\r\n
| \r\n
Page: 914
\r\nPage: 917
\r\nPage: 918
\r\nUnder the provisions\r\nof clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic\r\nof Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission\r\nby the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any\r\nCommittee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the\r\nperiods stated:
\r\n\r\n| Name | \r\nFrom | \r\nTo | \r\n
|---|---|---|
| \r\n | (2012) | \r\n(2012) | \r\n
| Mr Lim Hng Kiang | \r\n25 Jan | \r\n29 Jan | \r\n
[Mr Speaker in\r\nthe Chair]
\r\nPage: 918
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1\r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health (a) whether there are sufficient programmes\r\nin place to promote dental care; and (b) what dental procedures\r\nare subsidised at the National Dental Centre and what procedures\r\nare not.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor\r\nLean Suan) (for the Minister for Health)\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, in Singapore, we place a strong emphasis on prevention and inculcating\r\ngood oral hygiene practices from young. The Health Promotion Board's (HPB)\r\nSchool Dental Service provides free basic dental care for all Singaporean\r\nchildren aged seven to 18 years old, within the school dental clinics.\r\nThis includes cleaning, screening and fillings, as well as dental\r\nhealth education, to promote good oral hygiene amongst our students.\r\nSubsidised treatment is also available for pre-schoolers at HPB's School\r\nDental Centre.
\r\n\r\n As a result, the oral health\r\nstatus of our 12-year-olds, measured by the DMFT index – that is,\r\na common measure of the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth\r\n– is among the best in the world. At 0.6, it is much better than\r\nin most OECD countries, including Japan and South Korea – which\r\nare at 1.3 and 2.1 respectively.
\r\n\r\n For adults, HPB works with\r\nprofessional groups and industry partners to promote good oral hygiene\r\nthrough events, such as the annual Oral Health Month. HPB has also started\r\na Community Functional Screening Programme for seniors 60 years\r\nold and above, to detect early signs of functional decline, including\r\npoor oral health, and to institute the appropriate follow-up measures.
\r\n\r\n Mrs Chiam also asked about\r\nsubsidised dental procedures at the National Dental Centre (NDC).\r\nNDC provides the full range of subsidised dental treatment – such\r\nas for crowns, bridges, dentures and root canal treatment – to meet\r\nthe needs of all patients referred to NDC for management. Only procedures\r\ndeemed cosmetic in nature, such as dental laminates and bleaching\r\nservices, are not subsidised. Eligible patients who require root\r\ncanal treatment, crowns and dentures can also receive subsidies\r\nfor treatment at\r\nprivate dental clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme\r\n(CHAS). Subsidised basic dental care is also available at the polyclinics\r\nand at private dental clinics under CHAS.
\r\nPage: 919
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank Minister of State Amy Khor for her reply. I would like\r\nto ask two supplementary questions. Can MOH provide the exact breakdown\r\nof what is being subsidised at NDC and what treatments are not subsidised?\r\nWhat is the rationale for not providing subsidy for some treatments\r\nand what if they were necessary? Can MOH update the House on what\r\nis being done to shorten waiting time for dental appointments for\r\nfresh or new cases at polyclinics?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan\r\n : Sir,\r\nwith regards to the first question on the types of subsidised dental\r\nprocedures at the National Dental Centre (NDC): firstly, in fiscal\r\nyear 2010, the subventions that were given for subsidised dental\r\ntreatments at the various centres amounted to $23 million. At the\r\nNDC, various procedures are subsidised – from basic dental services\r\nto more complex dental procedures like crowning, root canal treatment\r\nand dentures. The subsidy rates can vary from 20% to 76%, depending\r\non the type of treatment or procedure. Please allow me to list some\r\nof the procedures where subsidies are available. The basic dental\r\nprocedures will be scaling, polishing, fillings and extractions.\r\nThe more complex ones would be crowning, root canal treatment, dental\r\ntreatment related to traumatised teeth and non-vital teeth, dental\r\ntreatment for patients who are under rehabilitation following cancer\r\nsurgery and so on. Most of these procedures which are required medically\r\nare subsidised.
\r\n\r\n The procedures which are\r\nnot subsidised by National Dental Centre are basically procedures\r\nwhich are cosmetic. For example, dental laminates and veneers, bleaching, orthodontic\r\ntreatment for cosmetic purposes. If orthodontic treatment is required\r\nfor medical purposes, there will then be subsidy.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I am not too clear\r\nabout the Member's second question, so perhaps the Member could\r\nrepeat it.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n : Sir, I would\r\nlike MOH to update the House on what is being done on the NDC front.\r\nA lot of people have been complaining about long waiting times to\r\nsee a dentist or dental surgeon. By the time they are ready, the\r\nteeth would have fallen out, or the dental problems would have grown\r\nworse. Can the NDC do something about that to shorten waiting times\r\nfor fresh cases and for cases referred by the polyclinics?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan\r\n : Sir,\r\nI thank the Member for the question. Let me say that we are aware\r\nof some of these feedback and concerns. In general, for emergency\r\ncases or where severe pain is experienced, these are treated as\r\nurgent cases and will be prioritised. They will be treated immediately,\r\nsay, the day itself, or within the week, depending on the level\r\nof urgency. Another example would be the elderly who need urgent\r\ndenture replacements. These cases would be prioritised and they\r\nwould be treated.
\r\n\r\n For those on the waiting\r\nlist, generally, they would have been assessed by the dentists as\r\nstable or pain-free cases. We would then put them on the waiting\r\nlist. The waiting time would depend on the level of complexity of\r\nthe procedures. In fact, for the NDC, the median waiting time for\r\nfirst appointment, where the dentists will make the assessment, for non-emergency,\r\nnon-urgent cases, is 18 days. And depending on the type of treatment\r\nthat they need, if it is urgent, they will be sent almost immediately.\r\nAs I said, if they call up and it is an urgent case, they will also\r\nbe treated on an urgent basis.
\r\nPage: 920
\r\n\r\n On 15 January, we implemented\r\nthe expanded PCPS, which is now called the Community Health Assist\r\nScheme (CHAS). Eligible patients who have the CHAS card can also\r\nhave access to subsidised dental treatment at participating dental\r\nclinics. There are 218 such participating dental clinics around\r\nthe island now. They can get subsidised dental treatment for crowning,\r\nroot canal work, dentures and basic dental services. For this group\r\nof people, it would offer convenience and, of course, waiting times\r\nwould be much shorter. In the longer term, we are also increasing\r\nour intake of dentistry students at the National University of Singapore,\r\nto increase capacity in our healthcare system.
\r\nPage: 920
\r\n\r\n \r\n 2\r\n Mr Alex Yam\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) what is\r\nthe current employment rate for fresh graduates from polytechnics\r\nand universities; (b) whether the number of young PMETs on contract\r\nemployment has increased in the past five years; and (c) whether\r\nhis Ministry would consider requiring employers to offer fair employment\r\nbenefits to employees on permanent renewable contracts.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Manpower (BG [NS]\r\nTan Chuan-Jin) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, we try to ensure that we provide a strong foundation\r\nfor all Singaporeans via education and continuing training. This\r\nis a draw for companies operating here, both local and foreign.\r\nWe also watch the employment landscape very carefully so that our\r\nyoung Singaporeans continue to have good opportunities when they\r\nleave school.
\r\n\r\n From the 2010 Graduate Employment\r\nSurvey (GES), over nine in 10 polytechnic and university graduates\r\nwho entered the job market in 2010 were employed within six months.\r\nIn the past five years, among employed resident PMETs aged 20-29,\r\nthe proportion of those on contract employment decreased slightly\r\nfrom 12.3% (or 20,600) in 2006 to 11.3% (or 21,200) in 2010. Amongst\r\nall resident employees, the proportion on term contracts has fluctuated\r\nbetween 12% and 13%.
\r\n\r\n Term contracts are part\r\nof the employment landscape. Companies generally hire employees\r\non term contracts for two main reasons. First, contract employees\r\nprovide greater flexibility for companies to manage their costs\r\nin an environment of increased global competition and shorter and\r\nless predictable business cycles. This is true globally – outsourcing\r\nand non-traditional employment arrangements, including term contracts, have\r\nbecome more common. Second, there are also occasions where companies\r\nneed to turn to contract employees with specific skill sets not\r\navailable within the company for fixed-term projects or assignments.\r\nSome companies may also place an employee on a term contract for\r\na specific period while they assess the employee's competency and\r\nsuitability for long-term employment. Further, some employers may\r\npay a premium to their employees to compensate for the short-term\r\nnature of certain contracts in certain professions where skills\r\nand expertise are in demand. In general, term contracts provide\r\nflexibility for the market.
\r\nPage: 921
\r\n\r\n However, let me emphasise – regardless\r\nof whether employees are on term or permanent contracts, we will\r\nlook after our workers. They are protected under our employment\r\nlegislation, such as the Employment Act, CPF Act, Work Injury Compensation\r\nAct and Workplace Safety and Health Act. Notwithstanding this, we\r\ndo encourage employers to consider converting their contract employees\r\ninto permanent staff if they are found to be suitable for the job\r\nand if the job is in fact expected to be available on a permanent\r\nbasis. This will provide greater employment certainty to the employee\r\nand help enhance employee engagement.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply and\r\nthe re-assurance to employees on contracts that their rights will\r\nbe taken care of. However, referring to the same GES that the Minister\r\nof State mentioned earlier, out of the total number of graduates\r\nwho were employed, only 68.5% were on full-time permanent employment\r\nwhile the rest were on temporary employment. This year's preliminary\r\nGES also indicates that trend as well. With the increased number\r\nand the feedback that benefits, such as medical insurance and leave,\r\nare being curtailed amongst younger employees, does the MOM intend\r\nto re-look into this area, especially since most of the PMETs would\r\nearn above $1,600 and not be fully covered by the Employment Act?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : Sir,\r\nthe figures for 2010 are as follows: total employment rate for university\r\ngraduates is 90.7%, and full-time permanent employment rate is 84.8%.\r\nWe do track the figures carefully. The slight difference in figures\r\nbetween the Member's figures and these figures is something we can\r\ndiscuss further later on. I just want to reiterate that having term\r\ncontracts do serve a purpose, although we are very mindful of the\r\nlandscape. There are employees who will be on term contracts but\r\nwe do encourage employers to take them on, on full-time basis, should\r\nthey be suitable. Most of them, even on part-time contracts, would\r\nbe subjected to the Employment Act and the various legislations\r\nI cited earlier. In terms of the specific concerns – those are things\r\nwe can look at and will take up the feedback from the industry and\r\nfrom the unions.
\r\nPage: 921
\r\n\r\n \r\n 3\r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if the Ministry\r\nwould consider stopping the issue of licences to sell alcohol in\r\nresidential estates, especially in HDB blocks in estates where foreign\r\nworkers are inclined to congregate, such as Little India.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr\r\nMasagos Zulkifli B M M) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister\r\nfor Home Affairs)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has\r\nsuggested that the Ministry considers stopping the issuance of liquor licences\r\nin residential estates, especially where foreign workers congregate.\r\nI think it is a good suggestion, but as far as we have seen, such\r\na measure is unlikely to resolve the problem of physical consumption\r\nof liquor at HDB void decks and other common areas. Those who consume\r\nliquor in these areas can easily circumvent such restrictions on\r\nsale by bringing in liquor purchased from outlets in other areas.
\r\n\r\n We will instead try to address\r\nthe problem at its core. The SPF will continue to work closely with\r\nMOM to educate foreign workers on our social norms, and work with dormitory operators\r\nand employers to take greater responsibility over their foreign workers'\r\nbehaviour. We have also deployed uniformed Auxiliary Police Officers\r\n(APOs) to patrol foreign worker congregation areas to deter, counsel\r\nand educate foreign workers against undesirable behaviour. The APOs\r\nhave the powers to arrest persons who cause law and order problems\r\nand will take action against those who commit offences, such as\r\nlittering and even spitting.
\r\nPage: 922
\r\n\r\n My Ministry will also explore\r\nwith MND and other stakeholders alternative solutions to address\r\nalcohol consumption and related problems in residential areas. We\r\nwould be happy to work with the Member to study this further. The\r\nGovernment will continue to monitor the foreign workers' congregation\r\nareas closely and tailor our ground measures accordingly.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I want to register\r\nmy deep appreciation for the deployment of the Auxiliary Police\r\nOfficers (APOs) in our area – that helped a lot. I have two supplementary questions\r\nfor the Minister of State. First, is the Ministry of Home Affairs\r\naware that some shops in Little India, which are just below the\r\nresidential units in the same block – have the licence to sell alcohol.\r\nSome of them have actually stocked up, not just beer, but entire\r\nshelves of alcohol, including whiskey and so forth. And so, this\r\nhas created a great ease for foreign workers or other visitors,\r\nto buy these liquor easily, and then opportunities to get drunk\r\nand the need to relieve themselves arise as well. These are issues\r\nthat the residents are facing, so I would deeply appreciate if the\r\nMinistry could re-consider the issue of licences to sell alcohol\r\nto these shops in this vicinity.
\r\n\r\n The second supplementary\r\nquestion is: is the Ministry willing to consider the practice in\r\nsome countries where businesses that are issued licences to sell\r\nliquor are physically located a bit further away from residential\r\nareas so that the problems that I have raised will have less potential\r\nto occur? Sir, for your consideration, please.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Member for her clarifications. Well, I am not surprised\r\nthey will be stocking up a large variety of alcohol, because of\r\nthe congregation of foreign workers in that area. The workers come\r\nnot only from that area but from dormitories all over Singapore.\r\nI think we can work together; work with them, together with grassroots,\r\nperhaps advise them that it is not the issue about the stocking up,\r\nbut the alarm they are causing to our residents and how we, perhaps,\r\ncan address this together.
\r\n\r\n On the second question:\r\nhow we can implement other measures? MOM, MHA as well as MND are\r\nworking together on the issue of foreign workers' congregation,\r\nand these are the kind of inputs we will take in and consider, and\r\nthen will reply to the Members when the questions are raised.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Minister of State for being so open. I want to\r\nask if the Minister of State is aware that the practice of not issuing\r\nalcohol licences to these shops in the same vicinity that I spoke\r\nabout was actually practised before. It was quite effective then,\r\nbut somehow through the course of time, this issuing of licences\r\nre-surfaced and the problems are arising again. I would ask the\r\nMinister of State and the Ministry of Home Affairs to seriously\r\nconsider stopping the issue of these licences in our area.
\r\nPage: 923
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nMasagos Zulkifli B M M\r\n : We have to balance the demands\r\nnot just of the shopkeepers to sell liquor, but also the locals\r\nwho may sometimes want to buy from the shops at the ground floor\r\nof their blocks. So while we understand these issues are also causing\r\nother problems because foreign workers congregate in that area,\r\nthese issues are rather unique to the area that the Member, Ms Denise\r\nPhua, has mentioned. Because it is quite a unique area, we have\r\nto think a little bit out of the box on how to work together with\r\nthe storekeepers, how to work even with the foreign workers, the dormitories,\r\nto prevent such disamenities from causing problems to our residents\r\nover there. As an example, we do inform the employers of recalcitrant\r\nforeign workers who keep getting arrested for disorderly behaviour.\r\nAnd because of that, their Work Permit pass may not get renewed\r\nbecause they are such a nuisance to our society.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr David Ong (Jurong)\r\n : Sir,\r\nmay I make a point to the Minister of State that this situation\r\nis not unique only to Little India. We see this in the heartlands\r\nand at the void decks. These shops sell liquor and we have people\r\ncongregating in those areas. They drink, they litter, they urinate\r\nand they cause nuisance at times, and fights as well. So, especially\r\nfor kiosks located at these void deck areas, if we can restrict\r\nthe sale of alcohol, that will help. I hope that the Ministry can\r\nconsider this.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Member for the clarification. When I mean \"unique\"\r\nI did not mean that it only occurs in Little India. Little India\r\nis unique because it is a congregation point for foreign workers\r\nfrom all over Singapore. In other places, like we have found in\r\nMr Cedric Foo's area, they are usually from the nearby dormitories,\r\nand usually the way to resolve the problem is slightly different\r\nfrom that which we have to face in Little India. For example, we\r\ndo not have to deploy APOs in these areas, whereas in Little India,\r\nbecause of the size of the crowd and the intensity of the merrymaking,\r\nand so forth, we have to make sure that our presence is felt.
\r\n\r\n In the case of Mr Cedric\r\nFoo's area, for example, we have been working with him. They have\r\nCitizens-on-Patrol who go around making friends – not just the residents\r\nbut the foreign workers as well. They become advocates to their\r\nfellow members not to cause a nuisance to the nearby residents,\r\nand I think the same kind of solutions and other kinds of solutions\r\nare possible for us to work together with the MPs of the area.
\r\nPage: 923
\r\n\r\n \r\n 4\r\n Ms Low Yen Ling\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Education in the last five years (a) what was the\r\ntotal number of students who have taken out study loans to finance\r\ntheir tertiary education in public and private institutions; (b)\r\nwhat was the total loan quantum; and (c) what was the default rate\r\nof these study loans.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Education (Mr\r\nLawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Education)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the question. From 2006\r\nto 2010, about one-third of undergraduates and 5% of Diploma students\r\nfrom our publicly-funded institutions tapped on Government-funded\r\nloan schemes to finance their studies.
\r\nPage: 924
\r\n\r\n The Government provides loans for these\r\nstudents through two schemes. First, a Tuition Fee Loan, which covers\r\nup to 90% of the fees payable by a Singapore student at the undergraduate\r\nlevel, and 75% at the diploma level.
\r\n\r\n Second, a means-tested Study\r\nLoan, which covers the portion of fees not covered by the Tuition\r\nFee Loan, in other words, up to 10% of the fees at the undergraduate\r\nlevel and 25% at the diploma level, and also provides an amount\r\nfor living expenses.
\r\n\r\n On average, over the last\r\nfive years, the overall amount taken out in new loans was around\r\n$100 million a year. And from an individual student perspective,\r\nthe actual loan amount will typically vary according to the course\r\nfees payable as well as the availability of other sources of financing,\r\nsuch as Government bursaries.
\r\n\r\n The default rate for these\r\nloans has remained low. Non-performing loans are less than 1% of\r\nthe total outstanding loan amount. MOE does not track the number\r\nof students in private institutions who take up education loans.
\r\nPage: 924
\r\n\r\n \r\n 5\r\n Mr Alex Yam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the progress on improving\r\nbus speeds from 16-19 kph in 2007 to a target speed of 20-25 kph\r\nby 2009 as stated in the LTA Long Term Master Plan; and (b) what\r\nis the current bus speed for trunk and feeder buses.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs\r\nJosephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, in the Land Transport Masterplan, we set an ambitious target\r\nto improve bus speeds from 16 kph-19 kph to a target of 20 kph-25\r\nkph. These average bus speeds factor in the time taken for passenger\r\nboarding and alighting activities, to give an accurate reflection\r\nof the average speeds experienced by commuters over their bus journeys.
\r\n\r\n Since then, we have introduced\r\na host of bus priority measures geared towards improving bus speed\r\nand reliability. In 2008, we extended the length of normal bus lanes island-wide\r\nfrom 120 km to 155 km, and more than trebled the length of full-day\r\nbus lanes from 7 km to 23 km. This has helped improve bus journey\r\nspeeds along these heavily-used bus corridors by an average of 7%,\r\nand even up to 20% along some stretches. To help reduce the time\r\ntaken for buses to pull out of bus bays, we also introduced the\r\nMandatory Give-Way to Bus Scheme in 2008, and this has now been implemented\r\nat 202 bus stops across the island. The scheme has helped reduce\r\nthe time taken by buses to exit bus bays by up to 73%.
\r\n\r\n However, despite these targeted\r\nimprovements to bus speeds along specific routes, overall average\r\nbus speeds have decreased slightly from 19.1 km/h in 2007 to 17.8\r\nkm/h in 2011. We believe that one major factor that has likely contributed\r\nto the decrease in speeds is the increase in bus ridership, which\r\nhas grown by 16% from 2.9 million per day in 2007 to 3.45 million\r\nper day in 2011. As more buses are introduced to cater to this increase,\r\nthis would have caused buses to wait a longer time at bus stops\r\nto accommodate increased passenger boarding and alighting activities.
\r\n\r\n To help address this, the\r\nLTA recently announced the selection of 35 bus stops to be expanded\r\nto bus hubs by the end of 2013. This is to allow more buses to berth\r\nin the bus bays for\r\nsimultaneous boarding and alighting activities. This will reduce\r\nthe average time each bus needs to dwell at the bus stops and in\r\nturn improve bus speeds and the journey times for commuters.
\r\nPage: 925
\r\n\r\n We will continue to monitor\r\nour bus speeds closely, and look out for opportunities to introduce\r\nmore bus priority schemes where it makes sense to do so, bearing\r\nin mind the potential impact on other road users. We will also continue\r\nto explore other measures to improve bus speeds.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alex Yam\r\n : Sir, I thank\r\nthe Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I note that the\r\nbus speeds have reduced and Minister of State's explanation that\r\nthis is due to the higher ridership. Two supplementary questions.\r\nOne is: the Minister of State mentioned that some schemes are under\r\nstudy. Would the Minister of State be able to share with the House\r\nwhat some of these schemes may be? And, secondly, as a suggestion\r\nfor the Ministry to consider that on longer and wider trunk routes,\r\nfor the installation of bus stops along the central median which\r\nwill reduce the need for left-turning vehicles to block the buses\r\ngoing ahead.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI thank the Member for his supplementary questions. One of the things\r\nthat we think will help improve the bus speeds is to reduce the\r\ndwell times at the bus bays. If we consider the fact that when we\r\nintroduce more buses into the system, apart from road congestion\r\nand making it easier for the buses to get through on the roads,\r\nwe also have to consider the fact that people boarding and alighting\r\ncontributes to the dwell time. And so for people who are already\r\non the buses, it adds to their journey time. And that is one of\r\nthe bottlenecks that we have to overcome. The identification of\r\nthe 35 bus hubs, with expanded bus bays to allow more buses to stop\r\nat the same time, is a major effort that is ongoing. We have already\r\nstarted work since October 2011, and we are making good progress.\r\nIt is an important part of our initiatives to try and improve bus\r\nspeeds. So that is a priority project and we will focus on it to\r\nensure that for those very busy bus stops, it will help reduce the\r\ndwell times. For those passengers who regularly use those bus stops,\r\nor whose bus services pass those bus stops, they will not be unduly\r\nheld up. So that is important.
\r\n\r\n As to the Member's second\r\nquestion, if I understand correctly, he is talking about creating\r\nstorage lanes? If I could seek a clarification from the Member on\r\nhis suggestion?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alex Yam\r\n : Sir, if I may:\r\nthis is one of the examples that have already been introduced. It\r\nis along Somerset stretch where the bus bay, instead of being on\r\nthe left-most lane, has been relocated to the central median to\r\navoid conflict with heavy traffic moving straight or turning left\r\ninto the Clarke Quay area.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Yes, it\r\nis one of those measures that we will consider. I just want to point\r\nout that the areas or the roads where the central medians are wide\r\nenough for us to build a bus stop, are not that many in number.\r\nSo, this is the main constraining factor. Where there is enough\r\nspace and it makes sense to do so, yes, we will consider.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State, besides\r\nthe speed issue, I think there is also the issue of the drivers'\r\nfamiliarity with the routes. I would like to ask for the Minister\r\nof State's comment on the recent few reported cases of drivers taking\r\nthe wrong route. I understood from my residents that it happened to those bus\r\nroutes that serve Yishun South residents. What measures have been\r\ntaken or will be taken so that such incidences can be reduced?
\r\nPage: 926
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Sir, I\r\nthink the Member's question is relevant. As we expand the bus fleet,\r\nwe do have to hire more bus captains. It is not an easy thing to\r\ndo because the work conditions of a bus captain are quite demanding.\r\nSo quite apart from finding people with the correct driving skills,\r\nwe also need people who have the right service aptitudes. And of\r\ncourse, the ability to be familiar with the bus routes, adds additional layer\r\nof complexity.
\r\n\r\n Part of the problem has\r\nbeen contributed by the fact that we sometimes need to deploy drivers\r\nto the bus routes that they are not used to driving. That is because\r\nthere are occasions where there are services that need to be improved\r\nvery quickly, and we need to pump in the buses, and so the drivers\r\nhave to be re-deployed. One of the measures with which we can deal\r\nwith this, is to allow more of the bus captains to be cross-trained\r\non different routes so that each driver perhaps being just familiar\r\nwith his own route that he drives on a regular basis, is also familiar\r\nwith several other routes. This measure obviously takes time to\r\nimplement because there are so many drivers and, apart from their\r\nusual duties, we have got to find the capacity for them to be extracted from\r\ntheir regular service in order to go for the training.
\r\n\r\n But I want to assure the\r\nMember that it is something that is taken seriously. We want to\r\nhave more flexibility to be able to cross deploy the bus captains\r\nwhen it is necessary to do so, so that they can be more responsive\r\nto emerging needs in bus services. This is something that has to\r\nbe done quite properly.
\r\nPage: 926
\r\n\r\n \r\n 6\r\n Mr Lim Biow Chuan\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport whether the Public Transport Council\r\n(PTC) could review its current policy of de-regulating taxi fares\r\nand whether previous objectives of de-regulation of taxi fares have\r\nbeen met.
\r\n\r\n \r\n 7\r\n Ms Tin Pei Ling\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport (a) what defines public transport in\r\nSingapore; (b) how do taxis feature in our transport system and\r\nwhether they qualify as public transport, either de jure or de facto;\r\n(c) whether the market share of Comfort DelGro's cabs (which include\r\nCityCabs) constitute market dominance; and (d) whether his Ministry\r\nwill consider defining peak periods.
\r\n\r\n \r\n 8\r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport (a) what measures has the Government\r\nput in place to ensure a sufficient level of competition among taxi operators;\r\n(b) whether these measures are adequate; and (c) whether further\r\nmeasures to ensure greater competition for the benefit of consumers\r\nwill be implemented in the near future.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck\r\nYew)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would\r\nlike to take Question Nos 6, 7 and 8 together.
\r\nPage: 927
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nLui Tuck Yew\r\n : Sir, public transport is a service\r\nthat is available to any member of the public as a means of travel\r\nfrom one location to another for a fare. It includes our public\r\nbuses, trains and taxis. Taxis are positioned at the higher end\r\nof the public transport spectrum, filling the gaps between buses\r\nand trains, and providing a door-to-door service that is closer\r\nto that of private transport.
\r\n\r\n The setting of taxi fares\r\nwas deregulated in 1998 and the supply of taxis was deregulated\r\nin 2003. The objectives of these two measures were to inject greater competition\r\nwithin the taxi industry and allow market forces to determine the\r\nsupply and pricing of taxis that best meet the demand for taxi services.
\r\n\r\n Since the deregulation of\r\nfares, taxi companies have made both upward and downward adjustments\r\nto their fare structures in response to changes in demand for taxi\r\nservice. For example, to encourage commuters to call book for taxis\r\nduring peak period where demand is high, some of the taxi companies\r\nhave reduced the call booking surcharge from $4.00 in 2005 to the\r\ncurrent $3.30. Taxi companies have also delayed the commencement\r\nof the evening peak surcharge period from 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm given that\r\na significant number of commuters now leave work later with the\r\nimplementation of a five-day work week in Singapore. On the other\r\nhand, as the demand for taxis in the evenings after 8.00 pm continue\r\nto be high resulting in feedback on the difficulty of getting a\r\ntaxi after 8.00 pm, taxi companies have extended the evening peak\r\nsurcharge to midnight, instead of ending it at 8.00 pm to better\r\nmatch the demand and supply for taxi service. Concurrent with the\r\nextension of evening peak hours, taxi companies have chosen to soften\r\nthe impact of this extension by reducing the peak surcharge from\r\n35% of metered fare to 25%.
\r\n\r\n Besides using fare changes\r\nto better match the demand and supply of taxis at different times\r\nof the day, taxi companies have also expanded their fleet size to\r\nmeet the general increase in taxi demand. When compared against\r\nthe period prior to liberalisation in 2003, the total number of\r\ntaxi trips increased by 13% from 2003 to 2011 while in the same\r\nperiod, the size of the taxi fleet increased by 27%.
\r\n\r\n Over the years, the taxi\r\nindustry has also become more vibrant with the entry of new taxi\r\ncompanies into the market. Consumers can choose among seven taxi\r\ncompanies, up from the previous three companies prior to deregulation.\r\nThe taxi services rendered have also become more varied, catering\r\nto the wide-ranging demands of the commuters. For instance, taxi\r\ncompanies have brought in many more models of taxis into the market,\r\nincluding larger taxis with higher seating capacity up to seven passengers,\r\nas well as the introduction of additional modes of fare payment\r\nsuch as credit card, NETS or stored value card which has brought\r\ngreater convenience to passengers.
\r\n\r\n The LTA's role in the liberalised\r\nmarket is to facilitate its workings and ensure that quality service\r\nis provided. To do this, LTA sets Quality of Service (QoS) standards\r\nfor taxi companies to comply and also administers the Vocational\r\nLicence Point System (VLPS) on taxi drivers.
\r\n\r\n Under the QoS framework,\r\ntaxi companies are required to meet standards on call bookings,\r\nsafety, taxi drivers' conduct, etc. Companies that fail to meet\r\nthe requisite standards are liable to be penalised financially.\r\nIn October 2011, the LTA tightened the QoS system. Call booking\r\nmonitoring was extended to the morning peak period on weekdays, from 6.00\r\nam to 11.00 am. LTA also fine-tuned the computation of call booking\r\nperformances from averaging over a three-hour period to an hourly\r\nbasis.
