of re-employment, while others do not. PSD is currently reviewing the salary guidelines for re-employed officers in the light of these private sector practices. And PSD will support a national consensus on re-employment practices. The review will be completed in six to nine months.
Re-employment is a new episode of employment after retirement and that was the way it was structured. Non-pensionable officers who are re-employed are hence placed on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) scheme which is offered to all new appointees. Pensionable officers who are eligible for post-retirement medical benefits can choose to remain on their post-retirement medical benefits during the period of re-employment. Officers on the MSO scheme receive an additional sum of 1% of their monthly salary (capped at $70 per month) beyond their normal Medisave contributions, in their Medisave account. This helps the officer to buy medical insurance (MediShield or Medisave-approved insurance plans) or to pay for his medical expenses.
It is important for officers to plan ahead and ensure that they have adequate medical insurance coverage, particularly after their retirement. Agencies have been encouraging officers to buy medical insurance for themselves and their families. To facilitate this, PSD has arranged for a panel of insurance companies to provide Medisave-approved medical insurance coverage at group discounted rates for public officers since October 2006. More than 40 road shows were held in public agencies in the last year alone to create greater awareness of the importance of medical insurance. Over the past three years, more than 21,000 public officers have enrolled in plans under this central arrangement, bringing the total to over 37,000 officers. This is under this central arrangement. Most other officers have their own medical insurance plans. As at end 2011, 97% of civil servants have either basic MediShield or Integrated Shield Plan. We will continue these efforts to encourage more public officers to take up medical insurance.
Members have asked, over the years, particularly Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, for a review of medical benefits for our civil servants. Last year, I informed the House that we are carrying out a review to assess if the MSO scheme and the dental benefits scheme are sufficient to meet the needs of civil servants and how they compare against practices in the private sector. After a careful study
Page: 78
and consultation with the unions, the Civil Service will revise its medical and dental subsidy caps with effect from 1 April 2013, to keep up with market practices in employee benefits.
Currently, an officer who visits a private clinic can claim up to 85% of the medical bill, subject to a cap of $10 per visit. This cap for the reimbursable amount will be increased to $20 per visit. This is comparable with the average amount that the Civil Service subsidises an officer for outpatient treatment at a polyclinic, which is about $18. So, it equalises both of them. Civil servants can currently claim up to $350 per year for their outpatient expenses. Any unutilised balance of the $350 is credited into the officer's Medisave account at the end of each year. While some private sector employers may provide a higher annual limit for outpatient subsidy, it is usually on a reimbursement basis, that is, if you do not consume it, it is not credited to your account.
We recognise that some officers may need more than $350 for their medical needs in a year. We will thus raise the annual outpatient claim limit to $500, with the additional $150 beyond the $350 given only on a reimbursement basis. This approach allows us to better meet the different needs of our officers while ensuring that our overall package of salary and benefits remains competitive compared to the private sector.
On dental benefits, the Civil Service currently pays 50% of the dental bill per visit and the annual claim limit is capped at $70. This is a very modest amount. Not many officers make use of the dental benefits today. We see the importance of maintaining dental health and want to encourage our officers to visit a dentist regularly. We will increase the subsidy of the dental bill per visit from 50% to 85%. Officers who used to pay $35 for a $70 dental bill will only need to pay $10.50 with this change. The annual dental reimbursable limit will also be increased from $70 to $120, bringing it closer to market practices.
The enhanced medical and dental benefits will also apply to our re-employed officers and Statutory Board employees. Thank you, Madam.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Recently, I suggested that the Government should give elderly folks who help look after their grandchildren grants and incentives, similar to those enjoyed by the childcare centres and parents. I hope the
Page: 79
Government will consider this suggestion.
I also suggest that the Government set up a COE category for families as a pro-family measure to encourage people to have children. In this category, the bidder must be a group consisting of three members of the same family, including children. One bidder can only bid once and cannot make multiple bids, nor can he own other COEs. The bidder will have to pay exactly what he bids and the bidder can also use the ATM to bid. The COE cannot be financed but MAS can allow the bidder to obtain an 80% loan. This can help curb high COE prices to some extent while taking care of Singaporeans' needs.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chairperson, there are Singaporeans who choose to give up their full-time jobs to take care of others – whether elderly parents or family members, or their young grandchildren. These are our elderly and grandparent care-givers. They usually get no income, except maybe some pocket money allowance from the other working adults in the family or their children who are working.
However, we must recognise the important role they play in taking care of the family and in keeping the family together. Is there a way for our elderly and grandparent care-givers to receive some direct benefits or incentives, such as free public transport passes, annual passes to places of interest or even shopping or discount vouchers at shopping malls?
At the moment, for grandparent care-givers, only their children who are working will get Grandparent Care-giver income tax relief. But, again, this is not a direct benefit to the grandparent care-givers themselves.
With the Government taking a lead in emphasising the significant role they play, I am sure we would also be able to bring in some corporate sponsors to support this and show greater appreciation to our elderly and grandparent caregivers.
Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Madam, the Baby Bonus scheme introduced in April 2001 is a Government-led initiative to support parents' decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial cost of raising children. The recent enhancements to Parenthood package offer higher baby
Page: 80
bonus payouts. The increase in the cash gift quantum appears to be a welcome relief for parents in lower income families as it could potentially mean a greater cash inflow for them. However, the dollar-for-dollar bonus structure tends to favour higher income groups over those who may be more in need of extra financial help to raise children.
Many of the lower-income and middle-income families presently have many financial obligations to meet, leaving them with little cash flow for the month. Thus, it would not be a surprise that, given such circumstances, many lower- and even middle-income families are not able to put down $6,000 or more in order to receive bonuses from the state.
This House has discussed the urgent need for the TFR to rise. If we are truly committed to pushing the TFR up, it is important to re-visit the way the Baby Bonus scheme is structured to cater to a larger segment of couples who can be persuaded to have children. I would like to call upon the Ministry to consider removing the dollar matching requirement for a couple's first two children in light of the financial realities that I have highlighted above.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, currently, parents of Singaporean children under the age of seven are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave.
Younger children tend to fall ill more frequently than older children, particularly when they first start attending childcare. One bout of HFMD, which requires a child to stay at home for at least a week, can wipe out the entire childcare leave entitlement for the year. While the law provides for six days of unpaid infant care leave for children under two, the fact that it is unpaid renders it of little value to most employees. Furthermore, whether a parent has one or three children under age seven, his or her paid childcare leave entitlement is the same.
Would the Government, therefore, consider granting parents about two additional days of Government-paid childcare leave for each child under the age of three? This will not only help parents of younger children, but also give greater benefits to parents who choose to have more children.
Next, unmarried single parents are entitled to only two days of childcare leave, and employers are not reimbursed for this. It is ironic that single parents
Page: 81
have fewer childcare leave benefits, even though they probably need them more than married couples because they have no spouse to share the childcare load with.
In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits?
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, in the last decade, we have approved and granted many new citizenships and Permanent Residents (PRs) to eligible foreigners. One of the many objectives of this is to enhance our fertility rate and improve our elderly dependency ratio. Of course, the number of minors approved for such status will also contribute to this effect.
From 2008 to 2012, an average of 4,100 new PRs and another 4,100 new citizenships were granted annually. Approximately 82% and 92% of new PRs and new citizens were females respectively.
Does the Government track the number of children born to these groups of people annually, and are we within the range of our projected target, if we had actually indeed set that target?
The Chairman: Mrs Lina Chiam is not in the House. Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Madam, with the recent debate on the Population White Paper, much spotlight has been on the Singaporean Core, immigration and naturalisation. Many are concerned about the number of foreigners that we allow to become citizens or PRs.
I wish to share a suggestion that arose out of consultations with committee groups by the Bicultural Taskforce of which I am a member. I think most Singaporeans do accept that it makes sense to welcome the right kind of foreigners to become Singapore Citizens or PRs. For example, many Singaporeans marry foreign spouses and would want them to be naturalised. Some foreigners who bring with them credible skills, share our values and can
Page: 82
readily assimilate into our society should also be considered.
Currently, we are encouraging integration through various means, particularly the work of the National Integration Council. Perhaps, we should take a step further.
Today, PR and citizenship applications are evaluated by the Government. Why not give Singaporeans a say in the process? If we are accepting newcomers to join the Singaporean Core, surely it makes sense for existing members of the core to express their views on the matter. Perhaps we should require PRs to obtain some form of community endorsement as the final hurdle to cross before clinching the Singapore citizenship that they want. In other words, I am suggesting that we create some meaningful roles for the community in the naturalisation of new citizens.
Let me be a little bit more specific. We could consider requiring applicants for Singapore citizenship, after satisfying the current eligibility criteria, to further obtain the endorsements from the community. It could be in the form of obtaining endorsements from 10 Singaporean \"community assentors\" who are the applicant's acquaintances in the workplace and in the neighbourhood.
For example, for applicants who are working adults, five assentors could be their colleagues and five could be their neighbours. The idea of giving the community a say in naturalisation is not completely new. The cantons in Switzerland is practising a version of this.
For the \"assentors\" scheme to work, we need some form of guidelines and safeguards to ensure impartiality, fairness and to pre-empt undesirable implications, such as bribery, malpractices and so on. For instance, the 10 community assentors:
(a) have to be Singapore Citizens by birth or for at least a certain number of years; and
(b) should have multiracial composition, reflecting Singapore's overall demographics so that the potential citizen applicants understand the importance of embracing multiracial harmony.
At the same time, we may need verifications, perhaps carried out by our community leaders, to ensure that the assentors are indeed the applicant's
Page: 83
colleagues or neighbours.
The above idea, though appears raw, could possibly trigger more ideas to eventually fine-tune a workable methodology of community endorsement that is uniquely Singapore.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Madam, Singapore's population and ageing woes have made it necessary for us to welcome migrants every year.
However, I believe there is a need to introduce more stringent measures in identifying suitable migrants for citizenship. As shared by Mr Ang Wei Neng, currently, the transaction for citizenship application is between the applicant and the Government.
Even though applicants have to undergo an interview as part of the application process for Singapore citizenship, when compared to other developed countries like the United States, UK and Australia, our requirements seem less stringent as all these three countries have citizenship tests for applicants.
Madam, moving forward, I believe there is a greater need for more stringent citizenship criteria and processes as we select new migrants who are able to become a meaningful part of the Singapore story. Like Mr Ang Wei Neng, I would like to make the call for the process of citizenship application to involve Singaporeans and community leaders which must support the application for citizenship. I would also like to add, for the Government to consider a citizenship test to ensure some understanding of our laws and culture. These measures can increase the level of rigidity in application while ensuring that the applicants are suitable for Singapore citizenship.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Madam, the process for becoming a new PR or a new citizen starts with the intent, followed by the application process. Subsequent to this, there is: (a) the online questionnaire survey or quiz; (b) a visit to places of national interest; and, of course, (c) the community sharing session before the citizenship ceremony.
Page: 84
The decision to become a citizen of a country is a critical one. It is also a long-term decision. Will we be able to review this process of appointment, perhaps adding some new components where locally-born Singaporeans can be engaged and their inputs sought? This is in line with giving Singaporeans a stake in the decision-making process and empowering them as well. An example would be to have at least each potential PR or new citizen who have met the eligibility criteria, get between five to 10 supporters who are Singaporeans from different ethnicity, who know them well, who could come from their work environment as well as the community, such as their neighbours and grassroots leaders.
There must, of course, be a certain set of guidelines and criteria set to ensure fairness in this process. It will also allow a new dimension and facet to be added on, just as it is done in certain other countries, such as the Scandinavian countries.
Also, Madam, as we are moving towards a more advanced economy, will we be more selective in our choice of new immigrants?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Chairperson, two parallel concerns are the reasons behind the filing of this cut.
Firstly, in my Parliament speech on the Population White Paper, I made reference to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's observations a few months ago where the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Government could be more transparent about how it approves PR applications.
Secondly, many in this House would have come across the experience of meeting residents at their Meet-the-People sessions requesting to re-appeal a decision made by the ICA to reject their spouses' or family members' PR or citizenship application. Members of Parliament would also have come across other cases which appear on the surface at least to be an inexplicable rejection for an appropriately qualified applicant. A consistent gripe of affected Singaporeans and some of my residents with foreign spouses in particular, is that the ICA does not reveal the reasons why their spouses have been rejected even though complete applications may have been submitted.
In the recent debate on the Population White Paper, Minister Grace Fu stated that when assessing applications, the Government considers a holistic
Page: 85
set of criteria to evaluate applicants, not only their economic contributions but also the years they have spent in Singapore, their ability to integrate, their linkages and their family ties. But as it stands, Singaporeans do not have any idea of how each of these factors is evaluated, or whether one is weighted more heavily than the other, to say nothing of subjective criteria like ability to integrate, especially since our recent experience has suggested that integration cannot happen overnight.
The gist of this cut, therefore, is to query the PMO as to why the ICA does not give reasons for rejection, to call for a change of this policy, and for the Ministry to explore the prospects of introducing a more transparent system so that applicants are well informed of their PR and citizenship prospects before application. Such a system would also streamline not just the selection process but the appeal process as well, and reduce insecurity, especially for Singaporeans married to foreign spouses, and applicants in general.
On the Government side, a transparent PR and citizenship application regime could greatly assist with the Government's effort to support integration and would build trust between citizens and the Government on population policy.
On the citizen end, it is my belief that a more open and accountable system that would allow Singaporeans to better appreciate who our neighbours are, where they are from and on what basis they were selected, would in turn contribute to a more inclusive Singapore and ease the emotional and visceral worries many Singaporeans have to contend with – an emotion which we usually see with remarks like, \"I do not recognise Singapore anymore.\" To this end, I would suggest that the PMO look at other immigrant-destination countries like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom that assess applicants for permanent residence and citizenship amongst others.
In the Canadian case, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website is the main portal where new immigrants, PRs or citizens can get specific information like checking on the status of their application, looking at different programmes that allow them to immigrate to Canada permanently and to understand the eligibility rules for each category of applications.
For example, under the skilled workers and professionals category, the eligibility rules are very clearly stated. There are basic rules, work experience rules and six selection factors in the skilled workers' points grid. Anyone can take this test and you are informed of your score immediately. The test also
Page: 86
specifies what is meant by adaptability by requiring the applicant to state the education level or his or her spouse, whether one's spouse has studied or worked in Canada, whether the applicant has family in Canada and whether the applicant has arranged employment. A somewhat similar system operates in the Australian case with six different visa categories.
The British experience is also noteworthy. The United Kingdom Border Agency under the auspices of the Home Office introduced a test in 2005 known as the \"Life in the UK\" test comprising 24 questions that have to be answered in 45 minutes. These cover a wide variety of areas, not particularly onerous, matters concerning electoral and parliamentary matters, to others like food, sport, council matters and even movie classifications – questions that are essentially synonymous with the functioning of a participatory democracy. One sentence stood out on the UK government website that hosted information on this test: \"Being a British citizen does not mean that you have to lose your own identity. There will, however, be things about life in the UK that you should know about before making a long-term commitment to the country.\" In effect, the test is a real reminder of the obligations and requirements of PR and/or citizenship and, in the Singapore context, a similar test could present a useful opportunity to highlight the importance of multiracialism, amongst other shared values that Singaporeans stand for.
Mdm Chairperson, are there downsides to an open and more transparent PR or citizenship approval regime? Can a more open system be gamed? While this cannot be ruled out, the prospects of this can be significantly mitigated by a well-defined application system. A system that corresponds with the experience of Commonwealth countries with modifications that suit the Singapore context will lay out the Government's criteria for all applicants. This, in turn, can calm fears in some quarters of any ulterior motive for the Government's immigration policy. Even so, the bigger point is that the current system adopted by this Government is too opague. The benefits of a more open system will also put to rest many unsubstantiated myths about the immigration system, rather than the status quo which provides maximum discretion to the Executive.
Second, who sets the criteria? A points system is bound to attract controversy, regardless of how high or how broad it may be. How do we ensure that such a system is fair and that the public buys into the system, knowing that it may be impossible to please everyone? In this event, a Committee that consists of civil servants, members of the general public and other relevant interest groups can be formed to determine the pass mark and criteria. It would be imperative for the proceedings of such a Committee to be made public and
Page: 87
published to ensure greater transparency with regard to the pass mark and criteria.
Thirdly, who has the final say? This is really about the balance between discretion and fixed criteria. There may be instances where even though an applicant achieves the pass mark, a reasonable reading of the entire picture of his or her application renders him or her to be an undesirable immigrant. Should there be a prospect for appeal? Instinctively, a transparent and accountable system should invest in such an avenue. In this case, the judicial branch may well be one such avenue by virtue of a citizenship hearing.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Chair, during the Opening of this Parliament in October 2011, the Prime Minister said it was necessary to take a more open approach to Government and to governance. In particular, he mentioned that the Government would need to share more information with the public, including information on population trends. He said that while not everything could be disclosed, wherever possible, it would disclose more rather than less.
One area worthy of review is information about our population. Singaporeans have an interest to know who lives among us and in what numbers.
The Government annually releases data on the size of the population and some demographic details. However, the Government has not been willing to disclose certain other details, such as the country of origin of persons in Singapore, for example, the numbers of PRs taken in from specific countries each year. Even at the Parliamentary level, when Members of Parliament had filed questions on how many persons from specific countries had been granted PR status, the standard Government answer was that it was unable to provide the data. Instead, answers given provided numbers from broader regions like the total numbers from Southeast Asia, or the total numbers from other Asian countries.
By contrast, there are other governments which are more transparent. For example, Australia publishes annual breakdowns of their new citizens, indicating the former citizenships held by the new citizens. Will our Government be prepared to do so as well, or at least to answer Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to this effect, in line with the Prime Minister's indication of greater openness?
Page: 88
Or would the Government elaborate on what concerns it has about releasing such information?
Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West): Mdm Chair, there has been an increasing trend in international marriages between Singaporeans and non-citizen spouses. From around 31% of all marriages in 2000, the number has risen to close to 40% in recent years. In many cases, the foreign spouses have been naturalised and assimilated into the Singapore society. However, I have encountered many situations where Singaporeans face persistent difficulties in obtaining Long-Term Visit Passes, permanent residency and citizenship for their foreign spouses in spite of their keenness to start a family and develop roots in Singapore. Coincidentally, many of them were from the low income and low educational strata. In view of this, I would like to seek clarification on the criteria for granting such status to foreign spouses so as to give greater certainty for these Singaporeans and also the main reasons for their rejections.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Madam, the Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) Scheme was introduced last year to cater specifically to foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens. In light of the increasing number of marriages between Singapore residents and foreigners, this was a welcome move. With greater security, it is likely that children from such marriages will become Singapore Citizens and the family will grow their roots in Singapore.
On this note, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following: first, how many foreign spouses have been given LTVP+? Second, does the Government intend to liberalise the granting of LTVP+? And, third, with this scheme in place, will it be more difficult for foreign spouses to secure permanent residency or citizenship?
I end with a request. I urge the Government to take a more flexible view with respect to foreign children of Singaporeans who apply for citizenship or PR. We should help such families stay together in Singapore. The children's connection with Singapore is significant. If the concern is of false claims and that can easily be verified by simple tests.
Page: 89
Mr Zainal Sapari (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, the Population White Paper that was presented to craft the Government's plans for a sustainable population in Singapore in the future has raised concerns among the Malay community who are worried that it will affect the proportion of Malays. This is because it will have major social and political implications to the Malay community.
Some national leaders, including the Prime Minister, have provided assurances to the Malay community that the percentage of Malay citizens in Singapore will be maintained. Some segments of the community would like to know the efforts that are being made to attract Malay PMETs who are professionals, managers, executives and technicians from neighbouring countries to work or reside in Singapore by 2020. What is the outcome of these efforts so far and has it been effective? How many new Malay PMETs have become Permanent Residents or Singapore Citizens in the last five years? Our community also wants to know what are the new efforts that will be introduced to increase the number of new Malay immigrants here.
Mdm Chairperson, I hope that this issue to attract Malay PMETs from our neighbouring countries will be given enough attention to ensure that the new citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents who are Malays will have similarities in terms of religion, culture and way of life.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied) (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, Parliament recently concluded the debate on the White Paper on Population. I have several questions on the issue about the composition of Malays in Singapore.
