\r\n
| \r\n
Page: 1002
\r\nPage: 1005
\r\nPage: 1005
\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 Arthur Fong | \r\n18 Jan | \r\n20 Jan | \r\n
| Mr K Shanmugam | \r\n20 Jan | \r\n25 Jan | \r\n
| Mr Sitoh Yih\r\nPin | \r\n31 Jan | \r\n03 Feb | \r\n
| 20 Feb | \r\n24 Feb | \r\n
Page: 1006
\r\n[Mr Speaker\r\nin the Chair]
\r\nPage: 1006
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1\r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health in the last five years (a) what is the number\r\nof (i) people infected with tuberculosis; (ii) students infected\r\nwith tuberculosis; (iii) foreigners in Singapore infected with tuberculosis;\r\n(iv) adult Singaporeans infected with tuberculosis; (b) what is\r\nthe current number of infected patients who are under treatment;\r\nand (c) what are the measures the Ministry has adopted so far to\r\nprevent an outbreak of this contagious and dangerous disease.
\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 : Sir, please allow\r\nme to first explain the difference between active tuberculosis (TB)\r\nand latent TB infection. Active TB is a disease state where the\r\npatient is symptomatic and the disease can spread to others. Latent\r\nTB infection is an asymptomatic disease state during which the disease\r\ncannot spread to others.
\r\n\r\n The majority of people\r\nwith latent infection, about 90%, will not develop active TB disease.\r\nOnly about 10% of persons with latent TB infection develop active\r\nTB disease. This may take place many years after the infection,\r\nalthough there is a higher risk of active TB during the first two\r\nyears of infection. On average, about 1,380 Singapore residents\r\nwere diagnosed with active TB each year over the last five years,\r\nor about 40 cases per 100,000. Most, or about 95% of these cases,\r\nare adults. Among non-residents excluding short-term visitors, the\r\naverage number was also about 40 cases per 100,000 over the same\r\nperiod, or about 450 per year. Short-term visitors were excluded\r\nas many of them were workers who were diagnosed during pre-employment\r\nmedical screening for application of work passes, and will be rejected\r\nif they were found to have TB. Others were here specifically for\r\nTB treatment. There were about 100 students diagnosed with TB each\r\nyear during the last five years. More than 75% were students aged\r\n17 years or older. About 1,000 people are currently being treated\r\nfor TB.
\r\n\r\n I would like to highlight\r\nthat Singapore has one of the lowest incidence rates of TB in Asia,\r\nbesides Japan. Singapore has a comprehensive national TB control\r\nprogramme which was enhanced in 1997 with the setting up of the\r\nSingapore Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (STEP). Under STEP,\r\nthe key control strategy for TB is, firstly, early detection and\r\neffective treatment. This is important to stop the spread of TB\r\nin the community. Secondly, the TB Control Unit, which runs STEP,\r\nclosely monitors compliance with treatment until cure. Whilst most\r\npatients would voluntarily be compliant with the treatment, the\r\nInfectious Diseases Act gives us the power to mandate treatment\r\nof TB patients who are non-compliant, if necessary. By actively\r\nmonitoring the treatment process of all TB cases, the risks of treatment\r\nfailure and development of multi-drug resistance are lowered
\r\nPage: 1007
\r\n\r\n Finally, as TB could only be transmitted\r\nthrough prolonged close contact, contact-screening is conducted\r\namong household contacts and other close contacts in institutions\r\nlike schools to identify persons with latent TB infection. Persons\r\nwith latent TB infection are offered preventive treatment to reduce\r\nthe likelihood of developing active disease. My Ministry will continue\r\nto monitor the effectiveness of the TB control programme closely,\r\nand implement enhancements from time to time.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Minister of State for answering my question. I\r\nhave a supplementary question. I believe when foreign workers apply\r\nfor work passes, they have to undergo X-rays to detect whether they\r\nhave got TB. Am I correct? If the X-rays show black spots, it would\r\nbe easy to presume it might be TB. Is there any other way to detect\r\ninfection other than black spots on the X-rays?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan\r\n : For\r\nforeign domestic workers, before they are granted the Work Permit, they\r\nhave to undergo medical screening, as the Member has rightly noted.\r\nAnd we screen for active TB. As I have said earlier in my reply,\r\nactive TB cases are symptomatic cases. This is a disease state where the\r\ndisease can be spread to others in the community. We do not screen\r\nfor latent TB cases. If they are found to have active TB, they will\r\nbe rejected and sent home. When a foreign domestic worker re-applies for\r\na Work Permit, she would be screened again. The screening is done\r\nevery time they apply for a Work Permit. The reason being that we\r\nfeel that active TB can present itself in between screenings. The\r\nbest way to prevent the spread of such a disease would be to get\r\nforeign domestic workers to go to the doctor, especially if they\r\nhave a chronic cough, because that is the main symptom of TB.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n : Sir, I would\r\nlike to ask the Minister of State whether it means that when a foreign worker\r\napplies for a work pass and has undergone a screening test or an\r\nX-ray, there is no way to identify whether they have active TB or\r\nnot, is it, if there are no spots on the X-ray?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan\r\n : We\r\nscreen them for active TB, and if they are confirmed to have active TB,\r\nthey will not be given the Work Permit, and they will be sent home.\r\nI have also said in my reply that we do not screen latent TB because\r\nthe risk of these cases developing into active TB is actually very low.\r\nOnly about one in 10 of such cases will develop into an active TB\r\ncase, and it could develop over the course of many years. Of course,\r\nthe risk will be higher in the first two years – 50%. But the risk\r\nis spread over a lifetime, so it is very low. We do not screen for\r\nlatent TB.
\r\nPage: 1007
\r\n\r\n \r\n 2\r\n Mr Alex Yam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of employers who\r\nhave been fined for contravening the Road Traffic Act in respect\r\nof the ferrying of workers by lorries since the enhanced penalties\r\nwere introduced in February 2011; (b) what is the impact of the\r\ntighter regulations on the provision of transport for workers; and\r\n(c) whether there are plans to review the regulations.
\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, to reduce business costs, owners and hirers of\r\ngoods vehicles are currently allowed to use their vehicles to transport\r\ntheir workers to and from their places of work or business, subject\r\nto various safety\r\nregulations. LTA has put in place a set of rules under the Road\r\nTraffic Act to enhance the safety of workers transported at the\r\nrear of lorries and pickup trucks.
\r\nPage: 1008
\r\n\r\n These rules require the\r\nworkers to be safely seated at a height of not more than 1.1 metres\r\nfrom the carriage deck and the vehicle must not travel faster than\r\n60 km/h. Lorries must also be fitted with canopies and higher side\r\nrailings if they are to be used to transport workers on the carriage\r\ndeck. A Maximum Passenger Capacity (MPC) label must be displayed\r\non the goods vehicles to indicate the maximum number of workers\r\nthat can be transported, based on a minimum space requirement per person.\r\nIf goods are also transported, the number of persons should be reduced\r\naccordingly. The label serves as a reminder to the vehicle owner/driver\r\non the maximum number of workers the vehicle can carry as well as\r\nfacilitates enforcement against errant employers/ drivers who overload\r\ntheir vehicles.
\r\n\r\n Since 1 February 2011,\r\nLTA and Traffic Police (TP) have imposed higher fines and demerit\r\npoints for non-compliance with safety regulations for the transportation\r\nof workers on lorries for greater deterrence. A total of 1,329 offenders\r\nhave been caught for non-compliance with these safety regulations from\r\nFebruary to September 2011. Enforcement records showed there has\r\ngenerally been a high level of compliance to these safety rules.\r\nThe number of violations of these rules during the eight-month period\r\nbefore and after the enhanced penalties were introduced has fallen\r\nby 49%. Similarly, the accident statistics over the same period\r\nshowed that the number of fatalities has dropped from five to no fatality\r\nwhile the number of injuries has fallen from 199 to 83 cases.
\r\n\r\n I would like to assure\r\nthe Member that notwithstanding the reduction in the number of violations, LTA\r\nand TP remain vigilant. The safety regulations that are in place,\r\nin our assessment, have helped to ensure a higher level of safety\r\nfor workers who need to travel on lorries in the course of their\r\nwork. The efforts put in by all the relevant agencies underscore\r\nthe Government's concern about the safety of workers transported\r\non lorries. Employers and drivers must also play their part as safety\r\nis also their joint responsibility. LTA will continue to monitor\r\nthe situation and, if necessary, review the current measures.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nI thank the Minister of State for the very comprehensive reply.\r\nI am heartened to note that the safety standards for transporting\r\nworkers have improved since the introduction of the new penalties.\r\nI have just one supplementary question. In terms of the summons issued,\r\nI understand that it allows for business owners and hirers to transport\r\ntheir workers from lodging to place of work, and in between places\r\nof work. However, for some estates, there have been instances where\r\nworkers are transported from their lodgings to public transport\r\nhubs for workers to commute further. Is this an area that is covered\r\nunder the Act and are there any penalties issued for contravening the\r\nAct in this area?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, if I understand the gist of Mr Yam's question, I believe he\r\nis concerned about the employers allowing their workers to be transported\r\nto the MRT stations, so that they can then use the public transport\r\nsystem to get to their workplaces. Could I seek that clarification\r\nfrom him, please?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Currently,\r\nthere is no restriction against transportation of such nature. The broader\r\nconcern that Mr Yam highlighted is that this is adding to the public\r\ntransport load. We do not encourage the employers to over extend\r\nthe use of public transport for their workers travelling between workplaces.\r\nIf Mr Yam knows of specific instances, we could talk to the employers\r\nto help to moderate the situation and we would be very happy to\r\nfacilitate.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think this practice is quite rampant. It\r\nis not just happening at any one particular place. A lot of residents\r\nhave given such feedback. I want to urge the Ministry to look into this:\r\nwhether the contractors are allowed to let their workers take the public\r\ntransport, when our public transport is already so packed.
\r\nPage: 1009
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for her question and for expressing her concern. The\r\nvery nature of public transport must mean that the public can use\r\nit. Whoever you are, working in Singapore, living in Singapore,\r\neven if you are a tourist, you can use public transport. But I understand\r\nthe Member's concern and would be very willing to work with various\r\nadvisors to take a look at this problem and, where necessary, work\r\nwith the employers to reduce such incidents.
\r\nPage: 1009
\r\n\r\n \r\n 3\r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources since the implementation\r\nof the Points Demerit System (PDS) for operators of food courts,\r\ncoffee shops and canteens in November 2010 (a) how many operators\r\nhave been issued with demerit points; (b) what are the three most\r\ncommon offences; (c) how many operators have had their licences\r\nsuspended or revoked; (d) how frequently is enforcement being carried\r\nout; and (e) what programmes are put in place by NEA to educate\r\nall operators and their cleaning contractors on hygiene standards.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Minister of State for the Environment\r\nand Water Resources (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for\r\nthe Environment and Water Resources)\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nthe Points Demerit System (PDS) was first implemented in 1987 for\r\nhawker stalls. PDS was extended to food courts, coffee shops and\r\ncanteens in November 2010 to motivate operators to pay more attention\r\nto the cleanliness of the common areas in their premises. Food courts,\r\ncoffee shops and canteens are routinely inspected at least twice\r\na year. NEA also carries out additional inspections based on the\r\nfeedback it receives from the public. Potential problem areas, such\r\nas toilets in coffee shops, are inspected monthly.
\r\n\r\n Since November 2010, 179\r\noperators have been issued with demerit points, in addition to being\r\nfined for cleanliness-related offences. The three most common offences\r\nare the failure to keep the premises and the toilets clean, and\r\nto maintain the sanitary fittings in the toilets in good working\r\ncondition. An operator who chalks up 24 demerit points within 12\r\nmonths will have his licence suspended for up to three days. Thus\r\nfar, no operator has accumulated the maximum number of demerit points\r\nfor suspension.
\r\n\r\n Besides educating the\r\noperators during the inspections, NEA also carries out outreach\r\nand educational programmes, such as the \"My Coffee Shop Shines\"\r\nprogramme in the South-West district and the \"Clean Food Shops\"\r\nprogramme in the North-West district. Under these programmes, NEA works\r\nwith the operators and stall owners to improve their cleaning regimes\r\nand works with the grassroots organisations to educate the public\r\non keeping food shops clean and hygienic. NEA also works with the\r\nPublic Hygiene Council (PHC) and Restroom Association of Singapore\r\n(RAS) to improve the state of toilet cleanliness in food establishments.
\r\n\r\n To raise cleaning standards,\r\nNEA also initiated a voluntary accreditation scheme for the cleaning industry\r\nin July 2010. The scheme recognises companies that have in place\r\noperating systems that ensure the provision of quality cleaning\r\nservices by a professional cleaning workforce. We hope that this will\r\nbring about improvements in cleaning standards in the longer run,\r\nand encourage operators to hire accredited companies for cleaning\r\nso as to increase industry demand for more reliable cleaning services.
\r\n\r\n We need the concerted\r\nefforts of operators, cleaners and patrons to ensure a clean environment\r\nin food establishments. Moving forward, more educational efforts\r\nwill be carried out together with the PHC, and we urge the public to also play\r\na greater part in demanding a cleaner dining environment by providing\r\nfeedback to NEA and not visiting establishments that are poorly\r\nmaintained. At the same time, the public can also help the situation\r\nby being considerate when using the facilities in the food establishments\r\nand keep them clean for the next user. This will help to raise the\r\nlevel of public hygiene and improve our living environment.
\r\nPage: 1010
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member)\r\n :\r\nI thank the Senior Minister of State for the very comprehensive\r\nanswers. I have three supplementary questions. The first is: these\r\nrules and enforcement, how are they being applied to the hawker\r\ncentres which are run by NEA? The second is: I have noticed that\r\nthere are large numbers of foreign cleaners working in the various\r\neating establishments in Singapore and they have various acceptable\r\nhygiene standards from their own countries. How is the Ministry\r\nmonitoring this and are they satisfied with the level of cleanliness\r\nby these workers? The third question is whether there is any rating\r\nor grading of eating establishments' cleanliness like the way hawker\r\nstalls are being graded.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions.\r\nFor the enforcement, NEA hawker centres will be subjected to the\r\nsame regime. Second question about foreign cleaners: I would like\r\nto stress that we do not make a distinction on the nationality or\r\nthe race of the cleaners. What we will focus on really is the outcome\r\nand we would like to apply that same consistent principle, looking\r\nat the outcome of overall level of cleanliness. We have a standard\r\nthat we apply on the various areas to watch. For example, as I mentioned\r\nin my reply, how clean is the toilet, whether the toilets are properly\r\nprovided with the necessary supplies, and so on. So it is really\r\noutcome-driven.
\r\n\r\n I would like to respond\r\nto the question I think that most Singaporeans are concerned with.\r\nIt is really the overall hygiene standard and cleanliness at our\r\nfood establishments. My Ministry has worked very hard to improve\r\non that level but we are not satisfied, and we would like to see\r\na bigger improvement in the level of public hygiene. This is an\r\narea that my Ministry will work very, very hard on for the coming years.\r\nOn the standards of cleanliness of eating establishments, this is\r\nsomething that we will be prepared to consider, and if the Member\r\nwould like to give us specific suggestions, we will be very happy\r\nto incorporate them.
\r\nPage: 1010
\r\n\r\n \r\n 4\r\n \r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Education whether elitism exists in schools, in particular,\r\nthe better performing ones or those with more well-to-do students.