\r\nPage: 928
\r\n\r\n Besides regulating the taxi\r\ncompanies, the LTA also takes a serious view against any misconduct\r\non the part of taxi drivers against the interest and safety of taxi\r\npassengers. Regular enforcement checks are carried out by LTA at\r\nvarious hotspots to nab errant taxi drivers and deter would-be offenders.\r\nUnder the Vocational Licence Point System, taxi drivers who infringe\r\nthe LTA's rules and regulations will be imposed with composition fines\r\nand demerit points based on the severity of the offence. The accumulation\r\nof demerit points will lead to the suspension of vocational licence\r\nand, in severe cases, the revocation of the licence. Sir, I would\r\nlike to take this opportunity to encourage members of the public\r\nto provide feedback on who they believed to be errant taxi drivers\r\nto help LTA step up its enforcement measures and ensure quality\r\ntaxi service on the ground.
\r\n\r\n Sir, in summary, the deregulation\r\nof the taxi industry has brought about benefits to commuters. Specific\r\nto the recent round of fare revisions by the taxi companies, I acknowledge\r\nthe public's expectation for better quality service with any fare\r\nincrease. Hence, besides continuing to monitor the performance of\r\ntaxi companies with respect to the current QoS, LTA will also study\r\nhow the QoS system will need to be adjusted.
\r\n\r\n On Ms Tin's question regarding\r\nthe market share of ComfortDelgro's taxis and whether this constitutes\r\nmarket dominance: allow me to clarify that market share, while it\r\nis an important factor, is not in itself a sufficient indicator.\r\nOther indicators, such as presence of any market barriers, contestability\r\nfor the industry, degree of service innovation, and so on, should\r\nalso be considered, and I believe the taxi industry fares well on\r\nbalance. Ms Tin may also wish to note that ComfortDelgro's market\r\nshare has declined from 86% in 2003 to about 58% today, indicating\r\nthat competition within the taxi industry has indeed intensified\r\nover time.
\r\n\r\n Ms Tin also asked if we\r\nwould consider defining peak periods. With the deregulation of taxi\r\nfares, peak periods are determined by taxi companies based on their\r\nassessment of market demand and supply of taxis at different time\r\nperiods of the day. We currently have no plans to re-regulate taxi\r\nfares but we will continue to work closely with the taxi companies\r\nto study other measures to better match demand with supply and improve service\r\nstandards for the benefit of commuters.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I would like\r\nto ask, in light of the recent episode whereby ComfortDelgro taxis initiated\r\nthe rise in taxi fares, a lot of Singaporeans felt that the definition\r\nof \"peak period surcharge\" has been exaggerated. Therefore, I would\r\nlike to ask if the Ministry would consider, if not defining \"peak\r\nperiod\", putting other levers in place so as to prevent exaggeration\r\nor irresponsible changes to cab fares. As the Minister has pointed\r\nout, taxis are seen as part of the public transport system in Singapore\r\nwhich a lot of Singaporeans do rely on to get from Point A to Point\r\nB.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, let me thank the Member for her supplementary question. I think\r\nthe genesis of the extension of the peak period in the evening beyond 8.00\r\npm arose because there was a lot of feedback of the difficulty of\r\ngetting taxis after 8.00 pm and prior to midnight. Normally, our\r\ntaxis are actually under the two-shift system, although a good number\r\nof them are driven by only one driver. Therefore, the rational behaviour\r\nwould be such that the driver would pick the best time to drive\r\nhis taxi. And for him, the best time is the revenue that he would\r\nderive as a result. And hence,\r\nwith the peak period in the past stopping at 8.00 pm, there was\r\na lot of feedback on the difficulty of getting a taxi, including\r\nthrough call bookings. Hence, that was one of the main reasons why\r\nthe taxi companies starting with ComfortDelgro decided on the need\r\nto extend the peak surcharge period.
\r\nPage: 929
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency\r\nMember)\r\n : Mr Speaker, the fact remains that each time\r\nComfortDelgro raises their fares, all the other companies follow suit.\r\nDoes the Minister agree that this is a clear indicator that there\r\nis insufficient competition in the taxi market? And if so, in the\r\nabsence of sufficient competition, will the Ministry of Transport\r\n(MOT) consider re-introducing some form of fare regulation?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Let me thank\r\nthe Member for the supplementary question. It is a good question.\r\nBut it is also behaviour that extends beyond the taxi industry.\r\nFor example, for those of us who drive, we find it somewhat coincidental\r\nthat petrol prices, when they go up, they go up across the different\r\ncompanies – Shell, Esso, Caltex, and so on.
\r\n\r\n And I think the Competition\r\nCommission had actually investigated and explained this in the past.\r\nThere are good economic explanations for such behaviours. ComfortDelgro, I\r\nthink, now has more than 50% of the market share, dropping from\r\n80-plus percent in the past. We now have more players in the industry.\r\nBut I think they also, in a sense, draw reference from the behaviour\r\nof the market leader. So there is a certain harmonisation in that\r\nsense of the fares over time, in terms of, for example, flag-down rate\r\nincreases after every 400 metres, but there are also differences.\r\nFor example, in the booking fees – in the advanced booking fees\r\nand the current booking fees – there are variations across taxi\r\ncompanies. It is not a complete harmonisation across the seven companies.
\r\n\r\n We have looked at it, we\r\nfelt that there is no need at this time to re-regulate the taxi industry\r\naccording to fares. What we want to do is to look very closely at\r\nthe quality of service and see what else needs to be done in this\r\nregard.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten)\r\n :\r\nIf I can ask the Minister: the constant complaint is that there\r\nare long waiting times for taxis. Can the Minister share with the House\r\nwhether the waiting time has been cut down ever since the taxi fares\r\nhave been increased? How else can LTA help to improve the service?\r\nWould LTA be prepared to review the Quality of Standard service\r\nfor taxis? Another question is whether the Minister will agree that\r\nhaving so many types of surcharges will confuse most taxi commuters.\r\nWill LTA regulate the imposition of such surcharges?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, let me thank Mr Lim for his two supplementary questions. It\r\nis still early days yet because it has been barely a month since\r\nthe increase in the fares. We do not yet have the full picture but\r\nbased on what we have been able to gather so far and in some instances\r\nI would also draw comparisons with what took place in 2007 – with\r\nregard to the Member's specific question on waiting times, there\r\nis an improvement in waiting times, both within the CBD and outside\r\nof CBD. It has also been easier to call book for a taxi. So that\r\nis the initial indications that we have.
\r\n\r\n What we need to do is to\r\nsee how this pans out over a longer period of time because we know\r\nthat in 2007, we saw some variations and then over a period of time\r\nit stabilises. This\r\nis similar to the earnings for taxi drivers. In 2007, when fares\r\nwere last increased, for the first two months, there was a decline\r\nand after the third month, we saw an increase. And when we compared\r\nit on a year-on-year basis, in the first year, we would see about\r\na 10% increase in the revenue for the taxi drivers. So, I would\r\nsay that it is probably still early days but the early indications\r\nare that, for waiting times, there is an improvement.
\r\nPage: 930
\r\n\r\n With regard to surcharges\r\nand whether this confuses the public: I think the point is that\r\nthe demand for taxis varies according to the time of the day and\r\nit also varies according to the location. If you do not have surcharges\r\nthat will also influence the behaviour of the drivers as well as\r\nto shift the supply patterns, what you will find is that in some\r\ninstances and in some locations, it will become very, very difficult\r\nto get taxis. We saw this before the recent round of fare adjustments,\r\nwhere we had quite a bit of feedback that it was very difficult\r\nto get a taxi after 8.00 pm. Now, there is hope.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir. I would like to ask the Minister, compared to pre-liberalisation\r\nand post-liberalisation, is there a reduction in the number of complaints?\r\nIs there an increase or improvement in the service? Did we achieve\r\nthe objectives set out in the liberalisation? Next question – very\r\noften my residents tell me that their experience in taking taxis\r\nin Hong Kong is much more pleasant, much faster though they have\r\nsmaller fleet of taxis. So is this true and is there any lesson\r\nthat we can learn from Hong Kong?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Sir, I do\r\nnot have the data with me with regard to whether there has been\r\nan increase in complaints. I ought to get back to the Member on\r\nthis. We hear the same feedback with regard to taxi service in Hong\r\nKong that you have taxis waiting for commuters and that it is so\r\neasy to get a taxi. And there are no peak surcharges. From the commuters'\r\npoint of view, it is not a bad situation. The flipside of it, as\r\nwe also hear from the drivers, is that they find it a lot more difficult\r\nin terms of making a living. The indications are that they seem\r\nto be working much longer hours compared to the taxi drivers in\r\nSingapore. There are two sides to the equation. In the case of Hong\r\nKong, it may be easier for the commuters to get a taxi but, on the\r\nother hand, quite a lot more difficult for the taxi drivers.
\r\n\r\n If I were to just give a\r\nquick comparison in terms of fares, for instance, this is after\r\nthe increase that has taken place in December of last year, for\r\na 10-km trip in Singapore, off-peak period, it is about S$10 and\r\nwith the 25% peak surcharge which has gone down from 35%, it would\r\nbe about S$12.30, during the peak period. In Hong Kong, they do\r\nnot have the surcharge but for a 10-km trip, I think it is about\r\n$14.50. So the fares are higher. It appears to be easier for the\r\ncommuters to get a taxi but we also know that it is more difficult\r\nfor the drivers to make a living.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nOne supplementary question, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister\r\nwhether he is aware that taxi drivers' income is also affected due\r\nto the fare revision. There seems to be fewer people taking taxis\r\nnow. I would like to ask whether the revised fare has exceeded the\r\nthreshold that commuters who take taxis were prepared to pay.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI thank the Member for his question. This is an interesting question,\r\nwhich is why in my earlier reply I said that it is still early days because it has only\r\nbeen a month since the introduction of the fares. The last time\r\nthis happened was in 2007. We also had the same initial feedback\r\nfrom the drivers that the increase affected their livelihoods, the\r\ntakings went down. Indeed, when we looked at the data that we collected,\r\nit was so for the first two months after the last fare increase in\r\n2007. But by the third month, it had actually exceeded the data\r\nprior to the adjustments and thereafter, it went up. Overall, if\r\nyou then, in a steady state compare on a year-to-year basis, in\r\ntheir first year, their revenue actually went up about 10%. That was\r\nthe last fare increase. This time round, it is only a month since\r\nthe increase took place in December last year, so we will need to\r\nhave more time to collect the data and then we will be able to do\r\na better analysis.
\r\nPage: 931
\r\n\r\n \r\n 9\r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development in respect of the state acquisition\r\nof Rochor Centre (a) what is the rationale for (i) the need to paste\r\nacquisition notices on the exterior of all affected units; and (ii)\r\nasking residents to state the amount which they opine that they\r\nshould be compensated for during the Collector of Land Revenue's\r\ninquiry meeting; and (b) whether such practices had been explained\r\nto the affected residents.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for National Development (Mr\r\nKhaw Boon Wan)\r\n : Sir, the Land Acquisition Act requires\r\nthe Collector of Land Revenue to post acquisition notices at convenient\r\nplaces at or near the land to be taken. This is to notify any interested\r\npersons to make their claims to compensation to the Collector.
\r\n\r\n We have received feedback\r\nthat the posting of notices on the exterior of the flats is unpleasant\r\nfor the owners. Hence, the Ministry of Law is removing this requirement,\r\nand replacing it with a requirement to publish notices in at least\r\nfour daily newspapers, one each in each of the four official languages.\r\nThis change is in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill,\r\nwhich will be moved in this House tomorrow.
\r\n\r\n As for the need for owners\r\nto state their claims at the Collector's Inquiry, this is to enable\r\nthe Collector to take relevant claims and information into account\r\nwhen determining the statutory compensation in accordance with the\r\nLand Acquisition Act. After the statutory compensation is finalised\r\nand awarded to the owners, should the owners decide to make an appeal\r\nto the Appeals Board, the claims that the owners had earlier submitted\r\nwill be considered by the Appeals Board.
\r\n\r\n For the acquisition of Rochor\r\nCentre, the Housing Development Board is appointed the Collector.\r\nIn this role, HDB provides all relevant information and explains\r\nthe acquisition process to the residents. For instance, during the\r\nCollector's Inquiry, HDB will invite the flat owners to submit a\r\nclaim by asking them to fill up the claim form. HDB will also explain\r\nto the flat owners their right under the Land Acquisition Act. HDB officers\r\nhave been working closely with the owners on the ground and helping\r\nthem with their questions, including any queries on the compensation\r\nvalue that residents opine they should receive. The Collector's\r\nInquiry is on-going and is scheduled to end on 8 March 2012.
\r\nPage: 932
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms\r\nDenise Phua Lay Peng\r\n : I thank the Minister for the\r\nreply, and I really want to thank him for conveying to Ministry\r\nof Law about the need to change the practice of pasting the public\r\nnotices on the doors and on the walls of the flats. Just one point\r\n-- my residents who have gone for the Collector's Inquiry meetings\r\nhave spoken to me. Is the Ministry aware that some of the residents\r\nwho are affected for the first time by Selective En bloc Redevelopment\r\nScheme (SERS) and acquisitions were asked how much their compensation\r\nof the flats should be. Some of them are quite clueless as to how\r\nto respond and, in fact, such questions do raise the expectations\r\nof some of the residents on how much they would really like to be\r\ncompensated. Those who are not educated on this might not be sure\r\nabout the amount they should put down, or how their compensation\r\nshould be quantified. I think that is also a practice that may need\r\nto be improved. For consideration, please.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : The answer\r\nis yes. We should all do our best to help them. These are, as the\r\nMember put it, some fairly old and senior members in our community and\r\nmay not be as well clued on what to do. And I think it is an opportunity\r\nfor the MPs and grassroots leaders, working together with HDB officers,\r\nto get them to understand their rights under the law. Information\r\nwill be quite freely available. For example, the claims will be\r\nvery much dependent on what is the prevailing market value of the\r\nflats at the time of acquisitions. On the HDB website, we have published\r\nthe resale value of those flats. I am quite sure the residents should\r\nnot have too much difficulty making claims. So far, we are halfway\r\nthrough the process. HDB officers have covered almost half of all\r\nthe flats which are affected, and about two-thirds of them have\r\nalready filed their claims.
\r\nPage: 932
\r\n\r\n \r\n 10\r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development with regard to the state acquisition\r\nof Rochor Centre (a) whether the Ministry would explain the rationale\r\nfor the compensation of acquired flats and the pricing of new replacement flats;\r\nand (b) whether it would favourably consider (i) added compensation\r\nfor the current flats, especially for those who have purchased their\r\nflats at higher price points; (ii) giving priority to Build-to-Order\r\napplications in other areas should residents choose not to relocate\r\nto the allocated Kallang replacement site; (iii) reducing the resale\r\nlevy; (iv) waiving the need to top-up the CPF Minimum Sum for affected\r\nretirees as a result of the enforced sale; and (v) giving priority\r\nto co-occupiers of the flats, especially adult children, should\r\nthey apply for units under the sale of balance flats in the new\r\nKallang development.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : The extent\r\nof compensation that the flat owners at Rochor Centre will receive\r\nis governed by the Land Acquisition Act. Specifically, they will\r\nbe compensated based on the prevailing market values of their existing\r\nflats as at the date of the acquisition, which is, 15 November last\r\nyear. The market value will be assessed by a qualified and professional\r\nprivate valuer licensed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore\r\n(IRAS) after a thorough physical inspection of each flat. In addition,\r\nthey will also be given reasonable expenses, which comprise a removal\r\nallowance as well as stamp and conveyancing fees to buy a comparable\r\nreplacement flat.
\r\nPage: 933
\r\n\r\n As home ownership is an important social\r\nobjective, flat owners whose homes are acquired for a public purpose,\r\nlike in the case of the Rochor Centre, are given a relocation package,\r\nwith benefits similar to those offered under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment\r\nScheme (SERS). The new replacement flats, with a fresh 99-year lease\r\n-- and I think this is a very important point -- will be offered\r\nat subsidised prices, similar to those applicable to all eligible\r\npublic applicants in HDB's sales exercises. However, the prices\r\nwill be frozen as at the date of acquisition, 15 November, with\r\na further 20% price discount, of up to $30,000, for eligible flat\r\nowners.
\r\n\r\n Ms Denise Phua has made\r\nseveral requests on behalf of her constituents. She is a very good\r\nMember of Parliament and a very hardworking one, too. Let me reply\r\nbriefly to the requests as the individual package for each flat\r\nowner is still being computed and communicated to the affected flat\r\nowners.
\r\n\r\n First, on whether there\r\ncould be added compensation for those who have bought their flats\r\nat a higher price: we need to be fair to all residents. Hence, the\r\ncompensation has to be on the same basis of market value, irrespective\r\nof the original purchase prices. The valuer will take into account\r\nthe resale transaction prices just before the acquisition was announced,\r\nas well as the individual attributes of the flats, including the\r\nextent and the condition of renovation, amongst others.
\r\n\r\n Second, on whether to give\r\nRochor Centre residents priority to Build-to-Order (BTO) applications\r\nin other areas should they choose not to relocate to the Kallang replacement\r\nsite: here we need to balance the needs of Rochor Centre residents\r\nand those of the other public applicants. We are, nevertheless,\r\nstudying the proposal carefully.
\r\n\r\n Third, on whether the resale\r\nlevy can be reduced: we can extend some concessions to help the\r\nflat owners. For example, for those eligible for the 20% price discount,\r\nthey can choose to forgo the discount in lieu of paying the\r\nresale levy, provided, of course, it is advantageous to them. For\r\nthose who are not eligible, they may incorporate $30,000 of the\r\nresale levy as part of the purchase price of the replacement flat,\r\nand defer the balance amount, without interest, until they sell\r\nor they transfer the replacement flat.
\r\n\r\n Fourth, for retirees affected\r\nby the CPF Minimum Sum, HDB will help them appeal to CPF Board to\r\nuse part of the amount to be refunded into the CPF Retirement Account\r\nto pay for the replacement flat. As each case is unique, CPF Board\r\nand HDB will work together to help the affected flat owners as much\r\nas we can, subject to financial prudence.
\r\n\r\n Finally, on the request\r\nto give priority to co-occupiers of the flats should they apply for\r\nunits under the sale of balance flats in the new Kallang development,\r\nthe married children can benefit under the Married Child Priority\r\nScheme. They will have double the chances compared to other applicants,\r\nonce their parents have selected their replacement flats in Kallang.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n :\r\nSir, to be fair, I think not all the terms of the forced acquisition\r\nand the relocation for my residents are negative. For example, the\r\nfresh lease of 99 years versus the current 60 years. And, of course,\r\nI have been told many times that these practices have been in place\r\nfor many years, and that the terms apply to other SERS projects. What\r\nI am asking Minister for is perhaps for Minister to consider a small work\r\nteam that comprises some of us to represent the residents' needs,\r\nto see if some of these practices can be updated and improved. Especially\r\nin the case of, I guess, forced acquisitions where residents actually\r\nlose the choice of the time that they would prefer to sell and also\r\nthe choice of their preferred dwelling. I think there is a case\r\nfor studying some of these practices – which have been told to me\r\nmany times – that have been in place for so long. I just ask for\r\na work team to do that. Some of the practices that may need to be\r\nre-considered are, for example, the valuation of the current flat\r\n–
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n :\r\nWould the Minister consider the appointment of, for example, more\r\nthan one valuer to value these flats? And for those who have just\r\nreached retirement or in the last few years reached retirement,\r\nrelieve them financially without having to top up their CPF Minimum\r\nSum and then have to use whatever is left in the nett proceeds to\r\npay for renovation and upgrading, if possible and also to repay\r\nthe resale levy at the time that is not of their choice. I know\r\nMinister is very compassionate so I ask Minister to consider allowing\r\nus to work with the agencies and the Ministry to update some of\r\nthese practices.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : The short\r\nanswer is a big yes, since both of us personify compassion. Specifically,\r\nwe would definitely want to work with the MP and her activists to\r\ntry to find the best way out for the residents who are affected\r\nby this. We are extremely mindful that this is an acquisition and\r\nsuddenly all these come along and then you lose your home where\r\nyou have stayed for a number of years. We will be as fair as we\r\ncan and, at the same time, the fact that this is not a first acquisition\r\nin Singapore, we have to maintain a certain amount of consistency.\r\nOtherwise, the previous owners who were affected would rightly yell\r\nand say, \"What is happening? Why do you have inconsistent practices\r\nin place?\" But where we can find a good reason to vary or improve on\r\nsome of the terms because the situations are unique, we will certainly\r\ntry to do so.
\r\n\r\n I think the choice of one\r\nvaluer versus more than one is quite simple. Whenever valuation\r\nis involved, two valuers may come up with two different answers.\r\nFor the same estate, we try to have one common firm. I think that\r\nwill help the process of valuation and future disputes. In any case,\r\nfor anybody who is unhappy with the valuation, there is an appeal\r\nprocess involved. There is an Appeals Board in which case probably\r\nthe valuation may require a re-valuation by a different firm. So\r\nthe opportunity for a separate valuation is out there.
\r\n\r\n As for the CPF Minimum Sum\r\nfor seniors who are affected, as I have said in my reply, we are\r\non the same side here. We will work together with the MP and the\r\nresidents to try to make a case to CPF to try to help out. As far\r\nas we can see, provided the movement is lateral, in other words,\r\nif you stay in a 3-room flat and you move to an equivalent 3-room\r\nflat, they should not end up having to get money out-of-pocket.\r\nThat has always been our experience in previous SERS cases. I see\r\nno reason why, in this instance, that should not also be the case.
\r\nPage: 935
\r\n\r\n \r\n 11\r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)\r\nwould consider disallowing banks to finance either the full or partial Certificate\r\nof Entitlement (COE) premiums as part of the measures to moderate\r\nthe rise in COE premiums.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for\r\nFinance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) (for the Prime Minister)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question has to do with whether\r\nthe MAS should disallow banks from financing, either fully or partially,\r\nCertificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums as part of the measures\r\nto moderate the rise in COE premiums. We did, in fact, have financing\r\nlimits on car loans by banks from 1995 to sometime in 2003. They\r\nwere, however, not very effective in influencing COE prices one\r\ndirection or another and in particular in stemming an increase in\r\nCOE prices.
\r\n\r\n One reason is that banks\r\nare not the only financing source. In fact, their share of car loans\r\ntoday is somewhat lower than it was10 years ago. Individuals can\r\nborrow from other entities such as car dealers and non-bank credit\r\nor leasing companies to get around the rules that are in place for\r\nbanks. They can also draw on their own savings to pay COE premiums.
\r\n\r\n The more fundamental factors\r\nwhich impact on COE premiums include the economic outlook which\r\nshapes demand, the supply of COEs which is determined by the allowable vehicle\r\ngrowth and by car owners' decisions on their own part on whether\r\nthey decide to de-register their cars at the preceding period. That\r\ndetermines the supply of COEs.
\r\n\r\n In addition, I should say\r\nfrom the perspective of financial stability which is the MAS' primary\r\nconcern, car loans granted by financial institutions do not pose\r\nthreats to financial stability. These loans form a very small proportion\r\nof total loans in the financial system, or even of total consumer\r\nloans and the proportion of car loans that are non-performing loans\r\nis low – extremely low. Disallowing banks from financing COEs fully or\r\npartially would therefore not be an effective or appropriate tool\r\nfor addressing pricing COE premiums. I can assure Mr Gan Thiam Poh,\r\nhowever, that MAS expects financial institutions to exercise prudence\r\nwhen extending loans for the purchase of cars, taking into account\r\nthe credit worthiness of the borrower, his debt servicing ability,\r\nand the value of collateral.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister for the comprehensive reply. What I am\r\nconcerned about is that the rising COE premiums will have an impact\r\non the cost of living in Singapore. That would translate into higher\r\ntransport costs such as taxi fare, bus fare, etc. My point is that\r\nthere could be different ways to moderate the rise in COE premiums\r\nin addition to alternate sources of financing for consumers or users.\r\nIt could also be fiscal measures, such as cooling measures, to moderate\r\nthe rise in COE premiums. Will MAS consider all those measures?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam\r\n :\r\nI think part of Mr Gan's question is a broader question about price\r\ninflation and part of it really is the issue for LTA and MOT to address.\r\nThe COE system, if I could just say very briefly on behalf of MOT\r\nor LTA, is not one that is designed to stabilise COE prices as such.\r\nIt is a system which allows an available supply of COEs as determined\r\nby the allowable vehicle growth rate to be rationed. And depending\r\non demand, which is itself shaped by the economic climate, we then have the COE price\r\nbeing determined through open bidding. The policy is not to stabilise\r\nCOE prices as such.
\r\nPage: 936
\r\n\r\n However, Mr Gan does have\r\na valid concern as we all do about the overall cost of living and\r\nthe COE premiums can, if they spike up very suddenly and substantially, influence\r\nthe cost of living, indirectly through business costs as well as\r\ndirectly for those who are purchasing their cars. This is something\r\nthat has to be addressed more broadly and MAS does play a role in\r\naddressing inflationary pressures. It is something which we keep\r\na very close watch on. I would add, however, that the impact of\r\nthe COE premiums on the CPI index can sometimes be a little exaggerated\r\nbecause not many people buy COEs in any particular year, but the\r\nimpact of that price spike can be quite significant on the measured\r\nCPI index.
\r\n\r\n It is a valid concern but\r\nnot one that I think should be addressed by re-imposing rules on\r\nbank loans because we have found from the past – and, in fact, I\r\nhad a look at the data because of Mr Gan's question – it is quite\r\nclear from the data on COE prices and the restrictions we placed\r\non bank loans that the measures on bank loans had virtually no impact.
\r\nPage: 936
\r\n\r\n \r\n 12\r\n Mr Zainudin Nordin\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are\r\nthe plans and steps taken for all Government Ministries to support\r\nthe Best Sourcing Initiative (BSI); (b) how and when are the different\r\nMinistries changing their procurement procedures to illustrate the\r\nclear intent of the Government on BSI; and (c) how will the Government\r\nmeasure the positive outcomes of the BSI in helping low wage workers\r\nget better employment terms.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine\r\nTeo) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his question. The Government\r\nrecognises that Ministries as significant buyers of services have\r\nan important role to play in achieving momentum in the Best Sourcing\r\nInitiative. In support of the BSI, many public agencies already\r\ntake into consideration quality and not just price in awarding services\r\ntenders. To give just one example, the National Parks Board requires\r\nlandscape service providers to adopt best practices such as employing professionally\r\ncertified workers and the use of technology to meet expected performance\r\nstandards.
\r\n\r\n All public agencies are\r\nalso encouraged to adopt recommendations in the Tripartite Advisory\r\non Responsible Outsourcing. This advisory, first released in 2008,\r\nis currently being updated by the Ministry of Manpower and its tripartite\r\npartners. When the new advisory is ready, the Ministry of Finance\r\nwill ensure that public agencies are aligned with the revised requirements.
\r\n\r\n Some Government agencies\r\nlike the NEA and the Singapore Police Forces' Security Industry\r\nRegulatory Department (SIRD) have gone one step further to help professionalise\r\nand uplift the cleaning and security sectors which hire large numbers\r\nof low wage workers through grading or accreditation schemes. The\r\ngrading scheme for security agencies was started in 2006 and was\r\nmade mandatory in 2009. Similarly, the NEA introduced a voluntary accreditation\r\nfor cleaning companies in July 2010. We have observed that such\r\nefforts are effective and will encourage more public agencies to introduce\r\nsimilar programmes.
\r\nPage: 937
\r\n\r\n To give such efforts an\r\nadded boost, the Government is currently working with its tripartite\r\npartners who identified further measures that can be taken to raise\r\nthe productivity and professionalism of low-wage jobs and help the\r\nworkers receive higher wages and better employment terms. The Government\r\nwill also look into how procurement can be done to support these\r\nmeasures. More details on these measures will be announced later.
\r\n\r\n Mr Zainudin, who has been\r\na tireless champion for low-wage workers, has brought up these issues\r\nseveral times in this House. He is certainly right that the Best\r\nSourcing Initiative should be assessed by its impact on the wages\r\nand employment terms of low-wage workers over time. We hope that\r\nthis initiative will help not just low-wage workers who are engaged\r\nto fulfil Government contracts but also other low-wage workers throughout\r\nthe economy to achieve better employment terms.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nSir, supplementary questions. Based on my personal experience in\r\nthe past few years with BSI, there are varied outcomes from different\r\npartners that we worked with. SIRD has been very positive, PAP Town\r\nCouncils have been very positive. But I believe that there needs\r\nto be some willpower among the Ministries and Government to make\r\nsure this change takes place. So my question is: is an advisory\r\nsufficient for such a will to make things happen so that changes\r\ncan come about? Or should there be more than just an advisory, maybe\r\nan SOP or an instruction, to clearly articulate the intent of Government\r\nto adopt BSI?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nMr Zainudin has asked a question of how do we get public agencies\r\nto respond to what is essentially a set of guidelines that encourages individuals\r\nto do something rather than imposes it as a mandatory regulation.\r\nHe is very right to ask this question. Let me share a little bit\r\nof how procurement practices are supervised. One of the important\r\nthings that is issued and Ministries adhered to, is really the Finance\r\nCircular. So when we issue an advisory and supplement it by a Finance Circular,\r\nthe instruction and the signalling given to the Ministries is that\r\nthis is something to be taken very seriously and we want them to\r\nincorporate it into their procurement procedures.