During the final day of debate on the White Paper on Population, the Prime Minister, in his speech, gave assurances that the Government will make efforts to ensure that the percentage of Malays in Singapore will continue to be stable, even though he did not explain what steps will be taken by the Government in this matter. The Prime Minister also commented last December during a session of Our Singapore Conversation that the Government had done its best and worked hard to attract Malay talents from Malaysia and Indonesia, but the numbers were small. Therefore, my first question is: what are the steps that were taken by the Government so far to attract Malay talents from Malaysia and Indonesia, but did not result in a good outcome, and what are the next steps
Page: 90
that will be taken by the Government in its effort to attract Malay talents?
Madam, during the same debate, Minister Ms Grace Fu said that the percentage of Malays in the citizen population, which does not include Permanent Residents, is stable, whereby in the year 2000, it was 14.9% and in 2010, it increased to 15.1%. This is a very encouraging statement, but if we looked at the overall resident population, which includes citizens as well as Singapore Permanent Residents, the percentage of Malays experienced a reduction from 13.9% in the year 2000, to 13.4% in 2010. My second question is: what are the factors that led to the decrease in the percentage of Malays, in terms of resident population, even though there is an increase in the percentage of Malays in terms of citizen population?
Madam, in my speech during the White Paper on Population debate, I said that I am of the view that maybe emigration is one of the factors that might have led to the decrease in the percentage of Malays in Singapore. My third question is whether there is an upward trend of Malay emigration for the last 10 years, what is the annual number of Malay individuals who have emigrated from Singapore and whether it is the main factor that led to the decrease in the percentage of Malays.
Madam, I quoted the speech by Ms Grace Fu during the debate on the White Paper on Population, that is, \"the Government recognises the need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population in order to preserve social stability.\" Based on this, I request that the Government implement more effective steps in this issue on the composition of Malays in Singapore.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Madam, successful integration of immigrants, be it foreign students, transient workers, Permanent Residents, or new citizens, is crucial if Singapore's immigration regime is to be legitimate and successful.
This House debated the Population White Paper just a month ago. It was a bruising debate, controversial inside this House and unpopular outside. But I see a silver lining – issues, concerns, fears, needs, prejudices, stereotypes got raised. We now need to work through the differences and build trust and confidence.
Page: 91
I sincerely hope all stakeholders, in particular businesses, citizens and the Government, will reach out to each other. Immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore's political, economic and sociocultural landscape. It was our lifeblood and, going forward, it can continue to be so if the immigration policy secures, in the words of Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his reply to my PQ yesterday, \"Trust and consensus among Singaporeans on the future that we must build together\".
Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in. The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration. Immigration is not the silver bullet for our demographic challenges; neither is it all doom and gloom.
Singaporeans will be persuaded, at both cognitive and affective levels, if it can be shown that overall welfare is increased, our interests adequately looked after, and our identities secure and safeguarded. More importantly, special efforts will have to be made to those who are negatively affected by the immigration policy. In particular, Singaporean workers whose wages or prospects have been depressed by the large numbers of transient foreign manpower at the low-skilled and skilled levels.
Besides ramping up infrastructure development to cater to a larger population, I urge the Government to put just as much effort to another \"I\" – integration. Let me emphasise that integration is a two-way street. Even as we compete with other countries for well-qualified immigrants, our immigration policy and regime must ensure that the average Singaporean is not made to feel inferior or that they are being taken for granted.
I much prefer the term \"Singaporean Core\" over the \"Singaporean First\" policy approach. No matter what term we use, the policy must have substantive merit and meaning. I reiterate my call, made last month, to the Government to completely drop the use of the term \"foreign talent\".
Secondly, we should put in place dependency ceiling ratios even at the Employment Pass level. This is a point that has been raised by other Members. This can help ensure that we keep the crutch mentality vis-a-vis foreign manpower at bay, especially at the PMET level. We must continue to nurture and develop a strong Singaporean Core at the workplaces. Let me emphasise that this is not a call for preferential treatment but a level playing field for equal
Page: 92
opportunities, all very much in line with our meritocratic ethos.
Thirdly, integration starts at the selection process. We must be more selective in who we admit to the Singaporean club as Permanent Residents and new citizens. We also need to calibrate the numbers more carefully.
Much as Singapore needs to right size its population, it is crucial that those who seek the Singapore franchise understand Singapore society, her foundational ethos, her shared values and heritage, and her limitations. They need to know what they are pledging allegiance to.
It will take a while before the intended outcome of the integrative mechanisms that have been put in place will result in Singaporeans becoming more accepting of immigration. If it does, it will enable Singapore to keep an open door to new immigrants while assuring Singaporeans that they are recognised and that their identities are secure.
However, if Singaporeans are not persuaded and do not accept the immigration regime and the new immigrants, then Singapore will have to search for viable alternatives to help her deal with the reality of a declining, ageing population. And I believe that the bulk of the answers already lie within us and within this country we call home. The main thing is do we have the courage to bite the bullet, remove our crutches vis-a-vis foreign manpower and avoid population overreach? So, I urge the Government to continue to place a lot more effort on the integration of new citizens.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Chairperson, it has been forecasted that Singapore's population will grow in the years ahead. With such a growth, we must lend our minds to ideas on how to integrate this growing population. More specifically, on how to integrate \"new\" Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents.
We should aim for a distinctive identity of what is it to be a \"Singaporean\". To achieve this, integration is very important. With a growth in population, what we cannot have are enclaves of groups of new Singaporeans who identify themselves along the lines of ethnicity and race and not as \"Singaporean\". It is very important that new Singaporeans blend into their neighbourhood and grow their roots there. They should get to know their neighbours and local personalities. They should have a stake in their neighbourhood in order to feel
Page: 93
a sense of belonging.
Similarly, new Singapore Citizens and PRs should also integrate well in their work places. It is important that their colleagues accept them as much as they accept their Singapore colleagues.
Therefore, I also suggest that persons seeking to be Singapore Citizens or PRs should have 10 Singaporean sponsors who themselves have been Singaporeans for at least five years. This criterion can be part of the application and qualifying process. In the coming years ahead, it becomes even more important for all of us to have a solid Singaporean identity.
Ms Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to talk about the risks of policy overshoots, query the co-ordination of work between the Ministries, and also suggest that we add more diversity to the experience in our Civil Service team.
I would like to suggest four areas where we have perhaps been in danger of policy overshoot or undershoot, and when perhaps some re-calibration or better coordination between the Ministries might be needed.
One, housing. We seem to have gone from oversupply in early 2000s to undersupply now. Are we moving into oversupply again down the road? We are ramping up supply, from 25,000 per annum to 200,000 in the next four years. At the same time, we have introduced seven rounds of cooling measures. But as we attempt to rein in this demand, we need to be mindful of the risks ahead. Potentially higher interest rates could coincide with the peaking in supply to create a double whammy in the property market. The last thing we need is an overshoot in the cooling measures.
The other question is if our labour and immigration policies are all in sync with the 200,000 supply target by 2016? Will we have enough foreign workers needed to keep up with this aggressive pace of construction?
Two, transport. Perhaps the benchmark used in the past to determine the capacity of our public transport system was too conservative. Perhaps the policy-makers were being prudent and did not want to overbuild. But the population surge has caused bottlenecks. So, does this mean that perhaps our infrastructure and immigration departments could have been better
Page: 94
coordinated? We are reacting now, but only after years of bad congestion. We now have the Land Use Plan, which doubles the rail length of our MRT system. But the tightening in the foreign labour policy could pose a challenge to fulfilling these plans. Perhaps MOM and MOT will have to better coordinate their efforts. One suggestion I have is to follow the Thai Model. Thailand has their train stations built longer than their trains, so as to allow them the flexibility to enlarge their capacity if required. Perhaps our planners can adopt this too.
Three, labour policy. Perhaps we had an overtly liberal foreign labour policy in the past. Between 2007 and 2008, we had a net inflow of 300,000 foreign workers. This has created the current problems of low productivity and congestion. And now in our bid to unwind this past policy mistake, we have tightened foreign labour policy rapidly. This, again, looks like a sharp policy U-turn that risks flipping over. Indeed, the risk is that we may end up creating a new set of problems for ourselves going forward. These include a persistently high structural inflation, hollowing out of the SMEs and consequently an increase in structural unemployment, as well as the deterioration in competitiveness and its associated problems. Perhaps we need to slow down the speed of this tightening as we examine the long-term consequences?
Fourth, restructuring. The strong Sing Dollar, combined with high labour and rental costs, means we are becoming increasingly uncompetitive. As we tighten labour policies and incentivise companies to innovate or relocate, what is the risk of policy overshoots here? Will we wipe out some good home-grown companies as a result? And what sensors do policy-makers have to ensure that the casualties suffered now will not be regretted later?
Reuters reported that 57% of 268 Singapore listed companies reported a drop in operating profit margins, the biggest drop on record. The Financial Times and ACRA numbers have all pointed towards firms moving out or closing down. Some economists call these closures \"creative destruction\". But I would caution against allowing too much of this \"creative destruction\" to erode at the core of what Singapore stands for, which is a country with policy stability and transparency.
The above examples, I hope, highlight the point that our policies may be reactive and potentially drastic. This raises the risk of overshooting.
Page: 95
Lastly, if I may be so bold as to suggest that perhaps some of our policy-makers or the Civil Service may benefit from getting some hands-on experience or exposures in the private or commercial sector. Perhaps, some secondments or attachments in order to test out first-hand the effectiveness of some of our policies.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Chair, we had an intense and passionate debate last month over the Population White Paper. Population issues remain close to everyone's hearts and have a significant impact on our future. Our conversation on population does not end with the debate on the White Paper.
While the White Paper sets out a long-term roadmap to overcome our demographic challenge, our population policies are not static. There are many factors that affect population, like fertility rate, the pace of restructuring and global economic conditions. Beyond 2020, things are more uncertain and we will carry out a medium term review of our population policies and assumptions before then. We will ensure that the benefits of our population policies flow to Singaporeans.
Parliament had emphasised the need to maintain a strong Singaporean Core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children. This remains our top priority and is a key and central starting point of our population policies.
Last year, we welcomed 33,205 new Singaporean babies and our total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.29. I am happy to share that this is a slight improvement from 2011 where there were 30,946 new babies born to Singapore citizens and a TFR of 1.2.
With the enhancements announced in January this year, we have a comprehensive Marriage & Parenthood (M&P) Package to help us fulfil our aspirations to get married and have children. Our measures support Singaporeans in getting married, setting up a home, having children, parenting as well as achieving better work-life harmony.
Marriage and parenthood is a central piece of our population policies, and we welcome further suggestions on how we can improve our measures. Ms Lee Li Lian, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar have made some suggestions on this area.
Page: 96
Ms Lee asked about the need for the co-savings component of the Baby Bonus Child Development Account (CDA). Our schemes seek to help parents defray some of the costs of raising a child while recognising that the primary responsibility for the care and development of a child rests with the parents. Costs of raising a child go beyond the costs of delivery and child birth. In fact, many parents have come up to me to say that they plan ahead for the future needs of their child. Many proactively save for their child. We agree with what they are doing. I think they are very responsible parents and they have sensible plans for themselves and for their children. The Government would like to encourage savings by co-saving with them.
The Baby Bonus scheme, therefore, comprises both the Baby Bonus cash gift and the CDA. The cash gift component helps parents cover some of the costs in the child's early years. Singaporean children born on or after 26 August 2012 will receive the enhanced Baby Bonus cash gift of $6,000 each for the first and second child and $8,000 each for the third and fourth child.
The co-savings component encourages parents to save for the future needs of the child. This is extended to all birth orders. The Government will match dollar-for-dollar contributions made by the parents to the CDA, up to a cap ranging from $6,000 for the first child to $18,000, depending on the birth order of the child. The CDA was extended by six years to the age of 12 of the child, with effect from 1 January 2013. This allows parents more time to save and utilise the support from the Government. In response to feedback and requests from parents, we also expanded the use of the CDA in July 2012 to cover healthcare items at pharmacies, eye-related products at optical shops and assistive technology. CDA funds can also be used for the purchase of textbooks and uniforms for pre-school, as well as other related childcare costs, such as registration fees, local field trips and assessment fees.
Mr Giam suggested further enhancement to the childcare leave scheme. We recognise that parents will need time away from work to see to their children's needs, especially parents of younger children. This is why we have increased the childcare leave provisions in 2008 from two days to six days per parent per year for parents with children below the age of seven. Parents of infants below the age of two can also take six days of unpaid infant care leave per parent per year. This gives parents of infants below the age of two a total of 24 days of leave per year to look after their young children. As part of the enhancement in the 2013 M&P Package, childcare leave provisions were further extended so that parents of Primary school-going children aged seven to 12 can also enjoy two days of Government paid childcare leave per parent per year. While legislating more childcare leave may provide parents with greater
Page: 97
flexibility, employers may find it difficult to manage their operations and manpower needs if their employees are away for too long.
Even with the Government funding childcare leave, we are mindful that some companies face practical difficulties should the employees be absent from work often or for an extended period of time. Legislation of leave entitlement, therefore, has to be made judiciously, taking into consideration the needs and concerns of both employers and employees. This is why the childcare leave entitlement is given to both fathers and mothers for better sharing of parental responsibility, with each parent who has young children below seven enjoying the maximum leave entitlement of six days of paid childcare leave per year.
Both Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Intan have suggested that the Government provide additional support for grandparents and family care-givers. Grandparents and other relatives who care for children play an important role in raising them. They make significant contributions to our society in bringing up the next generation and passing on our values and memories to shape the future generations of Singaporeans. Their contributions cannot be under-estimated, nor are they quantifiable. We have sought to symbolically recognise the support provided by grandparents by giving the Grandparent Care-giver Relief of $3,000 per year to working mothers. It is never easy to place a value on the care given by one family member to another – whether it is a husband caring for a sickly wife, a mother caring for her child, or a daughter caring for her elderly parent. Recognising that care given by one family member to another is one that is motivated by a sense of love and family ties, we have not attempted to reward family members monetarily for looking after one of our own. In this light, we hope that parents will do more to recognise the help offered and sacrifices made by grandparents.
In total, Madam, we have set aside an annual budget of $2.3 billion for marriage and parenthood measures. We are making improvements to the pre-school sector. MOE and MSF will provide further details of these initiatives.
In addition, we recognise that employers can and do play an important role in supporting a pro-family environment by putting in place family-friendly work practices. In this regard, we are also enhancing the support given to employers. MOM will provide more details on this.
While we continue to support marriage and parenthood, we recognise that they are personal decisions. Social attitudes and family values play an
Page: 98
important role in influencing these decisions. The society at large has an important role to play. Employers making available flexi-work arrangements; bosses encouraging their young employees to leave office when work is done; grandparents helping to keep an eye on the young children; a friend who organises dinner parties and introduces new friends to one another; these are ways that can help shape a pro-family environment so that our young adults will put family high up on their priorities, and are better able to achieve their family and career goals.
We thank Members for their suggestions, Mr Gan Thiam Poh on the family COE, for example, and will take them into consideration as we continue to study ways to better support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journey and enhance the pro-family environment in Singapore.
Apart from encouraging marriage and parenthood to strengthen our Singaporean Core, Singaporeans living overseas are also an integral part of the Singapore family and Singaporean Core. We are actively engaging our overseas Singaporeans to help them remain emotionally connected to Singapore, and in touch with developments and opportunities back home. We hope that they will return at the end of their work or study stints overseas.
Our Overseas Singaporean Unit proactively reaches out to Singaporeans overseas. We have conducted an extensive study involving more than 3,000 Singaporeans abroad. We are actively taking steps to address their needs and facilitate their returning from abroad as much as possible. This could involve facilitating contact with various public agencies, such as MINDEF for enlistment matters, Contact Singapore for job matching, and MOE for placement of returning students.
We keep in touch with our Singaporeans overseas through a suite of face-to-face and online engagement activities. Events, such as Singapore Day, bring a piece of Singapore to our Singaporeans living overseas. Here we have very energetic Singaporeans waving Singapore flags proudly in Prospect Park, New York, 15,000 km away from home. They are very appreciative of the effort to keep them connected emotionally with Singapore, including having good Singaporean food. We see these as important platforms for us to strengthen the emotional connection between our overseas Singaporeans and Singapore. Our President and Ministers also take opportunities to meet Singaporeans whenever they go for overseas visits. This is a photograph of our Prime Minister holding a tea reception in Melbourne in October 2012 for the Singaporeans there, the young Singaporeans were very appreciative of the opportunities to catch up on the latest developments in Singapore and also an opportunity to
Page: 99
engage our Prime Minister. Many who have attended these events found that these are precious opportunities to re-connect with Singapore, as well as to meet fellow Singaporeans.
As Singaporeans join the global talent pool, we will need to compete for our Singaporeans to return. Ultimately, what matters most to Singaporeans abroad is the same as that for Singaporeans here – that is, Singapore to be a place where we belong, that it is a good home for us, and it is a place where we have good opportunities and a fair chance to succeed. For Singapore to be attractive, we must offer good opportunities for our people.
While we are putting in all our efforts to sustain a strong Singaporean Core, by encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, this will take time. We are hopeful that we can improve our TFR over time. In the meantime, we have to address the shortfall of births. We do so through a calibrated pace of immigration, granting a select number of citizenships to those who share our values, who can fit into our society, and who have committed their future with Singapore.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the impact of immigration on our fertility rate and dependency ratio. Our immigrants top up our resident population in the younger age groups where we have a shortfall of babies. Our birth rates have been below replacement levels over the past few decades. Immigration helps to alleviate this problem and improve our old-age support ratio, as we work towards improving our fertility rates.
An increasing number of new immigrants are foreign spouses of Singaporeans and such couples go on to have children that will make up the next generation of Singaporeans. In 2012, around 9,000 marriages involved one citizen and a foreign spouse, either a Permanent Resident or non-resident. Children born from marriages involving a foreign spouse account for about 30% of Singaporean babies each year.
Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Asst Prof Eugene Tan raised the issue of integration of new citizens. Many of them would have lived in Singapore for a number of years before taking up citizenship.
It takes time and effort for our immigrants to understand and adapt to our values and norms. The National Integration Council (NIC) drives and
Page: 100
coordinates integration efforts across different platforms – namely our schools, workplaces and community to familiarise our newcomers to Singapore's norms, cultures and values.
The Singapore Citizenship (SC) Journey was introduced in 2011 to enrich new citizens' understanding of Singaporean norms and values and provide opportunities for greater interaction with their local community.
We have received good feedback from participants of these initiatives, but more can be done to improve them. We will review the efforts undertaken thus far to address possible gaps. The NIC will also press on with efforts to foster integration across all segments of our society. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, who chairs the NIC, will elaborate more on the Council's upcoming plans in his speech.
The challenge lies in fostering meaningful integration. The SC Journey and many other integration programmes are merely catalysts to the process. Ultimately, effective and sustainable integration can only be achieved when sincere relationships are forged between new immigrants and Singaporeans. The numerous opportunities in our daily lives to cultivate and nurture these relationships are therefore the most crucial element in the integration process. We therefore seek the support and participation of everyone, both Singaporeans and new immigrants, so that we can maintain the cohesion in our diverse society and safeguard our values and norms.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin raised an interesting proposal for Singaporeans to be involved in the decision of granting citizenships. We will consider it seriously.
Singaporeans remain at the heart of our nation and are the central considerations in all our policies. A strong Singaporean Core is our key objective. A strong Singaporean Core is where Singaporeans have a sense of well-being and belonging. Well-being comes from tangibles like having good and meaningful jobs and a good quality living environment, as well as intangibles like strong, loving and supportive families, values that connect us and a collective hope for a brighter future. We believe that together – all of us, new citizens, Singaporeans alike – we can build a strong Singaporean Core and a brighter future for Singapore.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I thank Members for their suggestions and questions. Some of these have been addressed by Minister Grace Fu. I will now focus on
Page: 101
the other suggestions and questions raised.