\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, our education system and schools operate on the belief\r\nthat every child is valuable and important. We believe that each\r\nchild has intrinsic worth, and that he can learn and achieve. These beliefs\r\nare articulated in the Philosophy of Education, the Desired Outcomes\r\nof Education and the Teachers' Pledge. Teachers are also guided\r\nby the Teachers' Creed which explicitly states that they should\r\ntreat all students fairly and provide opportunities and resources\r\nto all students of different backgrounds.
\r\n\r\n Meanwhile, values, such\r\nas respect, care and harmony, are emphasised to our students through\r\nthe Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum. Schools\r\nreinforce the values through many programmes and activities that\r\nprovide valuable learning experiences for their students. These\r\ninclude community service and joint activities among schools with\r\ndifferent student profiles within a cluster or zone.
\r\nPage: 1011
\r\n\r\n We have also designed our education system\r\nsuch that each of the different educational pathways is valued and\r\nresourced appropriately. However, occasionally, the behaviour and\r\nactions of some individuals may not always live up to the beliefs\r\nthat we wish to uphold. And when this happens, the schools will\r\ntake steps to correct them.
\r\n\r\n There was a recent letter\r\nby a JC student to the media comparing the facilities of ITE and\r\nJCs. The letter sparked a lively debate, with many Singaporeans\r\ncoming forward to defend why ITE students deserved quality facilities.\r\nSubsequently, the JC student who wrote the letter issued an online\r\nletter expressing his sincere apologies. I think the public reaction\r\nshows that many Singaporeans share the value of respect and care\r\nfor others. And in particular, this episode highlights the importance\r\nfor schools and community to continue to work together to mould\r\nthe character and values of our young people. Ultimately, shaping\r\nthe values and attitudes of our young people is a collaborative\r\neffort and one that is always a work-in-progress. We will continue\r\nto work hard at educating our young to respect and value others.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio)\r\n :\r\nI thank the Minister of State for his reply. Through Character and\r\nCitizenship Education (CCE), we try to inculcate values that we\r\nhope students will grow up with. But how can this be further emphasised\r\nto students because, as it is, there is already segregation among\r\nthe different academic streams in schools, for instance? And will\r\nthe establishment of the two new specialised schools for Normal\r\n(Technical) further segregate students who are of lower academic ability\r\nfrom other students?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lawrence Wong\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for the supplementary questions. This is something that MOE\r\nis always very mindful of. I talked earlier about the mindset of\r\nstudents and what we are doing in each and every school through\r\nCharacter and Citizenship Education to cultivate sound values and\r\nto instill character. But at the systems level, when MOE looks at\r\nour education system, our overall approach has always been to provide\r\nopportunities for all children to develop to their fullest potential. Enabling\r\nsocial mobility has been and will continue to be the hallmark of\r\nour education system.
\r\n\r\n We recognise that every\r\nchild is different and that learning needs and abilities are different.\r\nAnd that is why we have customised progression pathways that are\r\ndifferent. Not just one single track, but multiple pathways to cater\r\nto the different abilities and needs of students. No single pathway\r\nis superior to another. That should not be the mindset. The diverse\r\npathways are meant to cater to different learning needs and each\r\none customised for people with different needs. Somebody may be\r\nacademically slower and they may need a longer time to study and\r\nto progress in their pathway, but they may be a slow learner initially\r\nand a faster learner later on. What we also want to do is to have\r\nmany bridges and ladders across the different pathways, so that\r\nas you progress along one pathway and as you do well subsequently,\r\nyou can move on to a different pathway – adapted, again, and customised\r\nto the needs of that individual.
\r\n\r\n I think we have made a\r\nlot of effort and investment to develop these different pathways,\r\nto resource these pathways appropriately and to have customised\r\ncurriculum for each of these pathways. But the broader issue is\r\na real one that we have to continuously reach out and get people\r\nto understand: that no pathway is superior to another, that these\r\nare multiple pathways for learning, catered to children with different\r\nabilities and needs, and we should embrace all of these different\r\nlearning pathways. As each person, embarking on a particular pathway,\r\nachieves success, we should embrace that broader definition of success\r\nin our society.
\r\n\r\n This is a continuing challenge\r\nthat MOE tries to address through our system, through our schools. But\r\nit is not a job that MOE can do alone, and we would certainly need\r\nthe continuing support and engagement\r\nwith parents, with community groups, certainly with Members of this\r\nHouse to continue to shape the mindset in society.
\r\nPage: 1012
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nSupplementary question, Sir. I am happy that the Minister of State\r\nmentioned engagement with parents. In my engagement with parents\r\nof children in the Gifted Programme, very often, my friends and\r\ncolleagues expressed their concerns about the students being different,\r\nthinking differently and sometimes they even mention the word \"elitist\".\r\nHow do we partner with parents to help them bring up their children\r\nwith proper values because sometimes the parents themselves are\r\nworried? Even though they want the kids to be in the Gifted Programme,\r\nthey also see the concern as something which they need to manage.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lawrence Wong\r\n : Sir, this\r\ngoes back to what we can do through our schools and through our teachers.\r\nYes, there are different pathways and there are some which are catered\r\nto students who are academically very strong. I think it is good\r\nthat they are able to cope with their studies and they will do very\r\nwell. Some of them go on to great achievements even in international\r\ncompetitions. But that is where I think within the school system,\r\nthe teachers, the principals set the tone and they make sure that the\r\nstudents are grounded in sound values, in character building --\r\nthat is a new emphasis that we have placed through Character and\r\nCitizenship Education and through the curriculum that we are putting\r\nin place through the schools, encouraging each school leader and\r\nthe teachers to think about how best to implement this curriculum,\r\nnot just within the school environment but also involving parents\r\nand the community to make sure that the curriculum is something\r\nthat is effective, something that will truly shape the character\r\nand nurture the right values in each and every child.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nI would like to ask the Minister of State and the Ministry if it\r\nis healthy for students to be physically separated in different\r\nschools from a young age: in SAP schools, Special schools, now specialised\r\nNormal schools. Would it not be healthier if, even if they cannot\r\nstudy in the same academic class, that they could – in the non-academic\r\nperiods or time – eat, have recess together, play and interact from\r\na younger age? I know it is easier said than done, and I would ask\r\nif the Ministry is open to consider piloting models that will test\r\nmore effective inclusion and integration practices, so that children\r\nfrom different backgrounds can be educated together from a young age\r\njust like some of us – the older ones amongst us – were educated\r\nthat way when we were young.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lawrence Wong\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for the question. I am not so old but I remember growing up,\r\ngoing to school in Tanjong Katong Technical and that was the situation,\r\ntoo – an integrated environment – and we had students from all sorts\r\nof diverse backgrounds. Certainly, we want to do that, and the majority\r\nof our schools are like that. I think we have a few specialised\r\nschools catering to a select group of students where we think that,\r\nfrom an educational point of view, they may be better served because\r\nit is a more homogeneous group and their needs are very different,\r\nand so more special attention, a customised curriculum can be developed\r\nto reach out to this group. It is a balance. We cannot take that approach\r\nand take it to an extreme. Then certainly every school will be specialised\r\nand then you would really have very separate and distinct groups\r\nof people rather than integration as we would like it to be.
\r\n\r\n We do it in a very controlled\r\nand deliberate environment, and we are monitoring the results of\r\nwhat we are doing. For example, in the new specialised schools for\r\nstudents who did not qualify for Normal (Technical), at least, the\r\ninitial evidence shows that they are doing quite well. Academically,\r\nthey are coping better in this new environment. As we monitor, we\r\nwill feel our way forward, in terms of evolving new models. But,\r\ncertainly, I agree with the Member that we will be very open to\r\nlooking at different models, new ways of promoting better integration.\r\nWe have a school system the way it is with the mainstream schools\r\nacross the board, but a few very specialised institutions catering\r\nto specific needs.
\r\nPage: 1013
\r\n\r\n I accept the point and I agree with the\r\nMember that we should as far as possible avoid that sense of separation\r\nat an early age when our children are growing up, and for these\r\nschools to come up with more programmes. And we would be quite happy\r\nto work with the community, in terms of thinking of new programmes\r\nthat would help students in these specific institutions integrate\r\nbetter with peers of different backgrounds. That is something we\r\nwould explore developing even more of. But I think our fundamental\r\napproach is to look at the students' needs, to look at the students'\r\nabilities and to try as far as possible to make sure that we have\r\na programme and a curriculum that addresses each child's needs and\r\nmaximises his or her potential. That is what we have done. It is\r\nan education system that is student-centric. It is meant to be focused\r\non the students so that the different pathways can cater to each\r\nand every child.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply on\r\nelitism in schools. Many schools typically channel good teachers\r\nto the better classes and sometimes parents also expect the school\r\nto channel better teachers to better classes. Does MOE provide guidelines\r\nto schools so that they would spread good teachers to different\r\nclasses? For that matter, does MOE consciously deploy good teachers\r\nto different schools?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lawrence Wong\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, MOE's policy\r\nis to resource all our schools well, not just a few schools. And\r\nthis is what we have done and we will continue to do so. We provide\r\nthe same base funding to all schools which have significantly increased over\r\nthe past decade to benefit all students. At the teacher level, we\r\nmaintain a balance of the quality of MOE teachers allocated across\r\nall schools, and we would continue to do that. We continue to expand our\r\nteaching force so that schools can afford to have more targeted\r\nprogrammes catering to the different needs of all students. This\r\nis what MOE does at the headquarters level, in terms of our allocation\r\nof resources, whether it is financial or teaching resource, across\r\nthe school system.
\r\n\r\n Within the school system,\r\nI think we have capable school leaders and they have guidelines\r\nand I am sure, from the school principals' point of view, they want\r\nto make sure that their teachers cater to their different student\r\nprofiles and different student needs. Given the diversity of students,\r\nit is not possible to have a single ruler to measure success. The\r\nprincipals know how to allocate or make sure that there are teachers\r\nwith the right inclination, with the right skill sets to teach students\r\nof different profiles. That is what the principals do. MOE has constant\r\ndialogue with the principals, with the school leaders, to make sure\r\nthat this is done appropriately at the school level.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in this interesting discussion. I\r\nwould like to follow up on the specialised Normal (Technical) school.\r\nI can understand the rationale is that we want to have more resources\r\nto be channelled to this group of students, because at the current moment,\r\neach school has maybe just one or two Normal (Technical) classes\r\nand it is difficult to find the resources. Is there going to be\r\na trend that there is going to be more of these specialised Normal (Technical)\r\nschools spread across Singapore? And whether MOE will instead consider\r\nperhaps clustering resources together so that, perhaps, within the\r\ncluster, they can help to set examination papers across the Normal\r\n(Technical) classes in the schools? Or maybe MOE can do that, so\r\nthat we can still let these Normal (Technical) students stay in\r\na normal school rather than separate them?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lawrence Wong\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for the supplementary question. In fact, the second part of\r\nwhat he said is already happening. Within the clusters in the zone,\r\nthe teachers who are involved in teaching Normal (Technical) do\r\nshare notes, do come together and share experiences and resources.\r\nBut the specialised schools are really a step forward in terms of\r\nthinking about perhaps a different way of doing things. So it is, to some extent,\r\nan experiment in terms of trying out something different where we have\r\na specialised institution catered to this group of people, appropriately\r\nresourced, with a different curriculum catered to them.
\r\nPage: 1014
\r\n\r\n There will be pros and\r\ncons, and we have to strike a balance. There is no plan for us now\r\nto expand these specialised schools because this is something new.\r\nAs I mentioned earlier, we are developing these programmes and we\r\nare looking very hard and monitoring the results of what is happening\r\nthrough these schools. The initial findings are positive. We think\r\nthese children are coming out better and they are coping better\r\nin their studies, and they are learning better, more effectively.\r\nThat does not mean that we should proliferate and expand them. I\r\ndo not think there are any plans now. But what we would want to do,\r\nas I mentioned, is to focus on these institutions to see how they\r\ncan do better, in terms of developing their children in these schools.\r\nAt the same time, we will take up Ms Denise Phua's suggestion of programmes\r\nthat can better integrate students across different institutions.\r\nWe are working on multiple approaches. These are things that we\r\nwill continue to evolve and develop. If we think there are indications\r\nthat a particular programme offers success and is useful, then we\r\nwould look at ways to expand it in the most effective manner.
\r\nPage: 1014
\r\n\r\n \r\n 5\r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for the last\r\nfive years, what is the total amount of stamp fees collected by\r\nthe Government in respect of property transactions.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs\r\nJosephine Teo) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, over the five financial years from FY 2006/2007\r\nto FY 2010/2011, the total amount of stamp duty collected in respect\r\nof transactions on sales and purchases of properties was $10.87\r\nbillion.
\r\nPage: 1014
\r\n\r\n \r\n 6\r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development whether the Ministry would\r\nconsider allowing the sale of HDB studio apartments to singles below\r\nthe age of 55 years old.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for National Development (Mr\r\nKhaw Boon Wan)\r\n : Sir, the HDB Studio Apartments are\r\npurpose-built with senior-friendly features. They are sold with\r\na 30-year lease to keep them affordable, while ensuring that the\r\nowners have a home in their golden years. They, therefore, do not quite\r\nfit the housing needs of young singles.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank the Minister for the answer. There are residents who\r\nhave come and approached me, and they are singles without family\r\nmembers, not very well to do, so they cannot quite afford the high\r\nCash-over-Valuation (COVs) of the resale flats or buying a flat\r\nfrom the open market. There is not much option for them, really.\r\nWhat can be done? Can there be Studio Apartments, small apartments\r\nwith shorter leases for them, instead of just for the elderly, those\r\nwho are above 55 years old?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : As I said,\r\nStudio Apartments are not quite the option because they were really not\r\ndesigned for such young singles, and also because the Studio Apartments\r\nare already on very short leases, of 30 years, which are quite appropriate\r\nfor retirees. For young singles, I am not quite sure whether that\r\nis appropriate. Of course, as I have explained in this House two\r\nsittings ago, there is a wide range of potential house buyers. Housing\r\nis a very complex problem. I have to approach this problem systematically. I\r\nhave to set priorities. In due course, I would be able to address\r\nall the various segments. But I decided to zero in for the first\r\n12 months of my term on the first timers. I think we are delivering some\r\nresults, which now allow me, as I blogged about last night, to for\r\nthe next 12 to 24 months focus on the second timers. That itself\r\nis another very big group, with a wide range of needs and differing needs.\r\nIt is a subject that is now occupying my mind. In due course, I\r\nwill tackle the other buyer groups, for example, the singles, too.
\r\nPage: 1015
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the Minister agree that\r\nStudio Apartments represent a very good option, probably the best\r\noption, for elderly residents to monetise their current flats? Sell\r\ntheir current flat, buy a Studio Apartment and have a decent amount\r\nof balanced proceeds to retire on. And if that is the case, would\r\nhe be stepping up the construction of Studio Apartments?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Khaw Boon Wan\r\n : Indeed,\r\nlast Sunday, in one of my MPS cases, there was such an elderly gentleman.\r\nA retiree, living in a 5-room flat and a widower. So, he is all\r\nalone and he decided to just sell the 5-room flat, apply for a Studio\r\nApartment, and he will have some cash which he can then keep for his\r\nretirement. So, that certainly is a good option. It is not the only\r\noption for seniors but MND offered this option which I think can\r\nbe quite attractive for some of these seniors. We intend to expand\r\nit. I have been looking at the application rates for the Studio\r\nApartments – quite good, quite healthy, not overly subscribed, but\r\nwell taken up, practically 100%. So far, we have launched 6,000\r\nunits. Last year alone, we launched 2,300 units. This year, I will\r\ncontinue to press on.