\r\n\r\n And so, when the Member\r\ntalked about the SOP, although it is not strictly a set of procedures\r\nthat is prescribed, nonetheless, the emphasis is given through the\r\ncircular. We have adopted this approach of the advisory because\r\npractices have to be suitable to the circumstances in which the\r\nagencies operate. We also want the agencies to take ownership of\r\nit and not just follow these advisories for the sake of it. We want\r\nthem to go beyond it. So the earlier examples that we cited, SIRD\r\nand NParks, are very good examples of how even in the presence of\r\nour advisories, agencies can go beyond what is expected of them.\r\nI want to assure the Member that this is something that we want\r\nto take very seriously. We do recognise that as major buyers, we\r\nhave an important role to play to sustain this momentum.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alex Yam\r\n : I thank the\r\nMinister of State for the reply and the concern for low-wage workers.\r\nHowever, the NParks and SIRD's initiatives have been put in place\r\nfor a number of years,\r\nand these are just two of the positive examples that we have so\r\nfar. So perhaps if I can ask the Minister of State to update the\r\nHouse, if possible, the proportion of workers on contract with the\r\nMinistries who have been hired through the BSI initiative and whether\r\nthe wages of all these contract workers are also being monitored.
\r\nPage: 938
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Sir, what\r\nI can share with the Member, Mr Yam, is that the Government employs,\r\nthrough its contractors, about 6,000 cleaners. Now, this is a significant\r\nshare of the estimated 46,000 local cleaners in Singapore. I do\r\nnot have the exact figures that will respond to his question directly\r\nbut what we can say is that what we do in the public sector does\r\nhave its significant impact on the private sector. The interest\r\nto continue to support the BSI and the emphasis on its importance\r\nis something that we think and agree is important in moving the\r\nmomentum forward.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Can the Minister\r\nof State give the assurance that the wages and the employment rights\r\nof the outsourced workers under Government BSI contracts will not\r\nbe worse off compared to if they had not been under a Government\r\nBSI contract?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Sir, Mr\r\nZainal Sapari has asked a question of whether we will ensure that\r\nthe terms being offered under the Government contracts are not worse\r\noff than in private sector.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainal Sapari\r\n : Worse off\r\ncompared to if they have not been evaluated under a Government BSI\r\ncontract. Because the move now is for all Government contracts to adhere\r\nto BSI guidelines. So can the Minister of State give the assurance\r\nthat the wages and employment rights of the workers will not be\r\nworse off compared to previously, had the contract been a non-BSI\r\ncontract?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : That is\r\ncertainly our intent and we will work towards that.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State, as the\r\nMinistries embrace the BSI, whether it would be also extended to\r\nthe statutory boards as well as the Government-linked companies.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Our emphasis\r\nis on the Ministries. For the statutory boards that are within the\r\nMinistries' purview of supervision, we would also very much encourage them\r\nto adhere to these guidelines. As to the Government-linked companies,\r\nthey are actually a set of entities that will have to observe their\r\nown procurement practices. Our intention, as significant buyers\r\nin the market, is to be able to influence the direction in which\r\nthe market moves whilst not dictating the terms.
\r\nPage: 938
\r\n\r\n \r\n 13\r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Trade and Industry whether there is a practice\r\nby retail developers and managing agents to require retail outlets\r\nto declare their profits or link their point of sales systems to\r\nmonitor profitability of the outlets and, if so, whether the Ministry would study\r\nthe impact of this practice on the competitiveness of the retail\r\nsector in terms of rental rates and prices to consumers.
\r\nPage: 939
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Trade and Industry\r\n(Mr Lee Yi Shyan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry)\r\n :\r\nSir, some mall operators do require their retail outlets to declare\r\ntheir revenues or link their point of sales (POS) systems to a mall-wide system.\r\nThe revenue data may be used to determine the rents of their tenants\r\nand this allows mall operators to charge rental rate that varies\r\nwith economic and business conditions, rather than a flat rate regardless\r\nof business performance.
\r\n\r\n The contractual agreement\r\nbetween the mall operator and retailers is a commercial arrangement,\r\nand does not inhibit competition in the retail sector. Such contractual agreements\r\nare best left to the market players to negotiate among themselves.\r\nTo support the business environment, the Government maintains an\r\nadequate supply of commercial space to meet medium-term demand and\r\nensures that businesses do not engage in anti-competitive practices.\r\nThe Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of National\r\nDevelopment will continue to monitor the commercial property market\r\nclosely.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nYes, Mr Speaker, just one supplementary question. The reply by the\r\nMinister of State is certainly good but the feedback that I get from\r\nthe retailers, especially the small ones, is that the practice swings\r\ntowards a playing field to favour the developers. So there is little\r\nincentive for the retailers to improve productivity and to reduce\r\ncosts because they know the developers will know of their profitability.\r\nWhat is the Ministry's view on this practice? If landlords increase rental\r\nrates, the costs will also increase and these will be passed on\r\nto consumers. Will this also mean that the retail sector will favour\r\nthe larger players and we are seeing the smaller players being a\r\nbit more disadvantaged as a result of this practice?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lee Yi Shyan\r\n : Sir, to\r\nbegin with, the retail sector is a very competitive sector. Competitive\r\nbecause the threshold for entry is relatively low and many would-be entrepreneurs\r\nwould want to begin a business idea from the retail sector.
\r\n\r\n Retail space prices go in\r\ncycles and what we have observed is that the retail rentals in the\r\nlast quarter have returned to the pre-crisis peak in 2008. And the\r\nprevious peak was in the 1998. There was 10 years of lull period,\r\nwhere retail rental was relatively low. The Government's role is\r\nreally to ensure that in the median term, there would be an adequate\r\nsupply of retail space and, in fact, based on known projects, the\r\nretail space supply would be between 90,000 and 108,000, compared\r\nto the five-year past average of just 85,000. So this is about 27%\r\nmore than the previous supply.
\r\n\r\n We believe that with this\r\nsupply coming on-stream, the mall operators and their tenants will\r\nwork together to cope with the increased space as well as to innovate.\r\nIt is a narrow view to say that by participating in the mall-wide\r\npoint-of-sales system, there would be a lot of downsides. In fact,\r\nby integrating sales information, I think the mall operators and\r\nthe tenants can better share information about their customers,\r\nabout what is selling, what is not, about the best-performing stalls\r\nand the least-performing stalls in the mall and from there, they\r\ncan decide how to promote the malls to the targeted customer segment. In that sense,\r\nmy personal observation is that the better organised malls are the\r\nmore successful ones, and are the bigger crowd pullers.
\r\nPage: 940
\r\n\r\n Having said this, I think\r\nit is important to emphasise the importance of raising our retail\r\nsector productivity. This is why the National Productivity and Continuing Education\r\nCouncil (NPCEC) launched the National Retail Sector roadmap for\r\nthe productivity improvement in the 2010. Under this roadmap, the\r\nGovernment will provide a lot of resources to help SMEs train their\r\nworkers and improve the service level as well as to invest in the\r\nnecessary technology systems to help them to be the best of class.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n : I understand\r\nthe market dynamics approach that MTI adopts and the issue here\r\nis, for the retailer, with your books being very transparent to\r\nthe developer, all you are doing is really running on the treadmill.\r\nYou do more, you make more; they increase the rents. There is very\r\nlittle incentive to invest in better service, better quality for\r\nconsumers. That is one. Two, I understand there are market dynamics in\r\nterms of having aggregate rentals going up or down vis-a-vis the\r\nmarket conditions. The only issue is when you have Profit and Loss\r\nstatements being put up to the developers, they can target rent\r\nincrease, whether to a small segment –
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Zaqy, you\r\nneed to give the Minister of State time to respond.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lee Yi Shyan\r\n : Thank you,\r\nSir. Well, to put things in perspective, I could probably highlight\r\none survey. Singapore retail rent is comparable to many other cities\r\nin the world. For instance, compared to New York, we are about one-sixth\r\nor one-seventh of Fifth Avenue rents. We are about one-sixth of\r\nthat of Hong Kong and one-third of that of Ginza in Tokyo. Retail\r\nrental is one component of the costs. Apart from just looking at cost\r\ncontainment, which is something that SMEs retailers must do, they\r\nalso must look at value creation.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Order. End of\r\nQuestion Time.
\r\n\r\n \t[Pursuant to Standing\r\nOrder No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 10, 11-31 and\r\n33 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 990-993).\r\nQuestion Nos. 12 to 15 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament\r\non 18 January 2012.]
\r\nPage: 940
\r\n\r\n Order read for Resumption\r\nof Debate on Question (16 January 2012).
\r\n\r\n \"That this House endorses\r\nPaper Cmd 1 of 2012 on \"Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government\"\r\nas the basis for setting the salaries of the President, Prime Minister,\r\nSpeaker and Deputy Speakers of Parliament, political appointment\r\nholders, and Members of Parliament.\" – [Mr Teo Chee Hean].
\r\n \r\nPage: 941
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nAlex Yam\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the challenge\r\nfor being the first speaker today. The Committee headed by Mr Gerard\r\nEe has spent many months soliciting public feedback and suggestions\r\non the issue of political salaries and of course MP allowances included\r\nas well. Many passionate Singaporeans have stepped forward during\r\nthe course of the consultation process to provide their perspectives\r\nand also detailed ideas on what would be an equitable salary to\r\nensure both a capable and committed government that continues to\r\nplace emphasis on service as an integral part of holding political\r\noffice.
\r\n\r\n The bold adoption of the\r\nfull recommendations of the Committee by the Government signifies\r\na continued commitment to listening to public feedback and concerns\r\nand acting on it. A debate on the issue in this House is an important\r\none especially if it involves the political leadership of our nation\r\nfor the present and the future. However, I hasten to add that whatever\r\nour views on the subtle differences on mathematical formulas and\r\nbenchmarks, it is important for us to remember that at the end of\r\nour debate the number of people who will be impacted directly by\r\nthe adopted changes will add up to a grand total of just 100. This\r\nincludes all eventual Members of this House as well as the President\r\nof the Republic. Only a grand total of 100 will experience the real impact\r\nof the change out of our entire population of 3.26 million Singapore\r\ncitizens.
\r\n\r\n As such, Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nI urge that beyond the debate that we are having now, which is important,\r\nwe will all need to re-focus in future on the real business of government.\r\nAnd that involves keeping our focus on the people of Singapore.
\r\n\r\n In the Budget Statement\r\nof 2011, which this House adopted, we pledged collectively that\r\nthe target is to raise median income of Singaporeans to $3,100 by\r\n2020, which is to say a 30% increase in real wages in 10 years.\r\nThat, in my view, is a debate that we should truly be having.
\r\n\r\n That a decrease in allowances\r\nor salaries by 99 members of this House and the President will not\r\nrealise real wage increases for the rest of Singaporeans is not\r\nthe moot point. What is of importance is that we fulfil that pledge\r\nthrough coherent and well thought-out policies that will help to\r\ndrive up real take home income of ordinary Singaporeans. This is\r\nwhere a capable and committed Government is important.
\r\n\r\n Mathematically, looking\r\nat Goal 2020, we will require an average of 2.7% wage increase every\r\nsingle year to meet the targets. At the current moment, depending\r\non who you ask and what statistics you look at, different analyses\r\nwill derive different figures on the current rate increase. One\r\nreport indicated that the average increase is about 2.8% for last\r\nyear but has dropped to 0.1% if part-time workers as well as contract workers\r\nare also included in the calculation. Another statistic that was\r\nalso shared recently at the SHRI conference was a much lower figure.
\r\n\r\n It is perhaps not ironic\r\nthat the debate we are having now is occurring about the time that\r\nmany Singaporeans are receiving news about their annual increments\r\n(AIs). HR consultants in a report by TODAY newspaper, at\r\nthe start of the work year, projected a modest wage increase of\r\n4% to 5% for this year. Taking into account the laws of averages,\r\nwe seem to be on track.
\r\n\r\n However, at the same time,\r\naverages do not always tell the full story. This is because in the\r\nsame report economists were quoted that the projected inflation\r\nmay hover about 2.5% to 3.5%. That brings the target back down.\r\nIn my interaction with workers over the past few months, many continue to be genuinely\r\nconcerned over prospects for 2012. Some companies have also used\r\nthe backdrop of a projected slowdown in the world economy to try\r\nto adjust lower AIs and bonuses in certain sectors. But the companies\r\nin sunset industries have not had an AI for their workers over a\r\nnumber of years. For these workers, their aspirations for real wage\r\nincrease will certainly be a challenge especially with the global\r\noutlook and inflation. Workers wages certainly cannot take a discount.
\r\nPage: 942
\r\n\r\n One lady I spoke to recently\r\nis raising a family of five on a take home pay of only $760. She\r\nworks six days a week. That to me is a real challenge of this House.\r\nWhile it is important for us politically to discuss the sensitive\r\nissue of political salaries, it is equally if not more important\r\nthat we hunker down and plan for the improvements in the lives of\r\nour workers in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Even amongst younger Singaporeans,\r\nwe have seen in the recent Joint Graduate Employment Survey by the\r\npolytechnics that while many poly graduates are securing higher\r\nstarting wage jobs, many are now on part-time or contract jobs where\r\nwage increases are more challenging year on year. So while a reduction\r\nof political salaries and allowances is a significant move, let\r\nus not forget that Singaporeans expect Members of this House to\r\ncontinue to focus on their interests and their daily lives in a bleak\r\nglobal economy.
\r\n\r\n Over the years many schemes\r\nhave been introduced, for example, the Inclusive Growth Programme.\r\nCompanies, such as McDonald's Singapore, have come on board. Last\r\nyear, through productivity and efficiency improvement, full time\r\ncrew members have seen an almost 20% increase in their wages. Yet,\r\nthis is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other workers\r\nand many more challenges ahead for working people.
\r\n\r\n Returning to the subject\r\nof political allowances and salaries, I applaud the bold move by\r\nthe Government to adopt the proposals by the Committee. Whether\r\nor not we all agree on the benchmarks or percentages, it is indeed\r\na positive move and one welcomed by Singaporeans. What will be even\r\nmore welcomed will be a continued display of capable and committed\r\nleadership in this House to positively debate on changing and improving\r\nthe livelihoods of ordinary Singaporeans. 照顾弱势，缩小贫富差距，新精神，新思维.\r\nLet us continue in this House to show our care and concern for the\r\nless fortunate, reduce the income gap, and build a new consensus\r\nand a new spirit for Singaporeans. With that Mr Speaker, Sir, I\r\nsupport the motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I will first deliver my speech in English followed\r\nby Malay. I wish to express my concern that this Government is still\r\npushing the notion that Singapore needs to pay the highest political salaries\r\nin the developed world to ensure an honest government and attract\r\ntalented individuals to serve the people. Are we sending the right\r\nmessage to the next generation that our top leadership may not function\r\nat a desired level if the Ministerial pay is not benchmarked against\r\nthe highest income earners in Singapore? Do we really believe our top\r\nleaders will be less capable, less honest, and less committed if\r\ntheir political pay is not benchmarked against these top 1,000 private\r\nsector earners? Therefore, that the consequence of not paying top\r\ndollars to secure the service of future leaders is an incompetent\r\nand corrupt government? Does this House seriously believe we can\r\nhave an honest government and prevent corruption simply by paying\r\nmillions of dollars to our\r\nMinisters? If a Minister has a character flaw lurking inside him,\r\ncan a million-dollar salary be the cure? How many Members in this\r\nHouse would have a second thought about serving the people if your\r\nsalary is not benchmarked against top earners in Singapore?
\r\nPage: 943
\r\n\r\n The Deputy Prime Minister\r\nsaid yesterday that there is no right answer to this complex issue\r\nof determining public office salaries. He also said it is a judgement\r\ncall. But the message we send in this judgement call is important\r\nfor the next generation. We certainly do not want to encourage and\r\ninspire the wrong people to enter politics.
\r\n\r\n This brings me to my views\r\non our human capital and values we want to inculcate in our country.\r\nYes, we are a small country with a small citizen population and\r\nwe operate in an open economy. Our talent pool is naturally limited.\r\nThe people's will to succeed is definitely not. This nation was\r\nstarted with less than two million people. Our forefathers have\r\nworked hand in hand with the first generation leaders to build this\r\nnation and they did well. Now that we have added over a million\r\nmore citizens, is our will to succeed a lot less now than we first\r\nstarted? Have we left our values so far behind that we are beginning\r\nto believe that the best incentive to attract people to step forward\r\nto serve the community is just money?
\r\n\r\n In my experience as a counsellor,\r\npeople who are passionate about serving the community do not quantify\r\ntheir sacrifice in dollars and cents. Likewise, people of the right\r\ncalibre will not be deterred from stepping forward to lead the country\r\neven if they have to take a pay cut in the process.
\r\n\r\n Given that the ethos of\r\npolitical service encompasses a fair amount of sacrifice, to think\r\nthat we can quantify that sacrifice by a 40% discount to the median\r\nincome of the top 1,000 earners in the revised salary benchmark\r\nfor Ministers, may be bordering on insult to many people who are\r\nserving the community at meagre wages.
\r\n\r\n Can we put a value on passion,\r\nethics and sacrifice? Is the 40% discount in this revised pay formula\r\na sacrifice on the part of the Ministers? Is there even a sacrifice\r\nto begin with when some of these potential talents are not even\r\nfeatured in the list of top 1,000 earners in Singapore before they\r\nentered into politics?
\r\n\r\n What kind of values do we\r\nwish to inculcate in the next generation? This is precisely why\r\nthe Workers' Party is advocating a different approach in determining\r\nthe benchmark for political salaries rather than starting the benchmark\r\nat the median income of the top 1,000 earners. The rationale is\r\nsimple. Not everything is about money.
\r\n\r\n During the debate on the\r\nPresident's Address last October, there was a call to build an inclusive\r\nsociety. The proposal by the Workers' Party takes into consideration\r\nthis notion. We call for a whole-of-government people up approach\r\nin pegging the salaries of Ministers and MPs to the salaries of\r\nsenior executives in the civil service. The civil service pay is\r\ncompetitively pegged to general market conditions and any market adjustments\r\nmade to this benchmark, positive or negative, will be reflected\r\nin the political salary. This approach I believe has the hallmark\r\nof an inclusive society as compared to the proposal to peg Ministerial\r\npay to the top 1,000 earners. By aligning the political salary structures\r\nto the civil service, the empathy gap between our political leaders and the general\r\npopulation will narrow over time. As selected leaders, we should lead\r\nby example in an effort to build an inclusive society.
\r\nPage: 944
\r\n\r\n At this time, I want to\r\naddress the points brought up by some Members of this House yesterday.\r\nMP Mr Inderjit Singh has highlighted that, unlike politicians in\r\nthe UK, our elected Members here are not given additional perks\r\non top of our salary. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Looking\r\nat the geographical size of the United Kingdom, we can probably\r\nunderstand why political leaders there are given such perks like\r\nhousing, a chauffeur-driven car, meals and even laundry allowance.\r\nWe do not need to travel long distance and spend time away from\r\nour family to attend parliament sittings, but our UK counterparts\r\ndo.
\r\n\r\n The Workers' Party has studied\r\nand deliberated on the issue of perks and other forms of allowances\r\nwhich are not implemented here. That is why we propose to peg the salary\r\nof the Ministerial salary at five times the salary of an MP. This\r\nmultiple is more than what is being practised in some of the countries\r\nwe surveyed, which ranges from 1.2 to 4.6 times.
\r\n\r\n Next, I share the view of\r\nMember Ms Denise Phua about perception. That a glass can be seen\r\nas either half empty or half full. I still believe there is no right\r\nanswer to the formula put up by the Review Committee. However, we\r\nneed to remind ourselves that we are servants of the people. We\r\nneed to remind ourselves to be humble, compassionate and sincere.\r\nThe whole-of-government people up approach to benchmarking political\r\nsalaries, as proposed by the Workers' Party, is a step towards building\r\nthe emotional bond with the people we serve. It is a step towards\r\ncreating an inclusive society. It is also a step towards inculcating\r\ngood values in our future generations.
\r\n\r\n Sir, while we want to attract\r\npeople of the right calibre to serve, we must also ensure we attract\r\npeople of the right values to lead this nation. While we cannot\r\nleave the recruitment and development of leaders to chance, we certainly\r\ncannot entrench the belief that paying high salaries is the primary\r\nway to get competent people to enter politics. For many of us, our\r\njourney to this august Chamber began with a dream to build a better\r\nSingapore for all. This journey is certainly not going to end just\r\nbecause we are not benchmarked against the highest wage earners\r\nin Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to continue in Malay.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 995\r\nfor Vernacular Speeches*.] I\r\nagree with my colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao, that the move to reduce\r\nthe salaries of Ministers and political leaders should be welcomed.\r\nHowever, the formula put forward by the Committee to Review Ministerial\r\nSalaries is inaccurate or dissatisfactory. The recommendation by\r\nthe Committee to use the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean\r\nearners, less a 40% discount, is still a top-down approach. We are\r\nof the view that this approach does not really show the inclusive\r\nand concerned character that the Government wants to inculcate.\r\nWe believe that this approach can result in an emotional gap between\r\nour political leaders and the general public of Singapore.
\r\n\r\n We acknowledge that it is\r\nimportant that Singapore be led by political leaders with competency\r\nand skills that are good and appropriate. However, salary alone\r\nshould not be the main factor to attract competent individuals.\r\nThe involvement in politics should come from sincerely wanting to\r\ncontribute and serve the people. So, we believe that the formula\r\nand criteria used for the ministerial salaries should be based on\r\ncommunity service\r\nand inclusiveness. We propose that the whole-of-Government approach\r\nor a bottom-up approach be used.
\r\nPage: 945
\r\n\r\n The objectives and principles\r\nof political service are in line with the objectives and principles\r\nof the civil service. With this similarity, we propose that the\r\nministerial salaries be based on the allowance of Members of Parliament,\r\nand in turn, the MP's allowance should be based on the salaries\r\nof the senior executives in civil service. In Singapore, the civil\r\nservice pay depends on the general market conditions. Based on this\r\nproposal, the salaries of Ministers and political leaders will experience\r\nthe same rise and fall that is experienced by a larger number of\r\nSingaporeans, and not tied to the top 1,000 Singaporean earners.
\r\n\r\n Before I end this speech,\r\nI would like give a reminder, especially to myself as well as to\r\nthe leaders in the House, that this leadership position we hold\r\nis a trust given to us by the people. In carrying out this trust,\r\nwe should emulate the spirit of community service, sincerity and\r\nhumility. We must learn from the eminent world leaders, and understand and\r\ninternalise the principles held by these leaders. Among the examples\r\nof eminent leaders is Mr Sun Yat Sen, a leader who sacrificed his\r\ncareer as a doctor in order to devote himself to change the lives\r\nof the Chinese people. He did not care or worry about leaving his\r\njob as a leader for sake of the people. The second example is Mr\r\nMahatma Gandhi, who sacrificed his heart and soul for the people\r\nof India. I think that his virtues speak for themselves. Thirdly,\r\nMr Umar Al-Khattab, an eminent leader in the Arabian Peninsula is\r\nfamed for his humility and devotion to the people. He was a leader\r\nwho chose not to have a throne or palace. He was more comfortable\r\nhaving the same living conditions like an ordinary citizen because\r\nof his highly cohesive nature and his wish to be in touch with the\r\npeople's lives. He had also rejected the proposal that his son take over\r\nthe leadership after he is gone. He rejected it firmly by saying\r\nthat it is sufficient that just one member from his family becomes\r\nthe leader.
\r\n\r\n What we can learn from these\r\nleaders are the principles that they applied and held to, and the\r\nleadership that they demonstrated. This allowed the leaders to successfully make\r\nmajor changes and bring a lot of benefit to the people that they\r\nled.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, with this, I\r\nwould like to end by rejecting the recommendations by the Committee\r\nto Review Ministerial Salaries because I believe that the formula\r\nused in the proposal is still lacking in terms of producing the\r\ninclusive and concerned character in Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, serving as a Member of Parliament is indeed an honour.\r\nI was nervous when I first ran for elections because I recognised\r\nit was a heavy responsibility. The job was certainly not easy, but\r\nthe sense of fulfilment one gets from making people's lives better\r\nis more than anything money can afford to buy. I am humbled and\r\ntouched each time a resident comes over to say \"thank you\" or expresses\r\nappreciation for what our team members have done for them. At the\r\nsame time, I recognise that if one wants to be a Minister, one would\r\nalso need skills in managing large budgets in organisations and\r\nin making decisions involving complex considerations. In some Ministries, such\r\nas law and finance, it is necessary to have Ministers who have strong\r\ntechnical skills in the areas, too.
\r\nPage: 946
\r\n\r\n It is, in fact, precisely\r\nbecause Ministers and office holders require special skills that are\r\nquite different from the skills of ordinary MPs, that many countries,\r\nincluding the US, have office holders who are appointed rather than\r\nelected. Even in the UK, which is probably the closest we have to\r\nour system, office holders are sometimes placed in the House of\r\nLords because they have the necessary technical skills even if they\r\nare not MPs.
\r\n\r\n Now, I for one certainly\r\ndo not think I have the skills or experience to run a Ministry and\r\nI am sure many other MPs would share that view. We are happy to\r\nserve and fight for our residents, but the running of Ministries\r\nrequires people who are not only MPs but who also have the necessary\r\nskills and experience in making decisions at that level.
\r\n\r\n I certainly do not think\r\nwe want Ministers who are motivated by money. I also have the fullest\r\nconfidence that both our party and the electorate are sophisticated\r\nenough to weed out such people. At the same time, though, we do\r\nnot want money to be an obstacle to people entering politics. I\r\nthink many of our current office-holders probably took pay cuts\r\nto enter politics at the various levels they entered at.
\r\n\r\n Now, this is naturally an\r\nemotional topic. When dealing with divisive issues, I always think\r\nit is helpful to start on common ground. Surprisingly, notwithstanding\r\nthe language used, I think there is actually a lot of agreement\r\nbetween people in this House. When I listened to some of the debates\r\nyesterday, they reminded me a little bit of the story in Gulliver's\r\nTravels. When Gulliver landed in the land of Lilliput, there was\r\na big divide between people who wanted to break soft-boiled eggs\r\nat the top end and people who wanted to break the eggs at the bottom\r\nend. But at the end of the day, what you arrive at is a cracked\r\negg. So, what is interesting here is: the Workers' Party has used very\r\nstrong language to criticise the proposals of the Committee, essentially\r\ncalling it \"elitist\" for pegging Ministerial salaries to the top\r\n1,000 income earners. They then put forward their own rather precise\r\nproposal of pegging MPs' salaries to the MX9 pay grade in the civil\r\nservice using a five-time multiple for the Minister's salary.
\r\n\r\n When I asked the Workers'\r\nParty if they had made this proposal known to Mr Ee's Committee,\r\nit was only out of fairness because I myself have not heard that\r\nbefore. The first time I heard it was yesterday. And if they are\r\ngoing to level such strong criticisms at Mr Ee's Committee, the\r\nleast they could have done was put their ideas forward before the\r\nCommittee came out with its proposals, rather than slamming them\r\nafterwards by saying, \"Why did you not think of this before?\" The\r\npublic consultation was open for many months, and I think many Singaporeans\r\nhad written in. I understand they received about 500 emails and\r\nmessages. And that will probably mean there were 500 different opinions\r\non what should be done. So in that sense, I think the Committee\r\nhad a very difficult job.
\r\n\r\n However, in examining the\r\nexact principles used by the Workers' Party in its calculation,\r\nI actually think there is not that much difference between what\r\nthe Workers' Party is proposing and what the Committee, in fact,\r\nput forward, except there is a small discount at each level. The\r\nWorkers' Party has also come a long way from their previously-held\r\npublic positions and pretty much abandoned most of them. So, in\r\nthat sense, I think that the gap between Members in this House has,\r\nin fact, become extremely narrow.
\r\nPage: 947
\r\n\r\n The Workers' Party said at the starting\r\npoint, that calculation of MPs' allowances should be pegged at MX9\r\ncivil service pay grade. I am not a civil servant myself, so I just checked.\r\nFrom what I understand, this is, in fact, not a wage that is at\r\npar with the average working level as the Workers' Party has tried\r\nto represent. In fact, this is the wage, I understand, that of a\r\nSuperscale in the civil service. I think less than 2% of people in\r\nthe civil service get this. So, the Workers' Party's starting point\r\nis certainly not the average wage level as they have represented.\r\nIt is, in fact, much higher than that. I also disagree that an MP's\r\nallowance should be compared with a civil servant's pay because, for\r\none thing, I do not know about the Workers' Party, but I know certainly\r\nmost PAP MPs do not pocket the entire allowance. It is, in fact,\r\na large part of the expenses we incurred in running our constituencies\r\nas well. I mean, in other countries, MPs get expense accounts. We\r\ndo not get that. The allowance is, in fact, the sum total of the\r\nexpense account and if there is anything left then that could be\r\nconsidered a \"salary\", but I would hardly consider it that. So,\r\nin that sense, thinking of the MP's allowance as a salary is, perhaps,\r\nthe wrong starting point because I do not think that is what it\r\nis. It is, in fact, an all-in package that encompasses an amount\r\nyou have to give back to the community as well.
\r\n\r\n But having said that, while\r\nI may disagree with them using that as a starting point, the number\r\nthey come up with is not too far away from what we have right now.\r\nSo, again, we may disagree on how we want to crack the egg but,\r\nat the end of the day, I think the number we arrive at is not too\r\nfar apart.