There are many more opportunities now for Singaporeans to meet and marry non-Singaporeans. A large number of Singaporeans have married non-Singaporeans in recent years. Most would want to seek residency and citizenship for their spouses.
A number of Members asked about the granting of citizenship and immigration facilities to foreign spouses. Madam, we want to facilitate such couples to remain together in Singapore and for them to form stable families who would contribute in a positive way to Singapore. Our policies for granting long-term immigration facilities to foreign spouses are intended to support this. Foreign spouses will generally be granted a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) in the first instance.
Factors that we consider for granting LTVP include the ability of the sponsor to financially support the family, and good conduct of both the sponsor and the applicant. Beyond these requirements, a foreign spouse will be eligible to be considered for LTVP+ if the married couple has at least one Singaporean child from their marriage. For those without a Singaporean child, we will look at other factors such as the duration of marriage. A marriage of at least three years will be considered more favourably. This information is available on ICA's website. Each application will be considered on its own merits.
As Members are aware, LTVP+, valid for three years in the first instance, and up to five years in subsequent renewals, grants healthcare subsidies for inpatient services similar to what Permanent Residents get. LTVP+ holders only need a letter of consent from MOM to work in Singapore. LTVP and LTVP+ holders are not subject to any foreign worker levy, nor do they count towards a company's dependency ratio. Thus, this makes it much easier for them to find employment in Singapore, help to stabilise the family and contribute to the family income. Therefore, it helps to support them forming stable families.
As at 31 December 2012, there were 11,736 foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens on LTVPs including the LTVP+. Four thousand two hundred have been granted the LTVP+ since it was introduced in April 2012. Let me assure Mr Hri Kumar that the LTVP+ in no way disadvantages a foreign spouse's application for Permanent Residence (PR) or Singapore Citizenship (SC). LTVP+ is meant to provide more certainty and a higher level of social and work benefits for spouses who might otherwise have remained on an LTVP as they have not yet
Page: 102
met the requirements for PR.
As their marriages and family situations stabilise and they become increasingly integrated, more of them will qualify to become permanent residents, and eventually naturalise as citizens. Over the past five years, 4,100 foreign spouses were granted PR every year and a further 4,100 took up citizenship each year.
In assessing foreign spouses' applications for PR and Singapore Citizenship, their family ties to Singaporeans are taken into consideration. ICA considers factors such as length of marriage, duration of stay in Singapore, and whether the couple has children from the marriage. Citizens who sponsor their foreign spouses for PR or Citizenship applications will also be asked to show that they are able to support them.
Apart from those who are applying on the basis of family ties, we also consider other applicants who seek residency or citizenship. A calibrated level of suitable immigrants will help keep our citizen population stable. Several Members asked about the criteria for granting PRs and SCs more generally.
Our immigration framework has been tightened significantly since late 2009. All PR and Citizenship applications are carefully evaluated on a comprehensive and stringent set of criteria to assess the applicants' ability to contribute and integrate well into our society as well as their commitment to sinking roots here. This includes factors such as the individual's length of stay in Singapore, family profile, economic contributions, qualifications and age. We also consider applicants' family ties to Singaporeans.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Zainal Sapari and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef raised suggestions on how to improve our immigration framework, including having Singaporeans vouch for or support a person who applies for PR or Singapore Citizenship, or considering factors such as being able to speak English or being involved in the community. These are all possible ways to encourage integration and indicate how well an applicant has adapted to Singaporean norms, values and lifestyle. We will study these suggestions and are also open to other ideas, as we continue to fine-tune our framework.
We should continue to adopt a holistic framework for assessing applications and remain open to diversity even as we do more to encourage and help immigrants integrate better into Singapore and adapt to our norms
Page: 103
and practices.
Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked about the proportion of Malays in our population. We recognise the need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population to preserve the character of our society and our social stability.
The proportion of Malays in the resident population has indeed fallen slightly, as the number of Permanent Residents that has been given out, is not in proportion with the racial composition of Singapore. However, the proportion of Malays in our citizen population has been stable. In granting citizenship, we have been careful to maintain this racial balance. Hence, Malays comprised 15.1% of our citizen population in 2010, similar to the 14.9% a decade ago in 2000.
One of the reasons that this has been possible is because the higher birth rates of Malays compared to the other major ethnic groups have helped to support the racial balance. Or put another way, the other racial groups have been having very low TFRs. While our overall total fertility rate (TFR) fell below the replacement rate of 2.1 since 1976, the TFR for Malays fell below replacement level from 2004. The TFR for Malays is still higher than the other ethnic groups at 1.69 in 2012, compared to 1.18 for the Chinese and 1.14 for the Indians. The Malay population will therefore continue to grow over the next few decades. We hope that the new M&P Package will help uplift the birth rates towards replacement rate.
Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap also asked about attracting more Malay immigrants. We do have an inflow of Malay immigrants. Some are spouses. There are also Malays from regional countries working and studying in Singapore. We welcome more who are suitable to take up residency and citizenship here. We hope that they will find Singapore an attractive place. I also look forward to suggestions and ideas from Members on how we can make Singapore a more attractive destination for Malay immigrants.
Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim raised the issue of transparency in our immigration policies and data. I had earlier explained the parameters of our immigration framework and described the main factors considered when assessing applications.
Page: 104
But beyond that, we do not reveal the specific criteria when approving applications. Applications are assessed on a holistic basis taking all factors into consideration and we would not want to encourage individuals to tailor their applications to specific criteria to artificially increase their likelihood of approval. Most countries adopt the same practice. They have eligibility criteria for applications, but they do not reveal specific details of how they evaluate different criteria when making approval decisions.
Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Pritam Singh raised the examples of the various calculators in Australia, and the Naturalisation Eligibility Worksheets in the US and Canada. These are tools to help applicants assess their own eligibility for citizenship application, but applicants are still subject to a stringent set of criteria before they are granted citizenship. There are factors such as good moral character which are factors for assessment and how precisely they assessed are often not made public. I should point out that in Canada, for example, when citizenship applications are processed, such processing can take two years or more. For some categories, I am told that a processing backlog of up to eight years exists. This was in November 2012. So, there is clearly some friction in their system as well.
Ms Sylvia Lim also requested for increased transparency of our population data. Much of the information and statistics pertinent to population issues are already available in the public domain. The Department of Statistics website has key annual indicators on population, and puts out annual publications including, Population Trends, and Statistics on Marriages and Divorces. Population statistics are also included in the Monthly Digest of Statistics Singapore and in the Yearbook of Statistics. The National Population and Talent Division releases the Population in Brief publication every year, to provide the public with relevant information on Singapore's population landscape. MOM also puts out statistics on the workforce.
In the last year, we have also released a significant amount of data and analysis related to population issues in the form of Occasional Papers on Citizen Population Scenarios and Marriage and Parenthood trends. Ms Lim and Mr Singh may wish to visit the \"Resources\" section of our population micro site. I have with me a sample, not a complete sample, of all the population data that we have released in just the past one year. So, there is actually quite a lot of data that is made available in the public domain. These publications are easily available in the Parliament Library and through online access on Parliament's or the individual's own computers. Hence, much of the information and
Page: 105
statistics pertinent to population issues are already available in the public domain.
In some cases, we provide aggregated information or data instead of a more detailed breakdown because it may not be in our interest to do so. It may have implications on specific groups of persons or create sensitivities in the countries of origin for those who are working here or those who have migrated here. For example, while we seek to diversify the sources of foreign workers in Singapore, it may not be in our interest to provide a detailed breakdown of the numbers and countries of origin of workers in each industry. For similar reasons, we provide data on the number of immigrants by broad categories of the regions they have come from but have not provided the detailed breakdown of immigrants by specific countries of origin. I think Members understand that there may be some sensitivity with regard to this.
Members have from time to time asked for specific data. We would be happy to consider these requests and endeavour to provide the information bearing in mind the considerations that I described earlier.
Besides population statistics, we have also been open with our population policies, as set out in the Population White Paper. The Population White Paper recommends a significant slowdown, by about half, in population and foreign worker growth from past rates. And as Ms Tan Su Shan has pointed out, businesses have expressed concern about what this slowdown in foreign labour means for them.
We are taking many measures to raise resident labour force participation. The Government will also continue to support businesses to raise productivity, upgrade workers, automate, improve processes and redesign jobs, so as to reduce their reliance on foreign labour. These are part of our efforts to restructure our economy to move towards quality growth, productivity and innovation.
We recognise that the transition will be challenging, and we will help businesses to do so. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, had announced a set of measures in his recent Budget Speech to help companies restructure and these include the Wage Credit Scheme, Productivity and Innovation Credit Bonus, corporate income tax rebate and so forth. These are meant to help our companies, especially SMEs, to cope with the transition.
Page: 106
Ms Tan made some useful suggestions on how civil servants can have a deeper understanding of business concerns and practices, and we will consider these.
We will also not let up on our efforts to ensure that the benefits of our policies, such as better job opportunities and wages, flow through to Singaporeans. We will press on with on-going infrastructure improvements, especially in housing and transport. And we will also review policies to ensure inclusive and quality growth that benefits and improves Singaporeans' well-being. We will also continue engaging Singaporeans on population and its related issues, including through Our Singapore Conversation and other forums. As the Prime Minister has stated, we will conduct a medium-term review of our population policies towards 2020.
With the Government, businesses and Singaporeans working together, I am confident that we can build a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Chair, since Chinese New Year last year, Singaporeans have been gripped by the investigations and subsequent prosecution of several top civil servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There have been recent reports of corruption complaints against other public officials, for example, an assistant director from the Media Development Authority (MDA) is suspected of borrowing money from applicants for MDA grants. Now, an assistant director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) itself is under investigation for alleged embezzlement.
This series of announcements naturally arouses public concern. On the one hand, we can certainly take comfort in the fact that the complaints came to light and are being investigated and prosecuted. On the other hand, some may worry whether there is cause for concern about slipping standards of conduct in the Public Service?
The most recent report of the CPIB available on its website is for the year 2011. It shows that from 2007 to 2011, there had been a steady fall in the number of corruption-related complaints to CPIB. During this period, the number of CPIB investigations also declined significantly, from 323 in 2007 to 138 in 2011. As 2012 appears to have been a busy year for CPIB, could the Government confirm whether the declining trend has now been reversed, that is, has there been an
Page: 107
increase in the number of corruption complaints and prosecutions in 2012?
At the international level, Singapore's reputation of having a Public Service low in corruption is still well-maintained, having been in the top five of Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index list for at least a decade. However, while we were rated joint number one in 2010, we have been ranked fifth for the last two years. Though we do not want to be obsessed with rankings, has the Government studied Transparency International's methodology and examined the reasons why Singapore was recently rated below Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden?
Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): The Transparency International Corruption Perception Index ranked Singapore as number one among 178 countries in 2010. However, in 2011, we slipped to number five and in 2012 we are number five too. May I ask what lesson have we learnt from this?
CPIB celebrated its 60th Anniversary last year. We are admired by many countries and we have enjoyed the good name of being a clean, developed nation. Delegations from many countries came here to learn about our anti-corruption practices. In view of the recent high profile corruption cases, will Singapore's CPIB ranking slip further?
Our Civil Service has always prided itself on integrity, service and excellence. But it is up to the law to punish suspected wrong doers. Our civil servants, especially our top civil servants should not act in any way that compromise their image in the eyes of the public. In this aspect, have the Government and the Public Service Commission reviewed the code of conduct for civil servants?
Every individual's personal life is his own private life. But public servants should always bear in mind that as servants of the public, it is up to them to live a life of integrity in the service.
We do have good check-and-balance systems to deter corruption, but the latest ranking of our corruption perception indicates that there is still room for improvement. Other than religious beliefs, moral values, integrity is being instilled through family upbringing and education and that determines the act of every individual. Due to the focus on seeking academic achievement in our
Page: 108
education system all these years, we now need to pay more attention to the moral values. Unlike work competency and academic achievements, integrity is something hard to determine. A person can change over time due to environment that he is exposed to. Thus, constant education on corruption as a reminder to civil servants is equally important.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Singapore has been an active proponent in the discussions on climate change negotiations. We are also engaged in environmental cooperation, both regionally and internationally. The Resilience Working group under the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) looks at our vulnerability and long-term solutions in the area of climate change. How actively are we pursuing potential new innovations and initiatives? What measures do the group feel can have the greatest impact on Singapore, especially when Singapore has also pledged to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by16% below business as usual levels by 2020. How on target are we in this direction?
Currently, Singapore does not have carbon pricing. Will the Secretariat be considering some form of carbon taxation or other alternatives to reduce carbon emissions? Also, has the potential impact of carbon taxation on our economy been studied? These considerations will become key, especially with the expansion of industries, restructuring of our growth and also expansion of our public transport system. With the expected 800 new buses and more taxis, what measures are being considered to reduce these environmental effects?
Also with the recent announcement on the reclamation of more land for Singapore, will there be specific strategies and precautions to be undertaken, such as keeping the reclaimed land levels a specific distance above the highest recorded tide levels.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Madam, the electoral process is an integral part of any democracy. Representation is an essential part of our system of parliamentary democracy. Increasingly, Singaporean voters are concerned with the fairness of the electoral process. This House should not be surprised that voters may, all things be equal, decide to cast their ballots based on their perceptions of how level the electoral playing field is.
Page: 109
Perceptions are often treated as realities in politics. As such, in our one-party dominant system, perceptions of unfairness in the electoral system tend to work against the ruling party. But that is not my key concern. My concern relates to the need for trust and confidence in the entire process of elections.
Recent reports over the last two decades of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committees (EBRC) are characterised by their brevity. Brevity is often a virtue but details, reasoning, and explanations are often lacking in the EBRC reports. As such, where there may even be justified boundary changes, explanation is lacking. Often there is the presumption that the changes are politically motivated. There is a need to provide for more robust substantiation of the rationale and principles that guide the EBRC's recommendations.
For instance, taking the EBRC Report of February 2011, what are the reasons to retain the Singapore Member Constituencies (SMCs) of Potong Pasir and Hougang, while abolishing five other SMCs? How did the EBRC decide which GRCs should become smaller? One could not discern the methodology of the EBRC. Not surprisingly, accusations of gerrymandering were raised.
This takes away from the good work done by the EBRC. For instance, the EBRC report sought to advance the principle of fair and balanced representation. The EBRC also sought to ensure that the number of electors in similar-sized GRCs did not suffer from too much variation among them.
I urge the Government to recognise that future EBRC reports can secure more buy-in and sustain confidence and trust in the electoral process if the EBRC explains the rationale for the changes and how they were decided. The process by which the boundaries are reviewed and decided upon is just as important, if not more important, than the specific changes themselves.
This is notwithstanding that any redrawing of electoral boundaries will be seen as an inherently political process and that it is probably impossible to have perfectly distributed electoral divisions.
Could the EBRC be constituted by civil servants, as is the current practice, and respected members of our society with the relevant expertise to make a nuanced sense of what is needed to be done where the electoral boundaries are concerned?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Seng Han Thong asked about corruption in Singapore. Singapore adopts a zero-tolerance stance against
Page: 110
corruption and is committed to upholding the highest levels of integrity and incorruptibility.
Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) has consistently ranked Singapore as amongst the five least corrupt countries in the world for the past 10 years. In 2012, Singapore was again ranked fifth, with a score of 87 out of 100. In 2012, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy ranked Singapore as the least corrupt economic entity in Asia for the 18th consecutive year.
It is possible that because it is a perceptions index that the recent high profile cases may have affected the way people perceive corruption in Singapore. But it is important that we deal with these cases properly. I am confident that when the public and the international community see that we deal with these cases in an open and transparent way, they will continue to have high confidence in our anti-corruption stance in Singapore.
Singapore has therefore continued to maintain its strong reputation and position as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. The CPIB does not hesitate to investigate high profile corruption cases including those involving senior public officers. The fact that these are eventually brought to court shows that there are checks and balances in the Singapore system to detect, prosecute and adjudicate wrongdoings. Any wrongdoing will be investigated, and those accused of criminal acts will be prosecuted, and they will also at the same time have the opportunity to defend themselves in Court.
Over the past five years, the number of offenders prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act has remained stable, with those from the public sector accounting for an average of 7.5% of the total number. For 2012, offenders from the public sector made up 5.6%, or eight of the 143 cases. The 143 cases are slightly higher than the 131 cases in 2011, but lower than the numbers in 2009 and 2010. So, the numbers have largely remained stable.
While the corruption situation in Singapore remains under control, the recent cases involving senior public officers serve as a timely reminder that we must not let our guard down. The Public Service is governed by a Code of Conduct, based on the principles of meritocracy, incorruptibility and impartiality, which all officers are to uphold. Public officers must not let personal interests influence the official decisions they make. The Code also
Page: 111
includes specific requirements to ensure accountability, and safeguards against corruption, for example, through annual declarations on indebtedness and investments. Generally, officers should also not accept gifts on account of their official position. The Civil Service College incorporates Public Service values and ethos in its training programmes.
Officers are also encouraged to report any corrupt practices or errant behaviour they have observed in the course of their work, directly to CPIB, to their Permanent Secretary or Chief Executive, the Head of Civil Service or the Public Service Commission. We take these reports very seriously and will launch an investigation once there is sufficient basis and information provided. Our strong stand against corruption also effectively acts as a deterrent to officers from committing fraud. The CPIB continues to conduct outreach activities to the Civil Service, to the business community, and also to youths and undergraduates.
Ultimately, our zero tolerance against corruption can only succeed if our society continues to reject corruption – not just because of harsh rules and penalties, but because this reflects the society we want to live in and the values that all of us hold dear.
Mdm Chairman, on climate change, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked if we are on target to meet our climate change pledges and if we are considering any form of carbon pricing.
Singapore aspires to be a climate-resilient global city that is well positioned for green growth. We are on track to meet our pledge of 7% to 11% below business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020. We are prepared to go further and reduce our emissions by 16% from the 2020 business-as-usual level, if there is a global agreement on climate change. This would require a major effort given Singapore's early mitigation actions and difficulties to switch to alternative forms of clean energy.
This year, a number of new measures have or will come into force, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Building owners have to step up efforts to improve energy efficiency under the Building Control Act.
The Energy Conservation Act will stipulate energy management practices for large energy users. We are also encouraging the take-up of low-emission cars and taxis through the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme.
Page: 112
We are studying a comprehensive suite of measures to reduce emissions, including carbon pricing. Carbon pricing will send the appropriate price signals to encourage changes in energy consumption, lower carbon emissions and promote low-carbon technology. However, the implications for both businesses and consumers must be studied carefully, in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. Countries such as Australia and South Korea have recently announced carbon pricing schemes and we will study their experiences.
The Government has formed the Long-term Emissions and Mitigation Working Group under the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Climate Change to study how we can stabilise our emissions over the long term. We need to work on energy efficiency improvements, explore new energy options and identify new technologies for deployment.
We collaborate closely with our Universities and research institutes to conduct R&D in areas such as solar energy, smart grid and green building technologies that meet our local needs and conditions.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef has also asked about strategies to address sea level rises. The Resilience Working Group under the IMCCC is working to enhance Singapore's resilience to climate change. Protecting our coastline, addressing increased flood risks and assessing implications of warmer temperatures on public health are some key aspects of its work. For example, we have raised the minimum reclamation level for new reclamation projects by an additional one metre – beyond the previous 1.25 metres – since end 2011 to cater to a possible rise in sea levels.
The Minister for Environment and Water Resources will elaborate more in his speech during COS on how Singapore is preparing for and building capabilities to address climate change.
I would like to address Asst Prof Eugene Tan's question on Electoral Boundaries. The fundamental structure of our electoral system, for example when and how elections are to be conducted, and how electoral constituencies are to be constituted are laid out in our laws, that is the relevant parts of the Constitution, the Parliamentary Elections Act, and for the election of President, the Presidential Elections Act. Our electoral process generally enjoys high public trust.
Asst Prof Eugene Tan suggested examining the procedural aspects for reviewing electoral boundaries, specifically including non-civil servants in the
Page: 113
Electoral Boundaries Review Committee and articulating the reasons for the boundary changes.