\r\nPage: 1015
\r\n\r\n \r\n 7\r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport from 2009 to 2011(a) what is the total\r\namount of ERP charges collected by the Government; (b) which ERP\r\ngantry collects the highest amount of fees per day and what is the\r\namount; and (c) which ERP gantry collects the lowest amount of fees\r\nper day and what is the amount.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck\r\nYew)\r\n : Let me begin by providing a recap on the purpose\r\nof Electronic Road Pricing (ERP). The ERP is a tool to manage congestion.\r\nIt is not for revenue generation. The rates are set and reviewed\r\nbased on the latest traffic conditions. The key measure of the effectiveness\r\nof ERP, of course, is whether it is able to keep traffic speeds\r\nwithin the optimal range, rather than the amount that is collected\r\nby each gantry.
\r\n\r\n The total amount collected\r\nfor each Financial Year from 2009 to 2011 was about $149 million\r\nfor FY 2009, $159 million for FY 2010 and $97 million up till the\r\nend of October 2011. The ERP gantries that collected the highest\r\nand lowest amount per day based on a typical month's weekday average\r\nare at Nicoll Highway for the highest and Upper Boon Keng Road for\r\nthe lowest. For Nicoll Highway, it is $32,000 and for Upper Boon\r\nKeng Road, it is $130.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n : Sir, I thank\r\nthe Minister for answering my question. I would like to ask whether these\r\nvehicles are mainly from other countries like Malaysia, or are they\r\nfrom Singapore, or do the figures relate to all vehicles?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Do I answer\r\nyou now or do you have another question?
\r\nPage: 1016
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nLui Tuck Yew\r\n : Okay. I do not have the breakdown.\r\nThis is the consolidated amount that is collected every month. I\r\nsuspect that, by and large, the vast majority of it would be from\r\nSingaporean vehicles.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : I am just\r\ncurious to know what will happen to gantries that collect so little,\r\nlike the Minister mentioned, the gantry at Upper Boon Keng Road.\r\nWould there be a plan to scrap gantries like this?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : I should\r\nexplain the difference, why the Nicoll Highway gantry seems to have such\r\na high collection at $32,000 and Upper Boon Keng Road only $130\r\nper weekday. For Upper Boon Keng Road, the gantry operates for about\r\nhalf an hour in the morning from 8.30 am to 9.00 am. That is the\r\nonly time that it operates. The Nicoll Highway gantry operates from\r\n7.30 am to 8.00 pm, rests two hours, and from 10.00 am to 12 noon.\r\nThe durations of operation are different, and the rates are different.
\r\n\r\n The reason why we need\r\nsome of these gantries, for example, like at Upper Boon Keng Road,\r\nis that they are part of an outer cordon through which vehicles\r\nhave to pass in order to get to the city, and we also need to control\r\nthe movement of vehicles in this direction. We have to make sure\r\nthat we have a cordon that is sufficiently effective. We look at\r\nthe speeds every quarter. When the speeds are above the optimal\r\nrange, we have the option then to reduce the rates or to do away\r\nwith it altogether, as we have done for CTE in the morning for certain\r\nhours. We have also done it for the CTE northbound, at night. The\r\nlast time we looked at the Upper Boon Keng gantry, the speeds were\r\nnot above the optimum range. They were within the optimum range\r\nand, hence, we continued to operate the gantry.
\r\nPage: 1016
\r\n\r\n \r\n 8\r\n Mr Alex Yam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for National Development if his Ministry would consider requiring\r\noperators of foreign worker dormitories to provide transport for\r\nworkers to their workplace on a compulsory basis before awarding\r\ntenders for the operation of these dormitories.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for National Development\r\n(BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin) (for the Minister for National Development)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, workers staying in foreign workers' dormitories\r\ncome from many different employers. They are currently transported\r\nto and from their workplaces by their employers or by private transport\r\noperators. The modes of transportation include chartered buses,\r\nmini-buses and lorries. These are private arrangements made between\r\nemployers, private transport operators and the foreign workers.
\r\n\r\n Our preference is for\r\nemployers to have flexibility in deciding how best to safely and\r\nefficiently transport workers between the dormitories and the workplaces,\r\ninstead of the Government mandating a single approach for all employers\r\nto adopt. This is because employers' requirements could differ significantly,\r\ndepending on the number of workers they have, as well as the nature\r\nof work, location and working hours of their workers.
\r\nPage: 1017
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Before this\r\nHouse resumes the debate, I would like to remind Members that the decorum\r\nof this House must always be maintained. While I fully appreciate\r\nand encourage vigorous debate, Members should not make reference\r\nto another Member using words like \"you\" or \"your\". Members ought\r\nto address another Member by referring to the constituency that\r\nthe Member represents, or by his or her full name.
\r\n\r\n When seeking clarification\r\nfrom another Member, Members ought to seek my consent before posing their\r\nquestions. The Member should then take his or her seat and allow\r\nthe Member from whom clarification is sought to fully answer the\r\nquestions. If the Member wishes to seek further clarification, the\r\nMember should seek my consent again before asking any further questions.\r\nI thank Members for their co-operation.
\r\nPage: 1017
\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\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, for a country with a voting population of only\r\n2.1 million citizens, Ministerial salaries in Singapore are by far\r\nthe highest in the world. It should therefore come as no surprise\r\nto anyone in this Chamber that the debates surrounding Ministerial\r\nsalaries are also the most emotive anywhere in the world as well.\r\nIn the minds of many citizens, Ministers cannot make mistakes. The\r\nconnection is logical. If you pay top dollar, you would expect top\r\nperformance.
\r\n\r\n Over the Christmas period,\r\nI took the opportunity to ask friends and relatives what they would consider\r\nto be a fair wage to pay a Minister and an MP in Singapore. Although\r\nthis was not a scientific exercise by any stretch, on average, the\r\nfigure for an MP hovered around the $10,000 mark, while the total\r\nwage for a Minister, excluding his or her MP's salary, ranges from\r\n$30,000 to $50,000, bonuses included. As reinforced by the Committee,\r\nwith figures such as these, no Minister would need to worry about\r\nhis ability to meet the financial needs of his family or have to\r\nface a drastic reduction in his standard of living. Many whom I\r\nspoke to were shocked that Ministers have hitherto received their pension.\r\nIf anything, public servants who have for the longest time deserved\r\nthe pension are our Division 3 and Division 4 civil servants, some\r\nof whom draw a salary of around the $1,500 mark. But paradoxically,\r\neven years after the private sector removed this anachronism, the\r\nPAP Government persisted in retaining for their high flyers until\r\nthis Committee's recommendations.
\r\n\r\n Once again, the emotive\r\nreaction of Singaporeans is completely logical and understandable.\r\nA few months ago, I asked via a Parliamentary Question the monetary\r\namount each Minister in the last Cabinet could expect to receive\r\nin pension. The Prime Minister, however, gave an answer to another\r\nquestion – one that was not asked – instead explaining how pensions\r\nare calculated. The reluctance to reveal hard numbers provides yet\r\nanother glimpse into the reasons behind the emotive reaction of\r\nSingaporeans to Ministerial salaries. I can confidently say that\r\nthis Government will never release how much each retiring Minister\r\nreceived in pension, although I hope I will be proved wrong, especially\r\nsince one PAP MP\r\nannounced on Monday that Ministerial salaries are transparent and\r\npublished. Well, following that logic, we should expect the pensions\r\nreceived by retiring Ministers to be published as well.
\r\nPage: 1018
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the political\r\nlandscape today is anchored by expectations of significantly higher levels\r\nof transparency and accountability. To that end, the Committee must\r\nbe commended for its decision to remove the very concept of a pension\r\nfor Ministers. In my mind, this has been an apocal recommendation\r\nmade by Gerard Ee's Committee and I hope Singaporeans duly credit\r\nthem for it. They did not just remove pensions for Ministers. They\r\nhave set the benchmark for good governance, accountability and transparency\r\nin public service. The Workers' Party welcomes this development\r\nas the high water mark of the Committee's recommendations.
\r\n\r\n It is in the good governance,\r\ntransparency and accountability that the Workers' Party proposes\r\na simple, straightforward formula by which to determine political\r\nsalaries. Unlike what was reported by The Straits Times today,\r\nspecifically one headline which read \"WP proposals on pay not that\r\ndifferent\", the principles behind the Workers' Party's proposals\r\ndiffer significantly. The reasons for these differences were, perhaps,\r\nbest illustrated by Deputy Prime Minister Teo on the first day of\r\nthis Debate. Because it is the principles behind the numbers that\r\nmatter. Where the Committee could have done much better was to remove\r\nthis concept of pegging Ministerial salaries to the top 1,000 earners\r\nin Singapore. It also persisted in pegging MPs' salaries to a percentage\r\nof the Administrative Service superscale -- yet another visage of\r\nelitism that should not be extended to the political realm.
\r\n\r\n My erstwhile colleague,\r\nMr Chen Show Mao, made the point about pegging political salaries\r\nwith the rank and file of the civil service in his speech on the\r\nfirst day, at the MX9 level. But no PAP MP wanted to go there. It\r\nis apparent that the PAP are fine with pegging salaries to an elite\r\ncorps of individuals, many of whom, discerning Singaporeans note,\r\nare also cultivated for PAP political office. In the minds of these\r\ndiscerning Singaporeans, the PAP Ministerial selection process is\r\nclear. You have to be selected as a Minister first before becoming\r\nan MP.
\r\n\r\n Two PAP MPs tried to address\r\nthis Administrative Service elephant in the committee's report.\r\nOne of them only managed to scratch the surface of the issue. Expectedly,\r\nthat MP was the veritable conscience of the PAP, Ms Denise Phua,\r\nand the other was Mr Lim Biow Chuan. If I heard Ms Phua correctly,\r\nshe wanted Administrative Service salaries to be reduced in line\r\nwith the spirit of the recommendations of Mr Ee's Committee. Singaporeans\r\nshould know why she felt that way. What is so special about this\r\nelite corps of 300-odd Administrative Service scholars out of the\r\n127,000-strong civil service, a mere 0.02% of all civil servants?\r\nAnd why is the MPs' salary pegged to a percentage of the Administrative\r\nService salary and why not to those of ordinary civil servants?
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, I started\r\noff my speech by referring to how much emotion political salaries\r\ngenerate in Singapore. The essence of the WP's proposals, specifically\r\nthe de-linkage of MP's salary to some percentage of the Administrative\r\nService salary and the top 1,000 earners' peg for Ministers, was precisely\r\nformulated by the Workers' Party to remove this emotion from any\r\ndebate on Ministerial salaries, and to remove the overbearing odour\r\nof elitism from political office. It is the Workers' Party's contention\r\nthat when you remove the connection to elitism, you take the emotive\r\nelement out of the debate.
\r\n\r\n In retaining the unmistakable\r\nconnection to the top 1,000 and to the Administrative Service, respectfully,\r\nthe Committee has missed an opportunity to fundamentally address\r\nthe emotive reaction of Singaporeans to political salaries. In The\r\nStraits Times today, Review Editor, Ms Chua Mui Hoong, wrote\r\nand I quote: \"The issue of Ministerial salaries will continue to\r\ndraw heated disagreement. The formula will be tweaked again, and\r\nthe future Prime Minister would have to stand up in Parliament and seek\r\nthe support of MPs and Singaporeans for yet another round of changes.\"\r\nIf this comes to pass, it would indeed be a most unfortunate eventuality.
\r\nPage: 1019
\r\n\r\n Like my party colleagues, I trawled the\r\nHansard for a record of previous debates on political salaries. Nothing\r\nthis Government has said over the last three days signalled a real\r\nshift in the mindset of how to peg political salaries. Substantively,\r\nit certainly looks like business as usual. The Workers' Party proposed\r\nthe MPs' be pegged to the MX9 level, the starting salary of entry-grade\r\ncivil servants into the superscale ranks, not the elite Administrative\r\nService scale when an officer at the age of 32 should expect to\r\nreceive around $400,000 a year, depending on bonuses. If the Government\r\npegs political salaries at the rank-and-file level of the civil\r\nservice, a level the average Singaporean can aspire to, you remind\r\nall political aspirants what it means to be a servant-leader and\r\nyou unmistakably inject substantive empathy into Singapore's political\r\nculture.
\r\n\r\n Ministerial salaries come\r\nnext, and, like many developed countries around the world, you choose\r\na suitable multiple that is politically acceptable to Singaporeans.\r\nWe opine that Singaporeans can be persuaded by the reasoning behind\r\nthe Workers' Party proposals. While they may be close to the Committee's\r\nproposal, the Workers' Party certainly expects a reality check on\r\nthe 13.5-month bonus a Minister can receive – a figure that flies\r\nin the face of the Committee's commitment to clean salaries. For\r\nthe record, standing to secure a bonus of half your salary can hardly\r\nbe expressed as a clean salary. In monetary terms, it is akin to\r\nthe perks some MPs in other countries get, like a car or housing allowance.\r\nWith respect to the Committee, the Workers' Party proposal of a\r\nfive-month bonus is much clearer, much cleaner and publicly conscionable.
\r\n\r\n As many Singaporeans would\r\nunderstand by now, the Workers' Party proposals take their cue from the\r\nrank-and-file of the civil service. Ordinary respectable civil servants\r\nwho represent the spine and the spirit of the public service. One\r\nPAP MP was dissatisfied with the dental benefit of $70 the Committee proposed\r\nfor Ministers. But if the rank-and-file civil service is extended\r\na $70 dental benefit, why should it be different for Ministers?\r\nDo they have golden teeth? If this Government wants its Ministers\r\nto have more dental benefits, then extend the same privilege to\r\nour civil servants, for they serve the public, too. This is much\r\npreferred instead of treating Ministers differently. They are MPs\r\nand public servants first.
\r\n\r\n The new normal does not\r\ncall for super heroes, as one PAP MP suggested. It calls for servant leadership.\r\nServant-leaders are those who back proposals that are akin to what\r\nmainstream Singaporeans can aspire to. As the Workers' Party numbers\r\nshow, this is achievable and you can still attract high quality\r\nindividuals to politics, but only if you do not limit your MPs to\r\ncome from the top 10% to 20% richest Singaporeans, as PAP MP Mrs\r\nJosephine Teo desires. Other PAP MPs have gone about the shortcomings\r\nof Workers' Party approach: to apply a multiple to MP's salary and\r\nthereby deduce the salary for Ministers.
\r\n\r\n Others suggested it is\r\narbitrary and that you could decide to pay your Ministers by working backwards\r\nfrom a pre-determined figure. I was a little surprised to hear this\r\nfrom MPs like Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Zaqy Mohamad because the reasoning\r\nbehind the Committee's proposals is no less arbitrary. As recommended\r\nby the Committee, MP's allowance is pegged to 17.5% of an entry-level Administrative\r\nService superscale scholar. Ministers get a 40% discount of the\r\nsalaries of the top 1,000 earners. Is that not arbitrary? Why not\r\n10% or 12.5% of entry-level Admin Service super-scalers, or a 50%\r\ndiscount for Ministers as opposed to 40%? Can you not get to the\r\nfigures you want, by manipulating these percentages? But it leaves\r\nme to acknowledge the intellectual honesty of Mdm Halimah Yacob who\r\nnoted that whilst a specific multiple for Ministerial salaries proposed\r\nby the Workers' Party can be interpreted to be arbitrary, so were\r\nthe numbers and percentages contained in the Committee's recommendations.