\r\n\r\n The next point: the Workers'\r\nParty says that the Minister's salary should be pegged at five times\r\nthe MP's allowance. This basically means the MP's allowance is about\r\n20% of the Minister's pay. In fact, the Committee recommended 17.5%.\r\nAgain, not very far off – a 2.5% difference. And the Workers' Party\r\ndoes not explain why it came up with the multiple of five times\r\nrather than four or six times. It could be any number in the air,\r\nbut they decided on five, which miraculously, brings them very close\r\nto what the Committee came up with.
\r\n\r\n Another point that is interesting\r\nis the Workers' Party suggested that the benchmark we use for an\r\nentry-level Minister be $55,000. What is interesting is this: the\r\nCommittee recommended $55,000 monthly salary as a benchmark, but\r\nthe entry level was actually lower than that. In fact, it was precisely\r\n$46,750. So, in fact, the Workers' Party is proposing a higher starting\r\nsalary for Ministers. And this is interesting because the difference\r\nin salary for one month is about $8,250. If you multiply that over\r\nthe course of a year, the Workers' Party's proposed starting salary\r\nfor Ministers amounts to about $99,000 more than what the Committee\r\nrecommended. $99,000, incidentally, is about a two-month bonus based\r\non the base salary of $46,750. The Workers' Party has raised a big\r\nruckus about the quantum of the bonus. The starting salary they\r\nhave proposed incorporates a two-month bonus based on the current\r\nstarting salary. So, they have, in fact, proposed a higher starting\r\nsalary for Ministers than even the one the Committee recommended.\r\nWhile the Workers' Party kicks up a big fuss about the bonus right\r\nnow, it is important to keep this in mind because any bonus they\r\ncalculate, for an entry-level Minister, would also be based on this\r\nhigher starting salary.
\r\n\r\n Now, on the other point:\r\nthis is where we deal with the bonus itself. Mr Giam says that the\r\naverage bonus should be pegged at three months rather than the six\r\nmonths that the Committee recommends. Now, one of the interesting\r\npoints is this: my initial reaction\r\nto the bonus component also was that it was extremely high. And,\r\nto be fair, that is a larger sum of money most ordinary people would\r\never get. But when I looked at the targets that were set for the\r\nNational Bonus, I would also say that those targets are extremely\r\nhard to achieve. And I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister also\r\nclarified that the individual bonus component would be determined\r\nnot only by the Minister's contribution to his own Ministry but\r\nalso by how much he contributed towards achieving the national bonus\r\nmatrix. In that sense, the national bonus matrix has become the\r\ntarget that our Government has set out to achieve. This target is\r\na target I do not think leaders of any other countries have set\r\nout to achieve. And if you look at recent history, I do not think\r\nleaders of any other country have achieved.
\r\nPage: 948
\r\n\r\n We will just look at some\r\nof the targets. In order to achieve, say, the six-month bonus –\r\nthe so called average bonus – this sounds like a big number. If\r\nyou look at the targets, the GDP has to grow, and in real terms,\r\nby 3% to 5%. The income of the lowest 20% has to grow by 2% to 3%\r\nin real terms, and the median income has to grow by 2% to 3% in real\r\nterms. The word \"real\" basically means that this has to take into\r\naccount inflation. Inflation, as at November, I believe, was about\r\n5.7%. And inflation is pretty much a worldwide phenomenon. Central\r\nbanks all over the world are printing money, commodity prices are\r\nshooting through the roof. Controlling inflation, in itself, is\r\na challenge.
\r\n\r\n The targets the Government\r\nhas undertaken actually involve not only making sure that incomes\r\nrise in line with inflation, but exceeding it. What that basically\r\nmeans is that GDP growth, in actual terms, may have to be – well,\r\nif it is 3% to 5% in real terms, that would be 8.7% to 10.7%. Incomes,\r\nlikewise, will have to grow between 7% and 8%. If inflation comes\r\ndown, those targets would come down. But the real point is that\r\ninflation is incorporated into all of these targets. And I do not\r\nknow of any developed country, anywhere in the world where the government\r\nhas been able to achieve these targets. So, indeed, even the target\r\nto get the so called \"average\" bonuses is a very difficult one. And\r\nif our office holders achieved that, I think the benefits to Singaporeans\r\nwould be tremendous, especially to the average Singaporeans and\r\nalso to those in the lower income groups. So, in that sense, I would\r\nnot begrudge them that.
\r\n\r\n While the Workers' Party\r\nalso makes a big issue about the so called \"13-month\" maximum bonus,\r\nneedless to say the targets to achieve that would be astronomical, especially\r\nwhen inflation stays at the current levels. If our Government is\r\nable to achieve that, then I think the people of Singapore would\r\nbe so much better off and that a couple of months' difference in\r\npay is probably not that big a deal to divide this House over.
\r\n\r\n I was also a little surprised\r\nwhen Mr Giam ended his speech by saying he opposes the motion. Because\r\ngiven how much common ground there is between the parties, it is\r\nstunning that he would actually want to oppose a motion that, in\r\nmy view, is extremely progressive, and brings us much closer to\r\nthe Workers' Party's ideas than anyone that has ever proposed before.\r\nBecause by opposing the motion, what he is actually saying is that\r\nhe would rather keep the existing pay scales, than to move forward\r\nwith the proposal the Committee has put up. And I do not think anyone\r\nhere would agree to that.
\r\n\r\n Now, let me also deal a\r\nlittle bit with some of the previous positions taken by the Workers'\r\nParty because I actually think this proposal touched on a lot of\r\nthe principles that were brought up back then as well. In 2006,\r\nfor example, in an interview, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that the Ministers'\r\nsalaries should be set at about a hundred times that of a worker\r\nin the lowest 20th percentile. At that time, he believed that this\r\nfigure was $800.\r\nSo back in 2006, Mr Low was actually comfortable with a salary of\r\n$80,000 a month for a Minister. He also took out the implication\r\nof this. What he said then was that it also meant that if the income\r\nof the person in the lowest 20% group rose by $1,000, the Ministers\r\nwould get $100,000 more, not just a year but a month. So, he was\r\nactually quite comfortable with having the Ministers earn more,\r\nif the lowest-income workers earned more back in 2006.
\r\nPage: 949
\r\n\r\n In many ways, the Committee's\r\nproposal actually takes this principle into account. It, in fact,\r\npretty much says that the income of the lowest 20% has to rise.\r\nIt is, in fact, even less generous than Mr Low in two respects.\r\nOne, the base pay is lower; and, two, the actual bonus is capped\r\n– it is not unlimited, whereas in Mr Low's example, the upside would\r\nhave been unlimited. So, in fact, the salaries are less generous\r\nthan what the Workers' Party proposed in 2006 in many ways.
\r\n\r\n Now, in the Workers' Party's\r\nmanifesto, the position was slightly different. They actually said,\r\nboth in 2006 and 2011, that the Ministerial salaries should actually\r\nbe pegged to the salaries of foreign leaders with all their expenses\r\nand so on taken into account. But the reality is this: this is a\r\nnotoriously difficult exercise and I notice that the Workers' Party,\r\ndespite having said this for the last five years, has not come up\r\nwith a single proposal on what the numbers would actually be if\r\nthis formula was applied. And they have had five years to come up\r\nwith this.
\r\n\r\n I myself tried to do this\r\nexercise and it was very, very difficult because a lot of the actual\r\nbonuses and perks are actually very obscure. I took a stab at Australia\r\njust now because it was the first country on the list. Over there,\r\nI think, the Prime Minister receives an annual salary of $495,000\r\na year, which obviously looks more, compared to what our Ministers\r\nearn. But the Prime Minister has two official residences while she\r\nis in office. In previous sessions, the Members of Parliament of\r\nthe Opposition had said, \"We are quite happy to have our Ministers\r\nlive in bungalows.\" The rental of a bungalow in Singapore, according\r\nto Property Guru, checked as of this morning, was between $25,000\r\nand $42,000 a month. So, if we include that as part of the pay package,\r\nas one of the perks, just monetising that perk alone would probably\r\namount to $300,000 to $400,000 more a year. And this excludes other\r\nperks such as free first-class travel for herself and her spouse\r\nfor the rest of their lives, a fully-paid-for office for the rest\r\nof their lives and, of course, all the expenses involved in keeping\r\nup the house, and so on, would also be paid for by the state. And\r\nthese are just some of the perks. There are, of course, lots of\r\nother perks – I have not had the ability to find out the values\r\nfor all of them because they are found in so many different pieces\r\nof legislation and are so difficult to put together. So in that\r\nsense, our clean wage system – what you see is what you get – is,\r\nin fact, one of the most transparent you would find. And because\r\nof that, our Ministers come under flak. But I think that is fair\r\ngame because people should know exactly what the cost of public\r\noffice is, nothing hidden.
\r\n\r\n Ministerial pay is a highly\r\nemotive issue. I think the fact that the two sides of this House\r\ndo not, in fact, differ that much in the ultimate outcome is a good\r\nstart and I hope that we can all get together and support this proposal\r\nbecause, ultimately, it seems like we have more similarities than\r\ndifferences. [Applause.]
\r\n \r\nPage: 950
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nSpeaker: Order. I propose to take the break now.\r\nI suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.
\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n Sitting resumed at 3.55\r\npm
\r\n\r\n [Mr Speaker in the Chair]
\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, in Mandarin, please.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg\r\n996-998 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr\r\nSpeaker, I support this motion.
\r\n\r\n Yesterday, the hon MP Chen\r\nShow Mao and other MPs from the Workers' Party said that pegging\r\nministerial salary to the salaries of the top 1,000 earners is not\r\nappropriate. I think we must try to understand why the Committee\r\nmade this decision from another angle. I believe all of us accept\r\nthat a Minister's responsibility is no less than that of the one\r\nthousand people. We use this benchmark to affirm the importance\r\nof political appointments because they relate to the welfare of\r\n3.5 million Singaporeans and this country's future as well as our\r\nexpectations and the requirements for these positions.
\r\n\r\n To make it easier for the\r\ncommon populace to understand the required responsibilities and\r\naccountabilities of Ministers for Singaporeans, we can try to look\r\nat the issue from another perspective or angle, as suggested by\r\nsome Singaporeans, for reference. The Prime Minister is our leader\r\nand he must be responsible for the well-being of 3.5 million Singaporeans.\r\nTherefore, his salary can be based on our population, say, one person\r\n$1 per year, so that is $3.5 million per year. With that, perhaps\r\nall Singaporeans are able to feel the balance at a more comfortable\r\nlevel. Regardless of our ethnic, religious , language and cultural\r\nbackground, we are all Singaporeans. Poor or rich, we are all Singaporeans.\r\nAs long as you are Singaporeans, the Prime Minister looks after\r\nyour well-being. Notwithstanding, some may say $1 per year is not\r\nmuch, some may say it is not little. The Prime Minister takes a\r\npay cut of, say, 37%, so as to remind himself there is a need to\r\nwork even harder to improve the livelihood of the 40% lower middle-income\r\nSingaporeans. With that, the figure was adjusted downwards to $2.2 million,\r\nwhich is not much different from that recommended by the Committee.
\r\n\r\n If we set the entry-level\r\nministerial salary as half of the Prime Minister's because his responsibility\r\nis half, that will work out to be $1.1 million. And this is similar\r\nto the amount recommended by the Committee so the result is all\r\nthe same. The difference is just a matter of angle/perspective.
\r\n\r\n Honestly speaking, the appropriate\r\ncompensation for political decision makers is a sensitive topic\r\nand it is not easy to reach 100% consensus. Everybody has a different view\r\nand everyone's line of reasoning has its valid points, and we should\r\nrespect them.
\r\nPage: 951
\r\n\r\n The Government has sensed the ground sentiment\r\nfrom the election results and is willing to accommodate public opinion,\r\nhence the establishment of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries.\r\nNo policy is 100% perfect. I believe that the report has presented\r\nsufficient and convincing data and basis for their recommendations,\r\nand it is transparent. The pay recommendations are based on three\r\nprinciples. I support these principles and thank MPs from the Opposition\r\nparty for their support as well.
\r\n\r\n Firstly, the pay must be\r\nconsiderably competitive to attract talent. I think we should adjust\r\nour focus, not to look at numbers alone, but on the requirements\r\nof the job, the responsibilities and contributions towards our country,\r\nsociety and all Singaporeans. Scouting for the best talent is not\r\nsomething that only the Government will do. Even in our daily life,\r\nwe often try to get them. For example, many of us hope to find a\r\ncapable, hardworking domestic worker to do the household chores,\r\ntake care of the young and old; those running a business will hope\r\nto find a good helper to bring in profits for the company, expand\r\nthe business and create more jobs; at hawker centres, we look for\r\nthe best food, the most value for money and the most economical;\r\nwhen we see a doctor, we will look for the best to cure our illness;\r\nwhen we look for a wife or husband, we also hope to find a good\r\npartner. Hence, to want the best is understandable. Many even pray to\r\nthe gods and hope to be granted their wish. In order to get the\r\nbest, some of us are even willing to pay for a premium, in the hope\r\nto avoid risking paying an even higher price in future.
\r\n\r\n In China, there was a story\r\nabout buying bones with a thousand gold. A palace official went\r\nto buy a splendid steed, but returned with the bones of a dead horse\r\ninstead. The emperor was enraged. The palace official explained\r\nthat if everyone saw that the emperor was willing to pay a thousand\r\ngold for the bones of the steed, they would believe that the emperor\r\ngenuinely intended to pay a premium for a splendid steed, and would\r\nvoluntarily send their horses to him. In the end, what the palace\r\nofficial said came true, within less than a year, thousands of horses\r\nwere sent to the palace.
\r\n\r\n Singapore has limited human\r\nresources, there is little room for mistakes. We must attract top\r\ntalent to join the civil service. It is difficult to decide on the\r\nbasis of choosing talent. One cannot underpay talent as we would\r\nthen end up with an ineffective government, but one cannot overpay\r\nor it will trigger feelings of unfairness. The recommendations by\r\nthe Committee actually reflect the realities of governing a country and\r\nthe needs of the changing political scene.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, salaries should\r\nbe at a discount of market rate, in order to exhibit commitment\r\nand dedication. Those who enter politics must have a strong sense\r\nof mission and responsibility, with moral integrity. It does not\r\nmean that if one is rich, he will be happy. Only with a clear conscience\r\nwill one enjoy peace of mind. Whether it is the Government or private\r\nsector, both are hungry for talent and cast their net for talent, but\r\nwith different goals. The private sector also tries to attract talent\r\nwith better pay, so that it will achieve maximum result for the\r\ncompany. Entering politics is a sense of mission, to serve the people\r\nwholeheartedly and is a long-term goal.
\r\n\r\n Thirdly, it must be a clean\r\nwage without hidden perks. In this way, the actual wages of those\r\nin political office will be simple and transparent. One gains happiness\r\nfrom doing good, and gains freedom and ease when one uses wisdom\r\nto follow good advice. By\r\ndoing away with the pension scheme, those in political office will\r\nuse CPF funds for retirement, just like ordinary Singaporeans.
\r\nPage: 952
\r\n\r\n Next, on the implementation\r\nof a National Bonus, which is linked to GDP growth, growth in the\r\nmedian real wages of Singaporeans, real wage growth of the bottom\r\n20% of Singaporeans and unemployment rate. This adjustment takes\r\ninto consideration the interests of Singaporeans from all walks\r\nof life.
\r\n\r\n Let us take a look at the\r\nworld around us. The salaries of politicians in many countries do\r\nnot reflect their actual income. In Italy, their sovereign debt\r\nhas hit 1.9 trillion euros, and according to their MP salary committee\r\nreport, their Members of Parliament are paid a basic salary of S$19,000,\r\nand enjoy many additional perks, like tax-free monthly living allowance\r\nof 3,503 euros, free flights, etc. There was an ancient Chinese\r\nsaying: \"A magistrate of a prefecture could accumulate a fortune\r\nof at least 10,000 taels of silver in three years.\" Low-ranking\r\nofficials are able to ''earn'' such a fortune not because of their\r\npay but because of their many corrupt practices. This situation\r\nis common in many countries.
\r\n\r\n The amount of salary is\r\nnot the primary consideration – and it is hard to benchmark the\r\npay – nor the only objective of talent selection. We have other\r\nstringent criteria for choosing talents. The salary can be taken\r\nas an appreciation or a reward for a job well done. Nevertheless,\r\nwe should give recognition to the hardwork of the Committee to Review\r\nMinisterial Salaries, because these recommendations have incorporated\r\nthe expectations of Singaporeans from all walks of life, and will\r\nbe the cornerstone for the long-term development and prosperity\r\nof Singapore in future. It is not a policy to serve the ruling PAP,\r\nbut one that serves the long-term interests of our nation as a whole,\r\nand puts in place a code of conduct that is stable, fair, transparent,\r\nreliable and highly efficient for Singapore's political system.\r\nWith this comprehensive Ministerial pay system that is basically\r\nacceptable to the public, the eventual winners are all Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Sir, I will\r\ncontinue my speech in English. Human resource is Singapore's greatest\r\nand only resource. We are an open economy and we face immense challenges. Therefore,\r\nit is important that we have the talent to help us lead the nation\r\nto stay ahead. We have had relative success doing so through innovative\r\npolicies and schemes, some of which have no precedents in the world.\r\nOur history and track record speak for themselves.
\r\n\r\n The independent Committee\r\nhas done its best to collate feedback from Singaporeans from all\r\nwalks of life. It has consulted, studied and taken into consideration\r\nthe feedback from workers, professionals and politicians from both\r\nRuling and Opposition parties. Hence, the report is comprehensive\r\nand representative of views from a wide spectrum of Singaporeans.\r\nI would recommend that its findings and recommendations be respected\r\nand supported.
\r\n\r\n Everyone's line of reasoning\r\nhas its valid points. However, with everyone having his own perspective\r\nand opinion, it is difficult to satisfy all. Allow me at this point\r\nto share the well-known Aesop fable of \"The miller, his son and\r\ntheir donkey\" to highlight the difficulties a community faces in\r\nagreeing on a course of action. A miller and his son were on their\r\nway to town to sell their donkey. They had not gone far when they\r\npassed a group of girls who suggested that one of them rode it.\r\nThe father then put his son on the animal. After travelling some\r\ndistance, they went past some old men who criticised the boy for making\r\nhis elderly father walk. So the boy dismounted and the miller got\r\non the donkey instead. Soon after, a group of women berated the\r\nmiller for making his young son walk while he rode on the donkey.\r\nSo the miller put his son up onto the saddle and they rode on happily\r\nuntil they met another group of travellers who scolded them for\r\nover-burdening the poor animal. \"You should carry the poor animal\r\ninstead,\" they suggested. The miller and his son got off the donkey,\r\ntied its legs together, turned it over on its back and carried it.\r\nSoon, a crowd gathered to watch the strange sight. As they were\r\ncrossing a bridge, the poor animal became frightened at the chatter\r\nand noise made by the crowd. It panicked, broke loose, fell into\r\nthe river and drowned. The classic story is a cautionary. It is\r\nimportant to listen to feedback and suggestions but it is even more\r\nimportant that implementation be carried out wisely in a way suitable\r\nto one's circumstances.
\r\nPage: 953
\r\n\r\n The principles and spirit\r\nbehind the report are sound. The wishes of Singaporeans, the sacrifices\r\nto be made by potential office holders, the indicators to reflect\r\ntotal employment and real income growth of the lowest 20th percentile\r\nof Singaporeans have all been taken into consideration. I agree\r\nthat monetary reward should not be the only prime consideration\r\nfor people who come forward to serve. However, I do get feedback from\r\ncolleagues, friends and residents that capable people may prefer\r\nto stay on in their existing well-paying jobs while continuing to\r\ncontribute to and serve the nation in many, many other ways. Some\r\nSingaporeans may have specific capabilities and skill sets we need\r\nfor running Singapore. Indeed, this is a job. Running a country\r\nis not a simple job. Our Ministers have a great responsibility to\r\nshoulder. They are accountable for our continued prosperity, social\r\nharmony and unity – qualities which are envied by many, many in\r\nthis world.
\r\n\r\n We need to stay focused\r\nnow especially in the face of economic uncertainty as a result of\r\nthe European debt crisis and slowdown in the world's economy. Sir,\r\nin the past, we had overcome the Asian financial crisis, SARS and\r\nthe US financial crisis. We need a strong team who can continue\r\nto work with us and lead us ahead. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this note,\r\nI end my speech by re-affirming my support for this motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Community Development,\r\nYouth and Sports (Mdm Halimah Yacob): \r\n \r\n (In Malay): [Please\r\nrefer to Pg 999 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker,\r\nthe issue of salaries of political office holders has brought about\r\nwidespread discussion among Singaporeans. I understand their concerns.\r\nAlthough the eight-man Committee has proposed that the salaries\r\nbe reduced by about one-third, it is still difficult for the ordinary\r\npeople to fathom the amount of pay obtained by the political office\r\nholders. The public also wanted to see a strong link between this\r\ngroup's pay and the Government's performance, in terms of how it\r\ncontributes to improving the lives of the people, especially the\r\nlow-income group.
\r\n\r\n In this regard, the Government\r\nhas played an important role in providing social services for its\r\npeople. Besides the major investments made in education, health\r\nand housing, social assistance schemes such as Workfare, ComCare\r\nand Medifund and study bursaries have also ensured that opportunities\r\nfor advancement are available to everyone.
\r\nPage: 954
\r\n\r\n A study by the Ministry of Finance recently\r\nshowed that social mobility, which is the ability of an individual\r\nto climb up or move down the social ladder compared to his own parents,\r\nwas found to be satisfactory. It showed that Singaporean children\r\nfrom low-income families have good opportunities to secure better\r\nachievements. As education is the key to social mobility, the strong\r\nsupport from the Government towards early childhood development\r\nand providing education at all levels has brought results. Strenuous\r\nefforts have also been made to improve and upgrade the skills of\r\nlower skilled workers so that this group of people will be able\r\nto do jobs that require higher and more productive skills, and subsequently\r\nhelp them to generate a much higher income.
\r\n\r\n I hope, Mr Speaker, that\r\nwhen we discuss this issue, we will look at it in the proper context.\r\nWe need to link this salary system to the Government's performance,\r\nespecially in the effort to assist those who are less well-off.\r\nIn fact, the Government has also enhanced support to the middle\r\nclasses. As the proverb goes: the political leadership that fights\r\nfor the people is like a big piece of wood in the middle of the\r\nfield that provides protection from the sun and shelter from the\r\nrain.
\r\n\r\n Finally, Mr Speaker, there\r\nis no difference, I feel, between the proposals of the Workers'\r\nParty and our views in that leaders should possess humility, put\r\nthe people's interests first and have a strong desire to serve.\r\nThe weakness in the Workers' Party's opinion and the difference\r\ncompared to our view is that the Workers' Party feels that by paying\r\ncompetitive salaries, the attitudes of the political office holders\r\nwill change whereby they would immediately no longer possess humility,\r\nresponsibility and will also work solely for the pay. I feel this\r\nis a wrong and unfounded view, and is not in line with the reality\r\ntoday or in the past. This is more so if we look at the amount proposed by\r\nthe Workers' Party, which is almost similar and, in fact, higher\r\nthan the Committee's recommendation.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Sir, there is\r\na Malay proverb which describes the virtue of a good and upright\r\ngovernment and leadership as follows, and I quote: \"Ibarat kayu\r\nbesar di tengah padang, tempat bernaung kepanasan, tempat berlindung\r\nkehujanan.\" What it means is that a good government is like\r\na big piece of wood in the middle of a field, providing shelter\r\nfrom the sun and protection from the rain. I could not find a more\r\napt description of what should be the role and function of a responsible\r\ngovernment in taking care of the needs of its people. It encapsulates\r\nvery nicely all that citizens expect from their government and the\r\noutcomes and deliverables that a good government leadership should\r\nstrive for.
\r\n\r\n As a good government is\r\nonly as good as the people that comprise it, this proverb also captures\r\nvery nicely the kind of leaders that are fit to hold public office.\r\nThey have to be selfless, above board and completely clean. They\r\nalso have to be prepared to take all the punches and to cushion\r\nthe impact of any adversity on their people, because as the piece\r\nof wood sheltering their people from the heat and the rain, they\r\nhave to bear the consequences and carry the pain.
\r\n\r\n In the heat of this debate,\r\nSir, I hope that we do not lose sight of this human angle that we\r\nare talking about individuals who have decided to come forward to\r\nserve and to put the interests of the people above their own, sometimes\r\nat a cost to themselves. My fear is that if we turn this debate\r\ninto a mechanical discussion about dollars and cents, it will become\r\nmuch harder for us to attract good people as office bearers. Let\r\nme just take the example of Mr Tharman, our Finance Minister and\r\nDeputy Prime Minister. He brought\r\na lot of glory to Singapore when he became the first Asian to be\r\nappointed as the Chairman of the International Monetary and Financial\r\nCommittee – a policy-steering committee of the IMF. This shows his\r\ncalibre, quality and the amount of respect he commands in the IMF.\r\nWe certainly want to attract more people of that calibre to hold office\r\nin the Government.
\r\nPage: 955
\r\n\r\n In debating this issue,\r\nSir, I also urge you to look at the outcomes that we had achieved\r\nover the years and how this leadership had served the people. In\r\njust one generation, this Government had completely transformed\r\nSingapore. I used to frequently share with my residents about my\r\n\"toilet\" story. Do not worry. There is nothing, you know, inappropriate.\r\nIt is all entirely appropriate. When I was young, for a number of\r\nyears, I lived in a government quarters. There were about 15 families\r\nliving together but there was only one communal toilet. There was\r\nno piped water in every home and we had a central kitchen for all\r\nthe families to cook in. As we had only one toilet, there was a\r\npecking order for the use of the toilet, especially early in the\r\nmorning. First, the men would use the toilet because they had to\r\ngo to work, followed by the children because they had to go to school\r\nand, finally, the women would do the washing and cleaning. I am\r\nreally not sure what happened if anyone had weak bladders and jumped\r\nthe queue, but I suppose that sometimes the back lanes did come\r\nin handy.
\r\n\r\n Today, our HDB homes have\r\nnot one, but two toilets, and we are constantly improving our homes\r\nthrough the various upgrading programmes. Occasionally, we find\r\nourselves in an awkward situation where we had to persuade residents\r\nto support the upgrading programmes, like what I had to do in a\r\nrecent visit to a block that is due for the Home Improvement Programme\r\n(HIP) in my area.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, it was\r\ngood and visionary political leadership totally dedicated to the service\r\nof the people that has brought us to where we are today. And we\r\nmust continue to attract good people into political office so that\r\nour children and grandchildren, mine included, can continue to enjoy\r\nthe same, if not a better life. We all know that no society can\r\nremain static, either we continue to progress upwards or we slide\r\ndownwards and we need people with vision and dedication to bring\r\nus to the next lap.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore\r\nis not a welfare state but we have to acknowledge that our Government\r\nhas done much for the welfare of the people, without pinning that\r\nlabel on ourselves. The Government plays a major role in re-distribution\r\nto ensure fair opportunity for everyone. And as we move ahead, I\r\ncan see that re-distribution role expanding. Other than heavy investments\r\nin education, healthcare and housing, we also have subsidies in\r\nthe form of Workfare, ComCare, Medifund and educational bursaries, to\r\nname a few. I was also very happy to read about the Ministry of\r\nFinance's recent study which shows that social mobility, a subject\r\nclose to my heart, is still very alive in Singapore. The study shows\r\nthat children from poor Singaporean families stand a good chance\r\nof moving up in life. The son of a father in the bottom 20% of the\r\nincome earners has at least two-thirds chance of breaking out of\r\nhis low-income group. And he has a 10% chance of moving all the\r\nway up to the top 20% of income earners in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Sir, as social mobility\r\nis closely related to educational achievement, strong Government\r\nefforts to uplift educational standards and help needy students\r\nhave paid off. And we are not standing still. Like housing, healthcare\r\nand social assistance, education too has gone through a lot of changes,\r\nbenefiting our people. And I welcome the recent announcements by the Minister\r\nfor Education that it is looking at ways to help students study\r\nin private educational institutions pay for their education, as\r\nI know that parents of children who cannot get into the public universities\r\nreally struggle to support their children. Again, such efforts require\r\nleaders in public service with vision and foresight as education\r\nis a long-term investment and we need to attract more of such people\r\ninto public office.
\r\nPage: 956
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the opposite\r\nof the proverb which I had cited, which is that good leaders and\r\na good government is like the big piece of wood in the middle of\r\nthe field that shelters its people from the sun and the rain, is\r\nanother Malay proverb which cautions us to avoid at all costs leaders\r\nthat, and I quote, \"Harapkan baga, baga dan makan padi\".\r\nIn English, this means that we placed our trust in the fence around\r\nthe field to protect the padi but as it turned out, it was the fence\r\nthat ended up eating the padi.