Mdm Chairman, the Prime Minister is mandated under current laws to decide on the number, names and boundaries of electoral divisions. It has been the practice for the Prime Minister to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee to conduct the review and recommend any changes to him. The Committee is made up of senior civil servants who are experts in demographic shifts and population statistics. The past Committees have taken about two to four months to complete their reviews. The review report is presented as a White Paper to Parliament and released to the public once it is accepted by the Government.
In drawing up its recommendations, the Committee is guided by the terms of reference laid out by the Prime Minister. The Committee independently considers and determines how the constituencies are delineated, the size and configuration of the constituencies, as well as the total number of Members of Parliament to be returned. When reviewing the electoral boundaries, the Committee takes into account technical factors such as population growth, population shifts and other relevant parameters. These would be the reasons for redrawing the boundaries of some electoral divisions or keeping the same boundaries for some others. And as Asst Prof Tan says, there is probably no perfect way that the committee can draw the boundaries to everyone's satisfaction.
The Committee members are senior public officers with collective professional knowledge and expertise of these parameters, basically population and population shifts. They are thus in a good position to make recommendations for the Electoral Boundaries. The EBRC would have to consider all the relevant factors in making the totality of their recommendations. Hence, to ask them to explain the technicalities of every change that the Committee recommends may not be feasible.
When the Committee is constituted, the Prime Minister will certainly remain open to and consider making refinements to its procedures when necessary.
Ms Lee Li Lian: Madam, I am glad to hear from Minister Tharman this afternoon that MAS will create some temporary exemptions for the recently announced car loans restrictions for the disabled and their care-givers, which
Page: 114
partially addresses the original intent of my cut.
I have a few clarifications to make based on this announcement. Firstly, how long will the exemption last since it is temporary? Next, why this should be temporary rather than a long-term exemption, especially if the affected member is permanently disabled? Lastly, whether this exemption can be extended to families with elderly dependents who have problems with mobility? These families also rely most on cars and will be affected by these changes.
Ms Tan Su Shan: Madam, I wish to declare my pecuniary interest as a banker. The Deputy Prime Minister has commented that our property market is at \"near bubble\" stage. The Government has introduced seven rounds of cooling measures to our property market. So, the question is – is real estate as an investment being targeted specifically by these policies?
It is clear that some of the measures have been introduced to \"de-risk\" the financial system and to reduce household leverage. However if indeed, one of the objectives is to reduce hot money flows into this sector, how effective have these policies been?
In 2012, developer sales of private residences set a record high of 22,000 units. The sales to foreigners did drop by 62%, so this would suggest that the bulk of sales went to Singaporeans, who are still investing in real estate, be it residential, industrial or commercial. I would say that much of this problem is tied to low interest rates and high inflation.
With inflation to stay high, at between 3.5% and 4.5%, Singaporean savers will want to look for an asset that gives them a decent return and hedge against inflation. Real interest rates and real mortgage rates are negative. This encourages investors to leverage up to invest in property. This explains why the overall economy's exposure to the property market is now at a record high level of 43.5%.
Unfortunately, other than the local equity market, which may be too volatile for some, there is a shortage of Sing dollar assets to soak up this liquidity. There is also a lack of low risk Sing dollars investments for household savings. According to a wealth report, cash remains a large part of Singaporeans' savings, retirement nest egg at 34%. So, finding a right, risk adjusted way to save and invest this cash for the future is important. Yes, the Sing dollar bond
Page: 115
market did grow by some $30 billion in the last year, but this market was dominated by institutions and high net worth individuals, not by middle- or lower-income groups. Hence, I have suggested, as I did in the past, that the Government could issue some inflation-linked bonds for the retail market.
Another alternative would be to support initiatives to build a more robust retail bond market so that individual savers can invest in a broader, more liquid array of Sing dollar bonds.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, last month, the Acting Minister for MCCY replied to my PQ on false advertising when it comes to financial or investment courses. He said that MAS intends to work with other agencies to tighten rules on advertising for such courses as well as investment schemes.
For years, we have heard of questionable investing schemes for wine, gold, bullion, land banking, multi-level marketing and so on. Most recently, we see a proliferation of the so-called \"get-rich-quick\" scheme trading courses. One reason for not dealing with them is the lack of scope in the current regulations. Another is that we expect consumers themselves to be sceptical enough to protect themselves. But the increasingly complexity of these schemes may be such that consumers are no longer able to make informed judgements for themselves.
In the light of this, may I propose that the Government consider setting up a centre or agency or financial education and regulation under the auspices of MAS and a Ministry, such as MCCY? This agency can be both a hub for financial educators and a regulator for investment programmes and financial products that are currently outside the purview of MAS. The agency should be accredited to offer licences, just like in other professional bodies to ensure the quality control of financial courses.
Minimal requirements for a candidate to obtain the licence should comprise the existing professional investment certifications. Without this licence, trainers should not be allowed to teach or provide financial-related briefings. The same agency can also raise red flags when it deems that a product is too good to be true. We may not expect the Ministry to audit such product offerings, but it could list available products on a publicly available platform, such as on the Internet. That platform should also allow the public to call in to ask questions
Page: 116
and seek recourse. The platform can also act as a facilitator among CASE or MAS product service providers and investors. We have also a prudent oversight of the financial industry. Our regulations are always updated.
The Chairman: Mrs Chiam, your time is up.
The Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Chairperson, I thank the Members for raising questions relating to MAS and I will be responding to them on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chairman of MAS.
First, Ms Lee Li Lian asked about the restrictions on motor vehicle loans, and as the Deputy Prime Minister explained earlier in his Budget Statement, there are two reasons why we are doing this. Maybe I should just reiterate them very briefly. The two reasons are: (1) encouraging financial prudence among consumers; and (2) a more macro-economic objective which is aimed at helping to cool COE prices and its impact on inflation.
The experience of advanced economies has shown that over leveraged households are particularly vulnerable to adverse changes in economic and financial conditions. And this risk of over-leverage has been exacerbated by our current climate of low interest rates and high COE prices, so buyers may be tempted to purchase a more expensive motor vehicle than what they would have otherwise done under a normal interest rate environment, and, hence, the financing restrictions to encourage financial prudence. That is the first reason.
The second objective on the macro side, which, again, the Deputy Prime Minister had explained earlier, was to ensure that the financing restrictions are aimed at exerting a cooling effect on COE prices. We know that COE prices for most categories have been on an upward trajectory since 2009 and the pace of price increase has been quickening since the beginning of 2010. Higher COE prices contribute to higher inflation and create spill-over effects on the broader economy. This affects not just car buyers, but all Singaporeans. Indeed, many Singaporeans, including many Members of this House, have been calling for measures to be introduced to address increasing COE prices.
As the Deputy Prime Minister said, and I reiterate, the introduction of these restrictions on motor vehicle loans represents a cyclical response – it is a
Page: 117
temporary cyclical response to these developments to dampen demand for motor vehicles, and to alleviate overall inflationary pressures in the economy. On the exemption that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned earlier, to the extent that these restrictions are temporary, hence, the exemptions will also be temporary. In other words, the exemptions will be there for as long as the restrictions are there. That is to address one of the questions that Ms Lee asked.
Ms Lee asked if the exemptions can be broadened to other categories and other groups. I understand the concerns but I think to achieve the objectives that I have highlighted, and also highlighted by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier, we do need a fairly tight regime. For this moment, this is the regime that we have put in place. I think we should carefully consider the impact and look at how it develops. The details on the exemptions for disabled persons and their caregivers of the same household will be provided by MAS in due course, quite shortly after this.
Let me turn now to Ms Tan's question on real estate and also Singapore assets for savers. It is a question that she had asked before and I had responded in this House as well.
On real estate itself, the Government has been concerned about the buoyancy of the property market which has been partly, again, driven by the very low interest rate environment globally. We have taken several steps to cool demand and to expand supply, so as to avoid a sharper correction further down the road, which could happen when interest rates eventually rise. And any such major correction would be destabilising for households, our banks and also our broader economy.
The latest rounds of measures in January 2013 were calibrated to be tighter on property ownership for investment, as well as foreign buyers. And taken together, our aim – the Government's aim – is to ensure a stable and sustainable property market.
Like all investments, returns from property investments are not assured. This is especially so when property investments are financed through bank loans. And this leveraged nature can result in investors having a negative equity position in an economic downturn and when interest rates rise.
So, the question Ms Tan asked, which she had raised earlier, was whether there are other options for Singapore investors. I think as an international financial centre, we have a fairly well developed capital market. There are
Page: 118
diverse options available to investors, each with its own risk-return profile. Some investment products would focus on generating income, and others would emphasise capital gains. And these include stocks, corporate bonds, listed real estate investment trusts, unit trusts, including bond funds, exchange traded funds and Singapore Government Securities.
Ms Tan raised a concern about retail investors or investors from the lower middle-income groups who may not have access to these products. But, in fact, many of these investment products are accessible to retail investors. They can purchase them on the Singapore Exchange if it is an exchange traded fund, or they can do it through product distributors. And even in the case of corporate bonds, there have been more corporate issuers offering their bonds not just to the wholesale market, but also directly to the retail market. These issues have a low upfront minimum subscription amount and are traded on the Singapore Exchange in small board lots, with each board lot typically comprising $1,000 in principal amount of the bonds. Of course, besides directly investing in corporate bonds, retail investors may also achieve similar investment objectives through bond funds which aim to make regular distributions.
I think what is important besides talking about the investment products and the options is that when making an investment decision, investors should bear in mind that none of these products are risk-free. They should be clear about their investment objectives, understand the risk of investing in the products, and be realistic about their ability to withstand risk and loss. Where necessary, investors can consult financial advisers to formulate an investment plan that addresses these considerations. And for Singaporeans who do not have significant savings, it is probably best to keep their investments simple and conservative.
Ms Tan asked for the Government's view on inflation-linked bonds, and that is something, again, we had an exchange in Parliament last year. When she raised this question at that time, I indicated that MAS was studying the feasibility of such bonds. MAS has completed its study and the findings are that in the current low interest rate environment, investors will have to pay a premium to purchase inflation-linked bonds. It is not a small premium. For a three-year inflation-linked bond, for example, we estimate that this would work out to a premium of approximately 10 cents per dollar – so it is about 10%. Furthermore, as I had explained at that time, inflation-linked bonds are priced based on expectation of inflation and should the actual inflation fall below expectation, investors may actually be worse off than if they had purchased a nominal bond – a plain vanilla bond. So, the assessment is that it is not necessary at this stage to issue an inflation-linked bond given the current
Page: 119
circumstances. However, MAS will continue to review the matter and will consider this possibility in the future.
Finally, let me address the question that Mrs Lina Chiam asked − how we can better regulate \"get-rich-quick\" schemes. It was, again, a question that she had raised in Parliament last month, we had an exchange on this and I had responded to her.
I think the concerns are very real because with interest rates at a very low level for a prolonged period of time, there has been a proliferation of schemes that claim to provide high returns with seemingly low risks. So, I share the concerns that Mrs Chiam raised and I had explained then what MAS would be doing to step up its efforts to deal with such \"get-rich-quick\" schemes.
One measure as I had mentioned during the last reply was that MAS intends to limit the scope for entities to mislead or deceive consumers through false advertising. So, MAS is working with the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) and other Government agencies to enhance the rules on advertising.
Mrs Chiam now has raised a possibility of setting up a new regulatory agency to license and regulate these schemes and activities. I think we should maybe take a step back and also recognise that regulation is not cost-free. We have to be careful where we draw the line for regulatory measures and we have to decide how to find the right balance. Because if you have too much regulation, it may actually end up imposing additional costs, not just on the industry but also on the consumers. So, we think that more regulation is needed but we have to find the right balance. And on how best to regulate, I would say that MAS is reviewing this to see whether there is a need to refine its regulatory framework to account for all of these changes and new activities and schemes that we see in the investment landscape.
More importantly, beyond regulation alone, MAS will continue to step up its financial education efforts. I think this is the most important long-term endeavour. MAS has published, through its national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, a consumer alert on \"Get-Rich-Quick Seminars\" to highlight the key things that consumers should consider before parting with their monies to attend such training seminars. MoneySENSE has also sponsored educational materials in various media platforms to reach out to the public. For example, a Business Times article on 23 February this year drew attention to so-called trading experts or \"gurus\" who run Forex training
Page: 120
seminars. And the article highlighted that consumers should be sceptical when a trainer boasts about his or his students' trading track records. And they should be on guard against any hard sell tactics and be mindful of the risks of dealing with offshore unlicensed brokerages if these are recommended.
I think better-informed consumers are the best defence against \"get-rich-quick\" schemes. Consumers should be wary of promises of high returns that seem too good to be true and they should always ask themselves what the catch is. And so this is an area where MAS will focus on and step up its efforts.
The Chairman: We still have some time for clarifications. Are there any Members who wish to take the floor? Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Madam. In my cut, I asked if the Government could consider giving unmarried single parents the same childcare leave benefits as married parents, because they probably need it more. May I know if the Government will consider this request?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Madam, I think that we totally empathise with the case that Mr Gerald Giam has mentioned, that an unmarried single mother has to shoulder the responsibility of caring for her child alone, and therefore deserves our help.
However, having said that, I think, like all our policies, they are designed based on a certain set of values. In the M&P Package, for example, I will name two main values that basically have been the key basis upon which the policies were designed. The first one is actually on self-reliance and the other one is that family is the basic unit where support is given. It is the family which should be the one to provide the first line of support. So, on the basis of self-reliance, I would also like to clarify that this is where, in our design of the package, we have stressed on co-savings, that parents should have the primary responsibility of caring for the child. It is very different to have a set of policies that say this is the amount of money that the Government gives you, versus another set that says this is the amount the Government gives you and another amount for which if you saved for your child, we would support you. For that reason, we have, for example, a cash gift component of the Baby Bonus and also a savings component.
On the issue about family, we believe that it is important for a child to grow up in an intact family and therefore, in our policies, we have basically emphasised that marriage should precede having children, and therefore, we
Page: 121
support our young couples to get married and settle down before having children. Having said that, we are also very mindful that the welfare of the child born to unmarried single mothers deserves our attention and we have been, over time, extending support to the child and also to the mother. So, if you look at the M&P Package, many of the items are actually made available to the child that is born to a single mother. And on the specific issue of Childcare Leave, we have been reviewing the Childcare Leave, and we will make certain adjustments accordingly and appropriately.
Ms Tan Su Shan: Madam, allow me to clarify. My question surrounding the negative real interest rates in monetary policy was really nuanced around the fact that Singapore's Singapore dollar deposits are now at over $500 billion, and by and large many Singaporeans like to hold cash as part of their nest-egg. Should we have persistent inflation, structural inflation, low-negative interest rates, would this really solve the rising property cycle? That is number one. And, number two, are we looking at our Singaporean savers to continue to save for their retirement?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Chairperson, I understand where the Member is coming from, and the concerns about negative interest rates, and whether this will erode the values of Singaporeans' savings. But as I explained, I think they are sufficient investment options and products. They can always be improved certainly. MAS will be happy to engage the industry to consider how our financial sector can be further developed, how we can continue to offer more investment options to investors, whether institutional or retail especially which is a concern of the Member.
More important as we develop these options is another important aspect which is education. Reaching out Singaporeans and helping them understand how to access all of these different options which are already available – whether it is making use of the CPF, for example, to top up voluntarily whether it is their Retirement Account or Special Account. That option is there and I do not think everyone has made full use of it. So, we can reach out more to educate them.
There are also other investment options which are available to retail investors, as I highlighted earlier, whether it is equity, unit trust or exchange-traded funds, which do offer better returns with some risk. So, the investor has to be appropriately advised and educated on what are these risks return profiles,
Page: 122
what is the risk appetite that each person is prepared to accept and then make investment decisions accordingly. That is an important aspect of reaching out and educating Singaporeans about how best they can manage their savings, given the current low interest rate environment. It is something that MAS intends to do through its financial outreach programmes.
The Chairman: Mr Seng, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Seng Han Thong: After listening to the 29 cuts, may I thank the Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister Grace Fu and Acting Minister Lawrence Wong for their answers with a big heart to the wide ranging issues. After listening to all the answers, I realise the Prime Minister's Office is also the office which will \"cover mountain, cover sea\", or in Chinese, \"包山，包海\". On this note, may I beg leave to withdraw my amendment?
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $349,890,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $56,031,700 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head P (Ministry of Home Affairs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Madam, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Let me begin by commending MHA for a very busy legislative agenda last year. We have seen a number of significant moves, not least of which were the changes to the mandatory death penalty. We have also seen changes such as the introduction of the Long-Term Visit Pass Plus Scheme to complement the existing Long-Term Visit Pass Scheme. Given the upward trend in marriages between Singapore residents and foreigners, this scheme will give couples greater peace of mind to set up families and sink roots in Singapore.
Page: 123
One change which will have significant and beneficial impact on the ground is the Community Policing System, an islandwide installation of closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras in common areas, such as HDB void decks and carparks, and more foot and bicycle patrols will benefit residents. This will hopefully enable quicker response and more effective policing. Just as important, it changes the role of our police officers, as being part of the community they help protect. It also demonstrates that although crime rates are falling, the Ministry is constantly looking for ways to be more efficient and effective.
But there is one challenge we need to tackle – that of resolving neighbourhood or community disputes. Crime prevention is important. But what disturbs the peace for most on a regular basis is conduct which the police does not consider crimes or serious crimes and will therefore decline to take action in a timely manner. Members of this House are all too familiar with these neighbour disputes, including loud and indiscriminate noise, dragging of furniture, thumping of floors, hanging of dripping laundry, obstruction of corridors and so on. Trivial on its face, but done on a regular basis, causes tremendous stress and anxiety, and increases tension between neighbours.
The truth of the matter is that we have no effective recourse to such behaviour. We ask the RC to intervene. Sometime it works, most of the time it does not or at least only provides a temporary fix. We refer the cases to voluntary mediation, but that is the problem. It is voluntary, so if the respondent declines to go, there is very little we can do about it.
As our population grows, and more live in high-rise homes, the number of incidents will grow. We need to put together a practical and effective framework to resolve such disputes. It has to involve empowering people on the ground to resolve disputes quickly. If that fails, compelling the disputing parties to attend mediation or some form of dispute resolution, and having trained individuals who can make decisions and most importantly, having sanctions that have some teeth in the event the meditation fails. This is not intended to impose more laws, rules and regulations on society. But such a framework will reflect what society deems acceptable, facilitate good neighbour neighbourliness in high density living and improve the lives of everyone.
My second main point, Madam, relates to repeat drug offenders who have already been released and will continue to be released from the Long-Term Imprisonment Regime. This issue was highlighted in a Ministerial Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister last year. It involves about 3,000 repeat offenders. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister for an update on this issue. In particular, have those who have been released been able to reintegrate into
Page: 124
their families and society, and have they found homes and jobs? What are we doing to help those who may have difficulties doing so? For those who return to drugs, what does the Ministry intend to do differently since previous efforts have not worked?
Recidivism is not just an issue for drug offenders. Every Singaporean caught in a cycle of offending and imprisonment is effectively a life lost, and in many cases, pain, despair and an emotional burden on his family. No one is born wanting to commit crime and we need to do what we can to help put them back on the right path. I know from my work and interaction with the Ministry that much effort is being put in to help Singaporeans escape this trap. There are many civil servants and VWOs working passionately to keep people away from a life of crime and save Singaporean families. Singaporeans should be told about these efforts. They should also know what the challenges are, so that they can be part of the solution.
I, therefore, ask MHA to give an update on our efforts to reduce recidivism and helping ex-offenders reintegrate into society.
Madam, it was pointed out in last year's Committee of Supply debate that terrorism, transnational syndicates, technology and the changing profile of our society are some of the key challenges that we face in maintaining public order and security. In response, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about strengthening our capabilities to deal with present and future threats to our security by focusing on four key areas: enhancing organisations and systems, investing in our people, exploiting technology and partnering the community.
At the same time, it was mentioned in this year's Budget Statement that our economy is running almost at full capacity and that there is virtually no unemployment. Recruitment remains a challenge for many employers in Singapore – be it in the public or private sector. However, it is clear that the Ministry will require more officers to meet its plans, including performing the new bicycle patrols and foot patrols that we have heard about and which it is rolling out under its new Community Policing initiative – more boots on the ground needed.