\r\n\r\n The neutral may say both\r\nthe WP and PAP proposals are arbitrary, and I think the intellectually honest\r\nin this Chamber will be the first to raise their hands and say there\r\nis a lot of truth to this. But the difference lies in the principles behind\r\nthe WP's proposal. We seek to persuade Singaporeans that political\r\nsalaries ought to be underwritten by a key Workers' Party philosophy:\r\nthat public service is open to all Singaporeans. The privilege of\r\nbeing of service to your fellow countrymen is the attraction of\r\nbeing an MP. You are an MP first before becoming a Minister. Public\r\nservice in Singapore is for all Singaporeans, and opportunities\r\nto be a Minister should not be restricted or institutionalised to\r\nthe few with silver spoons.
\r\nPage: 1020
\r\n\r\n To conclude, Mr Speaker,\r\nif human resource is indeed our most precious commodity, as Mr Gan Thiam\r\nPoh has reasoned, then it is indeed pragmatic that we send the right\r\nsignal to all Singaporeans and open the prospects of political service,\r\nincluding becoming Ministers, to all Singaporeans, not just the\r\ntop 10% to 20%. The Prime Minister also alluded to the difficulty\r\nthat PAP may face recruiting individuals to become Ministers if\r\nsalaries are not competitive. With respect, I would urge the Prime Minister\r\nto leave some room to consider the possibility that perhaps it is\r\nnot the salary, career or family circumstances that is the issue.\r\nOn the contrary, another reason could be that in light of the new\r\nnormal, talented people feel that the PAP is no longer capable of\r\nhosting the aspirations for Singapore and no salary can move them.
\r\n\r\n We in the Workers' Party\r\nbelieve that choosing the appropriate benchmark is critical as it\r\nsends an unmistakable signal when the principles behind your salary\r\npeg is at a level the average Singaporean can empathise with and\r\naspire to. In doing so, we believe that the emotions that have justifiably\r\nbedevilled the debate on political salaries over these decades will\r\nfinally be assuaged. I may not have convinced this House but I certainly\r\nhope to have convinced Singaporeans that while the numbers behind\r\nthe PAP and WP recommendations may not be worlds apart, the principles\r\nbehind them most certainly are. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the principles\r\nbehind the salary benchmarks chosen by the Committee and therefore\r\nI oppose the motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Vikram Nair,\r\ndo you want to make a clarification? Keep it short, please.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang)\r\n :\r\nSorry, Mr Speaker, I was trying to get your attention yesterday because\r\nI think Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked me three questions. And I would like\r\nto address the one point that Mr Singh made, if I may?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : Yes. The\r\nfirst question Mr Yee asked was whether I made my recommendations to\r\nthe Committee: the short answer is \"yes, I did\" but I did it in\r\nwriting because I did not think I was sufficiently special to ask\r\nfor an audience. The second, and this is the more fundamental question:\r\nwhat is the difference I think between the Workers' Party's proposal\r\nin terms of salary and ours because I think the Member asked me\r\nto check with the Prime Minister why he said it was higher and I\r\nsaid it was lower. The answer is actually quite simple. I think\r\nI should perhaps correct the error which I realised Mr Chen mentioned\r\nin his Facebook page yesterday as well. The Workers' Party's starting\r\nsalary for Ministers is $55,000. That is also the benchmark. On\r\nthe Committee's side, however, the benchmark is $55,000 but the\r\nstarting salary is lower. So, it is $47,250. That is one of the\r\nkey differences. Now, what is the result of that difference? The\r\nresult of that difference is that the Workers' Party's proposal\r\nresults in a higher base pay for the starting Minister but a lower\r\nmaximum bonus, whereas on the Committee's proposal, the starting\r\nsalary would be lower but the variable bonus is higher. So what\r\ndoes this mean in principle? This means that earlier ---
\r\nPage: 1021
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nVikram Nair\r\n : Okay, sorry. The key difference in principle\r\nis that in a year when performance targets are not met, the Workers'\r\nParty's proposal will provide more pay. And in a year when performance\r\ntargets are met or exceeded, the Committee's proposal will provide\r\nmore pay. That is the key difference in terms of how they work.\r\nThe final question is how we should vote. I think one of the key\r\npoints I was making is obviously we should all vote according to\r\nour conscience but there is not much difference in principle. We\r\nall believe public service should be the most important thing. Now,\r\nthe Workers' Party has not said the salary should be reasonable,\r\nbut looking at your proposal, the salaries are in the same ballpark.\r\nSo, I think there is a lot of common ground. All I was hoping to\r\ndo is to highlight the common ground.
\r\n\r\n Now, in terms of Mr Singh's\r\npoint that I highlighted that the Workers' Party's proposal was arbitrary,\r\nthat was not really as a criticism but more actually to highlight\r\nthe fact that whatever formula you come up with, there is some element\r\nof arbitrariness. But one point I should make is that the Workers'\r\nParty arrived at $55,000, apparently independently by coincidence\r\nat the same number as the Committee did. What is interesting is\r\nthat the probability of two four-digit numbers coinciding is miniscule,\r\nas anyone who has bought 4D would tell you. The probability of two\r\nfive-digit numbers coinciding, I would say, is probably miraculous.\r\nThis means there is probably some special agreement between us.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker, I would like to thank ---
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Yes. I\r\nwould like to thank Mr Vikram Nair for his comments. I just do not understand.\r\nDid he ask a question that he would like me to answer because I\r\nam not sure whether you were making a statement or whether you were\r\nasking me something? Could you just clarify, please?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : No, I was\r\nmaking a response in relation to your allegation that I had accused\r\nyou of being arbitrary. In fact, that was really not an issue because\r\nwe both agree there is some degree of arbitrariness in both proposals.\r\nBut what I was pointing out is that we somehow arrived at the same benchmark,\r\nmiraculously, through two independent routes.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker. Mr Nair, thank you very much for that clarification.\r\nI am not going to agree with you about the \"miraculousness\" of the\r\nfigures in the proposals that were decided upon by the WP and the\r\nCommittee. But the point I made in that paragraph was to identify\r\nwhat Mdm Halimah Yacob had said. I think she brought up the point\r\nacutely. Well, I did not think that that point was made by you as\r\nacutely as she did. That is all I am saying.
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nSir, I would like to ask a few questions to the Member, Mr Pritam\r\nSingh. First, I would like to ask if you would please agree not\r\nto comment further that I am the conscience of the PAP. I just want\r\nto state to everyone in the House that the conscience of many of\r\nmy PAP colleagues in this House is intact and I am not the only\r\nconscience or the conscience of the PAP.
\r\n\r\n The second question is:\r\ncan his colleagues not try to punctuate every comment that they\r\nmake in Parliament with the Workers' Party brand. This is no more\r\nthe General Election rally. We are here to discuss issues and serve our constituents,\r\nrepresent our constituents as MPs first and I think there is no necessity\r\nto try to politicise and brand the party every time we discuss important\r\ntopics like this.
\r\nPage: 1022
\r\n\r\n My third comment is, to\r\nask the Member if he had pre-empted what I said, even though I mentioned about\r\nthe need to take off the cloak of secrecy over the Administrative\r\nService, I really had asked the Prime Minister to conduct an independent\r\nreview of the top civil service leadership that will go beyond pay\r\nto attract, develop and retain talent for a capable and committed\r\nGovernment. And that is what I have asked the Prime Minister to\r\ndo. And I also agree very much with the Member that servant leadership\r\nis ---
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng\r\n :\r\n--- a very important feature of serving in this nation and also\r\nthat is a very desirable feature of trying to be a \"superhero politician\"\r\nhere to have this ability to meet the broad bandwidth of expectations\r\nof politicians. Servant leadership definitely is a desirable feature\r\nof a politician that I would admire.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI do not have anything to add to what Ms Denise Phua has said.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Mr Speaker. I would just like to reply to one point by Mr Vikram Nair\r\nabout this $55,000 versus $47,000. Mr Vikram Nair seems very determined\r\nto prove that the Workers' Party's proposal is higher than that\r\nof the Committee. Now, we have always been, in our recommendation,\r\nfocusing on the main principles behind our proposal which I feel\r\nis important, the starting point from the MP pay. So, we have been\r\nusing benchmark pay versus the Committee's benchmark pay. Of course,\r\nwe understand that when we go into details, there will be some salary\r\nrange and, as the Committee proposed, it will be between 0.85 times\r\nand 1.1 times of the benchmark. Workers' Party has not gone into\r\nthe details of this because we feel it is not necessary at this\r\npoint. It is better to debate on the broad principles. I do not\r\nknow for whatever reasons he wants to continue to harp on these reasons\r\nthat ours is higher than the Committee's, but I do not feel this\r\nis necessary and actually diverts attention from the main point\r\nthat we are bringing up.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nSir, I would like to seek clarification of comments made by Mr Pritam\r\nSingh and by Mr Gerald Giam earlier, where they criticised the level\r\nof bonus set by the Committee as being up to 13.5 months as somehow\r\nnot being consistent with a clean wage. I would just ask Mr Singh\r\nand Mr Giam whether they are aware that it is a commonly accepted\r\n---
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Well, Mr Yeo,\r\nMr Giam is not around, so you may want to address Mr Singh's point.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alvin Yeo\r\n : Yes, Mr Giam\r\nis not here, so I would just ask Mr Singh then whether they are\r\naware that it is a commonly accepted remuneration practice that\r\nthe more senior the position, the greater the weightage of remuneration\r\nis placed on bonus. So, for instance, it is typical for a CEO to\r\nhave more than half his remuneration based on bonus. The idea here\r\nis not that it is not a clean wage, it is made quite transparent\r\nso the Committee has made it clear that with the good bonus, a Minister\r\nwould get $1.1 million. That is out in the open. The idea of having\r\na heavier weightage of bonus is to make it clear that the Minister\r\nwill not get that pay unless his performance is in keeping with\r\nKPIs which include national outcomes which improve the lot of Singaporeans.\r\nAnd my request for clarification is, does Mr Pritam Singh not accept\r\nthat that is consistent with the principle of having a Minister\r\nbeing made accountable for\r\nhis performance, not just with his own KPIs but with that of nationally\r\nset outcomes which better the lives of all Singaporeans?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nthank you very much. I would like to thank the hon Member for his question\r\nalso. I think he has probably put in the best way possible why the\r\nprinciples behind our proposals are so different. We are not looking\r\nat the private sector, the CEOs in the private sector, how bonuses\r\nare paid out to them. We are looking at the rank-and-file civil\r\nservice. I believe that political salaries ought to have some comparison\r\nwith the rank-and-file civil service. Now, if the rank-and-file civil\r\nservice are not paid double-digit bonuses, then we feel in the same\r\nway that Ministers should not get double-digit bonuses.
\r\n\r\n And I think the other\r\npoint that I tried to make in my speech was, if you pay these high\r\nbonuses, sure, it may be common or expected for CEO of GE or some\r\nother big MNC but what that works out in reality is an additional\r\npart of your wage which when you compare with other countries, you\r\nhave these additional perks, motorcycle allowances, bicycle allowances\r\nthat Mr Inderjit Singh spoke about. We feel that it comes to the\r\nsame thing, in some different roundabout way. So, what we are saying\r\nis, there is a cleaner way to reach that clean wage definition,\r\nand that is by keeping bonuses a little bit modest and sober.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alvin Yeo\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I do not believe Mr Singh has answered my question as to whether a\r\nhigher weightage of bonus, more than half, is consistent with the\r\nprinciple of making Ministers accountable for performance. And with\r\nrespect, I do not agree that the motorcycle allowance stands in the\r\nsame shape and form as a bonus which is made transparent and known\r\nto the electorate.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, thank you. I thank the hon Member for the follow-up question as\r\nwell. I disagree with him, obviously. And the second point I would\r\nlike to make is even if your bonus was, let us say, five months\r\nor 5.5 months, as the Workers' Party is recommending, does it mean\r\nthat Ministers would be somehow less accountable? I do not believe\r\nso and my party also does not believe so. We feel that bonuses can\r\nbe capped at 5.5 months and that is our position.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Pritam Singh probably misheard me when\r\nI spoke yesterday. There was a point where the Workers' Party talked\r\nabout how the benchmarks result in monetising the value of political\r\noffice, and I said that even the benchmarks made by the Workers'\r\nParty is an attempt to put some cash value, cash component to the\r\nwork contribution of the Ministers. So, in that sense, would you\r\nthen argue that this was an attempt to monetise the value of political\r\noffice?
\r\n\r\n The second point I said\r\nwas that whatever benchmark used will always be subject to question.\r\nAnd in any event, how did the Workers' Party come to a multiple\r\nof five times when it comes to the remuneration for Ministers? One\r\ncould also question whether that is a right benchmark. So that was\r\nin the context of the point I made, whatever benchmarks, including\r\nthe benchmarks made by the Workers' Party, why must it be a multiple\r\nof five, why not a multiple of two, why not a multiple of seven?\r\nAnd in that context, every form of benchmark would be subject to\r\nquestion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : And I think\r\nthat is precisely what I am saying as well, that any benchmark will be\r\narbitrary. And I think the Member Mr Zaqy was suggesting that the\r\nWorkers' Party's multiple was arbitrary\r\nbut the difference between him and you -- not \"you\", I cannot say\r\n\"you\" -- between him and Mdm Halimah Yacob, the important thing\r\nthat she did was she pointed out that both parties, both proposals,\r\nhad an element of arbitrariness to it, and I respected that.
\r\nPage: 1024
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Finance and Transport\r\n(Mrs Josephine Teo)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, allowing me\r\nto seek a clarification. This is to Mr Pritam Singh, of course.\r\nI was just puzzling over his comments about what I said and thinking\r\nabout the proposals that have been put forward by Members from the\r\nWorkers' Party. Well, as it turns out, the number that the Member\r\nhas proposed to pay a Minister, is actually not very different from\r\nthe number that the Committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee is paying.\r\nWhat that means, in effect, is that the Member is also proposing\r\nto draw roughly from the same population that the Committee is proposing\r\nto draw from, to fill our political leadership. So, how is it then\r\nthat the Committee's proposal is elitist but then the Workers' Party's\r\nis not elitist? That is the part I fail to understand.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : I thank\r\nthe Member for her question. I think, really, the essence of where\r\nwe are coming from was best enunciated by the Deputy Prime Minister\r\non the first day. It is not the numbers that is the issue. It is\r\nthe principle behind those numbers. And we have moved away from\r\npegging Ministerial salaries to the salaries of the top 1,000 and\r\nthe Administrative Service. And that is the principle we are getting\r\nat. And what we are suggesting is we do not need to peg it to people\r\nright up there. Peg it to the average Singaporean, at a level where\r\nSingaporeans can aspire to, not the numbers, the principle.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Mr Speaker, much obliged. Again, Mr Singh, two clarifications. Did\r\nI not hear Members agreeing that the principles that were enunciated\r\nby Mr Ee's Committee are the same principles that you also subscribed\r\nto, unless I heard you wrongly? The second thing is that I also remember\r\nvery distinctly the Deputy Prime Minister when he talked about pegging\r\nthe salaries at number 1,000, he also distinctly said it does not\r\nmean we only draw people from around that salary range. Did he not\r\nmake that clear or did you not pick that up?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker. At the risk of repeating myself, I think what we are getting\r\nat and I think we have made this very clear: if you try and differentiate\r\nwhat the Committee recommended and what we are recommending, we\r\nare saying that the Committee's use of the percentage of the Administrative\r\nService salary scale is something we do not agree with. So that\r\nis one principle that is fundamentally different. So I hope you\r\nare clear on that. If you are not clear, I am sorry. I cannot be\r\nclearer than this.