\r\n\r\n Many countries have gained\r\nindependence at the same time as us but not all have seen much progress\r\nin the lives of their people. We can argue that it could be because of\r\nour geographical location or other reasons that have contributed\r\nto our progress. But the point remains that it was astute leadership\r\nand good governance that have brought us to where we are today.\r\nPay, Mr Speaker, Sir, should never be the incentive to get people\r\ninto political service but it should never become a disincentive\r\neither. Even in the social service sector, we have had to review\r\nthe salary package as the sector was finding it extremely difficult\r\nto attract people to work in the sector. And we understand because social\r\nservice workers do have families to take care of, they have to eat,\r\nthey have to plan for the future, they have to plan for their retirement.\r\nEven social service workers do have to have their remuneration package\r\nreviewed time over time, and we had done so in the last few years.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, one of\r\nthe most valuable assets that we have built over the years is the\r\ndeep trust that the people have in our Government's leadership.\r\nIn fact, I would say that this is a very important reason for our\r\nsuccess. We had to brave many changes together but people were behind\r\nthe Government because they had seen their lives improved. In the\r\n2008 recession, the Singapore Government was the fastest compared to\r\nother countries in coming out with SPUR and Jobs Credit to help\r\nworkers keep their jobs. That action alone had persuaded a number\r\nof companies in the electronics sector that I was working with at\r\nthat time, to change their investment decisions. Instead of investing\r\nelsewhere, they were able to persuade their headquarters to invest\r\nin Singapore. I remember the envy of a Japanese MNC executive shaking\r\nhis head miserably when I asked him about how his headquarters in\r\nJapan was faring and what support they were receiving from the government.\r\nHe said that months after the crisis that hit the world, they were\r\nstill discussing the measures to put in place.
\r\n\r\n Hence, I had watched this\r\ndebate, Sir, over the last few weeks with mixed feelings and a fair\r\namount of misgiving. On the one hand, it is really important that\r\nwe have a public discussion of this issue so that people could express\r\ntheir views candidly. On the other hand, my biggest fear is that\r\nif this discussion is not managed properly, and if views are not\r\nexpressed carefully, it could erode the trust that has been so painstakingly\r\nbuilt over the years and this can only be detrimental to Singapore\r\nregardless of which party we belong to. Worse still, it will deter\r\ngood people from entering politics regardless of the pay that is\r\noffered to them.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever\r\nbenchmarks are used, it will still not be perfect and it will be\r\nsubject to dispute and challenge as elitist and an attempt to monetise\r\nthe value of political\r\noffice. Although, on a latter point, my MP colleague, Mr Vikram\r\nNair had gone in great length to raise this question as to how do\r\nwe decide whether and why we should peg political pay to the salary\r\nof a civil servant and why should it be a multiple of five times,\r\nwhy not less and why not more. It is the same debate. The same questions\r\nthat are asked even in relation to the benchmark set by the Committee\r\ncould also be asked about this suggestion that it should be pegged\r\nto the salary of a civil servant. It could also be asked as to why\r\nthis benchmark is more acceptable than the one recommended by the\r\nCommittee. And would this benchmark not also attract the same criticism\r\nthat it would monetise the value of political office? I think the\r\nsame arguments will be applied, whatever benchmarks we use. However,\r\nI agree with Mr Nair that a more important point is that even by\r\nthe benchmarks used by the Workers' Party, the quantum derived as\r\nthe fair amount is very close and, in fact, higher than what the\r\nCommittee had suggested.
\r\nPage: 957
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, as Ms Lydia\r\nLim had remarked in her column from the Gallery in The \r\n Straits\r\nTimes, despite differences, both sides agree on pay fundamentals.\r\nSo, in conclusion, Sir, I hope that at the end of this debate, we\r\ncan put aside our differences which, as I have mentioned, are not\r\nso different after all. We should try to reach a consensus on this\r\nissue so that we can then focus on the really important task of\r\ntaking care of the welfare of our people.
\r\nPage: 957
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, may I ask for your consent and the general assent\r\nof Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under\r\ndiscussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No.\r\n48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's\r\nspeech?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : I give my consent.\r\nDoes the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members\r\npresent so to move?
\r\n\r\n \r\n Hon. Members\r\n indicated\r\nassent.\r\n
\r\n\r\n Resolved, that the proceedings\r\non the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of\r\nStanding Order No. 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of\r\nthe Prime Minister's speech. – [Dr Ng Eng Hen].
\r\nPage: 957
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, we have discussed the issue of Ministerial salaries\r\nmany times over the years in this House and it is always a very\r\ndifficult and very emotional issue, for completely understandable\r\nreasons. First, because you are talking about pay, which is always\r\nsensitive. Second, you are talking about significant amounts of money especially\r\nas it would appear to the ordinary man-in-the-street – millions\r\nof dollars. And thirdly, because you are talking about what elected\r\nMinisters are earning; representatives of the people, serving their\r\npeople and being paid out of the taxes of the people. So, it is\r\na subject on which people have strong views – strong views not only\r\non what is the \"correct\" and \"incorrect\" salary, but strong views\r\non what is right and fair for Ministers to be paid and whether the\r\nbasis is proper and legitimate.
\r\nPage: 958
\r\n\r\n One of the reasons the debate\r\nis never finally settled is because there are two radically different\r\napproaches to this problem.
\r\n\r\n One, as argued by the Workers'\r\nParty, at least in principle, though not in their sums, that public\r\nservice is its own reward. People entering public service should\r\nnot even think about the pay, and all the sacrifice and hard work\r\nwill ultimately benefit the general good of the public, and that\r\nby itself should be greater satisfaction than any salary package.
\r\n\r\n The alternative view is\r\nthat we should pay whatever is necessary to assemble the best team\r\nfor Singapore. To consider the difficulty and the importance of\r\nthe job of Ministers, to think what quality of people we are looking\r\nfor to be Ministers, and to look at what capable Singaporeans are\r\nearning in the private sector and pay commensurately to get the\r\nbest team possible for Singapore.
\r\n\r\n So, an idealist approach\r\nversus the pragmatic one. And each has its merits. Neither can be\r\npushed to its limits and the key is to find the right balance between\r\nthese conflicting considerations, the right combination of idealism\r\nand pragmatism and a formula that will work well and that our citizens\r\nwill accept.
\r\n\r\n And it is vital for us to\r\nget a pay system which works for us. Because this is not just about\r\nhow much money Ministers will get, but it is about Singapore's future.\r\nIt is about ensuring that Singapore always has a good government,\r\nleaders who care for our people and our country, who have strong\r\nabilities to carry out the responsibilities of Ministers and to\r\nhave more than that, the character to handle pressure and the mettle\r\nto provide steady leadership in a crisis. If we can get that right,\r\nthen we can protect what we have achieved and build better lives\r\nfor all. If not, then the little dot will become the little black\r\nspot.
\r\n\r\n I have been involved in\r\nthis issue for many years, first helping Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr\r\nGoh Chok Tong build their teams of MPs and Ministers: meeting people,\r\ninterviewing people, trying to persuade people to come in. As a\r\nMinister and Deputy Prime Minister, I have also been working on\r\nsuccessive salary revisions. And now as Prime Minister, I am focused\r\non assembling the best team to run Singapore today and sustaining\r\nthe system for the long term, for the future.
\r\n\r\n The overriding priority\r\nis to build the best team for Singapore and we are looking for the\r\nmost committed and able people to serve with an unwavering commitment\r\nto their country, with a passion to serve Singaporeans and the aptitude\r\nfor politics, a feel and a care for people and able to get a good\r\nsense of the ground and what people need and how to look after these\r\nneeds. We also want high ability and potential because we are looking\r\nfor a good MP but also for much more than a good MP. The search\r\nprocess is extensive. You have read about it in the newspapers,\r\nwe have talked about it – tea sessions trawling systematically for\r\npotential talent. But beyond the general trawl, we also go rifle shooting.\r\nTalent spotting individuals, specifically seeking out people with the\r\nabilities, with the right combination of background and skills and\r\naptitudes to be potential office-holders because we found from experience\r\nthat if you just do a general trawl, you do not catch the whales.
\r\nPage: 959
\r\n\r\n We are looking for Singaporeans\r\nin their prime – 30s or early 40s. Because we want people who are\r\nstill young, still flexible, able to learn what the job involves,\r\nhaving the best years of their lives ahead of them, able to have\r\na long runway in order to master their job, to get the feel of it\r\nand to serve, and serve in their prime years when they have energy\r\nand vigour, when they can connect with the younger generation, when\r\nthey still have time to build bonds with Singaporeans, with the\r\ngrassroots, with fellow politicians. And eventually become good\r\nMinisters while they are still vigorous and have energy to do things\r\nfor Singapore.
\r\n\r\n If you look at my present\r\noffice-holders, ask yourself: whom have we brought in, from where?\r\nWe have got several from the private sector. We have brought in\r\nShanmugam, top lawyer, he was an MP for many years, eventually we\r\npersuaded him to come in in his late 40s at the peak of his earning\r\npowers, when he took a very substantial pay cut to come in, even\r\nto our pre-committee salaries.
\r\n\r\n Dr Ng Eng Hen, a very successful\r\nsurgeon, also coming in with a significant pay cut. Gan Kim Yong\r\nin NatSteel, previously in the Administrative Service; Grace Fu\r\nin PSA. People successful, proven, now making a leap into what for\r\nthem must be an uncertain new path and not just their career, but\r\ntheir mission. In Cabinet, they are all making a far bigger contribution\r\nthan they were making in any of their previous jobs. But in Cabinet, they\r\nare all earning much less than they were before they entered politics.\r\nI wish I could find more of them. I have not succeeded. I did not\r\nfind it easy and I will not find it easy either.
\r\n\r\n Others have come in from\r\nthe public sector, from the civil service, from the SAF: Teo Chee\r\nHean, Tharman Shanmuguaratnam, Lim Hng Kiang, Lim Swee Say, Khaw\r\nBoon Wan, Heng Swee Keat and many other younger ones brought in\r\nthis recent general election. Had they stayed on either in the civil\r\nservice or the SAF, they would most probably have risen high and\r\ngone far. We looked for the most promising ones, and we raided the\r\ncivil service and the SAF knowing that they would leave the service\r\nweaker, but understanding that unless you have a good government\r\nand a good set of Ministers, however strong your civil service is,\r\nit is not going to be able to perform. And we have to make this\r\nbalance and take this choice, and take them out. And now they are\r\nin and making bigger contributions to Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Of course, the talent pool\r\nwas there in the first place because the civil service pays properly\r\nfrom junior officers all the way up to the Permanent Secretary.\r\nAnd had the civil service not paid properly, I think we would have\r\nlost many good officers to the private sector long ago. For both\r\nthose coming in from the private sector, and the civil service and\r\nSAF, these were very tough decisions. For the private sector, you\r\nare coming in from a career where you are known, where you are doing\r\nwell, where you have your network, you are on the up, and if you\r\nstay on, you know what you are going to do. It is not just the earning\r\npower, it is also the excitement, the challenge, the success, the\r\nthrill of being at the top of your career and your profession. You\r\ncome in, you may succeed, you may fail. You cannot say for sure\r\nbecause however successful a person is in the private sector, public service\r\nas a Minister is a different proposition. You need different aptitudes,\r\ndifferent skills. If you do not have the right touch and you do\r\nnot transfer from being a specialist doctor to being a policy-oriented\r\nMinister, whatever your psychomotor skills, whatever your many years\r\nof learning and experience, it has gone to waste.
\r\nPage: 960
\r\n\r\n And you cannot go back to\r\nthe private sector and rejoin your profession. Five years later\r\nor 10 years later, you are not as young, five more years of bright\r\nyoung people have come along, filled up the places, taken your clients\r\nor patients, and when you go back out, you are in a different path.\r\nSo, it is an irrevocable change of course. And, of course, there\r\nare family and privacy considerations as well, especially if your\r\nfamily is still young. How will they be affected? Will I have time\r\nfor them? Can they cope? Will their financial prospects be affected\r\nif I come in because I have to calculate the implications?
\r\n\r\n Similarly, for those from\r\nthe public sector. In a way, it is easier because policy-wise, they\r\nhave been working on policies, contact-wise, they probably have\r\nmore contact with the Ministers so they know what the Ministers\r\nare doing and the Ministers know what they are doing, but for them\r\nalso it is a one-way ticket because they have to resign from the\r\npublic service. You go out, it is diving into the ocean. The Chinese\r\nsay \"下海\", meaning the private\r\nsector but here you are diving into the ocean, into politics. And, likewise,\r\nno assurance of success because writing policy papers for a Minister\r\nis quite different from standing up in Parliament and expounding\r\nand defending and persuading and carrying a policy which you have\r\nhad to take the lead to set and to work out. If it does not work,\r\nthey also have to start afresh, completely new in the private sector somewhere.\r\nThose who come into politics but did not become Ministers straightaway\r\n– and sometimes that happens – have immediately to find new jobs\r\noutside of Government and make a living for themselves.
\r\n\r\n So, it is not a simple matter\r\nto come in from the point of view of their own calculation, from\r\nthe point of the responsibility which they are taking on. It is\r\nnot a simple matter either because you are going to be, as a Minister\r\nof State or Minister, responsible for the futures, the lives, the\r\nsecurity, the prosperity, the education of several million Singaporeans.\r\nAnd if you are not up to it, several million people are going to\r\nsuffer the consequences, quite apart from any mortification or embarrassment\r\nwhich you may feel. But the responsibility which you are taking\r\non to you, to do this on behalf of Singaporeans. If you do not pause\r\nand take a deep breath and think it over for several days, you are\r\nnot fit for this job.
\r\n\r\n So when people say, come\r\nin, I have the passion, I will proceed. If only life were so simple\r\nand passion was sufficient for everything. You need the passion,\r\nbut you also need to be circumspect to think and consider carefully:\r\nam I up to it? Can I really make that contribution? Therefore, you\r\nare not talking about huge numbers of people, you are talking about\r\na few dozen possibilities in Singapore, finally when they boil it\r\ndown in each election, we have never brought in more than six or\r\nseven.
\r\n\r\n I have never discussed salaries\r\nwith the potential candidates who are coming in either from the\r\nprivate sector or from the public sector because if money had been\r\ntheir principal consideration, we would not even have fielded them\r\nas MPs, much less appointed them as Ministers. But I asked them\r\nto join politics because they have the right values, because they\r\nwere capable, and I believe that they could make meaningful contributions.\r\nAnd they agreed to come in because they wanted to serve and after searching their souls\r\nand consulting their families, they felt: Yes, I think I can make\r\na contribution.
\r\nPage: 961
\r\n\r\n I do not believe that salaries\r\nwere a make or break issue for any of them who have come in. But\r\nI have no doubt that proper salaries have made it easier for me\r\nto build the team which I have today and to provide the best service\r\nwhich we can to Singaporeans to govern the country. But I also recognise\r\nthat there were others too who might have been able to contribute\r\nbut who declined when I asked them. They cited desire for privacy\r\nor they may say, \"Sorry, politics is not for me\" or they say, \"Thank\r\nyou very much, I will contribute but I will find my own ways to\r\ndo it.\" Nobody will ever say, \"Sorry, the pay is too low\", but we\r\nneed to be honest with ourselves. For some of them, it must have\r\nbeen a consideration, especially the younger ones with young families\r\nand young children. And when they say, \"I don't mind but my husband\r\nis not keen or my wife is not keen\", well, we know how to interpret\r\nwhat it means. Because even if they do not worry for themselves,\r\nthey must think about the financial impact on their spouses and\r\nchildren, and they must think what their responsibility is to their\r\nfamily and to provide the best they can for their family and what\r\nthe impact would be in terms of exposure and in terms of normal\r\nlife as well as financially.
\r\n\r\n So far, I have been more\r\nsuccessful bringing in people from the public sector than the private\r\nsector. Partly as I said, because the civil servants are more familiar\r\nwith policy. But also it is more difficult for the private sector\r\nto adjust, to come in and to be a Minister because there is a greater\r\ndifference between Ministerial and business or professional skills\r\nsets. From being a surgeon to being a decision maker. From a lawyer\r\narguing a case for your client to being a Minister, deciding what\r\nare the right laws which should prevail in the land. And to change\r\nfrom being a very successful lawyer or banker, to being a very successful\r\nMinister is not so easy.
\r\n\r\n But the Minister's job is\r\nas demanding, as important and as consequential as any private sector\r\njob, and requires people of the same quality as the private sector\r\njob and better.
\r\n\r\n There is one more factor,\r\nof course, and that is that the civil service pay, while competitive,\r\nis not quite as high as the private sector pay. So, when the civil\r\nservant comes in, the impact financially is not so great. But even\r\nthen, when I bring in a senior officer like Heng Swee Keat, he will\r\ntake a substantial cut, and now, with this recommendation, a further\r\nreduction. It is not a light decision to bring in somebody like Heng\r\nSwee Keat from the civil service. He has been a Permanent Secretary,\r\nhe was Managing Director of Monetary Authority of Singapore – he\r\nwas responsible for the whole financial system and financial sector\r\nin Singapore, one of our top Permanent Secretaries. If he had not\r\ncome in to politics, every chance of becoming Head of Civil Service.\r\nIt is a big sacrifice for the civil service to lose a person like\r\nthat. It is a significant sacrifice to him to come in from where\r\nhe was and the grade he was, which he fully justified to start as\r\na new Minister at the bottom and work his way up. But I was fortunate,\r\nI talked to him. Last time, he was not ready – children still young.\r\nThis time, he was ready – he proceeds – and, fortunately, I have\r\nnow got a good Minister for Education. But can I do that a dozen\r\ntimes and get 12 such people into my Cabinet? If not, how do I fill\r\nthe Cabinet? How do we make sure that it is just not education but defence,\r\ntransportation, national development, foreign affairs – the whole\r\nrange – are all staffed with top quality people?
\r\nPage: 962
\r\n\r\n Paying people correctly is part of that\r\nanswer. Not the whole part, but part of the answer. And I have been\r\ninvolved with pay as well as salaries for a large part of my working\r\ncareer. My first involvement was in the SAF in the 1980s. I was\r\nin the general staff and the Government was planning a major increase\r\nof salaries proposed. I think Mr Goh Chok Tong was then the Defence\r\nMinister, and we discussed it. I think it was about 20% to 25% increase\r\nfor the officers, and I argued against it because I thought it was\r\ntoo much, too fast. There was no need to be so generous and perhaps\r\nto change the spirit of the service. But that was my perspective,\r\nwhich changed over the years.
\r\n\r\n Later, when I came into\r\nParliament, I watched how Mr Lee Kuan Yew argued and defended the\r\npolicy of paying realistic wages to Ministers. I remember particularly\r\nin 1985, during the Budget, Committee of Supply, when there was\r\na full debate with Mr J B Jeyaretnam. Mr Low Thia Khiang was not\r\nyet in Parliament, but it was Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam. Minister\r\nMentor, or then Prime Minister, came with a stack of papers and did\r\nbattle. He never looked at the papers but for three hours, he argued,\r\nexplained, made the case with Jeyaretnam, with Chiam See Tong, with\r\nseveral other MPs participating, in a way which only Minister Mentor\r\ncan do. Why this is being realistic, why you have to be honest and\r\nnot hypocritical about this matter, why it is necessary to have\r\nthe best man to be the Chief Justice, to be Judges, to be the Attorney-General,\r\nto be Permanent Secretaries and Ministers, and how important it\r\nis to do that right rather than argue over a few million dollars\r\nof salary. But even Minister Mentor, after three hours of a bravura performance,\r\ncould not settle the matter permanently. It is not possible, and\r\nevery few years we came back to it, and each time we have to argue\r\nthe matter again.
\r\n\r\n In the early 1990s, I was\r\nDeputy Prime Minister and in charge of the civil service, Public\r\nService Division. And I saw how, at that time, with rapid economic\r\ngrowth and rapid increases in salaries, civil service pay and remuneration\r\nwere lagging behind the private sector, and the service was rapidly\r\ngetting depleted. Young officers were leaving, paying up their bonds\r\nor leaving soon after their bonds, not waiting to be underpaid in their\r\n40s, but calculating ahead that by the time I am 40, I am going\r\nto be behind. I am now 30, this is my moment to make the move. And\r\npeople calculating even ahead of that.
\r\n\r\n The civil service put up\r\na proposal to make a 5% or 10% pay revision. I told them it was\r\nunrealistic, we have a serious problem. We have to move drastically\r\non pay, we have to move drastically on promotions. Because if every\r\ntime I pay faster, I promote slower, you will end up going nowhere,\r\nand that was the problem because of the system then, without personnel\r\nboards. I was convinced we needed a major revision. And so in 1993,\r\nwe made major revisions to the pay for Ministers, for the civil\r\nservice, especially at the Administrative Service and the Legal\r\nService. At the same time, we came up with this idea that you are\r\ngoing to have this problem repeatedly over the years, the arguments\r\nremain the same, we should settle the argument, try and make a benchmark and\r\nthen we just follow the benchmark. If it goes up, we go up. If it\r\ngoes down, we go down. And the logic remains the same. The formula\r\nhas been agreed, the calculation – that is a matter of arithmetic.
\r\n\r\n On that basis, we published\r\nour White Paper in 1994 and introduced the idea of a formula. And\r\nthe formula was two-thirds of the average of the top 24 people in\r\nsix professions – two-thirds average 24. Later on, we modified it\r\nand made it two-thirds of the average or the median of the top 48\r\npeople in the same professions. And over the years, we made successive\r\nrevisions to improve the scheme to adapt as circumstances change,\r\nand each time we explained fully in Parliament and to the people\r\nof Singapore what\r\nwe were doing. It is really above board, completely open, fully\r\nargued. And Mr Low Thia Khiang was here for many of those and we\r\nengaged on this issue repeatedly.
\r\nPage: 963
\r\n\r\n We applied this principle\r\nof benchmarking not just to the Ministers, not just to the Administrative\r\nService, but throughout the civil service and the SAF. So it is\r\nofficers, soldiers, policemen, teachers, nurses, administrators,\r\nclerks. Every level, what could you earn in the private sector,\r\nwhat can you earn in the public sector, we will try and match that,\r\nbut always lagging a little bit because we do not want to set the\r\npace. We want to be lagging. But we made sure it is competitive,\r\nand this led to major salary adjustments. For the teachers, one\r\nyear, we made a 30% increase, and then we followed that with successive\r\nadjustments over the years. Had we not done that, we would not have\r\nthe civil service we have today. We would not have teachers who\r\nare good graduates, we would not have principals who are in their\r\nlate 30s, early 40s, vigorous. We would not be able to staff our\r\nhospitals and healthcare system. We would not have people in every department\r\non top of their job, thinking what to do next, what to do better.
\r\n\r\n But the process is never\r\nover and it continues today because if private sector moves, we\r\nhave to continue to move. And the Legal Service, we continually\r\nare under pressure because in the private sector, lawyers' earnings\r\nare going up. Doctors and nurses, the private sector is doing very\r\nwell. There is a review going on for doctors and nurses. MOH is\r\nmaking their case to the Ministry of Finance. All and other departments\r\nand other services too. All these are continuing revisions which\r\nare necessary and, in the same way, Ministerial pay also has to\r\nremain competitive and realistic as circumstances change.
\r\n\r\n But for many Singaporeans,\r\nMinisterial pay remains an issue. Some of them disagree with the\r\nprinciple of looking at the private sector or some of them may have\r\nreservations about the formula which we have set, whether it is\r\ntoo narrow, whether you are looking at the wrong group of people,\r\nwhether it is stable enough, what if the group changes. Many technical\r\narguments can be rehearsed. Some people just feel that the salaries\r\nare just too high. Whatever it is, that is too much and less is\r\nbetter. Others may be unhappy that the Ministers have to take the\r\nresponsibility to decide their own salaries rather than have somebody\r\nelse impartially deciding it for them. And then there are the concerns that\r\nhighly paid political leaders would lose the ethos of caring for\r\nSingaporeans first as their main motivation and priority, and may\r\nlose touch with the problems which average families with average\r\nincomes feel. So, all these came to a head in the General Elections in\r\n2011. And I would say that these are, in principle, reasonable concerns.\r\nNo government can function unless it is functioning and serving\r\nthe interests of its electorate and Singaporeans. But in Singapore,\r\nthe PAP's track record of Government can stand up to scrutiny. Bonus\r\nor no bonus, year in, year out, we have looked after the interests\r\nof all Singaporeans, especially the poor, which is how we have got\r\nhere today, as Mdm Halimah Yacob reminded the House just now.
\r\n\r\n But these are not issues\r\neasily settled in the heat of a campaign, and we certainly do not\r\nwant an auction to the lowest bidder. People saying, \"I will serve\r\nfor less\" and the other person, \"I will serve for even less\". And\r\nyou think that if you choose the cheapest one, you will get the\r\nbest value for money? It has to be considered carefully and thoroughly\r\nwith Singapore's best interest at heart, and then we reach a judicious decision\r\nwhich will serve Singapore well for the longer term.
\r\nPage: 964
\r\n\r\n Therefore, after the General Election,\r\nI appointed Mr Gerard Ee to head a Committee. He put together a\r\ncompetent and respected team with broad experience. They consulted widely,\r\nthey analysed the issues thoroughly and from a fresh perspective,\r\nand they have submitted, what in my view, is a well-judged report.\r\nIn terms of quantums, there is a major reduction, more than one-third\r\nreduction for Ministers, no more pensions, the formula is changed.\r\nBut it reflects the Committee's judgement of the right balance between\r\npaying competitively to assemble a good team and setting a reasonable discount\r\nfor public service – to recognise public and, particularly, political\r\nservice. This is significantly different from the balance which\r\nthe Government set when we last revised the benchmark 12 years ago.\r\nBut the situation has changed. Since then, we appointed the Committee,\r\nwe accept their judgement and we will work on its basis.
\r\n\r\n But equally important as\r\na formula and a number, the Committee reviewed and reaffirmed the\r\nfundamental principles for setting salaries in the public sector.\r\nThey examined many alternatives during the consultation, considered\r\nthem all carefully, but ultimately decided that the basis should\r\nbe what Singaporeans can earn in the private sector, include a discount\r\nto recognise that this is political service in the interest of the nation,\r\nand to pay a clean wage.
\r\n\r\n In other words, the Committee\r\nreaffirmed the basis on which the Government has been working all\r\nalong, although with a new formula and a bigger discount. And I\r\nam encouraged to see that the Workers' Party also accepts these\r\nbasic principles, although they have a different formula and a different\r\nnotion of what the numbers should be in the same ballpark as what\r\nthe Committee has recommended. But of course slightly lower because\r\nhaving looked at the Committee's report, they decided as the Opposition party,\r\nsurely they must recommend something a bit less. But my Government\r\naccepts the Committee's recommendations. We will do our best to\r\nmake it work. I hope the public will accept the Committee's proposals\r\nas fair and right for the future.
\r\n\r\n Why is pay such a critical\r\nissue? Because pay goes to one of the core requirements for Singapore\r\n– to assemble the best team to serve Singapore. And if you have\r\nthe wrong system of pay, you will have the wrong team. And as the\r\nPrime Minister, this is my constant worry.
\r\n\r\n I am less concerned about\r\nthe impact of the salary revisions on my present team of Ministers.\r\nThey have come in, they have committed themselves. They are in for\r\nthe cause. This pay cut is not going to affect their dedication\r\nto serve. But my bigger concern is for the long term, for future\r\nCabinets and potential office holders. People who have not yet come\r\nin, people who must make that decision and that commitment. Can\r\nthe future Prime Minister continue to get the best and most committed\r\npeople to serve as his Ministers? In fact, can we get the best possible\r\nfuture Prime Minister for Singapore? How can our pay system support\r\nthis important goal? And if we have a pay system which supports\r\nthis, how can we get Singaporeans to accept that?
\r\n\r\n The ethos of service is\r\ncritical if you are coming into politics. Ideally, we should take public\r\nservice as being inherently different from the private sector. Public\r\nservice has its own rewards and we just set salaries sufficient\r\nto support Ministers at a reasonable standard of living, independent\r\nof what the private sector earns. And there is no shortage of talent.\r\nBigger monetary sacrifice will not deter more public-spirited Singaporeans\r\nfrom serving. In fact, some people have argued that the bigger sacrifice will\r\nencourage more public-spirited people to come forward.
\r\nPage: 965
\r\n\r\n I respect this view but even though in\r\nour hearts we would wish and hope that it were true. In reality,\r\nwe know it is not so simple. Our own experience and the experience\r\nin other political systems provide a reality check. Yes, there will\r\nbe always some able Singaporeans who are willing to serve regardless\r\nof the terms. And we treasure people like that, and when we find\r\nthem, if they are suitable, we field them because they are very\r\nspecial. But will there be enough of them to produce a whole team\r\nof Ministers, a whole of Cabinet, equal to the task and with the\r\nstandards which we have come to expect? And can we afford to risk\r\nthe future of the country on the assumption that there is no trouble,\r\nwe will find them, salaries do not matter? From my experience working with\r\nthe system, I know it is not so easy. We are talking about a small\r\ngroup to start with and every additional hurdle you put, every additional\r\nburden on the step forward to come in, you make it more difficult\r\nand you narrow your choice.
\r\n\r\n Even without competitive\r\npay, some people will come forward. Those who do not care about\r\nmoney and they are doing good work. You see them at charities, you\r\nsee them at the VWOs, some are in religious service. I think our\r\nsociety is the richer for them. We will be very much poorer without\r\npeople like that. But they are not enough and not all of them have\r\nthe combination of attributes and skills which we are looking for.
\r\n\r\n We will get people who come\r\nin with wealthy backgrounds, as Mr Alvin Yeo pointed out yesterday\r\n– happening in other countries where politics is dominated by those\r\nwho can afford to participate and not to be paid. Like in America,\r\nwhere many of the politicians are of means, they are not poor people\r\n– Mitt Romney, billionaire many times over; Michael Bloomberg made\r\nhis fortune. If you are not rich, you are not likely to be running\r\nfor President. Even Barak Obama who came from humbler backgrounds\r\nis not a poor man. And so too, in UK, where the Cabinet is a cabinet\r\nof wealthy people, as Mr Alivn Yeo pointed out.