As the capability to attract and retain talented candidates in our Home Team was identified as a key area of focus in our strategy, I would be grateful if the Deputy Prime Minister could give an update on the effectiveness of the new
Page: 125
measures implemented last year. I understand that higher starting salaries and retention payouts were some of the measures implemented. Have these measures been successful in attracting high quality candidates and lowering the attrition rate in the Home Team?
I would also like to ask the Minister what the Ministry has done and is doing to ensure the Home Team is able to meet its operational demands for future. Will recruitment challenges adversely impact plans such as the \"Next Generation Frontline Policing Model\", which was announced in November 2011. Also, will any refinements to the four key areas identified last year be necessary? In essence, my question is whether the Ministry remains on track to deliver the plans it has announced.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Madam, the home front landscape has changed and continues to do so. It evolves each day. Traditional crimes – the Penal Code type of offences, property and drug-related offences – have come down. Over the last few years, the crime rates have been encouraging, hitting an all-time low in recent years, whereas drug-related offences or arrest have gone up. We continue to muster resources to combat acute problems, like gambling, unlicensed moneylending and loansharking. These crimes do not just have a single victim. The people around the alleged debtor often suffer the consequences of the harassment of the loansharks and scare tactics which are employed by these people. In fact, it is intended for the innocent people around the alleged debtor to also suffer these inconveniences and threats. It is a menace to society. Those who are caught are dealt with severely, using strong deterrent punishments. This is entirely necessary to reflect society's abhorrence of these crimes.
But we cannot assume that this landscape represents the universe of threats which Singaporeans face today. For one, the cyber threat is growing. Online gambling and vice activities have been on the rise. Syndicates are getting bigger, better organised, sometimes not even located within Singapore. They are more difficult to track, and often target the vulnerable groups like the youths and elderly. Other less traditional offences but no less serious or insidious are online harassment actions. This is often anonymous and cowardly attack on the person's reputation and can often do cause serious damage.
A victim's recourse is presently limited. And even if the perpetrator is caught, which in the nature of the Internet, it is difficult enough. The damage
Page: 126
would inevitably have already been done.
Madam, the Government should make it easier for victims of these harassments to seek recourse, even if on interim basis. There must be a way in which damaging articles and publications be forced to be taken down, before it becomes viral on the Internet. And in which point in time, it is often too late. Victims must also have the tools to track the source and author of the offending publications through the Internet service providers. These measures are necessary to ensure that there is a fair prospect of apprehending the often unknown cowardly persons.
As Mr Hri Kumar noted earlier, there is also a recently growing trend in community disputes. This is when neighbours get into disagreement. These issues often revolve around encroachment, sometimes of space for quiet enjoyment. Mr Kumar gave some examples and there are others like high rise littering of old racks, newspapers, leftover foods or cigarette butts. At other times, the complaint is about the inconsiderate neighbour who generates too much noise at an unearthly hour. These are less serious than hardcore crimes, but no less difficult to resolve. Some of these community disputes in fact could give raise or lead to more serious ones. Sometimes, it is a minor scuffle, sometimes it is a more serious one. Sometimes racial or religious sentiments could be invoked in these disputes which threaten neighbourliness, and sometimes even our social fabric and harmony.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]
In these disputes, most of the time, all that is needed is a little intervention and mediation by an authority figure. I will speak more about this when we talk about Community Policing because I think it is a feature that can be embedded into the concept of system of COPS. I hope that the MHA could also look into this. Just like my colleague Mr Seng Han Thong has mentioned earlier, I do think what I have sketched out is only a fraction of what the MHA covers. It is also, as Mr Seng said, an \"all mountain, all sea\" Ministry. In that respect, I do ask the Deputy Prime Minister to outline its priorities for the year 2013 in the face of these changing challenges.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Sir, in the presentation by Mr Albert Chua, the permanent representative of Singapore to the UN on 27 June 2012, he mentioned that the threat of terrorism in Southeast Asia remained serious. He
Page: 127
specifically highlighted the spread of radical ideology and also said there were increasing dangers of self-radicalisation. I would like the Minister to provide an update on the regional terrorism situation and also what steps the MHA is taking to deal with this threat.
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, you can take both your cuts together.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Sir, counter-terrorism measures encompass a multi-disciplinary approach, that is, defence, internal and border controls, infrastructure security, total defence, medical readiness, resilient transportation system and even psychological preparedness. Singapore has been proactive in all these areas and even at the international and regional grouping levels.
We also have a good model in our Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), which was formed when handling the JI issue. It has since been expanded, contributing also through its educational and advisory role. In fact, the RRG is often quoted as an example by many academics involved in the discipline of counter-terrorism.
With the increase in the level of sophistication, technology and connectivity of terrorist and terrorist-related activities, how do our current preparedness strategies and plans measure up? What and how are the current threats different compared to the last decade?
Paramedics form an essential core group of personnel who run the Emergency Ambulance Services (EAS). They are equipped with life-saving skills, critical for times of emergencies. Their job scope is challenging. With the ageing population and increased numbers with chronic illnesses developing complications, the number of ambulance calls and the utilisation rate is only going up. We will need to recruit more young paramedics with clear progression in their career paths and also development. For the existing paramedics, self-development, continuing education and career tracks must be
Page: 128
amenable and also favourable to them.
Will the Level 4 Paramedic Specialist Training be re-commenced soon? And if so, is there a time line? There is certainly a need for these highly trained paramedics to handle more complex, multi-faceted medical cases that we are going to continue to see.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Sir, there has been much debate in this House in the recent past on the potential population growth that Singapore is going to see in the coming years. The debate brought with it mixed views. Whatever those views may be, we must constantly remind ourselves that we must do what is in the best interest of Singaporeans. To this end, I have a suggestion.
Our airport is an iconic pride of Singaporeans. In 2012 alone, Changi Airport won close to 30 awards. At Changi Airport, we have automated gantries at the immigration clearance check-points. These gantries can be used by Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Long-Term Pass Holders. It is my suggestion that we have gantries or automated clearance lanes specific to Singapore Citizens only. This will also be in line with the practice of many other countries that have special lanes of immigration clearance specifically for the use of their citizens only.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, we have a Community Policing System in place, at least the roll-out since last May. The full roll-out across the island will continue over the next three to five years. It takes time because we need officers to be well-trained in their position and something like 450 new positions have to be filled. Once they are filled, this will allow the Police to methodologically plan and deploy the resources for new crime strike force and other components of the reorganised Neighbourhood Police Centres.
I wonder if we could leverage on this scheme to deal with another aspect of community disputes, which I mentioned earlier, between neighbours. I think this scheme could be used where some people could be deputised to handle and mediate such community disputes. These will be people who will be trained in mediation, dispute resolution and be given some powers to make orders with
Page: 129
which could be enforced in the usual way through the courts.
These people would be chosen from a pool of community and respected grassroots leaders and perhaps people who themselves live in the area concerned. They would be a little like the village head controls of old whom residents look up to and respect and whose words of advice in the first instance would often be paid heed. I think in the majority of these cases, that is what is needed to resolve tensions between two warring neighbours. And I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister could comment on that.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, policing models worldwide are evolving. Most countries start off with traditional, reactive models, which focus on solving crimes after they occur and responding to calls for assistance. As countries develop, there is increasing evolution towards proactive models which focus on crime prevention.
There is a wide body of research from developed countries on the effectiveness of different policing strategies in crime reduction. For instance, evidence from the United States generally shows that community policing in and of itself is not effective in crime reduction, though it is useful in promoting good relations with the public. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that problem-oriented policing and hot spot policing show strong results in crime reduction.
The general thrust of the research is that successful policing strategies combine two elements – focus on specific problems, and diverse approaches which involve not just law enforcement but other stakeholders. For instance, if a neighbourhood has a high incidence of housebreaking, successful responses typically involve the police focusing on the problem area and working with the local housing authorities, citizens and the local councils to approach the problem from many fronts.
In Singapore, our policing models have gone through several milestones. Community policing was introduced in the 1980s via the Neighbourhood Police Post system, which was then replaced by the Neighbourhood Police Centre model around the year 2000. After more than 10 years of the NPC model, we now have the recently unveiled Community Policing System (COPS).
Page: 130
It has been publicly stated that the reason for the change to COPS was to adjust to new population trends and to devolve more authority to the local units. I would like Government to clarify whether the decision was based on any evidence of what has or has not worked in Singapore or in other countries; in other words, to what extent was the decision evidence-based?
The Chairman: Mr Arthur Fong, you can take all your three cuts.
Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Thank you, Chairman. Singapore continues to enjoy a stable environment of low crime rate. The crime rate per 100,000 is about 581, the lowest we have had in the last 29 years. By many accounts and the types of crime committed in Singapore, many reported a drop. For instance, although loan shark harassment still remains a concern and there are still reported incidences of such harassment, the numbers have come down.
As the Police says, \"Low crime doesn't mean no crime\". The Police attributed this drop in the crime rate to greater participation from the community and public vigilance. I would attribute this to some form of community policing system. I am happy to say that Clementi Constituency was part of a pilot programme named Delta COPS and a roll-out of the COPs initiatives at West Coast Division recently.
Can the Minister give an early assessment on how the new COPS model has performed thus far, and how have residents taken up with COPS?
Mr Chairman, sometime in November 2012, it was reported that a director of a real estate firm was charged for illegal money-lending activities. The potential customer took loans from the director with high interest chargeable and the loan to be returned after the sale of his flat. This dealing seems innocuous enough and logical given that the seller is due to be paid after selling his flat. However, this example reflects a more serious issue. We would be on a slippery road if we allowed such deals and illegal contravention of the Moneylending Act to go through as one of the modus operandi of loan sharks.
In addition, many netizens had posted online of unsavoury propositions of offer of easy money. The sender would then get nasty and harassed non-stop if the recipient questioned how his number and personal details were availed
Page: 131
to the sender of such services.
In the first six months of 2012, there were more than 1,000 cases of illegal money-lending activities reported. Although loan shark harassment activities were reportedly down by about 25%, this aspect is still a scourge.
Harassment by unlicensed moneylenders has been a problem of concern to many residents in recent years. Can the Minister provide an update on the unlicensed moneylending harassment situation last year? How is his Ministry tackling this issue?
Mr Chairman, although Singapore has a fairly low crime rate, there is still a cause for concern especially with youth crimes. As recent as in February 2013, four boys were arrested for loan shark harassment activities including setting homes on fire and locking the gates. These youth were as young as 15 and average no more than 16 years old. They were attracted to these illegal activities by the short-term attraction of money without a thought for their future and the consequences of their actions and on others.
In 2011, there were a total of 336 youth arrested for illegal moneylending harassment cases. What is the situation like in 2012? What can be done to prevent the malaise from worsening?
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Chairman, loan shark harassment is a clear and present danger to many innocent victims and their families who live in constant fear daily and not knowing when the nightmare will end. Even though the Singapore Police Force has taken a zero tolerance approach towards loan shark harassment, loan shark activities still pose a significant threat in some neighbourhoods.
I would like to ask the Minister if any new approaches will be adopted to clamp down on these activities and harassment cases. I understand that there is a national CCTV roll- out plan – how successful have CCTVs played in identifying the individuals involved? What tougher measures will be taken against those caught harassing borrowers or their neighbours who live in constant fear every single day of their lives?
Page: 132
Mr Chairman, I am also concerned about the involvement of youths in loan shark activities. There were recent reports on youths who were arrested for suspected involvement in loan shark activities. I would like to know how many youths have been arrested for involvement in loan shark activities over the past three years. What steps are taken to educate youths on the dangers of being involved in such activities? What other deterrent measures can be taken to reduce the involvement of youths in such activities?
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Mr Chairman, following up from last year's or, perhaps, last few years' COS, the vice situation in the Geylang area continues to make its presence felt even into the upper lorongs. This, of course creates a multitude of social disamenities related to noise, littering, illegal parking, traffic congestion, immoral influences of the flesh trade as well as safety and security challenges. It also continues to be a \"cat and mouse\" game between the authorities, the operators and street walkers. Vigorous community as well as multi-disciplinary agencies efforts have not effected a sustainable positive change.
Can MHA update us on the efforts to better contain these activities? I strongly feel there is a need to be more stringent and more effective.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): MHA has recently taken positive steps in attempting to deter prostitutes from operating within the heartland homely neighbourhoods. One initiative I would like to highlight is the Community Policing System (COPS). I see this as an excellent opportunity for enhanced interaction and communication between the Police and public, as well as more efficient collaboration to achieve our shared goal of crime reduction. The value-add of such a scheme is particularly evident in the two areas of vice which I would like to draw to Parliament's attention today: prostitution and loan shark harassment.
First, the problem of prostitution. We need to deter the presence of prostitutes who operate in the heartlands and residential neighbourhoods. Our Police force periodically carries out crackdowns on prostitutes, particularly those operating outside of informally designated red-light areas. I would like to ask if the new COPS initiative, which has been warmly received by residents, has as one of its priorities to deter these prostitutes from doing so.
Page: 133
Our heartlands and residential neighbourhoods are spaces in which families and young children grow up and play in. Such vice activities, on the other hand, worry parents; rightly so. Because of the dispersed nature of such activities, the COPS scheme would enable Police to tap on residents in their neighbourhoods as surveillance sources.
The value-add the scheme would bring to the deterrence of loan shark harassment is also substantial. Would the Police work with local community groups, such as the grassroots volunteers, to provide a method of detection and prevention of loan shark harassment? In light of the aspiration towards increased collaboration between the Police and public, I would like to add that the COPS initiative is an excellent and heart-warming one because it shows the closeness between a Police officer's mission and the community's well-being, a warm connection, and rightly so.
I would like to raise a final point with respect to the curbing of gambling addictions. Would the Ministry consider reducing the waiting time for an exclusion order from either of the casinos? This is in light of the often vulnerable and irrational state of the subject to an exclusion order, and it would benefit all parties to the process if the objective of more efficiency is met.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, work permit holders in Singapore as at December 2012 numbered 952,000. Out of these, close to 300,000 are construction workers.
Sir, I thank and appreciate these workers who left their homes, took on backbreaking work, constructing much desired homes and facilities for our citizens. I acknowledge that their needs in fair compensation, lodging, leisure should be respected and met.
Sir, for years, many of these foreign workers who live elsewhere in Singapore, have been frequenting areas such as Little India, Beach Road, Jurong and other areas. During the weekends, lorries ferry these workers to their favourite meeting places – Indian and Bangladeshi workers mainly to Little India and Thai workers to the Golden Mile and Beach Road areas. Many tend to congregate in the void decks of HDB flats in the nearby residential zones. The crowds get much bigger when it rains and there are no other shelters for them. Whilst the majority of them do not commit crime, the sheer large size of the congregation is a big concern for my residents. The workers eat and drink,
Page: 134
socialise, block the passageways of residents. Some purchase liquor from nearby stores, get drunk and urinate in the public areas.
In the last three years, thanks to the constant advocacy of local Members of Parliament and agencies, such as MOM, the Police, NEA, Town Councils and grassroots volunteers, the situation had been much better controlled. Uniformed Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) have been deployed during peak hours to patrol very popular foreign worker congregation areas.
However, the situation has not been fully resolved. Residents continue to lament the quality of their living environment. As more foreign workers land in our country to support Singaporeans' demand for faster completion of housing and train network projects, a more rigorous system of managing this teething issue needs to be put in place.
The issue of alcohol licences at shops directly within HDB blocks contributes to problems of social disamenities. Some grocery stores have openly stocked and sold not only beer but all forms of spirits. These are a couple of photos of what is on the ground floor of one of the shops in one of my HDB blocks. Shops, such as these, not only serve workers who naturally congregate in these areas, but they attract also even more to these blocks. With purchased alcohol in hand, the workers conveniently drink within the block area vicinity, causing even more problems.
Sir, I have studied closely the open-bottle policies of several countries where only liquor stores are allowed to operate away from residential zones, and where alcohol drinking in public areas is an offence. I plead with MHA to seriously consider implementing policies of this same nature in Singapore. And whilst this consideration is underway, I urge MHA to withdraw or stop issuing alcohol sales licences to shops in residential blocks. MHA's previous promise to use soft approaches such as education and counselling did not work. Effective behavioural management needs time and many of these workers are not here on a long-term basis.
I also urge the Government to form a high-level interagency task force to look to solving the issue of foreign worker congregation at residential areas once and for all. This should comprise the HDB, NEA, Police Force, MOM, the Town Councils and, of course, the MHA. Policies that can be implemented include: (a) ring-fence residential zones so that only residents and their visitors can enter; (b) convert the shops below public housing blocks which are selling this liquor or groceries to more wholesome community facilities that can benefit
Page: 135
the residents; and (c) fund the building of sheltered facilities complete with lighting, toilets and grocery shopping at available land away from the residents for these foreign workers.
Singaporeans need these foreign workers to help construct facilities for us locals. Let us be clear about that. These workers, like you and I, need leisure and recreation during their rest days. But the residents of the places where the foreign workers congregate too deserve rest in a quality, peaceful, living environment.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Sir, I am speaking specifically for MHA to look into ICE. I do not mean the controlled drug but ICE as in the acronym, \"I\" for Image of the private security industry, \"C\" for Capability enhancement through closed circuit TV deployment and \"E\" for Enforcement against assembly of foreign workers in HDB heartlands.
In the past eight years, the private security industry has undergone much job re-creation and industry re-development. Since the setting up of the Security Industry Regulatory Department in 2004 and the formation in 2005 of the Tripartite Security Industry Forum, involving the tripartite partners which included the Union of Security Employees, we have seen much improvement to the wages and training of officers and standards of security agencies. There are now the mandatory Security WSQ training programmes and mandatory grading of the private security agencies. There is also now a workgroup looking at raising the productivity and working out the progressive wage model for the industry.
Although much work has been done by the Union as well as the security associations and the regulators, there remains a perennial issue of the image of private security officers and the industry as a whole. The private security industry plays a vital role alongside our main security forces. In fact, in many instances, they are the first responders to any incident. The Security Industry Regulatory Department's key focus is as a regulator. We need a driver as well and not just a regulator only to enhance the image, capabilities and attractiveness of this vital force for our nation, the private security industry.
As Adviser to the Union of Security Employees and previously its Executive Secretary prior to March 2011, I have met with numerous security officers on the ground as well as many security agency owners. From their feedback and
Page: 136
my many years of interaction with the industry, I strongly recommend and propose that an agency or unit be set up to take up the role of industry re-development to raise the profile, image and professionalism of the private security industry so that the private security officers will serve with pride, be treated with respect by members of the public and become a force to be reckoned with.
The issue of crime within our housing communities has always been a major bugbear and I understand that there is already initial success with CCTV deployment. However, I would like to call for the enhancement of our capabilities to prevent and detect crime and offences through the dynamic, flexible and intensification of deployment and use of CCTVs in areas where residents have provided feedback about the visible presence of any form of criminal or illegal activities.
My final concern is with the issue of large numbers of foreign workers loitering, congregating, making noise and sometimes also drinking within the HDB heartlands. The situation is particularly exacerbated in HDB heartlands such as in my constituency where the foreign worker dormitories are in close proximity.
I therefore appeal for both a multi-agency and ministry approach which will be able to deliver firm, swift and more resolute areas of education, enforcement and deterrent measures against offenders and would-be offenders so that they can deal with this problem.
The Chairman: Dr Janil, please take your two cuts together.
Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Sir. When there are neighbourly or domestic disputes, people may end up calling the Police to complain or to ask for assistance to resolve any issues. However, the response from the Police is usually that since these disputes are private matters, the Police cannot interfere unless it is an allegation of a criminal matter. Residents in this position often feel a sense of frustration that the authorities are not willing to act on their behalf. The argument that no law has been broken and that no offence has been committed does very little to address the distress and anxiety when the relationships between neighbours break down and become threatening.