\r\n\r\n The other point was the\r\none pegging the salaries to the top 1,000. Again, we do not agree\r\nwith that. We think there is another way which is more acceptable\r\nto the public and critically, critically, we feel that will take\r\nthe emotion out of the debate. And it will set the tone in future\r\ndecades for a more sober assessment of political salaries.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating\r\nMinister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean)\r\n :\r\nSir, can I just make a clarification? The Committee is not here\r\nbut I have read the report. I do not see in the report anywhere\r\nthat the Committee has pegged the salaries to the Administrative\r\nService scale.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker. To the Deputy Prime Minister Teo, from what I understand\r\nfrom the Committee's report, MPs' salary is 17.5% of the entry level\r\nof an Administrative Service officer. That is where we have a difference\r\nof opinion.
\r\nPage: 1025
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nTeo Chee Hean\r\n : Mr Speaker, I have read the report\r\nvery carefully. I hope that Mr Singh has also read the report carefully\r\nbefore he has made extensive comments on it. The MPs' allowance\r\nis pegged at 17.5% of the Minister's salary. That is what the report\r\nsays.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Singh, would\r\nyou like to answer that? No. Dr Janil Puthucheary.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask for the hon Member, Mr\r\nPritam Singh's opinion whether he agrees that the Workers' Party\r\nrecommends that an independent body look at the salaries of the\r\npolitical appointment holders, the Ministers and the MPs going forward;\r\nwhether he imagines that this body would seek a wide range of opinion\r\nfrom Members of this House - from the PAP, the WP and any other\r\nmembers of parties that may be present in the future. And I would\r\nlike to specifically ask whether he believes this has already happened.\r\nIt appears that Mr Ee's Committee, as an independent body, has sought\r\nviews of the PAP MPs, it has sought views of the WP MPs and has\r\ncome up with a non-partisan recommendation. And if he does not agree\r\nthat it has happened, could he explain why? If he does agree that\r\nthis has happened, could he explain why the WP does not support\r\nthe motion, Sir?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI beg your pardon. I did not catch the initial parts of Dr Janil's questions\r\nbecause I was checking on the comments made by Deputy Prime Minister\r\nTeo. From what I understand from the report -- and if I have made\r\na mistake or error, I apologise to this House because I think it\r\nis only honourable for me to do so – but where I am coming from\r\nreally related to the numbers and I felt that the numbers were high\r\nand those numbers are specific, quite similar to Administrative Service\r\nofficer salary numbers. But it is very clear in the Report that\r\nit is at the MR4 level and I acknowledge the error that I made.\r\nCould I ask Dr Janil to repeat his questions, please?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Janil Puthucheary\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, I asked whether Mr Pritam Singh believes that the process\r\nof salary review that the WP has recommended by an independent non-partisan\r\nbody has already occurred? WP has made a proposal that going forward,\r\nthe salaries be reviewed by an independent body. I have imagined\r\nthat this body would seek views from PAP MPs, opposition MPs and\r\nI am asking if he believes this has already occurred in the process\r\nof Mr Ee's Committee making the recommendations.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : I would\r\nlike to thank the hon Member. Just to clarify. I did not make any comments\r\non this independent Review Committee's report. So I am not sure\r\nI can answer that question. Not because I do not want to but I did\r\nnot refer to it in my speech. So, I do apologise to the Member but if\r\nI did not make any comments with regard to that particular aspect,\r\nI cannot answer that question.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Janil Puthucheary\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, I was not asking about the comment that Mr Pritam\r\nSingh made in his speech. I was referring to the WP's proposal which\r\nhe based his speech upon for the salary reviews going forward, Sir.\r\nSo, I would just like to ask the question – does Mr Pritam Singh\r\nbelieve or agree or accept that, today, here in this House, we are\r\ndiscussing a recommendation, a motion to support a recommendation\r\nthat has been formulated by an independent, non-partisan Committee\r\nwhich has taken the views of PAP MPs as well as the opposition MPs\r\nas well as the wider public and put forth a non-partisan recommendation\r\nthat it believes is in the best interests of Singapore? I am asking,\r\nSir, if the hon Member agrees that that has happened. If he does\r\nnot, I would like to ask why the WP opposes the motion?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Singh, if\r\nyou feel that it is not in your speech, you do not have to answer.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nDr Janil, I believe, is asking do I feel that the Committee was independent,\r\nnon-partisan. I have no reason to believe otherwise. But I can only\r\nspeak for myself. I am not speaking for the Workers' Party.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, when I entered politics in 2006, I had to leave my\r\npublic sector job of 10 years to join a local real estate company.\r\nI was fortunate that my subsequent two-and-a-half years there coincided\r\nwith a period of property boom and, as with many other colleagues, I\r\nenjoyed about nine months' of bonus, stock options and accommodation\r\nperks as the company also owned a serviced apartment subsidiary.\r\nThree years ago, I made another career switch and joined an international\r\npublic relations consultancy where I still am now. This company\r\npractises a 12-month salary package and, comparing apple to apple,\r\nthe terms and conditions are much less attractive.
\r\n\r\n However, I know that I\r\nshould not make comparisons as it is a different industry now. I\r\nmade a switch because I wanted to try something different and, looking\r\nback, I am happy that I made a jump, as I am now convinced that\r\ncommunications is where my heart is. Joining this line has offered\r\nme many good opportunities to develop as a professional and as a\r\nperson. It is also very relevant to my role as an MP.
\r\n\r\n If I have expected the\r\nPR company to match or better the annual package and all the perks\r\nI used to enjoy, I would not have taken up the offer and would have\r\nmissed entering a new, exciting phase of my career. As the Chinese\r\nsaying goes: 赛翁失马，焉知非福.What we may lose\r\nnow could give us better returns in future. So, we should not miss\r\nthe forest for the trees.
\r\n\r\n The job of a political\r\nappointee is fundamentally different. It is not a position we can\r\napply to. First, there is no application form. You need to be first\r\nelected by the people. And we have seen how voters' choice can change\r\na person's destiny overnight. Then, the Prime Minister appoints\r\nhis Cabinet. And it does not mean that once you are a Minister,\r\nyou are going to stay as a Minister forever. There are now several\r\nveteran former Ministers serving as MPs.
\r\n\r\n The Prime Minister said\r\nyesterday that he does not discuss the terms and conditions with\r\nhis prospective Ministers. As we can see this time round after GE,\r\nour Ministers were already working hard in their jobs without knowing\r\nwhat they will be getting. And the cycle starts again every five\r\nyears. I need to add that it is not easy to resign or quit for a\r\nMinister, if he or she finds a better opportunity or he or she does\r\nnot like the work. It is like a five-year contract with no exit\r\nclause. In 1985, during a debate on Ministerial pay, Mr Lee Kuan\r\nYew responded to Mr JB Jeyaretnam's proposal to cut Ministerial wages\r\nby at least a third, \"And then we all become honourable men who\r\nhave suddenly sacrificed ourselves for duty and public service.\"
\r\n\r\n Indeed, getting or agreeing\r\nto a lower pay does not make one more honourable. Likewise, being\r\na Minister, whether past, present or future at a higher pay does\r\nnot mean the Minister is less honourable. At this point in time,\r\nwhether it is 53% for the Speaker, 37% for a junior Minister or\r\n3% for MPs, this should not affect our commitment to serve the country,\r\ncommunity and people of Singapore. It is a commitment that we all\r\nmade when we went to the polls. Our constituents have voted us in\r\nand it is our duty to do our best to serve them.
\r\n\r\n The time that we all spend\r\nand the efforts we make in our public duty cannot be compensated\r\nby money. However, the experience and learning that we all gained\r\nworking with the many volunteers and activists, interacting with\r\nresidents and people from all walks of life, as well as the opportunity\r\nto make a difference for Singaporeans -- this is not something that\r\nmoney can buy.
\r\n\r\n Yes, the salary revisions\r\nwill affect some people who are considering politics. Yes, we all\r\ncannot live on air, and we all have our families to support. However,\r\npeople's aspirations change over time. There are people who give up successful careers\r\nto pursue different interests and passions in life. I believe and I\r\nhope that there will be enough good and talented Singaporeans who\r\nare not put off by material limitations. We need to have better\r\nfaith in our fellow countrymen. Hence, I support that while we need to\r\npay decent salaries, we need not be fixated on matching private\r\nsector pay. I fully applaud the discount taken off the benchmark.
\r\nPage: 1027
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, usually\r\nin a company, only your boss and HR know your salary. Your superior\r\ndoes your appraisal and HR policies guide your salary adjustments.\r\nHowever, almost everyone will feel that he is underpaid and deserve\r\nan increment and a higher bonus. Likewise, most people will think\r\nthat others are overpaid and should get a pay cut and a lower bonus.\r\nNow, everyone knows what the Ministers are getting and everyone\r\nis the HR director. Everyone has a right to his opinion and to provide input\r\nto this review.
\r\n\r\n At this point, I am surprised\r\nby Member Yee Jenn Jong's clarification yesterday that the Workers' Party\r\n(WP) had met Gerard Ee for two hours, but had chosen not to share\r\nwith him and his Committee all the points that his party has made\r\nin this debate in the last three days. Instead they kept some suggestions\r\nto be raised only in Parliament. Even if all WP's suggestions to\r\nthe Committee were not incorporated in the final report, they could\r\nstill have raised them in Parliament. So either they have not thought\r\nthrough this matter thoroughly, or they have changed their position,\r\nor perhaps there are other political motivations, I wonder. In fact,\r\nI am also a bit confused by the position taken now. I thought I understood\r\nWP's points that they are taking a different approach and, hence,\r\nthe principles about how the salaries should be benchmarked or calculated,\r\nalthough the quantums are the same. But I heard Mr Pritam Singh's\r\npoint just now that he made the reference towards Administrative\r\nService pay – not in principle but because the quantum was similar\r\nto what is proposed by the Review Committee – so I am getting confused.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, there\r\nwill never be a right formula. We can have an issue over the approach\r\nwhether it is pegged to top 48th, 1,000th or 10,000th salaries,\r\nor should it be benchmarked against the lower percentile, or the\r\ncivil service? I think we all agree that the public duty should\r\nhave a discount, but is it a 40% or 80% discount? I think we all\r\nagree that it is arbitrary and very subjective.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I would like to make\r\ntwo suggestions. One, given that the benchmarks are based on the\r\n1,000th salaries, there will be a one to two-year lag before data\r\nare available from IRAS. Hence, the situation may happen when top\r\nSingaporean earners enjoy healthy income increments in a buoyant\r\neconomy, but when these salaries are used as the benchmark two years\r\nlater, Singapore has gone into a recession. It then becomes politically\r\nnot tenable to increase political salaries when people are being\r\nretrenched. We have seen it happened several times when increments\r\nbased on the previous formula were deferred or forgone. I suggest\r\nthat we fix the salary and have no adjustment for the full term\r\nof Parliament – that is, a fixed fee for a five-year contract. The\r\nNational Bonus and Performance Bonus can stay.
\r\n\r\n I initially wanted to\r\nsuggest an annual salary adjustment based on our Consumer Price\r\nIndex. However, I know critics will jump to say that there is a\r\nconflict of interest as Ministers would then have no incentive to\r\nkeep inflation down. So, therefore I know we cannot win on this,\r\nso let us keep it simple and stay with a flat basic monthly salary\r\nfor five years.
\r\n\r\n My second suggestion.\r\nWhile I agree that we should have a \"clean wage\" without any hidden benefits\r\nand perks, I cannot help but agree with Member Denise Phua and disagree\r\nwith Member Mr Pritam Singh that the medical benefits are really\r\nquite basic. I believe people can accept that our political leaders\r\nshould have the best medical care either with increased coverage\r\nor even free of charge. We all cannot choose when or whether to\r\nfall ill or not, and it is in the interest of the country and Singaporeans that our Prime Minister,\r\nour Ministers are given the necessary medical treatment and recover\r\nwell and fast to continue serving the nation.
\r\nPage: 1028
\r\n\r\n I hope the Review Committee\r\nwill consider my two suggestions when it does the review again in five\r\nyears' time. On the review frequency of five years, I am not sure\r\nwhether the Committee has the intention to coincide it with the\r\nGeneral Elections (GE). I think it may be good to let the Committee decide\r\npolitical salaries after GE. Hence, no candidates would know what\r\nsalaries to expect when they are running for a seat. So perhaps\r\nvoters will then be able to assume that all the candidates are really altruistic.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the public has been\r\nvery demanding and critical of politicians, especially since GE\r\nlast year. While expectations and standards should not be compromised,\r\nwe need not get too emotive. We need to be patient and understanding\r\nthat it takes time for the right action to be taken, for issues\r\nto be resolved and things to improve. Hopefully, the salary revisions\r\nwill appease people's feelings, whether it is 53% or 3%. Let us\r\nunite as a country and as a people to overcome the many other challenges\r\nfacing Singapore. With that, Sir, I support the motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify on the point that is made\r\nby Mr Baey Yam Keng. He asked why we withheld information. I would\r\nlike to clarify a few things. Number one, I did not say that he\r\nmet Mr Gerard Ee. Mr Giam met the Committee of Gerard Ee. And I\r\nwould wish to clarify the error in the report in today's newspaper\r\nthat my colleague, Gerald Giam, met with the Mercer consultants\r\nwho were sent by Gerard Ee to seek input from MPs.
\r\n\r\n As to the clarifications\r\nto be made, number one, Workers' Party was never asked to be part\r\nof the Committee but, nevertheless, we have very obligingly met\r\nfor more than two hours and we shared all the key points that are\r\nin our proposal. There were no changes in our position. We shared\r\nour benchmarking principles, we shared various KPIs and stuff like\r\nthat that is needed to be inside. What I meant when we say some\r\ndetails were not given, of course, we also need time. We met the\r\nCommittee quite early in the stage and we ourselves have to convene\r\nour own research to go and gather information from various countries\r\nto benchmark. Of course, we would not have reached, at that point\r\nin time when we met the Committee, all the details that we need\r\nto share. But I would like to say it publicly that there is no shift\r\nin the positions of the Workers' Party and we have not withheld\r\nimportant information from the Committee.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Baey Yam Keng\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I thank the Member for clarifying that and I am surprised that\r\nthe Workers' Party expected to be invited to give inputs to the\r\nReview Committee because it was a very public review and any member\r\nof the public was invited to send in their recommendations and suggestions\r\nto the Committee. But I can understand that perhaps the Workers'\r\nParty expected to be invited to give their points. And I did hear\r\nquite clearly yesterday Member Yee's point that not all information\r\nwere shared so I now understand that he has now said that not all\r\nthe details were not given, but all the principles and approaches\r\nwere shared with the Committee. So I take it as what the Member has\r\nexplained now.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Mr Speaker. Of course, we understand that all members of public were\r\ninvited to give their inputs and which we did. What I said was we\r\nare not part of the Committee. We are not a member of the Committee.\r\nIf we are a member of the Committee, we would have behaved differently.\r\nOf course, we would be part of the research, gathering the data,\r\nanalysing together with the Committee.\r\nBut having not being part of the Committee, we, nevertheless, gave\r\nother inputs that we felt it is needed. It is the framework that\r\nwe have used in our final report. We needed time to gather some data\r\nbefore we arrive at certain final figures. Was there any other part\r\nthat I have missed out?