\r\n\r\n We will also get people\r\nwho have been successful in their careers, who have become financially\r\nsecure and who are now at a stage in their lives when they are ready\r\nto do public service. They will come in. We had Dr Richard Hu who\r\nserved with distinction many years ago. We have Shanmugam come in\r\nas a lawyer in his late 40s and there will be others, too. And I\r\nsee on the Opposition side, Mr Chen Show Mao has come in, aged 50\r\nafter a successful career. Now he is ready to do public service.
\r\n\r\n Yes, we can find people\r\nwith this background who have been successful and are now ready\r\nto make a career switch and do pro bono work. But they will\r\nbe older, 50-plus years old. They can serve one, two terms and if\r\nthe whole Cabinet is 50-plus years old, I think it is going to be\r\na less future-oriented Cabinet, less energetic, less in touch with\r\nthe new generation. We want people who are younger, who are vigorous,\r\nfor whom this is not just something you do after you have done other\r\nthings in your life but the main commitment for the prime years\r\nof your working life.
\r\n\r\n We have nothing against\r\nSingaporeans who have wealthy backgrounds or who have made a successful\r\nprivate sector career. They will have meaningful contributions to make\r\nor they may have meaningful contributions to make but we cannot\r\nafford to have our whole system based on this. We need a mix of\r\ntalent, different ages and backgrounds, people who represent the\r\ndiverse needs and aspirations of our population. And to do that,\r\nyou need to have a proper system. As Ms Denise Phua acknowledged\r\nyesterday with a regretful tone but she has run a VWO; she has herself gone in and committed\r\nherself, running Pathlight. She recounted her experience gathering\r\na team for Pathlight School. She can persuade her banker to switch\r\nover and do this work for the love of it but she could not assemble\r\na whole team of volunteers who did not need a salary. She needed\r\nto take a pragmatic approach and we need to have that pragmatic\r\nmindset too.
\r\nPage: 966
\r\n\r\n Overall, our approach has\r\nworked well for Singapore. It has enabled us to assemble a strong\r\nand committed team. We have governed effectively, cleanly and fairly.\r\nWe fostered a harmonious multi-racial society and we have improved\r\nSingaporean lives and transformed Singapore from third world to\r\nfirst. Whether you are a wealthy person, whether you are professional,\r\nwhether you are low-income Singaporean, your life today is better\r\nthan it was 10 years ago and totally different from what it was\r\none generation ago.
\r\n\r\n And as a result, Singapore\r\nand Singaporean Ministers have earned respect and esteem worldwide.\r\nSingapore stands high. When people look for models of what to emulate,\r\nwhere are the solutions, where are the ideas. They look to Singapore;\r\nwhether they are looking at traffic; whether they are looking at\r\nhealthcare; whether they are looking at housing; whether they are\r\nlooking at clean and efficient government. And they look at Singapore\r\nMinisters also with healthy respect. As Mdm Halimah reminded us,\r\nDeputy Prime Minister Tharman is chairing the International Monetary\r\nand Financial Committee. It is the main Committee of the IMF. What\r\nrights have we Singapore to be there chairing the Committee? We\r\nare not just a traffic policeman inviting people to speak. You are\r\nthere because you have views, you understand the issues, you have\r\na contribution to make. Therefore, you are respected and people\r\nare happy to work with you because you can help them to solve their\r\nvery difficult problems.
\r\n\r\n So, the system has worked,\r\nhas worked well. I am not saying it is perfect. Ministers make mistakes,\r\nthe Government sometimes makes mistakes. We always try to do better but\r\noverall, this is the system which has worked for Singapore. Getting\r\nthe best possible leadership for Singapore is vital for us because\r\nSingapore is different from other countries. Our survival and success\r\nwill always be based on our ability to be extraordinary. We are\r\na little red dot, unlike the US, even unlike Finland or Switzerland. No\r\none owes us a living. If we run into trouble, we are not going to\r\nbe as fortunate as Greece or Portugal. There is no EU to be the\r\nuncle. You are on your own.
\r\n\r\n And we have to protect ourselves\r\nin a turbulent and uncertain region. Hong Kong is as small as us,\r\nabout the same population. Hong Kong always has big brother on the other\r\nside – one country, two systems. China is there, and China will\r\ntake care of them. Switzerland and Belgium – small countries. They\r\nmake do with either invisible or low-key government. Belgium went\r\nwithout a government for about 500 days. Switzerland, Ministers\r\ntake turns to lead the government and the country runs itself because\r\nit is in the middle of Europe and nothing can go wrong.
\r\n\r\n But we in Singapore are\r\nnot like that. We are young, multi-ethnic, always needed to change\r\ndirections, to think, to fly faster, higher, lower, different angle,\r\ndifferent route because we are in a different situation. And therefore,\r\nwe will always need a highly competent government to make up for\r\nour other disadvantages, to run a high-functioning system whose\r\nsum is more than the parts which make it up, to constantly adjust\r\nto changes and to meet the needs of our population, including the\r\nlower-income group. It has been so up to now and I think it is going\r\nto continue to be so in future, in a more challenging external environment.
\r\nPage: 967
\r\n\r\n Nevertheless, some people still argue that\r\nwe can follow other countries, how they pay their Ministers. Let\r\nus look at that – many alternatives to choose from and the Workers'\r\nParty, somewhere in their documents and their pronouncements also\r\ntake this line. But we are different from them because our situation\r\nis different. We are different from them because we have set an\r\napproach to public sector, public service and to government and\r\nto remunerating government which is different from the approach\r\nthey have taken. They have gone for complicated wages. We have gone\r\nfor clean wage. They have gone for wages, in many countries, which\r\nbear no relation to the private sector. We have decided we have\r\nto be realistic. We have to look and see what it is which Singaporeans\r\ncan earn, what it is which is necessary to make this system work.
\r\n\r\n They have their problems.\r\nIt is not that other countries do not have problems and we can just\r\ntake out what they are doing and all will be well. We are not trouble\r\nfree but I think we avoid many of the problems which they have.\r\nYou see the financial scandals, not just in emerging markets countries,\r\nnot just in the third world. You see frequent resignations when\r\nthings go wrong with Ministers. You see unstable governments. Italy has\r\nhad one government every 18 months since the War. That means, over\r\n60 years, they have had about 40 governments. Japan has had six\r\nPrime Ministers over the last five years, roughly. I may have lost\r\ncount but they are talking about those orders of magnitude.
\r\n\r\n And foreign leaders in fact,\r\noften privately admit to us that they wish they could have followed\r\nus. Unfortunately, their politics do not allow them to follow us,\r\nin the way we deal with the public sector and with Ministers' pay.\r\nForeign visitors tell us the same, how impressed they are with our\r\nMinisters; how they impressed they are with our system. I have had\r\nmany foreign visitors who tell me, \"Your Ministers are different\r\nand I have worked with Ministers in many countries and I have not\r\nmet a team like your team.\"
\r\n\r\n Another visitor told me\r\nafter the Elections, \"Don't change your system.\" We look at other\r\nthis big Asian country and he named. He says the Ministers are paid\r\nnothing but every single one of them is at least worth $200 million.\r\nThey know it because they see working here. Therefore, they invest.\r\nTherefore, they have faith in us. Therefore, Singaporeans benefit\r\nfrom this reputation and this confidence which the world has in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n So Singapore is different\r\nfrom them. I do not need to go into details but I will just skim through\r\nquickly. You look at the US – the President is paid less than me.\r\nYes. And the last time I had the revision, the newspapers reported\r\na certain anonymous high level resident of the White House saying\r\nthat he wished he was paid the same. But the high level resident\r\nof the White House travels in Air Force One, lives in the White\r\nHouse, vacations at Camp David. And after they retire, they earn\r\nmany times their salaries. All they have to do is to turn up for\r\nan appearance, make a few remarks, a hundred thousand dollars a\r\ntime.
\r\n\r\n In three years, George Bush\r\nhas earned US$15 million since retiring; Bill Clinton who retired\r\na decade ago has earned US$75 million. His fees are about US$200,000\r\neach time. And it is not just the President, but it is a revolving\r\ndoor system for many of their top officials. People who come in,\r\nserve a short while, go back out and often go back out to be lobbyists\r\nand consultants or to serve in the industries and businesses which\r\nrelate to what they were working on when they were inside – whether\r\nit is defence, whether it is\r\ncommunications, whether it is energy. And so, you lead to conflicts\r\nof interests. And so, you lead to problems when you are not quite\r\nsure whether the policy is \"straight\" or not \"straight\". Why is\r\nhe doing it? Dick Cheney had to answer many questions because he\r\nused to work in petroleum, he became Vice President, he has gone\r\nout, he has links with big companies. So when he makes decisions\r\nand Haliburton benefits, many questions are asked, fairly or unfairly.
\r\nPage: 968
\r\n\r\n Britain has the same challenges.\r\nLow official salaries topped up by generous benefits. Just now,\r\nMr Faisal Manap says, \"Well, because they live in London. That's\r\nwhy they are given these benefits\". That is the explanation. The\r\nreality is they are given these benefits because they could not\r\nbe given the pay and so it was presented as benefits and the understanding\r\nwas these are claims you can make and so long as you submit some piece\r\nof paper, well, we would pay the claims. Because this is just a\r\nway to work the system so that you can be paid what you really truly\r\nneed to be paid. And the MPs took it literally. They submitted claims\r\nfor maintaining the swans in their ponds, for cleaning up the moat\r\nof their castle. Somebody submitted the claim because he was watching some\r\nexciting movie in his home. And when all these came out, there was\r\na humongous scandal and they have to chop all that down. And now\r\nthey have a very serious problem because now they cannot pay MPs\r\nvia this route, neither can they raise the MPs' allowance because\r\nMP's standing has sunk rock bottom in people's esteem.
\r\n\r\n And now, with austerity,\r\nwith the economy doing badly, David Cameron recently proposed to\r\nmake Ministers pay more for their pensions so they have to deduct\r\nmore for their co-payments to show solidarity with the people because\r\npeople are suffering from spending cuts. One of his Ministers accused\r\nhim of \"jester politics\"; and another Minister said \"We all know\r\nwhat sort of earning potential Cameron will have after he leaves\r\noffice and it won't be small.\" And in fact, you have seen former\r\npoliticians in Britain leaving office who had gone in to subsequent\r\ncareers and it has become controversial because they have to earn\r\na living for themselves and the question is: how are they doing\r\nit?
\r\n\r\n So, other countries are\r\ndifferent. We have deliberately not followed that model. I think\r\nwe should not follow that model. Good government is going to remain\r\ncritical to Singapore in future. This is not just during the first\r\nphase, as we take off, you need a strong government, after that,\r\nyou can fly on auto-pilot. In fact, I think in the next phase, we\r\nwill need even more skilled pilots. We face important domestic challenges: sustaining\r\ngrowth in a more mature economy; maintaining security in a volatile\r\nand uncertain world; strengthening our social bonds and our racial\r\nharmony in a society which is becoming more diverse.
\r\n\r\n Domestically, it is complex;\r\nexternally, it is challenging. We see the competition from China\r\nand India and it is not just at the bottom. We see the fragile global\r\neconomy and that is not going to be secured within one or two years.\r\nWe see the trends in technology, eating into middle-class jobs,\r\nwhite-collar jobs and we ask ourselves: how do we avoid this tsunami,\r\nwhere can we find high ground to shelter and to protect our people?\r\nNone of these can be done on auto-pilot. We need a government which\r\nwill constantly be able to adapt, to respond, to seek new opportunities,\r\nwhile it is addressing the challenges in front of you. And if you\r\nwant an example of a country which is on auto-pilot and when the\r\nauto-pilot does not quite solve the problem, you look at Japan.\r\nVery advanced country, very strong civil service, highly qualified\r\ncivil servants Рmany from Tokyo University, Todai, the cr̬me\r\nde la cr̬me, but with a dysfunctional political system Рunable\r\nto have a strong government with the Permanent Secretary knowing\r\nmore than the Minister\r\nand Ministers changing frequently, sometimes within days of taking\r\noffice because they misspeak, they resign, new Minister comes along;\r\ninfinite supply but infinite confusion.
\r\nPage: 969
\r\n\r\n And the deeper lesson of\r\nthat is that however strong your civil service, without good Ministers,\r\nthe civil service cannot act. Because governing a country is not\r\na matter for technocrats, it is a matter for political leaders who\r\nwill decide, who will persuade, who will carry the ground, who will\r\nset the direction and who will make things happen. And if the Minister\r\ncannot sell the policy, your Permanent Secretary may be first-class,\r\nthe policy cannot fly. So it is quite useful to have smart, very\r\ngood Permanent Secretaries and civil service, but to believe as\r\nMr Chiam See Tong used to believe that if you have a good civil\r\nservice, you do not need a good government. That is just plain wrong.
\r\n\r\n I do not see it likely that\r\nwe are going to find it easier to get good Ministers in future. I\r\nthink the contrary is the case. First of all, Singapore politics\r\nis beginning more complex, more uncertain; it is not a sure ride,\r\nit is not a career move; you can lose and even if you win, the job\r\nof politics – persuading people, arguing with people, dealing with\r\nthe brickbrats – is a lot more complicated than before. On the other\r\nside, there are many more exciting career opportunities available\r\nfor able and ambitious young Singaporeans here and abroad.
\r\n\r\n In the early 1990s, when\r\nI was worrying about the civil service brain-drain, we were only\r\nconcerned about the civil servants going out into the private sector\r\nin Singapore – maybe one or two will go to Hong Kong or the region.\r\nToday, the world is your oyster. You go to an Ivy League University,\r\nyou are targeted by recruiters in your first year. You spend time\r\nin Silicon Valley; one internship; at the end, you are good, they\r\nmake you an offer. You go to New York, Wall Street – you do not\r\nhave to go – if you are good, somebody will pass them your name,\r\nthe recruiter will come to look for you, interview you, make you\r\nan offer. Free T-shirts are the least of the benefits they give\r\nyou. And it is tremendously exciting – round, worldwide opportunities.\r\nIt is exciting not because of the pay. It is exciting because these\r\nare young people who think that they are going to change the world.\r\nAnd when we say, \"Come back, change Singapore, that is as important\r\nand challenging\", they will say, \"Well, I'll think about it\".
\r\n\r\n So in that situation, I\r\nthink it is going to take a lot of persuading to get young people to\r\ngive up these opportunities and enter politics, whatever Ministers\r\nare going to get paid. And if the pay is not competitive, then there\r\nis just another obstacle to people who have got something valuable\r\nto add to Singapore. Grace Fu was completely right in this point\r\nwhen she posted on her blog to say that this salary revision is\r\nokay but if you go too far, I think there is going to be a problem\r\nfor many Singaporeans. She got flamed online, but she was right\r\nand she was honest to point this out. Singapore has to maintain a\r\nhigh quality of government otherwise we are going to go back down\r\nand we are going to be a mediocre country. I have said this many\r\ntimes, I think, perhaps, it has not been completely understood but\r\ncertainly it is not completely believed, but it is absolutely true.\r\nWe are different and because we are different and exceptional, therefore Singaporeans\r\nhave reaped a Singapore dividend – not something which the Minister\r\nfor Finance distributes during Budget but a Singapore dividend by\r\nvirtue of your carrying a pink IC and therefore your value in the\r\nworld has gone up. You are in demand. People want to hire you, opportunities\r\nare opened. When you go places, your standing is there. Doors open\r\nand people know of Singapore and people have high regard for Singapore.
\r\nPage: 970
\r\n\r\n I was at the APEC meeting in Honolulu last\r\nyear in November and I met some young people from the National Youth\r\nCouncil. There was a young people's gathering on the side of the\r\nAPEC meeting and we sent a delegation – seven of them, university\r\nstudents, some postgraduates – bright, young, idealistic, seeing\r\nthe world almost for the first time. And one girl said to me that\r\nshe was astonished at how high Singapore's standing was, how much\r\nrespect people had for Singapore. She never realised that. I said,\r\n\"Please go home and tell your friends\", because in fact, this is\r\nan important fact and this is something which is precious and which\r\nwe must not compromise and lose. Because if people stop having that\r\nopinion of Singapore, I think we are in trouble. So I cannot send all\r\nour bright young students to Honolulu but I think we need to know\r\nthat while we have reasons to be dissatisfied and to want to do\r\nbetter, in fact, we have not done badly, and we should be careful\r\nnot to lose what we have already gained.
\r\n\r\n One important argument that\r\npeople have raised is accountability. Since Ministers are paid well,\r\nso they have to be held accountable to perform. I would say \"Yes, Ministers\r\nhave to be held accountable\". But I would say the Ministers have\r\nto be held accountable, whatever they are paid – whether you are\r\npaid $1, whether you are paid a million dollars, whether you are\r\npaid $10 million. You are the Minister, you are serving the people,\r\nyou have to perform to the best of your ability. We are elected\r\nby Singaporeans. It is our duty to uphold the trust which they have\r\nreposed in us and to serve them the best that we can. And if we\r\nare unable to perform to their expectations, then we have to give\r\nway to a better person, or to a better team. And as Prime Minister, my\r\nresponsibility is to ensure that individually, each Minister performs\r\nup to expectation and collectively the Cabinet delivers the best\r\nGovernment for Singapore. So my duty is to set objectives for Ministers,\r\nassess them, hold them to account and to do this carefully and comprehensively;\r\nto take into account, not just what the Minister does in his main portfolio,\r\nbut also his broader contributions to our overall team and to Singapore.\r\nAnd it is not always possible to reduce this to a simplistic formula\r\nor to a finite set of KPIs which you can just measure the numbers\r\nand then calculate the bonus. Because Ministers have responsibilities\r\nin many dimensions, often intangible ones, for example, building\r\nthe SAF and Home Team is the work of more than a generation. So\r\nis keeping Singapore safe from terrorism.
\r\n\r\n When a new Minister comes\r\nin and takes over and the performance is good, it is maybe his good\r\nwork, it is maybe his predecessor's good work. We are safe today,\r\nwe have not had war for the last 30 years, but we have been preparing\r\nthe SAF, building up our security, making sure that we are safe\r\nfor longer than 30 years. So what the Minister does today is not\r\nmeasured in tomorrow's output or even next year's output but in\r\nthe results – 10, 20, 30 years from now, if he is doing a good job.
\r\n\r\n Same in education. Not just\r\nproviding school and university places today, but building an educational\r\nsystem that prepares students to work in the economy of the future.\r\nWhen will I know that our Ministers have done a good job? When today's\r\n15 year-olds are 55 and still working 40 years from now. So if we\r\ntalk about deferred bonus, I would have to defer Heng Swee Keat's\r\nbonus for 40 years.
\r\n\r\n Same with national development.\r\nBuilding public housing. Yes, everybody knows how to count: how\r\nmany HDB flats are completed last year. But also planning the city, conceiving\r\na new Marina Bay, creating green corridors and spaces all over Singapore. You\r\nput that into a KPI? So many kilometres, so many new Marina Bays,\r\nso many new IRs – cannot be done.
\r\nPage: 971
\r\n\r\n A good Minister does not just do and fulfil\r\nwhat the Prime Minister tells him to do. A good and entrepreneurial\r\nMinister expands the scope of his responsibilities, imagines things\r\nwhich he could do and embarks on projects which nobody asks him\r\nto, but which turn out to be good ideas and deliver outstanding\r\nresults for Singapore. So, it is not possible to have a preset formula\r\nto determine the performance bonus. The national bonus, yes, and\r\nthat is about half of it. That is about the same size as the performance bonus.\r\nThat you can measure – GDP, median income, 20th percentile income, unemployment.\r\nFor these, the Department of Statistics can churn out the numbers.\r\nBut the Minister's responsibility, his core responsibility as well\r\nas his broader responsibility and contributions, that cannot be\r\nreduced to a formula.
\r\n\r\n Finally, it is a judgement\r\nI have to make after consulting my senior colleagues and to decide\r\nwho has made the greater contributions, who has been the more effective Minister.\r\nNot every Minister is equal. The Ministers know it, the public knows\r\nit. And we have our own relative assessments, the public have their\r\nown relative assessments and sometimes the public is not shy to\r\ntell us what they think. They may or may not be right, but different\r\nMinisters have different contributions, in terms of their responsibilities,\r\nin terms of their abilities, in terms of their judgement and the\r\nability to work in a crisis. Therefore, the Ministers need to be\r\nat different grades and be paid different performance bonuses. But\r\nthey are all part of one team, and each one has a contribution to\r\nmake so that the team as a whole functions well. I have to decide\r\nthe Ministers' performance bonuses and grades.
\r\n\r\n I have circulated the table\r\nshowing you what the Ministers' grades are currently: Two Deputy\r\nPrime Ministers, one Minister on MR3, 10 Ministers on MR4 and I\r\nalso give the grades for the Ministers of State and the Parliamentary\r\nSecretaries. So, presently, nearly all the Ministers are on MR4\r\nbecause the Cabinet is still new, it is really in transition, still settling\r\nin. But I expect in the steady state, to promote more Ministers\r\nto the higher grades and to build a strong team which will comprise\r\nthree tiers of Ministers across the different grades in Cabinet:\r\nThe newer Ministers who are being developed for heavier responsibilities\r\nin future, the more experienced Ministers overseeing major Ministries or\r\nareas of work and then the senior Ministers, I do not mean senior\r\nMinisters as a title but Ministers who are more senior, who help\r\nme coordinate more than one Ministry and oversee whole-of-Government\r\nissues. So, there will be a hierarchy, but, together, we are a team.\r\nAnd the Ministers who do well will get heavier responsibilities\r\nand may get promoted.
\r\n\r\n So, Singaporeans have to\r\nevaluate the Ministers fairly. And they have to take into account\r\nboth the contributions and the shortcomings, and you have to look\r\nat it objectively and holistically because quite often, contributions\r\nmay be silent. But when something goes wrong, it goes wrong with\r\na bang. We must try to keep that perspective.
\r\n\r\n If the Ministers make mistakes,\r\nthen, of course, they must take responsibility and put things right.\r\nWe cannot expect the Ministers to never make mistakes or never to\r\nhave mistakes happen on their watch in their Ministries. It is not\r\npossible, this is a very big organisation and it is a very complicated\r\nworld and with the best intent in the world, from time to time,\r\nthings will go wrong. And when things go wrong, you have to put them\r\nright. And if it is your responsibility, you have done it wrong,\r\nthen you apologise and you answer for it.
\r\nPage: 972
\r\n\r\n If a Minister is negligent or dishonest,\r\nthen, of course, he has to be sacked. I have not had to do that,\r\nbut if a Minister does not perform well despite all his best efforts,\r\nthen I may move him to a less demanding portfolio where he is able\r\nto perform or, if necessary, I may have to phase him out discreetly.\r\nIt is not always visible, but it is necessary to do and it is necessary\r\nto understand why not everything can be done in the full glare of\r\nthe spotlights.
\r\n\r\n Apart from mistakes from\r\ntime to time, not every person who comes into Government will succeed\r\nas a Minister. It is a difficult job. You never know until you are in\r\nit whether it will work or it will not work, and sometimes you have\r\nto give it a try. I can make two types of mistakes. I can put in\r\nsomebody and it did not work, or I may decide I do not want to try\r\nsomebody and he could have been a good Minister. So I think I have to\r\naccept that when people come in to be Ministers, sometimes it does\r\nnot work out, in which case I need a graceful way to disengage and\r\npart amicably.
\r\n\r\n Exits are delicate matters,\r\nand they have to be handled with dignity and decorum, and the Ministers,\r\ntoo, are deserving of dignity and decorum. You cannot turn this\r\ninto a public spectacle and have it deter more good people from\r\nentering politics. So, this is how all organisations handle personnel\r\nchanges, and we have to do this with the Ministers too. I hope Singaporeans\r\nunderstand this.
\r\n\r\n Ultimately, the accountability\r\nis not individual Ministers. The accountability is the Cabinet,\r\ncollectively responsible for what we have decided and what the Government does.\r\nAll Ministers are collectively responsible for the Cabinet decisions,\r\nwhether it is building houses, whether it is building train lines,\r\nwhether it is setting taxes, whether it is setting immigration policies.\r\nThat is the doctrine. It is a collective responsibility. All Ministers\r\nare party to this and all Ministers are held to account ultimately\r\nwhen next we go to General Elections (GE) and the public is the\r\nfinal judge of the Government's record. I hope that when we go to\r\nelections, we will have a good record and the voters will assess\r\nthe Government fairly, based on overall results for the whole term.\r\nThat is how a democratic system has to work, and to work well, it\r\ndepends on the Government performing well and it depends on the\r\nelectorate making the right judgements.
\r\n\r\n I do not expect this speech\r\nto be the last word on Ministerial salaries, but it is my responsibility\r\nas Prime Minister to tackle this very difficult issue, to find and\r\nprepare the best possible team of Ministers for Singapore and the\r\nbest next team to take Singapore forward. To do that, it is not\r\njust a matter of drinking more tea or meeting more people, but putting\r\nin place the right system, the right framework, the right structure,\r\nand that is the pay system and the pay structure to help the next\r\nteam succeed and to find more people.
\r\n\r\n So, I hope Singaporeans\r\nwill understand this bigger picture, will know that getting in the\r\nright leaders who are passionate, committed and have the right values\r\nis key to their future and to do that, you must have the pay system\r\nright.
\r\n\r\n It is very hard for a new\r\nPrime Minister to do this, so Mr Lee Kuan Yew tried his best to\r\nclear the decks before Mr Goh took over. I think Mr Goh did all\r\nhe could to put it on as sound a position as possible before he\r\nhanded over to me. And I have to do my part to try and make it work\r\nin a different environment for a new phase but looking forward beyond\r\nme into the next generation.
\r\nPage: 973
\r\n\r\n So, I am taking this on my shoulders, and\r\nI ask for your support to make the right decision for Singapore,\r\nand then we will have always capable, public spirited men and women\r\nin Government to serve our people and to secure our future for many\r\nyears to come. [Applause.]
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, after listening to the Prime Minister's speech, where he leaves\r\nno stones unturned in his explanation, since I have prepared the speech,\r\nI might as well read it. [Laughter.]
\r\n\r\n On the Ministerial Pay\r\nReview Committee headed Mr Gerard Ee, I have only two major points\r\nto make. My priority in Parliament remains to be on sustainable\r\neconomic growth and healthcare costs. My remarks in Parliament,\r\nincluding this statement, are ultimately geared towards speaking\r\nup for Singaporeans in these areas. My first point relates to the\r\nformula of pegging the Ministers' base pay to 60% of the median\r\nincome of the top 1,000 Singaporean income earners. Mathematically,\r\nit is not clear how the salaries will go from here. Yes, this is\r\na huge cut from now but there is a possibility that the new formula\r\nmay even result in a higher base pay than what the old formula could provide\r\non a long-term basis. There are many ways that the median pay for\r\nthe top 1,000 earners can rise substantially in the next five years.\r\nWealthy foreign business people could be given Singaporean citizenship en\r\nmasse. It could even be that the median pay for this group will\r\nrise much faster than the median of the top 48 earners. But for\r\nme to form a more accurate opinion, I would need to see how the\r\nold and the new formulas will apply to the period from the year\r\n2000 to 2010 on a back-dated basis. To do so, the Government would\r\nhave to provide us with these figures. More importantly, are the figures\r\nfor the Ministers' bonuses as paid out each year according to the\r\nold and new formulas. If the Government and the Review Committee\r\nare truly serious about promoting a clean wage approach for Singapore\r\nMinisters, without additional perks and allowances, then they must\r\nfollow through with a spirit of that approach. All this data on salaries\r\nand the specific amount of bonuses paid out each year must be published\r\nand made transparent for public scrutiny. To-date I believe such\r\ndata is never released. In the UK, the Freedom of Information Act\r\nallowed for the release of details of MPs' expenses claimed for\r\nthe British public in the year 2009. If we in Singapore want to\r\ntalk about clean wages, let us all go the way: Publish the bonuses\r\npaid out every year. Mr Speaker, if the Government does not wish\r\nto follow the practices of Ministerial pay in other countries, may\r\nI remind that hon. Members of this House at least show some respect\r\nfor our friends and neighbours and how they decided to remunerate\r\ntheir leaders in their own countries. Let us show some humility.\r\nWe should not be telling them how to run their countries. There\r\nis no need to jeopardise our relationship with them.
\r\n\r\n My second point, in my opinion,\r\nis even more important for the good of Singapore. Ministerial pay\r\nshould be primarily driven according to KPIs that are specific to\r\ntheir Ministerial portfolio. Each Ministry should create a set of\r\nKPIs for the Minister and the Minister's pay is to be objectively\r\ndecided by a formula that is Ministry-specific. As a guide, the\r\nKPIs for the Permanent Secretary of the relevant Ministry as the\r\nmost senior civil servant should be taken into account. Yes, I know\r\nthat there is a performance bonus component which is rewarded based\r\non the individual performance of Ministers. But it is not clear\r\nwhat the criteria are in attaining this performance bonus. The Review Committee's report\r\nsays that the performance bonus' quantum will be reduced substantially.\r\nI am not sure whether the bonus formulas are well structured to\r\ndrive Ministers towards fulfilling their portfolio's KPIs and for\r\nthe purpose of accountability. The Committee recommended formula\r\nfor the national bonus may be an improvement on the old GDP bonus\r\nformula. But it is still too broad. Some cynics have even speculated\r\nthat the recommendation for the old formula to be changed has come\r\nat a time when Singapore's GDP growth will be slowing down. For\r\nexample, the Minister for Trade and Industry's KPI for all his bonuses\r\ncould be Singapore's wage growth. The Minister for Transport's KPI\r\ncould be tied with the Minister for National Development's KPI to\r\ncontrol population growth and thereby vehicle numbers.