Page: 137
The changes in the Community Policing Systems (COPS) have already been highlighted by my colleagues. In view of these changes, I would like to know if there is a change in the way the Police intends to deal with neighbourly or domestic disputes. Is there also a shift in the public's expectation that the Police should step in and mediate such cases? Could this fall under the remit of community engagement and, if so, will the police officers be trained to provide suitable intervention and support, even if there is no criminal matter to be dealt with? If this is not possible, how will the Police deal with such incidents? Will the case be handed over to another agency or authority which is in a position to step in and deal with the issue? Will this process of handover or agency referral become formalised as part of the COPS?
Road safety is an issue of concern to many, especially with the recent spate of accidents. Could the MHA provide an update on our road safety situation?
While there has been a decrease in the fatal injury and accident rate in 2012 compared to previous years, there has been an increase in the number of traffic violations as well as offences for speeding and running the red light. This has led to the Traffic Police embarking on new initiatives which include having an increased presence on the roads.
This enforcement is necessary and appropriate. However, it speaks poorly of our driving culture. It suggests that we are not becoming more safety conscious when we drive, nor are we driving with a gracious mindset. Rather we are looking out for ourselves, and driving defensively. Is this what we want? When we see someone signal to change lanes or make a turn, are we more likely to give way, to encourage graciousness, promote good behaviour and improve traffic flow? Or are we more likely to speed up, keep our place in line, not lose and cut off the other car, thereby worsening the aggression on the roads, increasing our stress and agitation, and unfortunately slowing down average traffic flow?
Could the Minister comment on the progress of the new road safety initiatives? Has the increased presence of the Traffic Police on the roads led to an overall increase in road safety? What are MHA and Traffic Police doing to improve safety on our roads, and in particular, what are the plans in relation to serious traffic offences such as red-running and speeding? To what extent is the approach one of regulation and enforcement rather than addressing the
Page: 138
prevention and cultural change?
Mr Christopher de Souza: Sometimes, we see drivers behave aggressively to other drivers on the roads. Sometimes, even pedestrians are put in harm's way. I would like to ask the Ministry: could there be a relook at the enforcement regime in order to promote healthier and more courteous driving on our roads?
I would also like to raise a separate point based on concerns shared with me by residents. I have received a range of genuine and sincere concerns as to the behaviour of some of our cyclists on the roads. Some cyclists do not dismount when crossing pedestrian crossings. Some simply cycle through red lights. There are also those who ride two or three abreast so they can continue chatting with each other while riding. This puts motorists, pedestrians and also the cyclists themselves in danger. I would like to ask the Ministry if they could possibly have a relook at the enforcement regime, and consider reinstating as a priority some measure or degree of enforcement against some cyclists who put themselves, drivers and pedestrians in such danger.
Mr Vikram Nair: Sir, I am troubled by the spate of serious traffic accidents involving fatalities in the past few months. This is particularly so when some of these accidents involved young children in school areas. In my own ward, I visited some families who have been victims of such accidents, including one very tragic case where a grandmother was killed while walking her two young grandchildren to school. I want to know whether MHA has any further steps to take to enforce road safety and what steps it is going to take against traffic violators.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Chairman, the release of the Traffic Police annual statistics in February showed that nearly 300,000 traffic violations by motorists and pedestrians were detected, a rise of 3.6% from 2011 figure. That translated to about 900 people breaking traffic rules daily. The traffic offence with the greatest increase was speeding, road hogging and running red lights. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is Minister for Home Affairs, whether the Traffic Police would consider requiring all speed offenders to undergo compulsory education earlier, at their first offence, instead of only
Page: 139
conducting such education for those who have their licences suspended when the full 24 demerit points are reached.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, we are all deeply saddened by the tragic accident in Tampines a few weeks ago when two little boys lost their lives on the road. My colleagues have already covered all the aspects of road safety, but I feel we should use this sad incident to remind ourselves not to take road safety for granted.
One of the more vulnerable groups of road users is the motorcyclists. They are particularly vulnerable to the carelessness and recklessness of not just their own but other road users as well. Further, the motorcyclist population is also rising and we can probably expect this to be so in the coming years, in part because of the rise in price of cars.
To that end, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the Traffic Police to ensure that this group of road users is properly equipped and trained with the right skills, the right safety on our roads to ensure not only their safety but the safety of other road users?
Mr Vikram Nair: Sir, in a CNA report of 21 October 2012, it was stated that the number of young drug offenders was rising in Singapore. The report stated that the drugs of choice were synthetics like ICE and Ecstasy. I also understand that increasing numbers of ex-drug offenders are being released, and I am particularly concerned that some of these might get sucked into drug abuse once again. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to provide an update on the situation regarding the use of drugs, particularly synthetic drugs like ICE and Ecstasy.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, the number of drug abusers arrested in 2012 is about 3,481, which is a 5% increase from 2011. Out of these, 31% are new drug abusers – about 1,070 individuals. And out of those 1,070 individuals, two-thirds are aged 29 years old and below. Hence, in 2012, about
Page: 140
720 youth were arrested. In other words, about one in every five drug abusers arrested last year is a youth below 30 years old. Although the number of youths below 20 years old arrested in 2012 has dropped by about 30%, the number involving youth is still quite substantial.
The youths drug situation in the region is also worrying. For instance, the Indonesian National Narcotics Agency survey done at the end of 2011 showed that there are between 3.8 million and 4.2 million illicit drug users in the country, most of them are young professionals. Hence, with greater cross-border mobility of our youth in the region, there is cause for concern with regard to drug use among our youth.
Can the Ministry provide updates on the current drug situation in Singapore, for example, are we seeing new drug trends among our youth drug abusers? What are the Ministry's plans on dealing with new drug abusers, particularly the youths? For those who have been arrested for drug abuse, what are the rehabilitation programmes that they go through and are there plans to enhance these programmes?
Mr Desmond Lee (Jurong): Sir, when a person re-offends, he lets himself and his family down. Society is put at risk because re-offenders tend to be more hardened. Recidivism also reflects how effective a criminal justice system is in deterring crime, protecting society and reintegrating offenders back into the mainstream society.
Over the years, MHA has put in very significant resources and measures to reduce re-offending, both generally and also specifically for drugs − for instance, enhancing prison counselling programmes, establishing Prison School, providing employability skills training, setting up the CARE Network to coordinate aftercare, engaging the community to help ex-offenders and their families, putting in diversionary measures, setting up community-based sentences and community-based rehabilitation programmes as well as enhancing the rehabilitation and supervision of drug offenders.
In the last few years, we have seen the overall two-year recidivism for all offences fall slightly from 27.3% in 2008 to 23.6% in 2010. This is low compared to many other countries. However, it is clear from recent statistics that drugs still remain a problem in Singapore. In its 2012 Drug Situation Report, CNB reported that it arrested 3,481 drug abusers last year, or a 5% increase over the
Page: 141
previous year. In 2012, repeat abusers continued to form the majority of abusers arrested, at 69%. As compared to 2011, there was a 9% increase in the number of repeat offenders arrested in 2012.
And the Prison Service reported in January this year that drug offenders released from Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) in 2010 recorded a higher level of re-offending, accounting for a recidivism rate of 27.5%, or a 0.4% increase over 2009. Notably, 70% of inmates in Singapore Prisons are convicted of drug-related offences or admitted to DRCs.
There are many reasons why an ex-offender may re-offend. For example, he may have weak willpower or he may not have mended his ways. He may have been hardened or socialised while inside prison. Or he may not be able to get rid of bad company after his release. Effective family support may be absent. Or he and his family may face financial or other difficulties.
I would therefore like to ask MHA what plans it has to further reduce the recidivism rate generally for all offenders but also specifically for drug abuse. How will Government tackle and help drug re-offenders break the pattern of re-offending and help them re-integrate effectively into mainstream society? Will MHA consider screening prisoners before their release, and introduce compulsory supervision, as well as comprehensive mandatory longer term after-care, job placement and other forms of holistic support for more vulnerable prisoners at high risk of re-offending?
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): Sir, safety and security are critical to our nation's well-being and success. For without good external and internal defence, we will not have the freedom and capacity to pursue our individual aspirations and neither will we have the peace of mind to improve our lives and raise our families.
While Singapore has performed well in anti-drug efforts and our recidivism rate is generally considered low compared to other countries, we must continue to do more in keeping offences down and in re-integrating ex-offenders back to the society. To do so, we need to go beyond enforcement and hard-hitting measures. We also need to look at the softer social aspects. Hence, a strong and fully engaged community is imperative.
Page: 142
I would imagine a strong community is one that is resilient and inclusive. In this case, it is one that welcomes ex-offenders back, provides a network of support, able to marshall resources and the will to help the ex-offenders get back on their feet, resist temptations and rebuild their lives with their families. The community network involved can comprise a wide range of stakeholders, including family members, neighbours, grassroots leaders, religious groups and VWOs within the neighbourhood.
Some studies also point toward the importance of a conducive environment, comprising factors such as family support, employment and housing, in reintegrating ex-offenders. And in the local context, where Asian values and the idea of a \"kampong\" are still very much valued and alive, the community will no doubt play a critical role in reintegration efforts. If anything, by involving the community, we can hopefully promote greater understanding and acceptance, and thereby help to reduce the public and self stigma that ex-offenders sometimes face.
Hence, I would like to ask the Minister: what are the measures taken or planned to be taken to engage and work with the community in tackling re-offending? Since the launch of Community Outreach Project and Community Befrienders Project in September 2010, what has been the progress of these projects? What are some ways that MHA works with its volunteers and community partners to better support the rehabilitation of offenders? And, lastly, are there success stories or positive examples that can be shared, so as to inspire and motivate everyone involved to continue such efforts? Are there learning points that we can learn from and improve on so that we can strengthen community efforts?
Mr Christopher de Souza: The Yellow Ribbon Project reconciles an offender with his community. It is a positive and warm initiative; rightly so. It couples the need for incarceration with the eventual need for rehabilitation. How then are we to further help ex-offenders in obtaining jobs which they can dovetail into upon release or early release from prison? ln Ulu Pandan, the constituency in which l serve, my experience has been that offenders, especially drug offenders, have a greater chance of keeping away from drugs if they get into jobs immediately after their release from prison.
When they are not employed, there is room, time and space to gravitate back to addiction and they sadly lapse. I know it must also be a decision that the former offender \"owns\" himself or herself, but would there be a greater push
Page: 143
by the Ministry to have ex-offenders matched with jobs before their release? Would we be able to honour and recognise the employers for their contributions towards employing the former offenders?
Rehabilitation is an on-going process. Rehabilitation constitutes only the first step of the long and arduous journey to reintegration to society. For it to be sustainable, communities and, on a broader level, society must be roped in to help the ex-offender re-engage with the public in a constructive way.
In conclusion, the ex-offender also has a huge role to play in starting afresh – he must have the willingness to do so. And with the community behind him, he can overcome.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): I thank hon Members for their views and questions, and for their interest in matters regarding the Home Team. May I ask the Clerk to distribute a handout with some Home Team statistics. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2 and Annex 3.]
Over the years, the Home Team has worked closely together with the community to keep Singapore a safe and secure home. In 2012, our crime rate fell for the seventh consecutive year, to the lowest in nearly three decades. Our recidivism rate is stable. Our fire fatality rate remains very low. The number of immigration offenders has steadily declined. The number of road fatalities has also started to come down. However, we are acutely aware that any fatality or serious crime is a tragedy in itself, and can have a detrimental effect on our sense of safety and security. This is one reason why community partnerships and engagements are so important – they create a sense of collective ownership for safety and security which in itself provides a sense of assurance that issues can be addressed and overcome. Our collective sense of safety and security provides a strong foundation upon which our society has been able to develop and prosper. It has also helped to make Singapore a good place to live and bring up families. While the situation today is relatively good, we still face difficult security challenges and must remain vigilant to ensure that Singapore continues to be a safe home for all Singaporeans.
Our approach to safety and security is underpinned by three pillars: robust Laws, Effective Enforcement and Strong Community Partnerships. This comprehensive approach allows us to tackle issues both upstream and downstream.
Page: 144
Mr Edwin Tong asked about MHA's key challenges and priorities. The Home Team's scope of responsibilities is wide and deep. We have to continually keep a strategic view of the larger issues that impact us, such as terrorism and cybersecurity entrenched in society and in the world. At the same time, Home Team officers also have to focus on more specific issues which can give rise to serious consequences if we let up in our efforts against them. Resources, both personnel and technology, as well as command attention and emphasis, can then be applied accordingly.
Let me briefly outline our approach for tackling these key challenges. First, terrorism. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Vikram Nair and several other Members asked for an update on terrorism. The terrorist threat remains a persistent one, both globally and regionally. At the global level, Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain active in terrorist activities and in spreading their radical ideology. They have capitalised on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa to further their objectives.
Closer to home, Jemaah Islamiyah and other groups such as Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid remain resilient and continue to recruit operatives and carry out attacks in neighbouring countries. For instance, last year, the Indonesian authorities uncovered a terrorist training camp in Poso, Central Sulawesi.
The foiled plots in Thailand in January and February last year indicate the presence of Hizbollah or Iranian elements in the region.
We are also concerned by terrorist elements' growing use of social media to spread propaganda and recruit new radicals. With Singapore's high Internet penetration, especially among youths, we need to inoculate our young from coming under the influence of radical ideology. This is even more critical given that it is not easy to de-radicalise a person once he has imbibed terrorist ideology.
A specific case in point is former detainee Abdul Basheer s/o Abdul Kader who was a self-radicalised individual. He was detained from 2007 to 2010 as he had made specific plans to pursue militant jihad in Afghanistan. After his release in February 2010, he initially made some progress in re-integrating into society. However, while under the ISA post-release supervision regime, he was detected to have reverted to his past interest in undertaking militant jihad abroad. He even made enquiries as to how he could leave Singapore, illegally, if necessary, to pursue his jihad plans. ISD had to re-arrest him in September 2012 and place him under detention the following month, to prevent him from
Page: 145
pursuing his violent agenda.
Abdul Basheer is a timely reminder that Singapore must continue to invest efforts in the rehabilitation of our terrorist detainees. Since January 2002, 64 persons have been detained under the ISA for their involvement in terrorism-related activities. Of these 64, more than two-thirds have been released after they were assessed to have been rehabilitated and not to pose a security threat that warranted preventive detention. This is why the work of the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) in counselling the detainees is so important and must continue. To commemorate its 10th anniversary, the RRG will be co-organising an international conference on terrorist rehabilitation and community resilience later this month, with the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies. The conference will bring together experts and practitioners from Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the US, as well as European and ASEAN countries to share best practices and lessons learnt, and this will include, as I said, experts from Saudi Arabia, whose centre I visited a few months ago.
A second challenge is cybersecurity. Cyberattacks, whether by criminals, terrorists or state-sponsored groups, have grown in frequency, potency and sophistication. The attacks can take on different forms, including threats to national security, cyberespionage, cybercrime such as theft of identities, data and intellectual property, or the use of cyberspace to perpetrate traditional crime.
This emergent issue poses new threats to our security. Countries around the world are grappling with this issue and still building up their cybersecurity and defence capabilities. No country has found a complete solution, and the rapidly evolving nature of cyber technology means that any innovation can become obsolete quite quickly.
In January this year, we amended the Computer Misuse Act, now called the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act, so that we can take proactive measures to prevent, detect, and counter cyber threats to our national security, essential services, defence and foreign relations. We will continue to build up domestic defences against potential attacks. MHA will be setting up a Cyber Security Lab within the Home Team Academy by 2014, to provide a safe and realistic hands-on platform for participants to hone their skills in countering
Page: 146
cyberattacks.
Singapore will continue to work closely with other like-minded countries, including through the new INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation which will open in Singapore next year. It will facilitate cyber research and innovation, provide cybersecurity training and operational support for law enforcement agencies around the world, and house the INTERPOL Digital Crime Centre.
Let me now move on to our domestic priorities for the year, namely crime, drugs and road safety.
In relation to crime, the key is to continue managing it proactively. While our overall crime rate remains low, keeping crime at bay requires constant effort. This includes making appropriate changes to our laws to keep them up to date to tackle new challenges, as we did last year when we amended the Misuse of Drugs Act.
We need to continually find new ways of protecting ourselves against behaviour which threatens the community's sense of security. For example, increased enforcement efforts by the Police have helped us make significant headway against unlicensed money-lenders. From 2009 to 2012, we have seen a 42% drop in unlicensed money-lending and related harassment cases. Second Minister Iswaran will elaborate on this later.
Strong community support is also essential in managing crime. The Community Policing System, or COPS, has been effective in targeting local crime, not just through dedicating more police resources to neighbourhoods, but also through the community's active participation. In Bukit Merah East and Tampines, where COPS was launched last May, Citizen-on-Patrol membership has increased by nearly 30%, with an average of about 30 joint citizen-police patrols conducted in these neighbourhoods each month. Second Minister Iswaran will elaborate more on COPS' early successes and the next phase of implementation.
While we remain firm on crime, it is also important to rehabilitate ex-offenders, to help them break out of the re-offending cycle and reintegrate into society. The community has played an important role in this effort, with voluntary welfare organisations, religious groups, and individual volunteers providing counselling, job placement opportunities, and family support, to ex-offenders.
Page: 147
Senior Minister of State Masagos will speak more on our rehabilitation efforts, and about the Conditional Remission System and Mandatory Aftercare Scheme which MHA will be introducing later this year.
Fourth, drug trafficking and abuse continue to be a key challenge. Regional drug production is increasing to meet rising demand, and Singapore is one of the transit points which syndicates target, with spill-over effects for our local drug situation.
CNB works closely with ICA to conduct targeted, intensive checks at our checkpoints. CNB also conducts inland operations to clamp down on the distribution of drugs, and works with its foreign counterparts to target drug syndicates.
However, we also need to tackle the problem upstream. CNB continues to work with educational institutions and community partners, such as the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association and National Council Against Drug Abuse to organise preventive drug education programmes on the danger of drugs. Senior Minister of State Masagos will say more about how we are addressing this problem upstream.
Fifth, road safety. Our road fatality rate has come down in recent years. However, recent incidents underscore the need for us to improve road behaviour and eliminate reckless driving habits that put road users at risk. We will invest more resources and mount a concerted effort to improve road safety through education, engagement and enforcement.
We will focus our education efforts on vulnerable road users, such as motorcyclists, children and elderly pedestrians. We will also identify errant drivers and help them improve their driving habits. We will engage fleet owners, especially those with heavy vehicles, and other companies who hire drivers. We want them to make safe driving part of their company culture. We will also step up enforcement to better identify habitually reckless drivers and deal with them more firmly.
Second Minister Iswaran will elaborate on these road safety initiatives later.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked how MHA ensures that the Home Team can continue to meet operational demands. Indeed, the Home Team will find it more challenging to recruit good officers, and enough of them, due to our ageing population and fewer Singaporeans entering the workforce. Yet, the Home
Page: 148
Team faces evolving challenges and growing demands. It is thus critical that we make the best use of the potential of our Home Team officers by deepening their capabilities and leveraging more on technology as a force multiplier.
Last year, I told this House that we were enhancing salaries for junior officers, to attract more capable young people to join the Home Team. We raised starting salaries and introduced a sign-on bonus for diploma holders. We used performance-based merit increments to recognise those who work harder and more effectively. We also introduced retention payments to encourage experienced officers to stay in service. We have seen improvements in retention since implementing these changes. The overall Home Affairs Uniformed Scheme Junior Officers (HUS JOs) resignation rate has decreased from 4.6% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2012. I hope that these schemes and others will continue to encourage young people to consider a career in the Home Team, and allow us to retain the talent that we have. The respect that Home Team officers get from members of the public also helps them to take pride in their jobs. I hope that members of the public will continue to support them in their difficult and arduous task.
Since introducing the Home Team Specialist Scheme in 2010, we now have over 260 Home Team Specialists in criminal forensics, criminal intelligence and protective security. We are now going further to professionalise training for our officers to develop deep expertise in their fields. Temasek Polytechnic and SPF have collaborated to develop a part-time Diploma in Applied Sciences (Forensics). This was launched last October. The course will help to grow the pool of forensics experts in the Home Team.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about paramedic training. SCDF reviews and updates its training curriculum regularly to ensure that its paramedics are well-trained to save lives. SCDF recently concluded its review of the Level 4 paramedic competencies programme, and will introduce the revamped programme by the end of the year. SCDF will work closely with Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore General Hospital, and KK Women's and Children's Hospital to provide this training.