\r\nPage: 1029
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : No, I think\r\nthat was all, Mr Yee. Mr Baey Yam Keng.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Baey Yam Keng\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Sir. I would just also like to reiterate that I think none\r\nof us in this House was a member of the Committee. And, in fact,\r\nI need to categorically say that the Review Committee did invite\r\nevery Member of this House to contribute to the review. I think\r\nit was stated publicly by the Committee when it was first convened.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : I am not\r\nsure what is the point that the hon Member is trying to get at.\r\nI would just like to state again that we have given whatever information\r\nthat we had available at that time and, of course, we are rather\r\ndisappointed that our benchmarking formula did not feature inside,\r\nand, of course, that is why we could not support the proposal.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Yee, I think\r\nwe have got the point. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to clarify with\r\nthe hon Mr Yee regarding whether he thinks that for this independent\r\nCommittee, the members should come from different political parties\r\n– to sit together. In that case, where is the \"independence\"? Or\r\nshould this independent committee be formed by non-politicians –\r\nby different segments of the entire society, eminent people to sit\r\ntogether and decide on the politicians' salaries? So, should the\r\npoliticians' salaries be decided by the politicians or by non-politicians?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : Thank\r\nyou, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify that I am not saying that\r\nwe must be invited. And I feel that what is more important is that\r\nthe Parliament remains the platform for us to debate our proposal.\r\nWe gave whatever we felt it is necessary to be given and we reserve\r\nthe right to debate this in Parliament because that is the whole\r\npurpose of why we are here.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for National Development\r\nand Manpower (BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin)\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to share my thoughts\r\non this issue. A lot has been said over the last few days in Parliament\r\nand a lot of views have been exchanged by the public who obviously\r\ntake an interest in this topic. I would like to, perhaps, take a\r\nslightly different tack to share on the rhetoric and the reality\r\nof service.
\r\n\r\n I am a new Member of Parliament\r\nas many of my friends are on both sides of the House. And this debate\r\nis useful for us to take a few steps back to ask ourselves very\r\nfundamental questions. I will address three things today: why we\r\nserve, what price our service and the rhetoric and the reality of\r\nthis service.
\r\n\r\n We serve because we all,\r\nin this House, believe that this place called Singapore is our home\r\nand it is worth fighting for. We may have different views, and as\r\nI have said it before, if we strip the politics, the rhetoric out\r\nof these few days' exchanges, there is a lot more in common than\r\nwe care to admit. We should not try to speak as if we are the most\r\ncommitted, the most passionate, the most principled, etc. We all\r\nare in our ways.
\r\nPage: 1030
\r\n\r\n Secondly, as the hon Mr Chen Show Mao\r\nstates so eloquently, we serve because it is a privilege, and I\r\nagree. I would add that we serve because it is a calling. It is\r\nnot a career. It is an honour that none of us takes lightly. I think\r\nall of us here believe in this. Importantly, we make sure that we\r\ndo the real work on the ground. And we serve because we want to\r\nmake a difference. For example, there is a prospect of economic\r\ndownturn coming, not everything is within our control but we have\r\nbeen planning on how best to ride it, manage it and to look after\r\nSingaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Livelihoods are at stake.\r\nWe do what we can, as we do on a whole range of issues. It is not\r\njust talk and debate.
\r\n\r\n Things are not perfect\r\nby far, but we continue to try and do as best we can.
\r\n\r\n On balance, Singapore\r\nis in pretty good shape considering the difficulties in the last\r\ndecade or so.
\r\n \r\n\r\n Who do we serve? We serve\r\nour people, our country, for today and for tomorrow. As the hon.\r\nMr Yee Jenn Jong states, Singapore is not a company, nor a business.\r\nIt cannot be run as such. All of us agree. It is far more than that.\r\nBut should we not be prudent? Should we not put in place systems\r\nand processes to keep things going well? Should we look at numbers?\r\nShould we look at details? Should we make those difficult decisions\r\nthat are sometimes necessary but painful for some?
\r\n\r\n We face these decisions\r\neveryday in our households, do we not? At our work place? These\r\nare the realities of life. There is no point pretending otherwise\r\nand it is no less for a country. Does addressing these things make\r\nSingapore a company which is inferred when you made that statement?\r\nWe address these because we are responsible and we care for the\r\nwell-being of our people and our nation.
\r\n\r\n Let me share with you\r\nthis card I received on Monday at my Meet-the-People Session from\r\none of my residents. She is a single mother with an abusive ex-husband,\r\nwith school-going children and was finding it difficult to secure\r\na rental flat.
\r\n\r\n It is addressed to Member\r\nof Parliament, Mr Tan, not Minister.
\r\n\r\n \r\n 谢谢你给我的帮助, \r\n\t\t\t\t 孩子们已经搬进新家了。心里对您的感激永远不会忘记。您帮助了我重新开始人生的第一步\r\n\t\t\t\t ，也是最困难的第的一步。我会好好珍惜和努力往前走。 在这里还是要多一次说谢谢您。 \r\n\t\t\t\t 祝您新年快乐、万事如意。 \r\n
\r\n\r\n In English: Thank you\r\nfor your help. The children have moved into their new home. In our\r\nhearts, we will never forget your help. You have helped me to take\r\nthe first, which is also the most difficult, step to begin our lives\r\nafresh. I will treasure this and will continue to work hard to move\r\nforward. Thank you once again and Happy Lunar New Year.
\r\n\r\n This is not unique – I\r\nthink all of us from both sides of the House receive such cards, acknowledgements\r\nfrom time to time.
\r\n\r\n We are all Members of\r\nParliament, elected by the people.
\r\n\r\n Can we price our responsibilities?\r\nImpossible. This effort is not about pricing the office. But we\r\nall know that once we move beyond the proclamations of service,\r\nwe need to work the mechanics of this. It is something we need to\r\ndo, whatever the formula.
\r\nPage: 1031
\r\n\r\n As we have seen, Worker's Party accepts\r\nthat we need to do that as well. Honestly, I think these principles\r\nare not dissimilar and are in the same ballpark. The numbers do\r\nnot necessarily differ greatly, depending on what the performance\r\nis and so forth, and I do not intend to go into details on this.
\r\n\r\n So is the Opposition also\r\npricing our service as well in this effort? Of course not!
\r\n\r\n Are the models very different?\r\nLet us look at this.
\r\n\r\n A very emphatic statement\r\nwas made about us being MPs first. Indeed, we are. But I was curious when\r\nhon Member Pritam Singh made these grand statements of a political\r\nnature -- that for us, we are Ministers first, before MPs. There\r\nis no such thing. He added that only the top tier can become Ministers. I\r\nwould suggest that it is rather untruthful. We are MPs first unlike\r\ncertain MPs who have stated that it is not their responsibility\r\nto look after the low-income group, that it is the Government's\r\nresponsibility.
\r\n\r\n That is why all of us\r\nas Members of Parliament, even as office holders, make sure we look\r\nafter our residents as best as we can. We push the Government to\r\ndo more, and complement the national efforts when we are able to.\r\nWe do not wish away our responsibilities. We walk the talk as best\r\nas we can.
\r\n\r\n The Worker's Party suggests\r\nthat an MP's pay be based on MX9 because it is an extension of public service.\r\nBut then again, MX9 is also based on market considerations. This\r\nis part of the entire pay structure of the civil service -- from\r\nMX9 to beyond the Administrative Service pay. We look at the private\r\nsector pay and adjust it accordingly. MX9 is the entry level to\r\nthe Superscale level. So, I suppose we add in some multiples to\r\nmake up a credible political number.
\r\n\r\n So, on one hand – you\r\nhave multiples of a top civil servant's pay at MX9. On the other\r\nhand, as proposed by Mr Gerard Ee's committee – a so-called discount\r\nfactor on the top 1,000.
\r\n\r\n Mr Chen states that political\r\nservice is not a discount factor. I agree. It is not. I have talked\r\nabout why we serve.
\r\n\r\n So in the same spirit,\r\nwould it be correct to say that in WP's reckoning, that Political\r\nService is a \"mark-up factor\"?
\r\n\r\n I do not think so. That\r\nwould be a cheap political shot. Because that is not what you mean.
\r\n\r\n My main puzzle is a logical\r\none: the Workers' Party formula must come from some foundational perspectives\r\n– either it chooses the market-peg that we have worked on, or it\r\nputs forward another basis altogether. Pegging it to the public\r\nsector sounds good at first glance, but it does not count because\r\nthe public sector too derives from that market-peg. So statements\r\nlike \"Cabinet is not an extension of the Private Sector\" again sounds\r\nvery good and we agree. But does it not then follow that under the Workers'\r\nParty formulation, \"the public sector is an extension of the private\"?\r\nSurely not, as well.
\r\n\r\n Pays are linked across\r\nsectors not because their missions are similar but because the empirical\r\nreality is that the same pool of people can flow to either side.\r\nThere is no point pretending otherwise.
\r\n\r\n So I suggest that we are,\r\nin many ways, on the same song sheet. Which leads me to the last\r\npoint.
\r\n\r\n As I said earlier, I totally\r\nagree political service is a privilege.
\r\n\r\n But you know it's not\r\na credit card sort of privilege, and membership in Parliament does\r\ncome with some privileges. I do not primarily think of it that way\r\nnor many of my fellow Members. For me, it is a calling to serve. It is a hard-won honour,\r\nbut more importantly, it is a responsibility. Our responsibility as\r\nleaders is to apply our hearts and also our minds to best serve\r\nour people. There are practical issues we need to manage -- the\r\nbudget, sustainability, and trade-offs. They may not be emotive\r\nor gut stirring, but that is what responsible leadership is about.
\r\nPage: 1032
\r\n\r\n Responsibility is not\r\nabout flowery rhetoric but about translating this belief into reality\r\non a daily basis, to make things better for our people.
\r\n\r\n Establishing a fair, transparent\r\nand pragmatic pay structure is part of that responsibility. Why\r\ndo we pretend and paint it in negative political tones when in reality,\r\nyou are doing very much the same with your approach?
\r\n\r\n What I found most troubling\r\nwas that a committee was set up in good faith to seriously review\r\nthe political salaries. Yet it now appears that the Opposition has\r\nchosen not to share with the Committee the ideas that they are so\r\npassionately championing. I understand that Mr Yee has explained.\r\nBut two days ago, Mr Gerald Giam would not give a clear answer.\r\nBut I thought Mr Yee's response yesterday was illuminating. In essence,\r\nthe thrust of what he said was -- there is no need to share that\r\nmuch with the Committee because they would rather table it in Parliament.\r\nBut the fact of the matter is that the Review Committee was set\r\nup to review the structure and the robust debate that we have today\r\ncan still continue.
\r\n\r\n So, what does this suggest?\r\nI think if we are sincere in trying to make things better, we should\r\nhelp the Committee do the best job possible rather than focus on\r\ngamesmanship in Parliament.
\r\n\r\n Is this the First World\r\nParliament that they are talking about? I see many First World Parliaments\r\nout there floundering. They consume their future and are embroiled\r\nin rhetoric and politics that keep them from helping their countries\r\nget out of their respective ruts.
\r\n\r\n But I trust that that\r\nis not the First World Parliament that you are talking about. And\r\nI think all of us want a model that works for us – regardless of\r\nwhat you want to call it.
\r\n\r\n There is this matter of\r\nsacrifice that I would like to address. It was shared that political\r\nservice is not about sacrifice.
\r\n\r\n We do not all wrap ourselves\r\nin a flag and proclaim our patriotism. I believe all of us on both\r\nsides of the House serve for the right reason. We all take different\r\nroutes. The hon Mr Chen, for example, left Singapore for many years.\r\nHe became exceedingly successful and then returned to serve our\r\npeople. Some of us have stayed on and served our nation in various\r\ncapacities. For some of us, it is our entire lives. And in our own\r\nsimple way, we are proud to have served and to continue serving.
\r\n\r\n I admire those who proudly\r\nproclaim that there is no sacrifice in stepping forward to political\r\nservice. It took me a long time to decide even though I had been\r\nserving in our Army. Political service is public service but somewhat\r\ndifferent. Does this make me a less committed Singaporean?
\r\n\r\n I am pained by the knowledge\r\nthat I will miss the many moments when my children are growing up and\r\ntime with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those\r\nmoments missed do not return. Ever. In time, I will look back, and\r\nthere will be gaps. But that is life.
\r\n\r\n I am not sure how one\r\nconsiders it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivialises\r\nall of us who do cherish these.
\r\n\r\n Does that make all of\r\nus lesser beings?
\r\nPage: 1033
\r\n\r\n Political office is a privilege, a calling\r\nand a responsibility. Whatever sacrifices there may be, we do so\r\nbecause we believe there is a higher calling and it is worth this\r\neffort to step forward.
\r\n\r\n As a Christian, I believe\r\nthat serving my fellow Singaporeans is my responsibility and count\r\nit as a blessing that I am able to do so.
\r\n\r\n As a soldier, I know and\r\nI have seen with my own eyes that real and true service involves\r\nsacrifice all the time. We sacrifice what we hold dear to serve\r\nsomething bigger than ourselves.
\r\n\r\n There is no dollar value\r\nthat can be attached to this.
\r\n\r\n And neither should we\r\nplay games by competing to see who can proclaim their credentials\r\nlouder with savvy emotive laden language. Or who is more noble with\r\nthe cleverer turn of phrase.
\r\n\r\n It is ultimately about\r\nhuman lives and our people's future. There are real concerns that\r\nour people struggle with, and it is our duty to make lives better.
\r\n\r\n While it may not make\r\nfor good politics, we believe that it is the right thing to address\r\nthis pay issue head on.
\r\n\r\n In being an honest Government,\r\nand I am not talking about corruption here, we try our best to deal with\r\nrealities and to squarely address them.