\r\nPage: 974
\r\n\r\n Otherwise, the bonus structure\r\nwill give me discomfort. For example, our transport system might\r\nbe in disarray or a major terrorist might escape from prison but\r\nthe Minsters responsible for these incidents may still collect a\r\nfull national bonus, just because the economy has done well through\r\nthe good work of other Ministers like the Minister for Finance and\r\nthe Minister for Trade and Industry.
\r\n\r\n No, this cannot be good\r\nfor Singapore and that brings me to the overarching point. If the\r\nGovernment's decision is still to match Ministerial pay to the top\r\nearners of the private sector, then their accountability measures\r\nand KPIs must also match the rigour of the public sector.
\r\n\r\n I turn the focus now to\r\nthe junior Ministers' new recommended starting salary of about $1.1\r\nmillion per annum, bonuses included. Mr Chiam See Tong once worked\r\nout what Ministerial pay should be, in order that the Ministers\r\nwill still be able to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle with hardly\r\nany financial sacrifices. He calculated that the figure would be\r\n$50,000 per month, taking into account the mortgage and cost of\r\na bungalow, or whatever residence, the hiring of servants, two cars,\r\nannual holidays and the children's education. This proposal was\r\nalso supported by the then NMP Prof Walter Woon. At today's levels,\r\nthe figure would be about $60,000 per month or $720,000 per year.\r\nThat amount including bonuses would be a good benchmark to prove\r\ntheir worth for a young Minister with a young family. Moreover,\r\nthey still have their MPs' allowances of $192,500 to top it up.\r\nThis represents an approach that can be explained to Singaporeans\r\nand be accepted by them. For some of the new Ministers, this new salary\r\ncould be much more than their last drawn salary. Moreover, there\r\nis no risk factor in the job like, for example, what the stockbrokers\r\nface.
\r\n\r\n Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the\r\nfirst generation of Ministers have set up the Government apparatus\r\nas it is today. Now our Ministers inherit this system and continue\r\nwith their job and even enjoy the support of a credible and efficient\r\ncivil service. Distinguished senior servants like Mr Ngiam Tong\r\nDow had also played a major role in building our country.
\r\n\r\n When Mr Chiam See Tong was\r\nelected the MP for Potong Pasir back in 1984, people were afraid\r\nof associating themselves with him. His law firm began to suffer\r\nfrom a loss of business. He was ridiculed and mocked by various\r\npeople for his involvement in politics. He was even at the receiving\r\nend of such comments from judges when he was simply doing his work\r\nin the Courts defending clients. But he never thought these as sacrifices\r\nthroughout the years. He took it all in his stride. He saw it as\r\npart and parcel of his mission to fight for a democratic Singapore\r\n– a Singapore where no Singaporean is left behind.
\r\nPage: 975
\r\n\r\n I believe this is what being a servant\r\nleader entails. The spirit of public service is a calling, an honour,\r\na privilege. It is something to be proud of. Nevertheless, I note\r\nthat the Prime Minister's mandate for Mr Gerard Ee's Committee was\r\nbound to comparing Ministerial salaries to private sector salaries\r\nthrough the terms of reference. So that conclusion was already set\r\nbefore the Committee met, unfortunately. The Singapore People's\r\nParty pushed for a stronger public service ethos to be emphasised\r\nin any review on Ministerial pay but this Committee was just doing\r\nits mandated job. The Singapore People's Party wishes to thank Mr\r\nEe and his Committee. [Applause.]
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainal Sapari\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, our Prime Minister was right. He would not be the last one\r\nto speak on the issue, but how I wish he had been the last one.\r\nOur Prime Minister has explained very well the rationale and intent\r\non the approach taken with regard to Ministerial salary. The independent\r\nMinisterial Salary Review Committee, headed by Mr Gerard Ee, has\r\nconducted a thorough review and made many recommendations.
\r\n\r\n Overall, I am in support\r\nof the recommendations but would like to suggest a minor tweak.\r\nSir, I would like to focus on one significant recommendation which\r\nis the replacement of the GDP Bonus with the National Bonus. I support\r\nthe recommendation to remove the GDP Bonus. Pegging the bonus of\r\npolitical office holders to the GDP has its inadequacies as the\r\nimpact of national economic growth may not be equally shared across\r\nthe board. The National Bonus is a more inclusive measure of how\r\neconomic growth impacts Singaporeans, especially low- and middle-income\r\nSingaporeans. It moves away from merely taking GDP growth as an\r\nabsolute and looking at it in a more holistic manner as the growth\r\nitself does not mean that everyone is better off as a result of\r\nit or has higher salaries.
\r\n\r\n On that note, I would like\r\nto propose that the indicator involving the real growth rate of\r\nthe wages of the lowest percentile of Singapore citizens be given\r\na higher weightage of about 40% to give greater emphasis on the\r\nimportance of increasing the wages of this group of workers. Should\r\nthis indicator be given 40%, the other three indicators should be\r\ngiven an equal weightage of 20% each. This is important as it will\r\nsignal a greater need for emphasis to be placed on increasing the\r\nincome of those at the 20th percentile of working Singaporeans as\r\nthese people are the ones most in need of income growth. In fact,\r\nstatistics have shown that incomes of those in the lower end of\r\nthe strata have stagnated or seen very little growth over the last\r\ndecade, even as our economy continued to prosper.
\r\n\r\n As a Labour MP, I would\r\nlike our Government to send a clear signal that we are a caring\r\nGovernment which places low-wage workers as one of our top priorities.\r\nI acknowledge that our Government has tried through many ways to\r\nimprove the lot of low-income workers, for example, through schemes\r\nlike the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS). But more can be done\r\nby Government agencies and statutory boards to have a more systemic\r\nimpact on raising the real income for low-wage workers.
\r\n\r\n We are aware that there\r\nare inflationary economic pressures and structural changes in business\r\npractices such as the practice of outsourcing and employing cheaper\r\nforeign workers that\r\nresulted in the real income of low-wage workers declining. Outsourcing practices\r\nfor some jobs usually result in workers having low salaries and\r\nvery limited employment rights such as they are placed on contracts.\r\nSometimes, workers, especially in jobs like cleaning, securities\r\nand landscaping, work in the same place but keep having to change\r\ntheir employers as contracts are renewed. There have been cases where,\r\ndue to a change in contracts, workers earn less doing the same job\r\nbecause the company or organisation had chosen a lower quote. Many\r\nof them do not enjoy any annual increment, or Annual Wage Supplement,\r\nor more commonly known as the 13th month bonus.
\r\nPage: 976
\r\n\r\n I hope my call for a higher\r\nweightage for this component of the National Bonus will result in\r\na mindset change amongst our policy makers to take cognisance of\r\nthe impact on low-wage workers in formulating and implementing national\r\nor Government policies. For a start, I think it is imperative that\r\nall Government Ministries, agencies and statutory boards review\r\ntheir outsourcing practices to ensure that they do not contribute to\r\nthe plight of low-wage workers that I have described earlier.
\r\n\r\n In fact, in my maiden parliamentary\r\nspeech, I called for the drive towards achieving sustained real\r\nwage growth for low-wage workers to be a Key Performance Indicator\r\nfor every Ministry, Government agency, statutory board and social\r\nenterprise. We must do this as a shared national initiative to help\r\nour fellow Singaporeans. Increasing the weightage for real income\r\ngrowth for low-wage workers may tilt the balance of any policy impact\r\nin favour of this group of workers. I feel for the plight of these\r\nworkers and we must show that our concern for this group of workers\r\nexceeds the others as low-income workers are the most vulnerable\r\nin our economy. This 40-20-20 formula I suggested might be the little\r\npush needed to get more attention being focused on the plight of\r\nlow-wage workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to address this\r\nissue in Malay.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 1000\r\nfor Vernacular Speeches.] Mr\r\nSpeaker, I have called on the Government to raise the component\r\nthat affects the income growth of low-wage workers when determining\r\nthe National Bonus to 40%, and for the three other components, to\r\n20% each. This is compared to the equal weightage of 25% for each component\r\nas recommended by the Committee.
\r\n\r\n I made this suggestion as\r\nthis will send a signal that the move to increase the income of\r\nlow-wage workers must be given priority in our efforts to assist\r\nSingaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, many suggestions\r\nhave been raised on using various formulas that can be used or different\r\ncriteria to determine Ministerial salaries. The issue of Ministerial salaries\r\nis not just about figures or formulas but an emotive issue which\r\nis difficult to address fully. In any case, the Committee's recommendations\r\nhad somewhat assuaged the dissatisfaction among the people but the\r\ndebate on this topic will not end.
\r\n\r\n The motivation to serve\r\nin politics should not be based on money but the reality is that\r\nwe want to attract the best talent. Not everyone is prepared to\r\ntake such a big pay cut. If the salary is set too low, it will limit\r\nthe number of talented individuals who will consider the offer to\r\nenter politics.
\r\n\r\n In my view, the Committee's\r\nrecommendations are more comprehensive and it depicts the situation\r\nof the lives of Singaporeans. The proposal to review the Ministerial salaries every five\r\nyears will give us more room to make adjustments based on factors affecting\r\nSingapore in the future.
\r\nPage: 977
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Mr Speaker, please\r\nallow me to conclude in English. Sir, with the salaries that we\r\nare according to our political leaders, what our political office\r\nbearers must do is to make sure that the outcomes of their work\r\nare of the highest standards possible. We must continue to do good\r\nwork that will benefit all Singaporeans and in particular, make\r\nsure that those who are at the bottom rungs of our society move\r\nalong and benefit from the country's progress. Our leaders must\r\nensure that our policies continue to bring good economic development\r\nto Singapore and that while we prosper, we will look after the needs\r\nof the most vulnerable in our society and help them as much as we\r\ncan. Sir, the late United States President, John F. Kennedy, once\r\nsaid, \"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot\r\nsave the few who are rich\". Sir, I support the motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yaw Shin Leong (Hougang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, in response to the Prime Minister, and hon. Members,\r\nMr Vikram Nair, Mdm Halimah and for the benefit of all, I shall\r\nrepeat the Workers' Party's position on this debate.
\r\n\r\n The Workers' Party does\r\nnot endorse the White Paper on Salaries for a Capable and Committed\r\nGovernment. We reject the White Paper as the basis for the setting\r\nof salaries of political appointment holders because we are of the\r\nview that the formula used to derive the benchmark for Ministerial\r\nsalaries is flawed. The basis of setting salaries benchmark based\r\non the top 1,000 private sector income earners is unsound. The outcome\r\nof this formula based on the salary benchmark could potentially\r\nresult in political appointment holders' salaries becoming outliers\r\nto the general wage level over time.
\r\n\r\n On the surface, the fixed\r\nmonthly payout between the WP and the White Paper's positions may\r\nseem to differ little at this point of time. Yet it is a well-known\r\nfact that the top earners' rate of income will rise faster than\r\nthat of ordinary Singaporeans, over time. Even though the entry\r\nlevel benchmark for the MR4 is $55,000 now, if it is pegged to the top\r\n1,000 earners, we have estimated that it will increase by 51% by\r\n2020. Under our WP's formula, our estimate is that the rate of increase\r\nwill be about 41%, a more modest rate.
\r\n\r\n Also, for bonuses, the Committee's\r\nrecommended maximum bonus is 13.5 months, whereas for the WP, we\r\nrecommend not more than 5.5 months. This means in a typical bonus\r\nscenario, the Committee's proposed pay cut benchmarked against 2010\r\nlevels for MP, an entry grade Minister and the Prime Minister would\r\nbe just 3%, 31% and 28% respectively. WP's proposed cuts would have\r\nbeen more substantial at 28%, 46% and 50% respectively. In a maximum\r\nbonus scenario, the Committee's proposed pay cut benchmarked against\r\n2010 levels for MP, an entry grade Minister and the Prime Minister would\r\nbe merely 3%, 8% and 5% respectively. Compare this to WP's proposed\r\ncuts which would have been consistently substantial at 28%, 37%\r\nand 42% respectively. The WP's proposed cuts in the MP's allowance\r\nand Ministerial salaries would result in savings of about $21 million\r\nin a conservative estimate of the typical bonus scenario. The savings could then\r\nbe redirected to fund aids to our needy and elderly. Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nin Mandarin, please.
\r\nPage: 978
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg\r\n1001 for Vernacular Speeches.] My\r\ncolleagues from the Workers' Party have elaborated on the Party's\r\nview of the Political Salaries Review Committee Report and given\r\nour suggestions. They have also explained in detail their formula\r\nfor calculating ministerial salaries and other details.
\r\n\r\n I will focus on discussing\r\nprinciples that the Government should apply when deciding on political\r\nsalaries, and how they should be accountable to the people. I will\r\nalso give suggestions on what kind of salary review mechanism should\r\nbe put in place and how it can be scrutinised by Parliament, to\r\nensure that the Government continue to be accountable to the people\r\nwhen they decide on political salaries in future.
\r\n\r\n We all know that Singapore's\r\npolitical system is modelled after the Westminster system of government.\r\nThe Salary Review Committee Report also mentioned that under the\r\nWestminster system of government, Ministers under the administrative\r\nsystem will not only be paid a salary, but also allowances granted\r\nto Members of Parliament. Under the Westminster system, the judiciary,\r\nlegislative and administrative bodies, that is, the government,\r\nare independent of each other. The legislative powers of the Parliament\r\nis the country's highest authority. In other words, motions and\r\npolicies drawn up by Ministers under the administrative body, have\r\nto be discussed and passed by the legislative body – the Parliament\r\n– before a decision is made.
\r\n\r\n We also understand that\r\nMembers of Parliament are representatives voted in by voters of\r\nvarious constituencies. Once given the mandate, we have to be accountable\r\nto the people. The structure of the legislative body of Singapore\r\nis different from that of many countries, we do not have an upper\r\nhouse to act as an additional check and balance. All members of\r\nthe administrative body come from the legislative body. The Ministers\r\nand the Prime Minister becomes a Member of Parliament first, before\r\nbeing made a Minister. Therefore, I believe that our legislative\r\nbody should act as a check and balance against the Government administration.\r\nIn his speech during the 12th Session of Parliament debate on the\r\nPresident's Address, the Prime Minister said that \"the Government\r\nis accountable to the Parliament, we welcome Members of Parliament\r\nto raise any sharp questions, and debate them in Parliament\".
\r\n\r\n In addition, I feel that\r\nthe transparency of the Government is also important. In order to\r\nhave rational debates and an effective system of public accountability,\r\ninformation must be made public. Hence, disclosing the salaries\r\nof political leaders should be considered a reasonable request.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nI will continue my speech in English. This is especially so given\r\nthat the taxpayer pays for the salaries of our political leaders.\r\nTherefore, how much they are paid and the process of how their pay\r\nis determined has to be open, transparent, and accessible to the\r\ngeneral public. Members throughout the course of this debate also\r\nbrought up these principles. Indeed the Committee's report also mentioned\r\non many occasions that transparency and accountability to the public\r\nwas key in their determination of political compensation. This was\r\nalso the guiding principle under which the Committee recommended\r\na clean wage.
\r\n\r\n These principles are in\r\nline with practices common to the dozen countries and territories\r\nin our survey that my colleagues have already mentioned. Only with transparency and meaningful\r\ninformation available can Singaporeans be, and remain, convinced\r\nthat changes to the pay of our political leaders are not undertaken\r\nsolely to advance their material interests, and any changes must\r\nfirst be and always should remain respectful of the costs borne\r\nby taxpayers.
\r\nPage: 979
\r\n\r\n Therefore, we have three\r\nproposals to ensure that the twin towers of accountability and transparency\r\nare enhanced in the political compensation process. First, we call\r\nfor an independent commission to be appointed each time the Prime\r\nMinister seeks to change the terms by which compensation is determined.\r\nSecond, that the findings of the independent commission be always\r\nmade subject to debate and also approval by the Legislature. Third,\r\na complete list of political salaries should be published on an\r\nannual basis.
\r\n\r\n Taking each point in turn,\r\nwe note that the Committee has recommended that an independent committee\r\nshould be formed every five years to review the salary framework.\r\nThe Prime Minister would determine the members of the committee.
\r\n\r\n We would like to see this\r\ntaken one step further. We think that it is important that an independent\r\n– by which I mean non-partisan – commission free from executive\r\ndirection be appointed each time any changes to the formula for\r\npolitical compensation is sought by the Prime Minister. This is\r\nin line with practices in many jurisdictions. I will return to a\r\ndetailed analysis of the practices in some of these countries later.
\r\n\r\n It is also not enough that\r\nsuch a committee is formed each time changes are proposed. The committee\r\nmust be accountable to and take directions from Parliament. To respond\r\nto Mr Vikram Nair's point on Workers' Party's contributions to this\r\ndebate, I would like to reiterate that \"all roads lead to Parliament\",\r\nand this is most true here. The principle of Parliament sovereignty\r\nis of utmost importance: the report should be published to Parliament\r\nand thus to the public – not first for the Prime Minister's eyes only,\r\nand certainly not first to a ruling-party caucus.
\r\n\r\n The findings of the independent\r\ncommission must each time be subject to debate, modification and\r\napproval by Parliament. As the Committee mentioned a Westminster system,\r\nwe should take a look at some of the systems that evolved from a\r\nWestminster system of Parliament.
\r\n\r\n In Australia, there is an\r\nindependent Remuneration Tribunal which has three members appointed\r\nby the Governor-General. Its determinations are subject to Parliamentary\r\noversight. In Canada, a commission to review the salaries of Parliamentarians\r\nis formed within two months after each general election. The report\r\nof the Commission must be published within six months of its formation,\r\nand the report must be tabled in Parliament for debate and approval.\r\nFinally, in the UK itself, in response to our Prime Minister, while\r\nit is true that a widespread abuse of expenses by MPs was uncovered\r\nin 2009, like all good leaders, politicians in the UK learnt lessons\r\nand sought to improve. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 was\r\npassed by the Westminster Parliament to reform the way MP expenses\r\nwere dealt with, and to increase the transparency and accountability\r\nof the process in order to ensure that such an issue would not recur\r\nin the future. There is also a Senior Salary Review Board, which\r\nis an independent body that advises on the pay and benefits due\r\nto politicians. Because all of this is regulated by statute, Parliament\r\nultimately retains oversight.
\r\nPage: 980
\r\n\r\n We propose that all reports from the committee\r\nshould always be open to public scrutiny via the legislative process.\r\nCitizens can give their thoughts and feedback on it to their MPs,\r\nwho are their elected representatives. Such public scrutiny would\r\nincrease transparency and enhance public trust in the procedural\r\nrigour of determining political pay. It would also reinforce the\r\nposition of the Legislature as the one of the gatekeepers for the\r\nnation's finances. I would also like to emphasise that seeking public\r\nfeedback before the report is published is not the same as subjecting\r\nthe report to public scrutiny via the legislative process before\r\nit is debated, amended if necessary, and finally approved by Parliament.
\r\n\r\n Finally, I would like to\r\nbring us back to the Committee's proposal that we maintain a \"clean\r\nwage\" for political salaries in Singapore, particularly to ensure\r\ntransparency and accountability to the public. My colleagues have\r\nalready spoken on how we think that a whole-of-government approach\r\nshould be taken when determining a set of goals and bonuses for\r\nour political leaders. I will instead focus on the criteria to which\r\nwe think transparency should be upheld.
\r\n\r\n We note the list of salaries\r\npublished in the report, and it is a step in the right direction.\r\nOur proposal is, however, that a list of political salaries should\r\nbe published on an annual basis in the Government Gazette and/or\r\non the Parliamentary website. There should also be a disclosure\r\nof the amounts of national bonuses paid to office-bearers. The list\r\nshould also clearly state which categories the national bonuses\r\nrelate to. This will be in line with the \"clean wage\" principle.
\r\n\r\n Coming back to the three\r\nWestminster countries I spoke of before, all three publish detailed\r\nlists relating to political pay. While it is true that each country\r\nhas a different system of remuneration, with a series of allowances\r\nand expenses, we are still able to find a common thread running\r\nthrough these systems. That is, a thread of transparency.
\r\n\r\n In Canada, one is able to\r\neasily retrieve information sorted by year on the amount of compensation\r\neach office-bearer is paid. Car, rent and other forms of salary\r\nand allowances are clearly laid out in one website. For Australia,\r\nthis information is available from the Remuneration Tribunal's website.\r\nA series of annual reports from the Tribunal lay out the salaries,\r\nallowances and entitlements of each MP and office-holder. The UK has\r\nin the last couple of years increased the scrutiny and transparency\r\nstandards in relation to political pay. A full list of salaries\r\nand allowances for all office holders is available on the UK Parliament's\r\nwebsite. The UK Parliament also recently set up a new independent\r\nbody €” the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority – to ensure that\r\nthere is rigorous regulation of and oversight over MP's expenses.\r\nWith a few mouse-clicks, a complete list of all expenses claimed\r\nfor each individual MP is downloadable from the website. Expenses\r\nare published on a bi-monthly basis.
\r\n\r\n Regardless of how the compensation\r\nof political leaders is determined by these countries, the bottom-line\r\nis that we have stringent disclosure rules relating to the use of\r\ntaxpayer funds relating to the compensation of political leaders.\r\nIt is this level of transparency that we are holding up to be the\r\ngold international standard. It should be the standard to which\r\nSingapore should hold itself up against.
\r\n\r\n The benefits to this approach\r\nare manifold. First, it would help to ensure that misleading, speculative\r\ninformation is not circulated in the public domain about how much\r\nour leaders are paid. Second, this will keep lawmakers accountable\r\nto the electorate in respect of their compensation throughout their\r\nentire five-year term in office,\r\nnot just at the ballot box. Third, an annual publication of salaries\r\nwith disclosable national bonuses will allow Singaporeans to be\r\nable to see in the \"then-and-now\" how their leaders have performed\r\nand how the pay of their leaders is tied to the fortunes of the\r\nnation.
\r\nPage: 981
\r\n\r\n Throughout the course of\r\nthis debate, we have heard several Members draw comparisons with\r\nother countries, which may not score very highly in terms of transparency\r\nand accountability of their political systems. Instead of using\r\nthese countries as examples of how Singapore is different, is exceptional\r\nor is better than them, I think that we should instead be focusing\r\non learning from them. We should use their experience and add to\r\nit the rigorous standards from well-governed jurisdictions in our\r\nquest to ensure our system is robustly and proportionately answerable\r\nto our people.
\r\n\r\n I would like to end by saying\r\nthat we have a well-informed, intelligent electorate whom I trust\r\nwill be able to draw their own sensible conclusions from meaningful\r\ndata made available to them. Singaporeans are not clamouring to\r\nknow how much the net worth of politicians is, but instead their\r\nchief motivation is to ensure that their wages are both fair and\r\ncommensurate with the performance of their Government. And Singaporeans\r\nhave a right to know how their leaders are being compensated €” and rewarded\r\n€” out of taxpayer monies. We in this House must have faith in our\r\npeople that if we follow the proposals above to improve transparency\r\nof political pay, we will come out stronger for it as a nation.
\r\n\r\n Above all, I think we are\r\nall in agreement that lawmakers should have a strong sense of responsibility,\r\naccountability and service towards all Singaporeans, and should\r\nwork towards our common goal for our country to have an enhanced\r\nsense of inclusivity and sensitivity. What better means to start\r\nthis than in a First-World Parliament?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker. I have three questions for Mr Yaw. The first question:\r\nnow, I understand that the Workers' Party has no quarrel with the\r\nCommittee's starting salary of $46,750. In fact, its own starting\r\nsalary is $55,000. So, am I right to say that your main quarrel\r\nnow is that over the next five years, the benchmark for the salaries\r\nused by the Committee will rise by 50%, whereas your benchmark will\r\nrise by 41%? Is that the main concern? That is the first question.\r\nIs that a yes?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yaw Shin Leong\r\n : I have\r\nraised several concerns and that is not the main concern.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : The other\r\none was the bonus, which I think we addressed earlier. Okay. My\r\nsecond question is this: I have done the sums. If we look at the\r\nsalary of $55,000 that you have proposed, a rise of 41% on that\r\nwill arrive at salary of $77,550 a month. A rise of 50% on the sum of $46,750\r\nwill arrive at $70,125. So in fact, even if you accept that the\r\nCommittee's benchmark will rise by 50%, and the Workers' Party will have\r\nits benchmark rise by 41% over the next five years, the point is\r\nthat over the next five years, the salaries proposed by the Committee\r\nwill still be less than the Workers' Party's base salary. Do you\r\nagree with that?
\r\nPage: 982
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yaw Shin Leong\r\n : I guess\r\nwe look at the long-term horizon, not just – [Interruption]\r\nReally! If you talk about nine years or so, the figures will be\r\ndifferent.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : No, but the\r\ndebate is about the second and fifth years. So, do you agree that\r\nfor the next five years, the Workers' Party is proposing a higher\r\nsalary, even with the differences in rises –
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : 2020! Even\r\nlonger. So, that means in five years, the difference would be even\r\nless. Is that right?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yaw Shin Leong\r\n : The difference\r\nwill increase over time. And that is the main point which I made.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : But even\r\nif we take your case, what you are saying is that even for the next\r\nnine years, the Workers' Party's proposed benchmark will yield a\r\nhigher salary than the one proposed by the Committee. That is what\r\nyou are saying.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yaw Shin Leong\r\n : No, no.\r\nYou have missed the point. I am saying that over time, the salary\r\nproposed cuts by the Workers' Party will decrease, and are more\r\nsustainable.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yaw Shin Leong\r\n : If you\r\ndo a calculation, the White Paper's position would be 51%. Whereas\r\na rough calculation of the Workers' Party proposed cuts will be\r\n41% over nine years.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : I agree with\r\nthat. But even if you used those numbers, the end result that you\r\narrive at in nine years will be, say, $77, 500 as a base salary\r\nfrom the Workers' Party's calculation, whereas it would be $70,125\r\non the Committee's. Even if we accept your rate of rise, which I\r\ndo not necessarily accept because I do not have the basis for it.\r\nBut even if we accept that, the Workers' Party's position is that\r\nthe Ministers' salaries will be higher over the next nine years,\r\nbased on your own proposal.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yaw Shin Leong\r\n : No, you\r\nsee, it depends on what scenario. If you are talking about a normal,\r\ntypical bonus scenario, the differential will be less. But you are\r\ntalking about a maximum bonus scenario, the differential will be\r\nglaring, very, very glaring.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : I agree there\r\nis a difference of opinion on the bonuses, and we will take that,\r\nI guess. And that is what we have discussed earlier. The final point\r\nthat I would like\r\nto ask is this: do you agree that this proposal is closer to the\r\nWorkers' Party ideal than the status quo, what is currently being\r\npractised?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, my party colleagues have touched on many aspects\r\nof the proposal. I wish to highlight the part that I have the most\r\nconcern with. It is the way Ministers' pay is pegged to the top\r\n1,000 Singapore earners. The Salary Review Committee was given the\r\nterms of reference by the Prime Minister to \"take into account salaries\r\nof comparable jobs in the private sector and also other reference\r\npoints such as the general wage levels in Singapore\".
\r\n\r\n The assumption this Government\r\nbegan with is that political talent is synonymous with career success;\r\nthat office holders must have comparable pay with top private sector\r\nearners. So the Committee arrived at the median income of the top\r\n1,000 earners, less a 40% discount to \"signify the ethos and sacrifice\r\nthat comes with political service\". It implies that our political\r\noffice holders must come from this pool, or that their ability and\r\njob scope is equivalent to the top 0.06% of the working Singapore\r\npopulation. This sentiment has indeed been expressed by the Deputy\r\nPrime Minister and by various Members over the past two days.
\r\n\r\n We have constantly used\r\nthis mindset since 1994, when Ministers' pay was first revamped\r\nto tie it to the top earners' in the private sector. While the Committee's\r\nnew formula is better than that of the previous one which had been\r\nnarrowly tied with only the top eight earners in six professions,\r\nit is nevertheless still an elitist thinking that only those who\r\nare top in their professional careers can make it to hold political\r\noffice.
\r\n\r\n Running a company well is\r\ndifferent from being able to run a country. Perhaps this Government\r\nhas treated running this country too much like running a business\r\nthat we have often been referred to as Singapore Inc. So we also\r\ntie political work to that of running a very big company. I believe\r\nthis is a flawed model.
\r\n\r\n In constantly drumming this\r\nmessage since 1994, we have created an expectation amongst potential\r\npolitical office holders that political office is a career progression\r\nfor them, and that reaching a Minister's position is like reaching\r\nthe pinnacle of one's career. It creates an expectation amongst\r\npotential office holders that they need a safe route to parachute\r\ninto Parliament or they would not risk their career. This has made Singapore\r\npolitics uniquely Singapore. It is a model of politics that despite\r\nyears of attempts to justify and fine-tune, many have yet to accept.\r\nI for one, do not accept this model.
\r\n\r\n I feel we have over commercialised\r\nthe nature of running this country. We need to constantly remind\r\nourselves that we have been elected by the people into this House.\r\nIt is totally different\r\nfrom being headhunted to be a hired top management of a company. We\r\nshould never forget it is a noble calling to serve the public.