To meet the needs of our ageing population, SCDF will add 10 more private ambulances to provide emergency services by end 2013, doubling the current number. We have also equipped 41 fast response fire bikers with Automated External Defibrillators so that our officers can promptly attend to patients who experience cardiac arrest.
Page: 149
We are also cross-training officers to make them more flexible and adaptable. A good example is the Fire Rescue Specialist – Emergency Medical Technician scheme which SCDF is developing. By training firefighters as Emergency Medical Technicians, they will be able to provide the first line of medical response, until paramedics arrive. More details will be announced in April.
Given manpower constraints, technology is a critical force multiplier, to help Home Team officers work more effectively and efficiently.
We are also investing in technology that improves the quality of our training. For example, SCDF's Advanced Command Training System uses advanced simulation technology to train officers to command firefighting and rescue operations. The system allows officers to train in realistic, stress-testing scenarios, with full recording, playback and analysis. It complements live field exercises, as it can simulate incidents that cannot be reproduced in the physical world, such as major oil refinery fires.
Technology can also provide additional eyes and ears on the ground, allowing our officers to focus on areas where human interaction or judgement is most valuable and necessary. For example, installing police cameras has helped to increase the Police's presence and create a stronger deterrent effect, without using very much additional manpower. These cameras provide useful intelligence when crimes are committed, and frees up time so that Police officers can focus on investigations and enforcement. Second Minister Iswaran will speak more on our plans to use technology to deter and detect crime and traffic offences.
ICA has also been harnessing technology to ensure that immigration clearance remains efficient. For instance, the enhanced Immigration Automated Clearance System allows certain categories of travellers to be cleared more quickly. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if we could have dedicated clearance lanes for Singaporeans at Changi Airport. In most places dedicated lanes are required because queues are very long. Here, I think queues are relatively short and people can be cleared through quite quickly. Unlike foreigners who are restricted to certain clearance lanes, in fact, Singapore citizens are able to use all clearance lanes, including automated lanes, enjoying maximum flexibility and ease of travel.
Mr Patrick Tay asked about the private security industry. Our partners in the private security industry play an important role in complementing the work of
Page: 150
the Home Team. I hesitate to set up a new agency, as setting up a new agency may not necessarily address the issues that Mr Tay is concerned about. The Singapore Police Force already works closely with the industry to continually improve the image and raise professionalism of officers and maintain high standards. Security officers are individually licensed and expected to abide by a code of conduct. Deserving officers are eligible for the annual Commissioner of Police's Award.
All security agencies are graded annually by the Singapore Police Force on a comprehensive set of criteria, which includes operations, training and employment-related criteria. This framework incentivises security agencies to uphold high standards. We will continue to fine-tune this framework and take in views from the industry. MOM will also be introducing measures to raise basic wages and improve employment conditions in the private security industry. More details will be announced during the MOM's Committee of Supply debate.
Mr Edwin Tong raised concerns about online harassment. Indeed, this is a concern that has been expressed by many members of the public. MHA is working with MinLaw and MCI to review the criminal legislation and civil measures available to deal with cyberbullying and cyber harassment. We will review our laws to ensure that there is effective and appropriate recourse for harassment that is perpetrated online or in the physical world. We are also considering the need to enhance existing civil remedies for victims.
Mr Chairman, a safe and secure environment is the foundation on which our society and economy can thrive. In the coming year, the Home Team will continue to work closely with businesses, community groups, voluntary welfare organisations and individuals as we tackle the threats we face. By working together, we own the security and safety of Singapore and we help the members of our Home team agencies to do their work well. Together, we can keep Singapore safe and secure for everyone.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their questions and suggestions. Deputy Prime Minister Teo has laid out MHA's three-pronged approach comprising Robust Laws, Effective Enforcement and Strong Community Partnerships, and the way we approach safety and security in Singapore. I will elaborate on how these elements come together in our efforts to ensure safe neighbourhoods and also
Page: 151
safety on our roads.
Mr Chairman, our neighbourhoods continue to be safe. In 2012, the overall crime rate fell to 581 crimes per 100,000 of population. That is a decrease of 4% from 2011 and is the lowest crime rate in almost 30 years.
MHA and the Singapore Police Force are committed to sustaining this improvement, and preserving safety and security in Singapore. The Community Policing System (COPS) is a key pillar in Police's efforts to keep our crime rates low and our neighbourhoods safe.
Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Arthur Fong have sought an assessment of the progress of the COPS model. We launched COPS at the Bukit Merah East and Tampines Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) last May. A further six NPCs adopted the COPS model in January this year. It is too early to attribute specific crime trends to the implementation of this new model but the results and feedback, to date, have been encouraging.
There have been notable successes, for example, in targeting local crime. The Bukit Merah East Crime Strike Force was able to, with the combination of ground intelligence, local knowledge and CCTV footage, identify a suspect as a known neighbourhood character in the context of a local crime and was then able to swiftly locate and arrest that person.
In terms of community engagement, the Community Policing Units are also making good progress in reaching out to the communities whom they serve. The residents have welcomed the implementation of COPS, which they say has deepened their engagement with community policing officers in their neighbourhoods, and has enhanced their sense of safety.
We will build on these initial achievements by implementing COPS in the Ang Mo Kio South, Bedok North, Jurong East, Jurong West, Nanyang and Rochor NPCs in June this year and in a further six NPCs by the end of this year. By the end of 2013, more than half of our 35 NPCs would have adopted the COPS model and we are on schedule for all NPCs to make this transition by the end of 2015.
Mr Edwin Tong has enquired about the progress of Police Camera installation. This is an example of how the Home Team agencies are leveraging on technology as a force multiplier. Last year, Police Cameras were installed in 350 HDB blocks; and their coverage will be extended to another 650 HDB blocks
Page: 152
across all Town Councils by the end of this year. Police cameras will be rolled out to all 10,000 HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks by the end of 2016.
Mr Patrick Tay asked whether our cameras can help combat problems such as unlicensed moneylending harassment, littering and the disamenities caused by foreign worker congregations. Sir, our Police Cameras are deployed primarily to deter and solve crime, including cases of loanshark harassment. The Police is prepared to share the footage from its cameras in aid of the work of other agencies such as LTA or NEA if it is needed to support their investigation and enforcement efforts.
Overall, I would say that our Community Policing System (COPS) has made a promising start. As we persevere with its full implementation and learn from our experiences, we hope that all members of the community will continue to actively partner and support the Police in this important effort to keep our neighbourhoods and our communities safe.
Sir, let me now turn to the issue of unlicensed moneylending, a concern which has been raised by several Members and shared by all of us. We continue to make headway in our enforcement efforts against loanshark syndicates and their runners. The number of reports of unlicensed moneylending and related harassment cases fell by 19%, or 2,507, to 10,835 cases in 2012. This is the third consecutive year of significant decreases.
These gains are a result of our robust laws, effective enforcement and education efforts. The Police remains resolute in tackling this heinous crime and in particular, the Police has launched an anti-unlicensed moneylending campaign last November. This nationwide campaign aims to raise public awareness of the serious consequences of borrowing from loansharks – for the borrowers and their families. It also highlights the severe penalties in our laws for those involved in loanshark activities.
Our hope is that these efforts will help to further curb borrowing from loansharks, and deter debtors and our youth from working for loanshark syndicates. I am glad to inform Members that the number of youths arrested for unlicensed moneylending and related activities has decreased from 2011 by more than half to 160 arrests in 2012. So, there has been a significant decrease although this continues to be an area of focus for the Police.
However, as Mr Christopher de Souza has pointed out, we can sustain this momentum only with the partnership of the community and we need
Page: 153
neighbours to stay vigilant and help keep an eye out for one another.
Such community support and cooperation are key complements to the Police's enforcement and education initiatives. We need a collective effort, with the community and Police working in partnership, to keep our neighbourhoods safe from the scourge of loanshark activities.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Christopher de Souza have asked about vice. In 2012, less than 1% of the 5,300 odd arrests of female foreigners for vice-related activities were made in the heartlands. Hence, I would like to assure Mr de Souza that such activities are not prevalent in the heartlands. And of course, the Community Policing System will address this sort of crimes at a local level in addition to the other types of crimes that we have talked about.
In specific neighbourhoods where residents have identified vice as a concern, the Police will continue to dedicate resources to deter and curtail such activities. In that regard, as Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef would be aware, the Police has formed a taskforce to conduct regular enforcement operations against vice-related activities in Geylang. The Police assessment is that this has yielded positive results. However, the Police will continue with its enforcement efforts, reviewing and adapting its strategies in response to feedback from the community and grassroots leaders. The Police also appreciates the support from the grassroots organisations and the Advisers involved in these precincts.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked about how the Police selects its policing models and asked whether it adopts an evidence-based approach in discerning which strategies to adopt. Sir, I would like to first emphasise that our strategy in fighting crime fundamentally rests on robust laws, effective enforcement and deep community partnerships. These elements are at the core of any policing initiative on the ground.
The Member has highlighted examples of models like hotspot policing and problem oriented policing. An example of hotspot policing is what we are doing in a place like Geylang. An example of problem oriented policing is what we are doing with unlicensed moneylending. The Police has been eclectic and has adapted different models, studying them from different parts of the world and then adapting them to our local context. In doing so, the Police also pilots the concepts and then continues to review and refine them. An example is Community Policing. We have had it in Singapore for 30 years and in that time, crime rate has decreased by more than 50%. But the Police's objective in introducing a new model of frontline Policing is really to see if we can refine the
Page: 154
previous model further to enhance the efficacy on the ground, especially given the changing needs projected from the demographic trends we see today.
The Police has conducted study trips internationally to places such as China, Hongkong, London, Sweden and Taiwan. They then tried out a series of pilots over a period of six to 12 months. These were then refined and tested at all land divisions before a final model was embarked upon. So, the answer is \"yes\", we do have a very robust evidence-based system.
I also want to say that in learning from other countries, we must bear in mind that our context is different and even the experiences in other countries can be quite diverse. If Members take, for example, cameras − there is mixed evidence from the USA. In cities like Chicago and downtown Baltimore, cameras have yielded positive results. But this has not been the same and has had little impact in Washington DC.
So, we have to decide and exercise judgement on what works best in our context and be prepared to continually evaluate the evidence and the empirical data and see how we move forward. This is the system that has worked well for us and I think it is borne out by the fact that our crime rate remains low, notwithstanding the significant changes we see in our society.
Let me now address other community-based issues raised by some Members. Many of the community dispute type issues highlighted by Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Edwin Tong and Dr Janil Puthucheary are not criminal offences per se, as they themselves have said. I appreciate that anti-social behaviour and inconsiderate conduct can be quite disruptive to the peace and also can cause anxiety, stress and even adversely affect residents' sense of safety and security. So, residents naturally often look to the Police in order to address these community disputes. Sir, it is essential that our Police resources are focused – first and foremost, on fighting crime. I think we would all agree on that because that is what the real purpose of policing is. The Police will continue to act against criminal offences robustly and resolutely.
However, a large majority of these community dispute cases which do not involve breaches of law and order do find their way to the Police. In such cases, and where the parties are willing, our officers will generally assist to forward the details of the case and refer the parties involved for mediation at the Community Mediation Centre. I know Members have expressed some concern that this is not enough and whether more can be done.
Page: 155
I want to inform Members that there is also an interagency effort underway to study how community disputes can be better addressed. This study covers aspects such as fostering a common understanding of what constitutes acceptable social norms or behaviour, enhancing our mediation processes and introducing calibrated penalties, if necessary, for those who persist in their anti-social behaviour. This is a work in progress and the Government will announce its plans in due course. We would of course be very happy to welcome ideas and suggestions from Members as well.
However, as Mr Hri Kumar has said, and I want to reinforce this point, it is not just a matter of mediation, enforcement and penalties. We need to foster a culture of mutual respect and consideration, and build the consensus on what constitutes acceptable behaviour in our communities. This is not the role of Government alone. I hope that our community leaders, residents and Members of this House will continue to play their part in supporting and encouraging a spirit of \"give and take\" and also exercise forbearance in dealing with such community disputes, which are an inevitable part of community life.
We need a similar approach in dealing with the disamenities posed by foreign worker congregations that Ms Denise Phua and Mr Patrick Tay have spoken about. Members would be aware that there is already an interagency effort underway to address this issue.
The Government agencies have worked with the community to put in place a range of measures to address this issue. These include providing dedicated social and recreational amenities for foreign workers both within and near their dormitories, and educating foreign workers on Singapore's laws and social norms. Uniformed Auxiliary Police Officers and Security Officers are deployed in locations with high concentrations of foreign workers to help deter crime and conduct enforcement against anti-social behaviour, such as littering.
MHA is also working with other Government agencies to study Ms Denise Phua's suggestion to impose further restrictions on the sale of alcohol in residential estates and the consumption of alcohol in public. We are learning from the experience of other countries and how these could be adapted to our circumstances. This is again a work-in-progress and we hope to be able to make some announcements in due course.
Page: 156
The members of the local community also play an important role in this effort and many have stepped forward to form Citizens-on-Patrol groups. Some groups even work together with foreign worker volunteers to patrol foreign worker congregations in order to deter crime and anti-social behaviour. We welcome these initiatives because it is part of the collective enterprise we need to deal with this.
Sir, let me now move on to road safety, which is another key area of focus that many Members have spoken on. Over the years, the situation in our network of roads has grown complex with more and diverse users. Notwithstanding this, our road safety has generally improved. For example, the number of fatalities on our roads fell by 13% to 169 in 2012. The number of injuries fell by 687 or 7% to 9,073. Our road fatality rate has decreased by more than 50% over the last two decades and compares favourably with other countries.
But this is still a cause for concern for it means that, on average, there is a fatality on our roads every other day. There is also a trend of worsening road habits and behaviours, a point which Mr Christopher de Souza alluded to. There are a growing number of violations for dangerous offences such as speeding and red-running. Members of the public are also concerned about such behaviour and the impact it has on road safety, as evident from the regular public feedback that we receive.
To arrest this trend, the Traffic Police initiated a holistic review of its traffic policing strategy in August last year. This has culminated in a comprehensive plan and strategy involving the Traffic Police, its partners and the community to keep our roads safe.
This plan is called Safer Roads Singapore and there are three key thrusts to this strategy: education, engagement and enforcement. Each of these is important and mutually reinforcing in shaping behavioural norms, and engendering a culture of safe and courteous road use. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the roads are safe for all of us.
Let me start with our education and licensing initiatives which will help equip road users with essential road safety knowledge.
The Traffic Police has particularly emphasised road safety education for children, given their inexperience as road users and their vulnerability on the roads. In 2012, the Traffic Police and the driving centres conducted road safety
Page: 157
talks to over 35,000 Primary school students and also conducted road safety training for over 28,000 Primary school students at the Road Safety Community Park. The Traffic Police will continue to work with our educational institutions to extend these efforts to children, especially the younger ones in pre-school and lower Primary.
We will also increase our educational efforts for other vulnerable road users. For example, road safety for elderly pedestrians is one of the key areas of focus for the inaugural Road Safety Month that the Singapore Road Safety Council and the Traffic Police are jointly organising in May this year.
As Mr Edwin Tong pointed out, motorcyclists are also a vulnerable group of road users. They account for about half of all road fatalities. We will thus enhance our licensing regime for motorcyclists to ensure that they have the requisite knowledge and skills to ride safely.
Specifically, from June this year, all motorcycle Class 2B learner riders will have to undergo the Expressway Familiarisation Ride course before they obtain their licence. This course, which has been an optional offering since December 2010, allows motorcyclists to familiarise themselves with riding on expressways. Riders who have taken the course over the past two years were found to be significantly less prone to be involved in accidents on expressways. By making the course compulsory, we hope to reduce the number of accidents involving motorcycles on our expressways.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh has asked whether the Traffic Police will consider requiring all speeding offenders to undergo compulsory education earlier, immediately after their first offence. We agree that corrective education is useful for all motorists, not just speeding offenders.
Therefore, the Traffic Police will introduce a new voluntary Safe Driving Course for motorists who have accumulated half or more of their maximum allowable demerit points. This will allow for earlier intervention to correct dangerous road habits. To encourage motorists to take this course, those who pass the course will have three demerit points deducted from their record. So, that should be ample incentives and motivation for motorists to take the course.
The Traffic Police will also revise the retraining course for motorists facing their first or second suspensions to have a more comprehensive curriculum and more stringent passing standards. These enhancements to our corrective
Page: 158
education regime will be implemented by the end of the year.
The second thrust is engagement. The Traffic Police will be able to multiply its outreach and education efforts by engaging industry stakeholders such as owners of heavy vehicle fleets and interests groups such as motorcycling enthusiasts clubs.
Such engagement helps to foster a shared sense of responsibility within the community of road users for the safety of our roads. In that regard, I am heartened by the initiatives that some companies are already taking to promote a culture of safety amongst their drivers.
For example, Poh Tiong Choon Logistics Limited, which is one of Singapore's largest home-grown logistics companies, has a range of road safety management practices. They conduct road safety talks and defensive driving courses for their drivers, and have instituted compulsory breaks for their night shift drivers. The company also has a GPS system to monitor the speed of its vehicles. Drivers who are caught speeding are counselled and may even face disciplinary action. On the flip side, those who have a good safety track record and stay accident free are rewarded through bonuses in their year-end evaluation.
SembWaste Pte Ltd, which is an integrated solid waste management service provider, also provides incentives for its drivers to drive safely. They give awards and vouchers to drivers who have been accident-free, and the drivers' driving records are again a consideration when they do their year-end evaluations.
We will do more to encourage and promote such positive practices. Many stakeholders – unions, fleet owners and the like – have expressed support for a collective effort to ensure greater safety on our roads. The Traffic Police is working with the Singapore Road Safety Council to develop a common platform to facilitate the sharing among stakeholders of such best practices in road safety. We hope more companies will be encouraged to shape the driving habits of their drivers constructively.
The Traffic Police will also expand its Road Safety Champions programme to the wider motoring community, including logistics companies and fast food delivery companies. Through this initiative, the Traffic Police identifies and trains supervisors and managers as Road Safety Champions. These Champions will in turn promote road safety and gracious road behaviour among their co-
Page: 159
workers.
Finally, as Members have suggested, we will step up our enforcement efforts under Safer Roads Singapore. The aim is to encourage road users in general to be more careful and courteous, while firmly dealing with the small proportion of reckless and recalcitrant drivers.
To this end, the Traffic Police will augment its enforcement capabilities by deploying 70 more officers on the roads. In addition, the Traffic Police will complement this by employing auxiliary police officers. So, there will be greater enforcement presence on the roads.
We will also leverage technology to boost our enforcement efforts. Dr Janil Puthucheary raised concerns over red-running and speeding offences. The Traffic Police will progressively install digital red light and digital speed cameras. By the end of 2014, there will be a network of almost 300 such cameras at various locations. The new cameras have enhanced capabilities to better identify vehicles that speed or run red lights. The Traffic Police can also download the images remotely, which means the cameras can remain live 24/7.
These digital cameras and other measures will significantly enhance our ability to detect speeding and red-running. Our principal objective is to enhance road safety and encourage motorists to adhere to traffic rules at all times, regardless of whether there are cameras or traffic police officers present. Ultimately, all road users must take personal responsibility for this, as it is in our collective interest to ensure our own safety and the safety of all other road users. So, we look forward to the cooperation of all road users and the community in this regard.
Sir, allow me to also elaborate on our approach towards heavy vehicles. Heavy vehicles can cause severe harm in accidents due to their size. Hence, we have stepped up efforts to engage the heavy vehicle industry and educate their drivers.
We already have a stricter enforcement regime for heavy vehicles. Heavy vehicle drivers face stiffer fines for compoundable traffic offences. The Traffic Police has also stepped up enforcement efforts against speeding by heavy vehicles in recent years. For example, Police Speed Laser Cameras are frequently deployed along expressways and roads regularly plied by heavy vehicle drivers.