\r\n\r\n Rhetoric is important.\r\nBut it is more important to carry out our responsibilities as elected\r\nMembers of Parliament as best as we can. Ministerial pay is something\r\nwe need to decide on. Before the elections, I did make statements\r\nthat I think it is something that we should review. I believe the\r\nrecommendations are fair. It will provide us with a reasonable basis\r\nto implement this sensibly. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the\r\nmotion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Mr Speaker. May I seek a clarification from the Member\r\non whether he sees a difference between the private-sector pay of\r\nthe top 1,000, to which the Committee is proposing to peg Ministerial\r\nsalaries, and the private-sector pay to which the salaries of our\r\nrank-and-file civil servants outside of the Administrative Service\r\nare compared to in the process of the review of their salaries?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : I\r\nthank the hon Member for the question. There is a difference. What\r\nthe Committee proposes is using certain segment of the pay and then\r\nbringing it downwards. What you are proposing is to take a segment\r\nof the pay and bring it upwards. The point is that we all recognise\r\nthat the way we factor in salaries for the public sector has to\r\ntake into cognizance how the private sector pays, because we are\r\ndrawing from a pool of people who can move between private and public\r\nsectors. At the MX9 level, obviously at the Director level, it would\r\nbe drawing from a pool of people of a certain age at that level,\r\nand then you scale it up. In essence, what I am saying is that while\r\non the surface it sounds like it is different but, in reality, it\r\nis very similar. The numbers that are thrown up show that, actually, we\r\nare all in the same ballpark; rather, the Committee proposes a model\r\nbut then perhaps you choose to spin it in a different way.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : I have\r\ntwo clarifications to seek from the hon BG Tan. First, I would like\r\nto ask the Member if he is saying that I am insincere after the\r\nclarifications I made to the earlier questions that all the gist\r\nof what is in our proposal has already been shared with the Committee.\r\nThe second question I would like to ask the Minister of State and\r\nthe hon. Member is whether he expects that in this First World Parliament,\r\nwe do not have the right to come up with an alternative proposal\r\njust because some independent committee has looked into it and come\r\nup with a proposal.
\r\nPage: 1034
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : Sir,\r\nI thank the hon Member for his questions. Firstly, I do not doubt\r\nhis sincerity. Let me place that on record. What I cited was what\r\nthe Member said in Parliament yesterday. That, in essence, he had\r\nshared and he acknowledged that, and he described it now that he\r\nshared with the Committee some of the views and so on. The Member\r\nprovided a bit more details today, which I recognise. But he did\r\nsay something that was quite telling, which struck me, and which\r\nI found, on the one hand surprising, but also disturbing that, \"Well,\r\nwe need not necessarily tell them everything. They can wait for\r\nParliament because that is what Parliament is for.\"
\r\n\r\n And I agree with him that\r\nParliament is where we can carry out robust debates. But robust\r\ndebates on the Ministerial pay structure, as proposed by the Committee,\r\ncan still be debated fully and robustly even with providing the\r\nCommittee that effort, to actively take in all the considerations\r\nso that they can do as best a job as possible. That is what Parliament\r\nis for. But when committees and various efforts are put in place\r\nto help make things better, we do what we can to help them and to\r\nput it forward. So it was on that point that I found disturbing.\r\nBut I do not doubt the Member's sincerity in approach, nor do I doubt\r\nhis credentials and his commitment. But I thought the whole approach\r\nwas telling from the way the Member put it across.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, thank you very much. I thank the hon Member for his remarks. I\r\nwould just like to clarify because I think the impression is being\r\ncreated that just because not all the Workers' Party MPs participated\r\nin the Committee report or gave recommendations or suggestions that somehow\r\nwe came into Parliament to try and undermine the Committee's findings,\r\nrecommendations and so forth. I feel that impression is being created.\r\nIf the Member feels that the Workers' Party politicised the issue\r\n-- and I think the Member is doing the same -- what I do want to\r\nsay is that at no point do we feel that the Committee has been partisan,\r\nhas been unfair to us or that they are supporting the Government\r\nor they had that conclusion already and they wanted to proceed to\r\nprovide a report that the Government would have rubber-stamped,\r\nnot at all. And I want to make that clear to the Member.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : I\r\nam not sure why you feel so troubled. I apologise, no \"you\". I would like\r\nto thank the hon Member for his clarification. But I am puzzled\r\nwhy the hon Member feels disturbed because I did not make this allegation.\r\nIt was part of the earlier conversation. In my speech, I did not address\r\nthis point. But I think it is worthwhile to reflect on the whole\r\napproach. The issue at hand, now that I am here, is that if we are\r\nsincere about trying to change the Ministerial salary structure\r\nfor the better, something that would be acceptable for our people,\r\nthen it behooves all of us who have perspectives, passionate views,\r\nto help the Committee get to as best a solution as possible. This Committee\r\nis non-partisan. It is made up of people who are respectable, and\r\nit has drawn on many perspectives from the public. As we all know,\r\nthere are many different views. It is not easy, but they have done\r\nthe best job they can. The question is, and the honest point is,\r\nit does not stop the Opposition from not sharing everything and\r\nchoosing to do it and raise it in Parliament. That is your right.\r\nAll we are raising is, it is an interesting observation.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yee Jenn Jong\r\n : I would\r\nlike to thank the hon Member for clarifying that he does not doubt\r\nmy sincerity. I may be repeating myself again. But I would just\r\nlike to put on record that all important points in our proposals\r\nwere shared. As you can see, the Committee itself took a much, much\r\nlonger time to come up with its own findings. They had a lot of\r\nresearch to do. Similarly, the Workers' Party itself had to convene\r\nour own research and we had to spend a lot of time to do it. So\r\nwhen we were called to share, we shared whatever we could at that\r\npoint in time. We did not feel that we had withheld any important information.\r\nNevertheless, we feel that it is enough for them to work with.
\r\nPage: 1035
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG\r\n[NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : I thank the hon Member for that\r\nclarification. I fully accept that. The point I was making was on\r\nthe points the Member made yesterday, and I think that is something\r\nthat was of note.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker: Order. I propose\r\nto take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again\r\nat 4.00 pm.
\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n Sitting resumed at 4.00\r\npm.
\r\n\r\n [Mr Speaker in the Chair]
\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Mr Speaker. When this House discussed the issue of Ministerial\r\nsalaries in 2007, I focused on the technicalities of the old formula,\r\nand what I thought was wrong with it. But I had failed to appreciate\r\nthe bigger issue. Money changes how people look at things. Paying\r\nhigh salaries can be intellectually reasoned, but it affects the\r\nrelationship between the Government and the people.
\r\n\r\n Government is not perfect.\r\nIt has never been, and will never be. We have all, at one time or\r\nanother, been critical of something the Government did or failed\r\nto do. But, as former American President Bill Clinton once observed,\r\na successful country needs both an effective government and a good\r\neconomy. No exceptions. In Singapore, we have both. Other government\r\nleaders, international commentators and experts agree that Singapore,\r\nand what we have achieved, is exceptional. This did not happen by\r\nchance. The people of Singapore deserve credit. And so does the\r\nGovernment.
\r\n\r\n Singaporeans know this,\r\nand are appreciative of what the Government has done. But the issue\r\nof political salaries, more than any other, has shaped the change\r\nin tone of our national dialogue. When we pay top dollar, we expect\r\ntop results, and are less forgiving of errors. And so it has become\r\nwith the way people treat Government. Any mis-step is met with the\r\nresponse that mistakes are unacceptable from highly paid leaders.\r\nThings have become more \"transactional\". The emotional connection,\r\nthat redoubtable bond, which Singaporeans have always had with the\r\nGovernment, and which has been the bedrock of Singapore's success,\r\nis at risk of disappearing.
\r\n\r\n Will the new formula make\r\na difference? Many Singaporeans have shared their thoughts on the subject,\r\nand there are as many opinions as there are people sharing them.\r\nBut what I find interesting is that very few are willing to state\r\nprecise figures or precise formulas which they would be comfortable with,\r\nlet alone what everyone will agree on. I met a group of 30 bright,\r\nyoung undergraduates and I asked them, \"What do you think a Minister\r\nor Prime Minister should be paid?\" None of them was willing to offer\r\na specific figure. They all agreed it was a very difficult issue.\r\nI met with a group of working adults and asked them the same question.\r\nTheir answers ranged from $500,000 to $3 million. Again, they accepted\r\nthat was a very difficult issue and none of them could say that\r\nthey were more right or others were more wrong. No consensus at\r\nall. Even opposition parties cannot agree on the formula or quantum. Some\r\nhave declined to go into specifics obviously to avoid scrutiny.
\r\n\r\n The Workers' Party has\r\nan alternative but, unfortunately, has also decided to play a game\r\nof cat and mouse. I am very puzzled by the exchanges I have been\r\nhearing in the last few days. Let us go back to the beginning. When\r\nthe hon Mr Gerald Giam was asked about what he shared with the Committee,\r\nhe declined to say, stating and citing that it was private. There\r\nare only two inferences, that is, either the Workers' Party's public\r\nposition differs from its private position or that the Workers'\r\nParty has changed its position since the report came out. Otherwise,\r\nwhy is there anything to hide? Why keep it private? Then NCMP, the\r\nhon Mr Yee, let the cat out of the bag. He made the extraordinary\r\nstatement that the Workers' Party did not share everything with\r\nthe Committee so that they could raise them in this debate. Today,\r\nhe stands up in the House and says that \"Oh, it is not that we did\r\nnot want to share everything that we had. It's that we were in the\r\nmiddle of doing research and we were not ready with all our facts and\r\nfigures but we shared what we had.\" But that is not what he told\r\nthe House yesterday. I have before me what he told the House and\r\nI quote. He said, \"We do not feel that we had to give everything\r\nto the Committee and this is precisely what Parliament is here for.\"\r\nLater on, he said, \"I believe Parliament is where we come up with\r\nanother proposal to be decided upon.\" So, it is quite clear what\r\nthe intention was.
\r\nPage: 1036
\r\n\r\n The Government had set\r\nup an independent Committee which took many months to ponder over\r\nthe proposals, invited feedback from Singaporeans at large, received\r\nover 500 submissions. The whole purpose was to obtain as broad a\r\nfeel as possible for the issue and try to come up with the best\r\npossible proposal and formula in the interests of Singapore. The\r\nWorkers' Party decided to hold back some of their proposals which\r\nthey say were meaningful because they wanted to come to the House\r\nand announce to everyone they have better ideas. In short, they\r\nput their Party's interests before Singapore's interests. I am not\r\ndoubting Mr Yee's sincerity but I doubt his consistency. But it\r\ndoes not matter. Workers' Party can play whatever political games\r\nthey want. It is their prerogative. Playing games and fence-sitting\r\nare the privileges of the Opposition. Politics is about making decisions,\r\nand the Government has one to make.
\r\n\r\n So let us go back and\r\nlook at all the arguments. And there are many different arguments.\r\nBut despite all this, I believe there is much common ground between\r\nSingaporeans on this issue, which is often ignored. I would like\r\nto talk about matters I think we can all agree on.
\r\n\r\n First, we can all agree\r\nthat the Prime Minister and the Ministers have very important and\r\ndifficult jobs. They affect almost every aspect of our lives. In\r\nfact, is there any other job which has a greater impact on the success\r\nof Singapore and the well-being of Singaporeans?
\r\n\r\n Second, we can all agree\r\nthat we want first-class public services. When the former Chairman\r\nof the US Federal Reserve, Dr Paul Volcker, was in Singapore last\r\nyear, he was asked what he thought of our policy on salaries. Dr\r\nVolcker is a world-renowned experienced economist. He has been a\r\npublic servant all his life. When introducing him to the audience,\r\nDr Kishore Mahbubani, I recall, made a point that Dr Volcker was\r\ncontent to earn a very modest civil servant salary despite the fact\r\nthat he could have earned much more in the private sector, and I\r\nbelieve that was why he was asked that question by the audience. So\r\nI expected him to talk about the privilege of service. He did not.\r\nDr Volcker's response to the question was simple and astute. He\r\nsaid it was a good idea to pay public servants well as it is important\r\nto ensure good public services. He cited the US Government's response\r\nto Hurricane Katrina and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as\r\nevidence that the US public services were seriously lacking. In\r\nshort, in his view, you need good, capable people to provide good\r\nservices, and you should pay good people well. The logic is irrefutable.
\r\n\r\n The third thing we can\r\nagree on is that not every capable person wants a life in politics.\r\nI dare say most do not. There are very good reasons for this, not\r\nleast of which is the effect on their families. While we do not\r\nhave an intrusive media, there is still a considerable loss of privacy\r\nand a significant impact on personal lives. That includes having\r\nyour spouses and children being openly discussed and their conduct\r\nscrutinised. Who wants that? Many will feel, quite understandably,\r\nthat that is too high a price, whatever the pay.
\r\nPage: 1037
\r\n\r\n The fourth thing we can agree on is that\r\nwe do not want to set salaries so high as to make money the sole\r\nor main reason for seeking office. At the same time, we do not want\r\nit to be so low as to become a disincentive. NCMP Mr Yee says we\r\nare fishing for talent in too small a pond. But if we create financial obstacles\r\nfor good, capable people who are willing to step forward to serve,\r\nwe are only making that pond smaller. No one wants us to do that.\r\nEveryone wants to make public service open to all Singaporeans.\r\nPaying less does not make the pond bigger.
\r\n\r\n Now we come to the nub:\r\nwhat should we pay capable people who perform critical jobs? This\r\nbrings us to the other \"s\" word, which tends to dominate this debate:\r\nsacrifice. It has been said that public service is a privilege and\r\nnot a sacrifice. Again, no one disputes that. But that is not the\r\nargument. The argument is that leaders should make sacrifices because\r\nit demonstrates that they care about what they are doing. That is\r\nanother thing we can all agree on: we want our leaders to care about\r\nSingapore.
\r\n\r\n But why do we look at\r\nsacrifice only in money terms? I think we are asking ourselves the\r\nwrong question. It is not how much our leaders should sacrifice,\r\nbut what we want from them. I do not want someone who tells me his\r\nbest quality is that he loves his country or that money is not important\r\nto him. Because these are the easiest things to say, and there will\r\nbe no shortage of people who will tell that just to win approval.
\r\n\r\n What do I want from our\r\nleaders? I do not want them just to be smart and capable. I want\r\nthem to be the smartest, most capable people in the room. I want\r\nthem to be fair minded, hard working, compassionate and of unimpeachable\r\ncharacter. I want leaders who will not be satisfied until every Singaporean\r\nhas a home and the means to a better life. I want to know that if\r\nthere is an outbreak of a deadly disease like SARS, a terrorist\r\nbomb goes off, or Singapore faces an economic crisis, we have leaders\r\nwho have the courage, intelligence, experience and determination\r\nto do what is necessary for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans.\r\nI want leaders who understand that their job involves a sacred trust,\r\na vow to devote every fibre, every moment, every thought, every\r\neverything, in service to their country. That is the true sacrifice\r\nI think every Singaporean should demand. And if we get the quality of\r\npeople right, the question of quantity of pay answers itself. I\r\nbelieve more Singaporeans would agree with that.
\r\n\r\n That leads me to one more\r\nthing we can all agree on. It is impossible to answer the question\r\nof salaries in a manner which will satisfy everyone. And many have\r\nsaid so in this House. Even the Workers' Party agrees that there\r\nis no right or wrong figure. I would, however, make two suggestions.
\r\n\r\n Like others before me,\r\nMr Baey included, I suggest that the proposed formula be tweaked\r\nto cap the salaries for the Government's term of office, with an\r\nannual increment for inflation. In other words, salaries will not\r\nrise if the benchmark median salary rises. That would create more\r\ncertainty and, more importantly, put paid to arguments that this\r\nGovernment will pursue policies to favour the top earners to increase\r\nits own pay.