\r\nPage: 984
\r\n\r\n I would like to ask, what\r\naspires a person to take the difficult route of politics? Four years\r\nago, I read with interest about how President Obama as a young student\r\nin an Indonesian school, stated that his ambition was to be the\r\nPresident of the United States of America. It was a noble aspiration\r\nfor a child; an almost impossible ambition given his family background\r\nand that he was half the world away from America. Why would he have\r\nsuch an aspiration?
\r\n\r\n As a child growing up in\r\npost-independent Singapore, I have been influenced by several of\r\nour first generation leaders whom I had clearly seen have made great sacrifices\r\nand have made great improvements to the country by what they did.\r\nNow, I wonder what would aspire our future generations to want to\r\nbecome Ministers and to be the future Prime Minister of Singapore.\r\nI certainly hope it will not be for career progression.
\r\n\r\n I share the Prime Minister's\r\nconcern that Singapore needs good and high ability people to be\r\nable to protect what we have. Now, we have often heard that Singapore does\r\nnot have enough for two teams. I do not agree with this thinking.\r\nI have more confidence in our people. During the debate on the President's\r\nAddress, I had called for political education in schools. It is\r\nto strengthen the knowledge of our youths in the functioning of\r\nParliament and of the Government. I believe it is important to instil\r\nthis sense of public service and political awareness in our youths\r\nto give them a better understanding of issues important to our country.\r\nWe should aim to create aspiring future politicians who will believe\r\nstrongly in the importance of leading the nation, and that they\r\nwish to play a part in it.
\r\n\r\n Perhaps it is also how we\r\nhave constantly looked for political talent from amongst a narrow\r\npool of top career performers that has perpetuated lack of interest\r\nin political careers amongst the general population. I believe we\r\nhave been talent ponding for far too long, searching from a small\r\npond for people that fit as career elites. We should instead talent\r\nflood with people from all walks of life.
\r\n\r\n The Salary Review Committee\r\ndescribes the 40% discount as a sacrifice for political service.\r\nI personally do not like the word \"sacrifice\", a term that has been\r\nused by various Members throughout the past two days. Being a politician\r\nshould be an aspiration and an honour. It is the nature of politics\r\nall over the world that there will be public scrutiny; there will\r\nbe challenges balancing family and work; there will be setbacks\r\nsuch as loss in the electoral votes. The reluctant will deem these\r\nas sacrifices. Those who aspire to lead will welcome these as challenges\r\nto be overcome. Singaporeans do not expect politicians to lead a\r\nspartan life with a religious calling. I believe Singapore politics\r\nhas been more than fair to our political office holders for the\r\npast two decades. Even with the levels proposed by the Workers'\r\nParty, the political office holders can lead very dignified lives.
\r\n\r\n Now, we hear examples of\r\nformer US and UK and other political leaders earning a lot after\r\nretirement. I think life has been fair to our retiring political\r\nleaders as well. We see that retiring Ministers are sought after\r\nby our Government-linked companies and some by multinationals. I\r\nbelieve the experience they have gained while in office have also increased\r\ntheir market value. Some Members have said that the Workers' Party's proposal\r\nsupports the level of salaries proposed by the Committee, just because\r\nwe happen to arrive\r\nat roughly the same basic monthly salary for an entry level Minister. The\r\ndifferences are several but important.
\r\nPage: 985
\r\n\r\n Number one, we start with\r\nthe allowance for a Member of Parliament because, firstly, a Minister\r\nis a Member of Parliament. It is a reminder that we are elected\r\nby the people, not selected by a powerful committee to become Ministers.\r\nSecondly, the base salary for entry-grade senior civil servants\r\nat MX9 grade in less subjected to fluctuation compared with incomes\r\nat the 500th and 501st top income earners, which is the median of\r\nthe top 1,000 earners. Over time, by comparing with the top, we\r\ncould again see the salaries of Ministers rising faster than are\r\nacceptable to Singaporeans, as my colleague Mr Yaw has shared earlier.\r\nThirdly, we oppose the huge bonus payout. Again, I would like to\r\nsay that while we like Singapore to be well run, Singapore is not\r\njust a very big company.
\r\n\r\n As an entrepreneur, Mr Inderjit\r\nSingh is acceptable with huge bonuses of 13.5 months. That may be\r\nthe practice of some very generous private companies. Politically, it\r\nis unheard of and it is unacceptable to the electorate. The bonus\r\nfor any political party will come at the ballot boxes.
\r\n\r\n Now, I would like to thank\r\nthe Prime Minister for acknowledging that the Workers' Party's pay\r\nformula works out to be less than what the Committee has proposed.\r\nI believe Mr Vikram Nair and Mdm Halimah Yacob could check with\r\nthe Prime Minister on how he arrived at the calculations. In our\r\ncomputation, the benchmark point annual salary for an entry level\r\nMinister with 13th-month bonus and an average 2.5 months bonus is\r\n$852,500, compared with $1.1 million as recommended by the Committee.\r\nThis is a 46% cut from the 2010 annual pay. Furthermore, a portion\r\nof the bonus is deferred into a bonus bank. Under our proposal,\r\nthe Prime Minister with the 13th month bonus and 2.5 months bonus\r\nwill receive $1,534,500, compared with the recommended $2.2 million.\r\nThis is a 50% cut from the 2010 annual pay.
\r\n\r\n Before I conclude, I would\r\njust like to address a point that Mr Vikram Nair has brought up.\r\nHe seems to have harped twice on what we have contributed to Mr\r\nGerard Ee's Committee. My colleague, Mr Gerald Giam has already\r\nshared that he has met with the Committee and he has given me permission\r\nto share that he has spent more than two hours with the Committee.\r\nNow, I wonder how many hours did Mr Vikram Nair spend with the Committee.\r\nDuring the discussion, Mr Gerald Giam shared many of the principles\r\nthat are in the current Workers' Party proposal including deferred\r\nbonus, KPIs, our benchmarking practices and so on. Now, we do not\r\nfeel that we have to give everything to the Committee and this is\r\nprecisely what the Parliament is here for. The Parliament is the\r\nplace where we will debate the whole proposal. I am not sure if\r\nMr Vikram Nair expects that we are here to just \"rubber stamp\" the\r\nproposal. We are here to debate the proposal and, according to his\r\nspeech, he said that if we are to oppose, then we are supporting\r\nthe previous pay level. I believe Parliament is where we come up\r\nwith another proposal to be decided upon.
\r\n\r\n In conclusion, the annual\r\nlevels that we have proposed are not the same as that of the Review\r\nCommittee. More fundamentally, we object to the principles used\r\nto set the benchmark for the Ministerial salaries. Therefore, I\r\noppose the motion.
\r\nPage: 986
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nLim Biow Chuan\r\n : Sir, the report from the Ministerial\r\nSalary Review Committee led by Mr Gerard Ee emphasised three important\r\nprinciples. First is that salaries must be competitive so that people\r\nof the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead\r\nthe country. The second, political service ethos entails making\r\nsacrifices and hence they should be a discount in the pay formula\r\nand, third, there should be a clean wage with no hidden perks. The\r\nreport also recommended a new benchmark with various cuts to the\r\nsalaries of the President, Prime Minister, Ministers, Speaker, Deputy\r\nSpeakers, political appointment holders plus cuts to the MPs' allowances.\r\nThe salary of an entry level Minister was benchmarked to the median\r\nincome of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore citizens.
\r\n\r\n The first question before\r\nthis House is whether the three principles for determining Ministerial\r\nsalaries are a suitable basis for determining the salaries of our\r\npolitical leaders. If the answer is \"yes\", then we go on to discuss\r\nhow best to implement these three principles. Sir, I agree and support\r\nthese three principles. In the debate on civil servants' salary\r\nback in April 2007, I took the position that Singapore should pay\r\nour Ministers and senior civil servants competitively, otherwise\r\nwe risk the situation where you have a poor quality and incompetent\r\ngovernment and possibly corruption. I also called on the Government\r\nto look for a formula to compensate our Ministers and civil servants\r\nwell and yet allow our citizens to appreciate the sacrifices that\r\nour leaders are making. In other words, we need to strike a fair\r\nbalance such that the Government does not pay million-dollar salaries\r\nto the Ministers, which is politically difficult to accept for any\r\ncitizen.
\r\n\r\n Like several other speakers\r\nbefore me, I believe that politics is a calling. It is a calling to\r\nserve the country without the usual motivation of high financial\r\nreturns. It is a calling that requires a person to put the country\r\nabove self. Sir, I agree with the hon. Member for Aljunied GRC,\r\nMr Chen Show Mao, that it is indeed a privilege to be called upon\r\nto serve country. In fact, this point was also raised in the report\r\nof the Committee. I am certain that all Members in this House are\r\nalso serving because they feel the call to serve, the call and the\r\nneed to make positive difference in the lives of fellow Singaporeans\r\nand not that there is a high salary or allowance to be paid to them.
\r\n\r\n I submit that one of the\r\npolitical objectives of any government would be to promote unity\r\nand common bonding amongst its citizens. By paying our political\r\nleaders too high, the Government may inadvertently have caused unhappiness\r\nand division amongst its citizens. So I believe it will be a right\r\nstep for us to consider revision of the salaries so as not to cause\r\ndivision amongst our citizens. For that reason, in 2007, I had expressed\r\nmy reservations about the salary tag of $2.2 million for an entry\r\nlevel, MR4 Ministerial grade. However, even though most of the politicians\r\nin this House have served out of a sense of calling, there is a\r\nneed to balance the need of political office bearer, to provide\r\nfairly and reasonably for his or her family. Like every other Singaporean,\r\nour Ministers, too, owe a responsibility to provide as well as they\r\ncan for their spouse and their children. Thus, we should be mindful\r\nthat we should not ask our Ministers to sacrifice more than what\r\nthe country can afford in terms of Singapore's political objectives.
\r\n\r\n This then begs the question\r\n– what is a fair salary to pay for the political leaders? And like\r\nMs Denise Phua, I think that everyone, everyone of us has an opinion\r\nas to what is a fair salary to be paid to our political leaders.\r\nFrom the many discussions with fellow Singaporeans, I conclude that\r\nmost Singaporeans do not expect our Ministers to be paid too lowly.\r\nFor the heavy responsibilities that Ministers undertake, they do\r\ndeserve a fair and\r\ncompetitive amount of compensation. I feel that it is not in the\r\ninterest of Singapore for our Ministers or office bearers to have\r\nto constantly worry about their family income or the welfare of\r\ntheir family. They should have the freedom to concentrate on their\r\njobs of managing their Ministry and planning for the future of Singapore\r\nwith full assurance that they can provide for their families in\r\nthe same manner as the majority of their contemporaries.
\r\nPage: 987
\r\n\r\n I think it will be wrong\r\nif our salary formula only allowed those persons who have attained\r\na high degree of success in their career to enter politics. It may\r\nmean limiting our choices of Ministers to only a very select few\r\nbusinessmen who have either inherited their wealth or have already\r\nattained success in their career and hence do not need the money.
\r\n\r\n It will also be wrong for\r\nour Government to set a salary structure so low that it makes it\r\ndifficult for the Prime Minister to challenge potential leaders\r\nto serve the country or to find suitable men or women to take on\r\nsuch a heavy burden of ensuring that Singapore success story continues.\r\nAnd it would also be disastrous if we adopt such as poor salary package\r\nsuch that our political leaders will feel tempted to illegally enrich\r\nthemselves so that they can keep up with their peers. There are\r\nmany examples in other countries where this has happened. Thus,\r\nin some countries, where ministers who despite being paid poorly\r\ncan still afford to accumulate assets that are many, many times\r\ntheir salaries.
\r\n\r\n On the issue of financial\r\nsacrifice, I agree that the ethos of public service would require\r\nsome form of financial sacrifice from the Ministers. Hence, even\r\nthough the consultants had assessed, based on the closest comparison\r\nthat CEOs in private sectors holding similar-sized jobs to entry-grade\r\nMinisters are paid a median salary of $2.29 million. It would generally\r\nnot be acceptable for most citizens to expect that their political\r\nleaders are paid such an amount.
\r\n\r\n Thus, Sir, I am always appreciative\r\nof the personal sacrifices made by Ministers, who have given up\r\nhuge pay packages in the private sector to join the Government,\r\nsimply to answer the call of service for the country. Ministers\r\nlike Dr Ng Eng Hen, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the late Dr Balaji,\r\nMr Gan Kim Yong, Ms Grace Fu and just earlier I heard Mr Heng Swee\r\nKeat, have decided that the privilege of serving the country is\r\na higher calling than to continue their pursuit of material success\r\nin their individual chosen fields. I believe that if the Workers'\r\nParty look at the calibre of this Cabinet, they will acknowledge\r\nthat this Government does not over-commercialised the running of\r\nthis country. But instead, the Government goes to great extent to\r\nask suitable candidates to answer the noble calling.
\r\n\r\n Likewise, Sir, I hold in\r\ngreat admiration our former Prime Ministers, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and\r\nESM Goh Chok Tong, both of whom gave up their private sector career\r\nto serve the country many years ago. Even to this date, Mr Goh Chok\r\nTong continues to serve the nation as Emeritus Senior Minister.\r\nHe travels, he promotes Singapore without collecting any salary\r\nas a government Minister. Such is the ethos of the current Cabinet Ministers\r\nand I believe that Singaporeans can be proud of the fact that our\r\npolitical leaders do make sacrifices to answer the call of duty,\r\nto make a difference to the lives of other Singaporeans.
\r\nPage: 988
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Ministerial Salary Review Committee\r\nhad engaged the services of a consultant who is a leader of global\r\nprovider of human resources, Mercer Singapore Pte Ltd. They are\r\nexperts in remuneration issues. After the report was issued, several\r\nother human resource consultants were interviewed and many of them\r\nhad also described the recommendations as fair and reasonable. Whilst\r\neach one of us have our own individual views of the right pay package,\r\nI think that it is wisdom in leaving this issue of compensation\r\npackage of political leaders to the human resource experts in the\r\nfield. We set the basic principles that we believe in and then we\r\nleave it to an independent panel to make the recommendations on\r\nthe correct level to peg the salaries. Otherwise, we can spend days\r\nand weeks debating on what is an appropriate salary for our ministers\r\nand other political leaders, all of which will be based on our own\r\nindividual assessment, our own individual judgement.
\r\n\r\n Sir, allow me to make a\r\nfew other points. I am appreciative that there has been a review.\r\nFor the Government to ignore unhappiness of the voters against the\r\nsalaries of ministers would be insensitive. The fact that this review\r\ntook place is a very strong message that the Government does take\r\ninto account the views of the people. The fact that the Government\r\nis also accepting the recommendation of the independent Committee\r\nis also a right step. There have been substantial cuts to the salaries\r\nof the President, Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. At the end\r\nof the day, based on the salary of about $55,000 per month for a\r\nMR4 Minister, as a judgement call, I feel this is a reasonable sum\r\nfor the level of responsibilities that a Minister holds. However,\r\nI would urge the Government to find ways to formulate policies that\r\nwill help all Singaporeans improve their lives. I am of the view\r\nthat if every Singaporean is able to say that their life has improved\r\nafter five years, they will not begrudge the salaries payable to\r\nour political leaders.
\r\n\r\n Next, Sir, I ask the question:\r\nshould we peg the salary of an entry grade Minister MR4 to the median\r\nsalary of the top 1,000 earners who are Singaporeans? Or should\r\nwe peg the salary to the median income of the lowest 20% group of\r\nSingaporeans as has been suggested by some parties? I have never\r\nbeen comfortable with a peg to the top earners – whether it is to\r\nthe top 1,000 earners or bottom group of earners. If you peg the\r\nsalary to the top earners, when these top 1,000 earners earn more,\r\nthen the salary of the political leaders will invariably increase.\r\nThis will again create some degree of unhappiness. As for the peg\r\nto the bottom, the question is how to apply the multiple. The multiple\r\nis really arbitrary and regardless how you see it, it is not realistic.\r\nI would prefer to have a fixed salary without a peg and then make\r\nadjustments for inflation every few years. If there is a mechanism\r\nfor the salary to be reviewed every five years, then perhaps the\r\nGovernment can consider forming an independent committee comprising human\r\nresource experts to review the salaries of political appointment\r\nholders every five years. The salary for the Government would then\r\nbe fixed for that five-year period. Whatever the formula is, I would\r\nsubmit that we should find a formula that will assist Singapore\r\nto find capable and committed leadership over the long term.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I am in agreement with\r\nthe recommendation to scrap pensions for Ministers. In fact, I would\r\ngo further to ask that we scrap pensions for the civil service as\r\nwell. There is no reason why any member of the civil service should\r\nhave such differential treatment. After this review is passed by\r\nParliament, we may have an absurd situation where our Permanent\r\nSecretaries and other key civil servants are earning more than their\r\nMinisters, will be having their pensions and to add to that, they\r\ntake no political risk. Would we in the future be able to persuade\r\ncapable civil servants to give up their careers to join in the political\r\nservice? Hence, I join Ms Denise Phua to ask the Government to consider\r\nforming an independent committee to assess whether we are pegging\r\nthe salaries of the Administrative Service to the right level. Their\r\nhigh salaries have caused some degree of unhappiness amongst other\r\ncivil servants who are not Administrative Service officers. For\r\nthe sake of the entire civil service, we should review their salary package\r\nas well.
\r\nPage: 989
\r\n\r\n Sir, it has been said many\r\ntimes that Singapore is an aberration. For a small country like\r\nours to be so successful is due in large part to our people's hard\r\nwork and in part to our having good political leadership. Good government\r\ncannot be left to chance. It would be risky for any government to\r\nwait for 10, 20 capable and passionate people with integrity to\r\nstep up every five years and say that they would give up their careers,\r\nthey would take major financial sacrifices to serve the people of\r\nSingapore. Sir, having heard the Prime Minister, I understand his\r\nconcerns and the need to find capable, competent men and women of\r\nintegrity for the future of Singapore. Hence, Sir, I would urge\r\nthe House to accept the recommendation of the Committee to pay our\r\npolitical leaders fairly with a significant discount to reflect\r\nthe point that politics is a calling and not just a career.
\r\nPage: 989
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent to move that the debate\r\nbe now adjourned?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : I give my consent.
\r\n \r\n\r\n That the debate be now adjourned.\r\n– [Dr Ng Eng Hen].
\r\nPage: 989
\r\nPage: 990
\r\n\r\n \r\n 16\r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will\r\nconsider easing the short-term demand for HDB rental housing by providing\r\ntemporary lodging similar to those built for foreign worker dormitories\r\nuntil the new rental flats are completed.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : Currently,\r\nthere are 1,900 applicants on the HDB rental flat waiting list.\r\nWe have shortened the average waiting time to five months. As we\r\nramp up the supply of rental flats, we will be able to clear the\r\noutstanding demand while meeting demand from new applicants.
\r\n\r\n Those in the rental queue\r\nwho urgently need temporary housing can be offered a HDB flat under\r\nthe Interim Rental Housing Scheme. Housing them in a HDB flat within\r\na HDB community with access to HDB estate facilities is preferred\r\nover dormitory-type temporary housing. The latter may not be suitable\r\nfor family-based households.
\r\nPage: 990
\r\n\r\n \r\n 17\r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health (a) whether means-testing for patients at\r\ncommunity hospitals and other step-down care facilities employs a\r\ndifferent set of criteria from means-testing for acute care hospitals;\r\nand (b) if so, what are these differences.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : Means-testing\r\nis used to determine a patient's eligibility for Government subsidies,\r\ntaking into account his ability to pay. It helps the Government\r\nto be more targeted in channelling Government subsidies to those\r\nin greater need.
\r\n\r\n The intermediate and long-term\r\ncare (ILTC) sector which includes community hospitals and nursing\r\nhomes uses per capita family income as the criteria for means-testing.\r\nThis is an equitable basis as it takes into account the patient's\r\nfamily circumstances. For example, a sole breadwinner supporting\r\nhis wife and children would require more financial support than\r\na bachelor earning the same level of income and who has no dependants.\r\nOn the other hand, an elderly patient who has no family support\r\nis less able to pay for his bills than another who is receiving\r\nfinancial support from his children.
\r\n\r\n In the acute hospitals,\r\nwe have adopted a simpler means-test based on a patient's individual\r\nincome from work, and does not take into account the rest of the\r\nfamily members. If the patient is economically non-active, the means-test\r\nwill be based on the annual value of his residential property. This\r\nis more practical and easier to administer given the much higher\r\npatient volumes and short stays at acute hospitals. However, hospitals\r\ndo have the flexibility to assess the patient based on the per capita\r\nfamily income approach similar to that used in ILTC sector, if specific\r\npatients feel that the simplified approach based on individual income\r\nis disadvantageous to them.
\r\nPage: 991
\r\n\r\n \r\n 21\r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development whether the Government will\r\nconsider introducing cooling measures to stabilise the prices of\r\nboth industrial and commercial properties to prevent excessive price\r\nincreases that will eventually drive up the business cost in Singapore\r\nand cause the decline in competitiveness for businesses in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : Prices\r\nof commercial and industrial spaces have risen following the economic\r\nrecovery from the global financial crisis in 2009. However, the increases\r\nfor office and shop space have been moderate, with prices as at\r\n3Q 2011 being only slightly higher than their last peak in 2Q 2008.\r\nRentals for the same period were in fact lower than the last peak\r\nin 2008.
\r\n\r\n Prices of industrial space\r\nhave however risen faster, with prices in the same period reaching\r\n21% above the last peak in 3Q 2008.
\r\n\r\n To ensure that prices are\r\nnot out of line with economic fundamentals, the Government has and\r\nwill continue to release sites via the Government Land Sales Programme\r\nto ensure that there is sufficient commercial and industrial space\r\nto meet demand over the medium term.
\r\n\r\n For commercial space, based\r\non committed projects in the pipeline, we will have about 200,000\r\nsqm of new office space and 90,000 sqm of new shop space, per annum over\r\nthe next five years. This is significantly higher than the historical\r\ntake-up rate. We will also continue to develop new growth areas\r\noutside the CBD, such as Jurong Gateway and Paya Lebar Central,\r\nto provide more affordable commercial space for businesses that\r\ndo not need to be in the CBD.
\r\n\r\n For industrial land, close\r\nto 40ha of industrial land have been made available annually over\r\nthe last two years. This is about 30% higher than the average amount\r\nof land released in the previous two years. For the first half of\r\nthis year, 24 ha of industrial land will be made available. More\r\naffordable sites with smaller sizes and shorter tenure will be released.\r\nWe have also tightened conditions of sales, such as shortening of\r\nthe project completion time to ensure a more timely supply of industrial\r\nspace to meet market demand.
\r\n\r\n \tThe Government will continue\r\nto monitor the commercial and industrial property markets closely\r\nto ensure that we remain a competitive location for businesses.
\r\nPage: 991
\r\n\r\n \r\n 23\r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the percentage of passengers\r\nwho are currently enjoying student travel concession on trains and\r\nbuses compared with five years ago; and (b) if the Ministry can\r\nprovide a projected amount of the additional cost to transport operators\r\nif polytechnic students are given full student travel concession\r\ninstead of the tertiary concession.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Ten percent\r\nof our average daily passenger ridership enjoyed student travel\r\nconcession on trains and buses in 2011. This is about 2% lower than\r\nin 2007 but the percentage had actually gone down due to an increase\r\nin ridership.
\r\nPage: 992
\r\n\r\n \tOn the estimated additional cost to the\r\noperators if polytechnic students are given full student travel\r\nconcessions, it will cost the operators about $28 million per year\r\nbased on today's fares.
\r\nPage: 992
\r\n\r\n \r\n 24\r\n Dr Lam Pin Min\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health in light of the recent errors in DNA tests\r\nconducted by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) (a) what measures\r\nwill be put in place to ensure similar incidents do not happen again;\r\nand (b) whether the Ministry will conduct a thorough review of HSA's\r\nlaboratory work processes to ensure compliance with International\r\nstandards and practices.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : The Ministry\r\nof Health (MOH) takes a serious view of this incident. To summarise\r\nwhat happened, in August 2011, the Health Sciences Authority's (HSA)\r\nDNA Profiling Laboratory (DNAPL) discovered that a reagent of higher\r\nthan usual concentration (\"the Reagent\") had been used as part of\r\nthe DNA testing process from October 2010 to August 2011. The key\r\nscientific impact of the Reagent was a marginal reduction in the\r\nsensitivity of the DNA tests when low levels of DNA were being analysed.\r\nThis did not cause any false positive results leading to wrongful\r\nidentification of any person. Re-testing of DNA samples was initiated\r\nas a precautionary measure. For the concluded cases, the Attorney-General's\r\nChambers (AGC)'s assessment is that there were no wrongful convictions\r\ndue to the use of the Reagent.
\r\n\r\n Following the discovery\r\nof the incident in August 2011, an inter-Government agency group\r\ncomprising the AGC, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Central\r\nNarcotics Bureau (CNB) and HSA was established to assess the impact\r\nof the Reagent on the DNA tests affected.
\r\n\r\n The scientific impact of\r\nthe incident has been established to be minimal. Foreign experts\r\nhave confirmed that there would have been no false positive results\r\nleading to wrongful identification of a person, and no one wrongly\r\nidentified as a result of the incident. The inter-Government agency\r\ngroup studied each and every case which may have been affected by\r\nthe incident and identified cases for re-testing as a precautionary measure.\r\nThe re-tests are expected to be completed in March 2012.
\r\n\r\n HSA has been open and transparent\r\nand has dealt with the incident in a professional, objective, and\r\ntimely manner. It took prompt action in August 2011 to tighten reagent preparation\r\nby using the prior established method of weighing powdered chemicals\r\nand dissolving in water. The Laboratory now no longer prepares the\r\nparticular reagent in house but instead uses a commercially-prepared\r\nreagent which only became available after the affected batch had\r\nbeen prepared. The same approach is also adopted for other steps\r\nin the Laboratory's testing processes where such commercially-prepared\r\nreagents are available.
\r\n\r\n In addition, reagents are\r\nnow also sent to HSA's Chemical Metrology Laboratory for chemical\r\ncomposition analysis to verify their contents and concentration\r\nprior to use. This now goes beyond the existing internationally\r\nbenchmarked quality assurance system and quality control checks.
\r\nPage: 993
\r\n\r\n The DNA Profiling Laboratory has been accredited\r\nby the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory\r\nAccreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) since 1996. This sets the benchmark\r\nfor international best practice and standards for testing. The Laboratory will\r\nbe undergoing a scheduled re-accreditation audit by external assessors\r\nfrom the accreditation agency in February 2012. As part of its accreditation\r\nrequirements, HSA highlighted the incident to the accreditation\r\nagency in November 2011.
\r\n\r\n The HSA Board has appointed\r\na Committee to conduct an independent and in-depth review of the\r\nincident. The Committee will also recommend appropriate measures\r\nto strengthen HSA's wider risk management processes to prevent recurrence\r\nof such an incident. This Committee is chaired by Ms Serene Wee,\r\nCEO of the Singapore Academy of Law, who also chairs HSA's Audit\r\nCommittee. The other two members are Professor Ranga Krishnan, HSA\r\nBoard Member and Dean of the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, and\r\nMr Max Loh, a Managing Partner of Ernst and Young. Together, the\r\nthree members of the committee will draw in legal, scientific and\r\naccounting expertise to the review process and assessment. The Committee\r\nhas already commenced its review. It will be supported by a Secretariat\r\nstaffed by MOH personnel.
\r\n\r\n The Committee will review\r\nhow the incident occurred, the investigation process and the follow\r\nup actions taken. The Committee will also review HSA's operating\r\nprocedures and existing risk management systems and processes. It\r\nwill recommend whether any additional measures are required to strengthen\r\nthese areas. Any weaknesses in systems identified by the Committee\r\nwill be rectified immediately even while the Committee's work is\r\nongoing. Beyond reviewing the immediate incident, the Committee\r\nwill submit its findings and recommendations to the HSA Board and\r\nthe Ministry of Health. MOH and HSA will update the public again\r\nwhen the review and the re-testing of samples requested by AGC are\r\ncompleted, which will be around March.
\r\nPage: 994
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1\r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister if our enforcement agencies have investigated\r\nallegations of corruption against Singaporeans or Singaporean companies who\r\nare not charged or convicted in foreign jurisdictions and if so,\r\nunder what circumstances.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lee Hsien Loong\r\n : Since\r\nthe 1990s, there have been several cases involving Singapore Citizens\r\ncommitting corruption offences overseas and prosecuted in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n \tThe Corrupt Practices Investigation\r\nBureau (CPIB) may conduct investigations into Singapore Citizens\r\nwho have committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act\r\n(PCA) in any place, even if it is outside Singapore. This is provided\r\nfor under Section 37(1) of the PCA.
\r\n\r\n However, any investigation\r\nin a foreign state requires the latter's permission and co-operation.\r\nHence, the approach taken has to be practical and is based on the\r\npremise that the state where the act of corruption takes place is\r\nusually best placed to investigate and deal with the matter. If\r\nthere is a Singapore nexus, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC)\r\nwould consider any mutual legal assistance requested by that foreign\r\nstate and CPIB would extend its assistance where appropriate.
\r\n\r\n \tBased on the same practical\r\napproach, in cases where Singapore is better placed to investigate\r\nand deal, we will prosecute in Singapore. Examples of such cases\r\nare civil servants in our overseas missions committing corruption\r\noffences.
\r\nPage: 995
\r\n\r\n Vernacular\r\nSpeech by Mr Muhamad\r\nFaisal Bin Abdul Manap\r\n
\r\nPage: 996
\r\n \r\nPage: 999
\r\n \r\nPage: 1000
\r\n \r\nPage: 1001
\r\n \r\n