Page: 160
Currently, heavy vehicles above a certain weight class are required to install speed limiters. We are working with LTA to tighten the existing speed limiter regime by introducing additional inspection requirements for heavy vehicles that are caught speeding.
Sir, I agree with Mr Vikram Nair that it is particularly heartbreaking when children in particular are involved in traffic accidents. Hence, apart from our education efforts, we also want to step up on enforcement. To ensure that extra care is taken near schools, motorists will receive an additional demerit point if they commit speeding, red-running, careless driving or inconsiderate driving offences within enhanced school zones. Let me illustrate the impact of this change. This additional demerit point will cause a new driver who is on probation to have his licence revoked if he is caught committing the offence of red-running in an enhanced school zone. Thus, this measure will have a material impact on the driver's eligibility to drive.
Let me also assure Mr Christopher de Souza that the Traffic Police does and will continue to take enforcement action against cyclists who flout traffic rules on our roads. Traffic Police issues almost 900 summonses annually to cyclists for various offences committed on our roads, including those highlighted by the Member.
These enforcement steps and the educational initiatives that I mentioned earlier are part of a broader effort undertaken by a committee led by MOT to enhance the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. MOT will elaborate at its Committee of Supply debate.
Taken as a whole, Safer Roads Singapore is a comprehensive strategy to improve road safety by enhancing the norms of road use. The Traffic Police will be firm and fair in enforcing traffic rules. We will also intensify our upstream education and engagement efforts to inculcate the right mindsets, habits and skills for safer road use.
Sir, it is important that we must take a decisive step to minimise injuries and the loss of lives. In the Traffic Police's dialogues with representatives from the industry and vocational driver groups, there is a general consensus that more can be done collectively to enhance road safety for everyone. Every life matters. I urge all parties to work together and make our roads safer.
Sir, before I sum up, let me address Mr Christopher de Souza's query on the waiting time for casino exclusion orders against vulnerable persons. The
Page: 161
National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) administers such casino exclusions. The Council convenes Family Exclusion hearings within two weeks from the point of application to determine the need for a Family Exclusion Order. Applications for self-exclusions made online take effect immediately.
The recent amendments to the Casino Control Act empower the NCPG's Committee of Assessors to also issue a provisional Family Exclusion Order in the interim period, if there is an urgent need to protect vulnerable family members from further harm due to casino gambling.
Sir, to conclude, I have laid out some of the Home Team's key initiatives to ensure the safety of our neighbourhoods and our roads. The Home Team will continue to enhance our operational capabilities, stay resolute in enforcement and leverage on technology for greater effectiveness. At the same time, we will continue to need the support of each and every member of the community to maintain a safe and secure home for all of us.
The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen): May I seek your consent to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair, so that I can move a motion to take the proceedings on the business of Supply today beyond 7.30 pm?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the Chairman do leave the Chair.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Committee of Supply","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business of Supply be proceeded with beyond 7.30 pm.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
\tPage: 162
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head P (Ministry of Home Affairs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Chairman, let me first thank the Members for their indulgence to continue this debate beyond 7.30 pm.
I will now speak about drug abuse, re-offending, community support and engagement.
Mr Vikram Nair and Dr Intan Azura asked about updates on the current drug situation, especially among youths, and their rehabilitation.
I would like to start by describing the regional drug situation to set this context. Regional drug production in methamphetamine and poppy cultivation continues to set record highs. According to the 2012 UNODC Report, which is the latest, heroin and methamphetamine seizures in Southeast Asia increased significantly by 41% and 23% respectively in 2011 when compared to 2010. Drug syndicates, therefore, continue to carry out large-scale illegal drug production and distribution in our midst. This poses a challenge to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and our regional partners.
My Ministry is watching these trends very closely. While local heroin seizures dropped slightly between 2011 and 2012, methamphetamine seizures have increased more than three times from 14 kilograms to 51 kilograms over the same period, with around eight kilograms of methamphetamine meant for local market consumption. But, mind you, this amount for local market consumption alone can feed the addiction of at least 1,000 drug abusers over 30 days.
To answer Mr Vikram Nair's question on the situation regarding the abuse of synthetic drugs, the key challenge going forward will be methamphetamine, or \"Ice\" abuse. Among new abusers arrested, methamphetamine has replaced
Page: 163
heroin as their drug of choice, being the drug abused by 56% of all new drug abusers in 2012. And what is more worrying is that the profile of methamphetamine abusers is younger and most of whom take drugs with no real appreciation of the danger they are putting themselves in. The initial effect of methamphetamine abuse is deceivingly harmless. Just this week, a brother of an offender who came to my Meet-the-People Session (MPS) said his brother who was abusing methamphetamine and was being detained at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) looks normal.
Let us be clear about the dangers of methamphetamine. It is a misperception among younger people that it is less addictive and less harmful than heroin. This is not true. Some youths use methamphetamine to lose weight, some to keep up their energy levels. I know a case of a young girl who used methamphetamine to lose weight and, as a result, she almost lost her life. In the short term, methamphetamine abusers will suffer from insomnia, psychosis and convulsions. Prolonged abuse of methamphetamine leads to long-term health problems, such as liver damage, stroke and, eventually, death.
Due to our zero-tolerance policy on drugs and CNB's rigorous enforcement of our laws, drug addicts are kept off our streets and the drug problem is not very visible to most Singaporeans. Compared to other countries, the problem may be invisible, but it is by no means benign. I want to stress that the drug abuse situation remains challenging. Its long-term destructive effects go beyond the individual, affecting his or her family and eventually, the wider community.
Our approach has been and remains to address the drug abuse problem holistically: tough laws and vigorous enforcement coupled with preventive education upstream. Downstream, we seek to provide opportunities for rehabilitation and aftercare in partnership with the community.
We will, therefore, strengthen our existing efforts to prevent drug offending upstream, to stop youths from even thinking about taking drugs. CNB will refresh its Preventive Drug Education (PDE) efforts. As youths today rely heavily on the Internet and social networking sites for information, we will leverage on these platforms to maximise the impact of our outreach and make use of peer advocacy as much as possible. CNB will launch a youth-oriented blog in April and with the help of young bloggers, we intend to grow a vibrant online anti-drug community with more personal anti-drug messages. It is ultimately, however, the individual's responsibility not to take drugs and we will not
Page: 164
hesitate to take action against any youth today.
Because of the persistence of the problem, we are also increasing our downstream efforts, where we seek to keep people on the right path, and provide opportunities for rehabilitation and aftercare in partnership with the community. We will enhance the Direct Supervision Order for new young low-risk drug abusers. Currently, they are only required to go for regular urine tests. CNB is working with MSF to introduce a compulsory counselling component to these drug abusers by first quarter this year and we will involve their families.
For new young drug abusers who are of moderate risk, Prisons will establish a Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) as a step-down arrangement after a period of detention in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre. Once transferred to the CRC, these young offenders will participate in a structured residential component and attend compulsory counselling sessions in the evenings. This will, therefore, allow them to continue their education or employment in the day to minimise disruption to their daily lives. We expect the CRC operations by end 2013.
Mr Desmond Lee has expressed his concern on the re-offending problem and asked what we will do to help drug re-offenders break the re-offending cycle and reintegrate back into society. I share his concerns. Repeat offenders continue to account for more than two-thirds of those arrested for drug offences.
As highlighted by Mr Hri Kumar, about 3,000 of these repeat offenders will be released from long-term imprisonment (LT offenders) between 2013 and 2015. Many of these repeat abusers could return to drug abuse or crime, or perhaps even influence others, and especially our youths, to experiment with drugs.
Since 1 November 2012, LT offenders with higher risks of re-offending have been placed under an enhanced supervision regime. Apart from regular urine supervision, these LT offenders have been subjected to additional restrictions such as strict curfew hours and electronic monitoring. They are also required to attend counselling and case management by prison counsellors.
Mr Hri Kumar also asked for an update on the recidivism rate in 2012. The prisons recidivism rate for the 2010 release cohort has dropped to 23.6% from 26.7% for the 2009 release cohort, but even then there is no room for complacency. Although a lower recidivism rate means fewer ex-offenders are returning to the prisons, many who do are repeat offenders. Repeat offenders
Page: 165
account for more than 80% of the prison population and are more likely to re-offend upon their release.
I agree with Mr Desmond Lee that more support needs to be provided to these ex-offenders in the period after their release as this is when they are most vulnerable. We must help these repeat offenders break the cycle of re-offending and transit from imprisonment to reintegration within the community. To achieve this, we will amend the Prisons Act in 2013 to introduce a Conditional Remission System (CRS). Under CRS, all inmates released at the two-third mark of their sentence will be subject to certain conditions during the remission period – something like probation in other countries. Those who breach these conditions will be taken to task.
The implementation of the CRS will also allow us to place high-risk ex-inmates on a Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS). This is part of the broader through-care strategy to help inmates in the period prior to and after their release. This will be achieved through a structured step-down approach in control and supervision from prisons to the community, with the provision of aftercare support, counselling and case management upon their release. We want everyone to succeed in their rehabilitation.
As part of this through-care strategy, we will develop a halfway house in the Selarang Park Complex to provide a structured environment to supervise and rehabilitate high-risk ex-inmates emplaced in the MAS. This will complement the efforts of our current halfway house partners who will work with moderate to low-risk offenders. More details will be released in due course.
The Government will continue to commit resources and work with the community to provide opportunities for ex-offenders to rehabilitate and reintegrate back into society. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the individual ex-offender not to re-offend. Those who break the law will be called to account. Mr Chairman, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In 2012, the number of Malay drug addicts who were arrested increased by 10%, from 1,600 in 2011, to 1,760 in 2012. This number makes up half of the 3,480 drug addicts arrested in 2012. This is still a marked improvement compared to the mid-1990s.
The number of new Malay drug addicts has gone down slightly, from 580 in 2011, to 560 in 2012. Even so, it is still a cause for concern because new
Page: 166
addicts make up 30% of the total number of drug addicts arrested.
The majority of new young addicts abuse methamphetamine (ICE). They view drug taking with their friends as a fun activity and are unaware of its detrimental effects. This is something to be concerned about.
The approach taken by the Government to tackle this drug problem is comprehensive, and it includes preventive steps through education, strict laws and effective enforcement, as well as suitable rehabilitation and advanced care, that are implemented with the community's cooperation.
Family and community play an important role. A strong bond between parents and their child, as well as a forgiving nature and love, can help a young offender to return to the right path. I have seen for myself how a family that gives a second chance to a young offender, manages to leave a positive effect on that young offender.
The community also plays an important role in our effort to combat drug abuse. We will continue to work with MENDAKI and have marshalled the efforts of other Malay/Muslim organisations as well as Indian Muslim organisations, like Jamiyah and PERTAPIS and the Federation of Indian Muslims (FIM). Together, they think of other ways to assist the offenders and their families. While family and community continue to play a role to help ex-offenders, the offenders must be responsible for their own selves and work hard to lead a drug-free life.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, we agree with Ms Tin Pei Ling that the support of the offender's family, volunteers and community partnerships plays a critical role in ensuring that rehabilitation and reintegration are successful. The Community Outreach Project (COP) was a key initiative launched in September 2010. It involves the community helping offenders' families link up with the relevant Government agencies for social assistance and support in other areas. Since then, the COP has grown tremendously, from a small pilot with just seven grassroots initially, to 44 divisions as of December 2012. More than 390 volunteers have been trained to reach out to over 780 families.
Let me share how COP has helped the family of an incarcerated offender. The wife was thrown into disarray when the husband was arrested for drug offences. The family sold their previous flat due to mortgage loan arrears. The
Page: 167
sales proceeds were used to rent a unit and to start a business but that business failed. At that point, she had almost no savings, was about to lose her shelter and have four children to care of.
The COP members stepped in to help her through her issues one by one. First, she was referred to a Family Service Centre (FSC) for counselling sessions to help her cope with her husband's imprisonment. Arrangements were also made with the CDC to provide her with ComCare assistance. Help was also given for her to sign up for courses to acquire employment skills so that she could find work more easily. Mind you she had never worked all her life. To meet her accommodation needs, they helped her search for transitional shelters for her and her children while working with HDB to give her priority for a rental unit. She was eventually offered a rental unit. She now has a job and is very grateful for the help rendered.
Given the success of COP, we will reach out to even more divisions in 2013 and consolidate the excellent work done by existing divisions. This will benefit even more families and especially their children.
We are also mindful that some offenders have little or no family support. Hence, we have a separate programme for them. The Community Befriending Project (CBP) pairs a volunteer-befriender with an offender to provide positive peer support and role modelling. The CBP has grown from 40 volunteer befrienders in 2010 to about 90 befrienders in 2012, and benefitted about 180 offenders. This, too, will be expanded in 2013.
Currently, we have a strong core of volunteers with the passion to serve. More than 1,300 dedicated volunteers served in our prisons in 2012. In 2013, we will develop a training and development framework to systematically equip volunteers and community partners with core competencies, knowledge, and skills to better support the rehabilitation of offenders. These include skills in counselling and casework.
Mr Christopher de Souza talked about giving second chances to ex-offenders and asked what the Ministry is doing to match ex-offenders with jobs after their release.
Over the years, the Yellow Ribbon Project has helped to increase acceptance of ex-offenders in the community. We agree with Mr Christopher de Souza that gainfully employed ex-offenders are less likely to re-offend. SCORE prepares offenders for employment by helping them acquire market relevant
Page: 168
skills, such as culinary skills and experience in logistics operations, before their release. Offenders receive nationally-accredited training which is aligned with WDA's Workforce Skills Qualification framework. This gives employers the assurance that offenders are qualified and well-trained.
Working closely with the private sector, SCORE also provides practical experience for offenders in its various workshops within prisons, which includes a large laundry and bakery. SCORE also conducts job suitability assessments for offenders to match them with suitable jobs. In 2012, SCORE helped more than 1,420 offenders secure employment before their release. SCORE will also continue to engage offenders and employers to better understand their job needs.
In response to Mr de Souza too, we recognise the support and contributions of employers. SCORE organises an annual Appreciation Award Ceremony and gives out the HOPE awards to employers that have gone the extra mile. One of these awardees is Revenue Valley Pte Ltd, which manages home-grown restaurants like Manhattan Fish Market. Over the years, Revenue Valley Pte Ltd has hired more than 150 ex-offenders and offers fair remuneration and career advancement for deserving ex-offenders. Ex-offenders who performed well have been promoted to leadership positions, with some assuming responsibility in managing their outlets. They have also implemented a buddy system to help newly hired ex-offenders to adjust to their working environment and culture, thereby easing the offenders' transition to working life.
We are indeed very grateful for all the volunteers who have stepped forward to help offenders and their families. Mr Eddie Ong, a COP volunteer from Teck Ghee Division, told me that it was a \"humbling experience to witness the state of needy households and how they coped with the sudden incarceration of a loved one.\" He recalled the example of a 73-year-old mother whose daughter was incarcerated. The mother was beset by health and financial problems. Volunteers arranged for her to use tele-visit facilities to speak to her daughter and overcome her travelling difficulties. I would like to thank all our dedicated volunteers for their invaluable contributions.
Let me end with where I have begun. The drug challenge remains serious. We will continue with the approach of robust laws, effective enforcement and community partnerships to address this issue. In particular, I would like to thank all our community partners who have contributed their time and energy. I hope that more will step forward and join us in this endeavour. Let us continue to
Page: 169
work together to keep Singapore safe and secure.
The Chairman: It has been a long day and it is 23 minutes to eight, but having said that, we do have time for clarifications. Are there any Members who wish to raise clarifications? Looks like the answers are very comprehensive. That being the case, Mr Hri Kumar, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Hri Kumar Nair: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Iswaran and Mr Masagos for their responses. I hope Mr Masagos recovers quickly. One thing that stands out for me in all the questions asked and the speeches made is the absence of any suggestion that the Ministry's efforts have been lacking or left wanting in anyway. That speaks volumes of the good work done by the Ministry and its officers. In the circumstances, it will be entirely remiss of me to ask for its Budget to be reduced by any amount. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $3,511,799,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $379,826,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting of Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon Members to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow. – [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
\tPage: 170
[(proc text) Thereupon, Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 2013/2014, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.40 pm.
\tPage: 171
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Computation of the Gini Coefficient","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if he can provide the data used in the computation of the Gini coefficient and key household income trends for citizens; and (b) what is the Gini coefficient for the last five years, excluding permanent residents from the computation.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Among citizen employed households, the median monthly household income from work per household member increased from $1,860 in 2011 to $1,990 in 2012. This represents a 7.2% increase in nominal terms, and 2.4% in real terms.
Over a longer period, from 2007 to 2012, the cumulative increase in median monthly household income from work per household member for citizen employed households was 13.9% in real terms, higher than the 7.9% in the preceding five-year period. Most deciles of citizen employed households saw higher growth in real monthly household income from work per household member between 2007 and 2012, compared to the preceding five-year period.
In 2012, the Gini coefficient for citizen employed households was 0.4671. After adjusting for Government transfers and taxes, the Gini coefficient declined by 0.022 to 0.445 in 2012, reflecting the redistributive effect of Government transfers. The Gini coefficient (both before and after adjusting for Government transfers and taxes) for citizen employed households was also lower than that for resident employed households in 2012, indicating lower income inequality among citizen employed households. The coefficients for the last five years are provided in Exhibit A1.
\tPage: 172
2 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Health what is the rationale for the prohibition on medical practitioners from practising moxibustion.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Registered medical practitioners are expected to treat their patients according to generally accepted methods of treatment which are evidence based. Currently, only the \"needle form\" of acupuncture has been accepted for use in Western Medicine by registered medical practitioners. This form of acupuncture is the most researched and published in the medical literature and has the evidence base for medical practice. There are other modalities and types of treatment in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) which are not allowed to be practised by registered medical practitioners and moxibustion is one of the modalities.
\tPage: 173
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Admission of Local Polytechnic Graduates to Local Law Undergraduate Courses","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 local law undergraduate courses, by year and by institution since 2007; and (b) what are the courses of study they had pursued in the Polytechnics prior to enrolment in the LLB degree course of study.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: From 2007 to 2012, 11 Polytechnic graduates were admitted into the LLB degree course at NUS and two were admitted to the LLB degree course at SMU. The table below provides a detailed breakdown.
These Polytechnic graduates had pursued diplomas in areas such as law and management, mass communication, business and finance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Violations of Anti-doping Rules by Singapore Athletes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the number of athletes in Singapore and the sports they have participated in who had violated the anti-doping rules in the last five years; and (b) whether public funding to national sports associations (NSAs) require that the NSAs demonstrate a strong commitment to anti-doping and exemplary sportsmanship.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In the last five years, 13 athletes, all from bodybuilding, were found to have violated the anti-doping rules. They were
Page: 174
each handed a ban of two years for their violations.
As a condition of funding by the Singapore Sports Council (SSC), National Sports Associations (NSAs) are required to sign an undertaking to abide by the policies and rules of Anti-Doping Singapore, the national champion for anti-doping. SSC will withhold or withdraw funding from NSAs that do not agree to or repeatedly fail to comply with the policies and rules of Anti-Doping Singapore.
Page: 175
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":661,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/annex-chart(1).pdf","fileName":"chart(1).pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1021,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1022,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3401,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Low Yen Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/vernacular-New Template - Low Yen Ling Budget 7 Mar 2013-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Low Yen Ling Budget 7 Mar 2013-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3402,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Seng Han Thong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/vernacular-New Template - Seng Han Thong PMO 7 March 2013-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Seng Han Thong PMO 7 March 2013-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3403,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/vernacular-New Template - Gan Thiam Poh PMO 7 Mar 2013 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Gan Thiam Poh PMO 7 Mar 2013 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3404,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/vernacular-New Template - 7 Mar - Mr Zainal Sapari COS PMO.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 7 Mar - Mr Zainal Sapari COS PMO.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3405,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/vernacular-New Template - 7 Mar - Mr Muhd Faisal A Manap COS PMO.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 7 Mar - Mr Muhd Faisal A Manap COS PMO.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3406,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130307/vernacular-New Template - 7 Mar - SMS Masagos COS MHA Reply.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 7 Mar - SMS Masagos COS MHA Reply.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}