\r\n\r\n I would also like the\r\nGovernment to do more to keep Singaporeans informed and engaged\r\non this issue. There is still much misunderstanding over salaries,\r\nand we cannot have a proper dialogue if people are working off different\r\nfacts. For example, there are many Singaporeans who still believe\r\nthat MPs will receive pensions although that was discontinued many\r\nyears ago. Some even believe that MPs' and Ministers' salaries are\r\ntax-free. Not true. Within days of the release of the report, Mr\r\nGerard Ee had to come out publicly and say that some had misunderstood\r\nhis report and what it said. And despite the enormous publicity\r\non this subject, some are still unclear about the details of the\r\nnew package. Although I know some would prefer not to keep talking\r\nabout this issue, I support the proposal for the formula to be revised\r\nevery five years. I believe we should welcome every opportunity\r\nto debate it so that there will be\r\na wider and better understanding of the facts and the arguments.\r\nIt will also help if we publish annually and in clear terms the\r\naverage pay package of Ministers, so that we can demolish mischievous allegations\r\nthat Ministers would secretly earn more through discretionary and\r\nundeclared payments. This is fertile ground for those who seek to\r\nbreed discontent and cynicism. Let us not give them the opportunity\r\nto mislead and divide Singaporeans.
\r\nPage: 1038
\r\n\r\n I end with a final proposition\r\nwe can agree on. We want Singapore to remain an exceptional nation because\r\nthat is really the only thing that keeps us relevant. This exceptionalism\r\nshould not only be in the performance of our economy or the efficiency\r\nof our public services. It should also be in the trust and relationship\r\nbetween the Government and the people it serves. All around the\r\nworld, politics and politicians are viewed with great cynicism.\r\nCynicism weakens the Government, democracy and our country, and\r\nwe cannot let that happen to us.
\r\n\r\n I, therefore, support\r\nthe revision of salaries. The new formula is more relevant and intuitive.\r\nIt deals with some of the criticisms of the old formula and does\r\naway with inequities like pensions. A thirty-plus percent cut is\r\non any view significant. The National Bonus better reflects performance.\r\nEven the Workers' Party agrees that a monthly wage of $55,000 a\r\nmonth is fair. And as Mr Vikram Nair pointed out yesterday, even\r\nthe difference in bonus computations may not amount to very much\r\na different sum. So we now have a sound basis for the Government\r\nto move forward, strengthen connections with Singaporeans, focus\r\non the difficult problems we know to be around the corner, and deliver\r\non its promise for a better life for all Singaporeans. Because in\r\nthe final analysis, that is all that really counts, and I think\r\nwe can all agree on that. Sir, I support the motion.
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency\r\nMember)\r\n : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify\r\non what the Member, Mr Hri Kumar, has mentioned just now on what\r\nwe gave to the Committee and how much we were willing to disclose\r\nto the Committee. I am just talking about this Committee and what\r\nwe gave to the Committee.
\r\n\r\n We received a request\r\nfrom the Public Service Division to meet with the consultants from\r\nthe Committee, and were asked to give our views on the issue. We\r\nhad come up with a broad approach to Ministerial salaries even before\r\nthe election and that is reflected in our election manifesto. Of\r\ncourse, our interest was to want the Committee to come up with as\r\ngood a recommendation as possible that would be in the best interest\r\nof the nation. So if we had not wanted that interest of the nation,\r\nwe would not have even answered the Committee's call for inputs.\r\nWe would have just withheld everything. So what we did was we went\r\nfor the meeting with the Committee and I am holding in front of\r\nme the document which I took with me to meet with the Committee.
\r\n\r\n As far as I can tell,\r\nwe gave all the feedback that we had at that point of time in terms\r\nof the technicalities of the proposals that we felt would be important\r\nfor the Committee to take into consideration. I can share some of\r\nthose things which you might find familiar because we had mentioned that\r\nover the past few days. We talked about doing away with the current\r\nbenchmark of tying it to the 2/3M48 formula. We talked about KPIs\r\nfor the Ministers and measuring the Ministers' bonus against the achievement\r\nof those KPIs. We talked about doing away with pensions. So this\r\nis something I mentioned in my speech that I was glad to see that\r\nwe have done away with the pensions for Ministers. We also talked\r\nabout tying bonuses to the achievement of those KPIs. So those are\r\njust some of the proposals that we put forward.
\r\n\r\n Hand on my heart, I know\r\nthat we did not withhold anything that we knew at that point of\r\ntime. But, of course, when the Committee's proposals came out, there\r\nwere many more details that we could not have foreseen that appeared in the Committee's\r\nproposals. So I think it is fair for us to be able to analyse the\r\nreport, as a responsible party, and come to debate on the basis\r\non that report, rather than on what we had held our positions earlier\r\non.
\r\nPage: 1039
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Hri Kumar Nair\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I do not understand why the Workers' Party could insist on dancing\r\nat the end of that needle. Let us go back. When the hon Mr Giam\r\nwas first asked about this issue, he said he did not want to disclose\r\nwhat he shared because it was private. He considered it private.\r\nWhy? Is it because what they shared privately is different from\r\nwhat they disclosed publicly? Is it because what they disclosed\r\nis different from the position they are now taking? Why does it\r\nhave to be private? He is a politician. He serves the public. He\r\nshould be more transparent. Well, at least he believes in transparency\r\n– a statement which many of his colleagues make. Then, when Mr Yee\r\ncomes up, and he tries to defend Mr Giam, he says and I again quote,\r\n\"We do not feel we have to give everything to the Committee and\r\nthis is precisely what Parliament is here for.\" And then he says,\r\n\"I believe Parliament is where we come up with another proposal\r\nto be decided on.\"
\r\n\r\n So it is very clear what\r\ntheir position was. They were not willing to share what they disclosed\r\nto the Committee or what they shared with the Committee, and they\r\nwanted to reserve some arguments for Parliament. And the only reason\r\nwhy they want to do that is because they want to come up and say\r\nand tell the whole world that \"I am cleverer because I have a better\r\nidea, and let me tell everyone about it.\" Never mind that months,\r\nhours, a lot of resources were spent by Mr Gerard Ee's Committee\r\nto put together the best possible package for Singapore. They were\r\nplaying political games. Today, they come and say, well, it is not\r\nthat they did not want to share but they were not ready with the\r\nresearch, they had to re-formulate their thoughts, and so on and\r\nso forth. They are plainly being inconsistent and they have been\r\ncalled up on that.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Janil Puthucheary\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, may I ask Mr Gerald Giam if he would be willing to\r\nmake public the document they shared with Mr Ee's Committee?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nThat is something that we will consider.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate\r\non a motion which I agreed is one of the few critical issues we\r\nhave to tackle in ensuring that we continue to have a strong foundation\r\nfor a good government for the future of Singapore.
\r\n\r\n This has not been an easy\r\nissue to tackle. From the time the question of raising political\r\nsalaries was first discussed in 1981 to the time it was last debated\r\nin this House in 2007 when the Government was justifying a further\r\nincrease, I can well understand the tension when raising political\r\nsalaries. But this time, we are looking at a serious reduction and\r\nthere still seems to be a lot of disagreement. Or is there?
\r\n\r\n In the lead-up to the\r\nlast General Election, this was an issue which was canvassed. The\r\nsocial and moral compact between the Government and Singaporeans\r\nwere strained, and there was a deep disquiet amongst many Singaporeans\r\nover the level of salaries. But the Prime Minister and his Cabinet\r\nacted swiftly. Within days of the General Election, an independent\r\ncommittee was set up to relook and review the salary formula. Like\r\nmany Singaporeans, I was somewhat surprised not only at the speed\r\nof the Government's pro-activity in dealing with the issue and their\r\nconcerns, but that it was prepared to put this sacred cow issue\r\nup for scrutiny again. Whatever one may think of the Committee's recommendation, I\r\nam heartened that the Government has responded to ground sentiments\r\nand moved swiftly to address the issue.
\r\nPage: 1040
\r\n\r\n Sir, any discussion on\r\nsalaries is bound to be emotive. From salary or bonus discussions\r\nin a small business to a large corporate enterprise, and, of course,\r\nto a large national debate like this, there are many emotional arguments\r\nover how much is enough or not. What is the value of the public\r\nservice ethos and what is the appropriate level of sacrifice? Invariably,\r\nsuch arguments are also shaped and contextualised by the subjective\r\npersonal experiences and diverse backgrounds of the person making\r\nthe argument. Different perspectives will give you different answers.\r\nBut I would argue, however, that in this debate, we should consider\r\nthe issue dispassionately and without the emotion. We should start\r\nby settling on what we want to achieve and then work out how we\r\ncan get there. Cast aside the emotion and look at it logically.\r\nAnd if this Committee's report brings us closer to what we want\r\nto achieve, then we should all endorse this White Paper.
\r\n\r\n In looking at what we\r\nwant to achieve, let me first start with some basic home truths\r\nwhich I believe are already quite indisputable. Singapore has come\r\na long way in just over 45 years. We have been transformed from\r\na tiny island to a bustling developed nation. We managed to do this\r\nbecause of the sheer determination, belief and strength of the founding\r\ngeneration of our political leaders and the competence of their\r\nsucceeding generations. We now almost take for granted the economic\r\nand socio-political stability of our country that is only the envy\r\nof others. But the truth is, had it not been for a strong and visionary\r\ngovernment, it could also easily have been very different for us.\r\nJust a short hop and skip from here will show you how we could have\r\nturned out so very differently. And we cannot do worse if we assume\r\nthat this state will remain constant. In fact, it can be very transient.\r\nIf we falter, we can be sure that our neighbours will seize upon\r\nit and take advantage. So we have to maintain our position well\r\nahead of the competition. To do so, our Government and each Member\r\nof the Cabinet and each political office holder has to be capable,\r\nhas to be committed and has to have creative talent married to astute\r\nleadership to get us home. We need the best and the brightest talents\r\nto be brought into public service as our Ministers and political\r\nappointment holders. That much, surely, must be a given. We want to\r\nbe able to choose from men and women of the highest quality and\r\nwho are capable of making it to the very top of their chosen profession.
\r\n\r\n So we know what we want.\r\nThe next question is, in designing a remuneration system, how do\r\nwe achieve that? How do we bring the best and brightest into the\r\npublic service? That, really, is the debate on this motion. Because\r\nthe best and the brightest are the people who are either at or have\r\nthe potential to be at the very top of the private sector or their\r\nown chosen profession, can we get away by not paying these people\r\ncompetitive salaries? Can we just say, \"You come in, we pay you\r\nX number of times some civil service salary – five times, nine times\"\r\n– even if it is a fraction of what he might earn as a top private-sector\r\nprofessional – and expect them to step forward? I think if we look\r\nat that alone, the answer is obvious. If we did that, we would lose\r\nout. Singaporeans will lose out. We have to be realistic. In today's\r\nglobal world and economy, the options available to a talented and\r\nhighly motivated individual are dizzying. They have an array of\r\npaths and options, both in Singapore and abroad, and we have to recognise\r\nthat those options are the true opportunity costs of stepping up\r\nto public service.
\r\n\r\n But let me be very clear,\r\npublic service is a noble calling. We have heard many of the Members\r\nin this House say that. And there is no place for anyone coming\r\nforward to serve because of the financial rewards alone. It is a\r\ncherished office, and a great honour to be chosen by the people\r\nof Singapore to lead and to represent them. But all of us in this\r\nHouse know that. We all know that. We all know it is a privilege\r\nand we all understand the intrinsic value of political service or\r\nwe would not be here. If we would just consider the amount of time\r\nwe, as Members of Parliament, spent in the work that we do against\r\nthe additional allowances that we receive as MPs, I think it would\r\nbe fair to say that most of us would not be financially better off\r\nin stepping up to serve. But let us not milk it with rhetoric and\r\nmake emotional points and let it cloud our assessment of what the\r\nright approach ought to be. It is not, as the hon Member Mr Chen Show Mao says, \"A question\r\nof placing competitive salaries as the first principle.\" They are\r\nall important principles and they work together. It is about finding\r\nthe right balance.
\r\nPage: 1041
\r\n\r\n The starting point in\r\nrecruiting a political office holder must still be that candidate's\r\nsense of public spiritedness, of service, of desire and of a need\r\nto want to put Singapore first, and his ability to deliver. Those\r\nare the primary considerations. And if we have that, then we will\r\nbe considered. And in considering, the salary must be a neutral\r\nfactor. That is where the salary formula comes into play. We must\r\nfind a way to neutralise salaries as being a decisive factor for\r\nor against entry to public service, and a balance has to be struck.\r\nIn my view, whilst tangible sacrifices are called for to give our\r\npolitical leaders moral authority to govern and to lead, the level\r\nof salaries must not itself be a disincentive for talented people\r\nconsidering a public sector career. It would be naive for us to\r\nassume that we can always rely on other people's charity in coming\r\nforward to public service at huge cost to themselves and their families.
\r\n\r\n As the Prime Minister\r\nhas noted in his speech, Members of the front bench are here because\r\nof that same sense of public spiritedness and not for financial\r\nconsiderations. But we are designing a system for the future, and\r\nwe cannot design a system that relies on the good hearts of people\r\nalone.
\r\n\r\n Sir, when anyone considers\r\na career path, financial considerations matter. Let us not pretend\r\nthat it does not. We all worry about mortgage payments, looking\r\nafter our elderly parents, providing for the family, saving for\r\nretirement or just for a rainy day. Why should a bright young talent\r\nand potential political office holder be any different?
\r\n\r\n Sir, the only way to achieve\r\nthis, in my view, is to start by benchmarking political office salaries\r\nto the private sector. We might discount it, as the Committee has\r\nrecommended 40%, but as a matter of policy, it has to move in tandem\r\nwith private-sector pay scales. And it is not a question of being\r\nelitist. Rather, it is just recognising the appropriate opportunity\r\ncosts and setting up a salary scale that gives us the best chance\r\nof attracting that top talent. Let us ask ourselves, if we want\r\nas our political leaders people who are capable of making it to\r\nthe top of their professional career, then, on balance, where are we\r\nmore likely to find that top talent? In the higher income scale\r\nor the lower? And, as has been repeated several times too, I am\r\nnot suggesting for a moment that a person outside the top 1,000\r\nSingaporean earners will not necessarily be considered for political\r\noffice. But that is not the question. The point is, in designing\r\nthe formula, we have to look at where that talent pool is likely\r\nto be, and what the true commensurate opportunity costs would be.\r\nAnd as the Minister of State, Mrs Josephine Teo, says, \"That is\r\na basic HR tactic.\"
\r\n\r\n It is, therefore, unrealistic\r\nto de-couple political remuneration from market influences, and\r\nI would support the Committee's recommendation to retain the link\r\nto the market, with a discount. I would add that I see a visible\r\ntangible discount as being necessary to reflect that it is a deliberate\r\nmark-down from the market to signify the sacrifice and add to the\r\nmoral authority of our leaders. In addition, I also think that a\r\nsignificant improvement has been made to broaden the reference points\r\nto the top 1,000 Singaporean earners and not just any earner in\r\nthe chosen six professions. The old formula was debated vigorously\r\nin this House in 2007. I did not have that privilege of contributing\r\nto that debate. But it was never apparent to me why that formula\r\nwas chosen and why only a select group of top earners was used.
\r\n\r\n So, I welcome this change\r\nwhich focuses the pool squarely on Singaporeans alone, broadens\r\nit regardless of profession. You could argue that the pool should\r\nbe more than 1,000 or less, or that the discount should be more\r\nor less than 40% but that is a question of fine-tuning, a formula\r\nwhich can be re-visited at the next review. I would just say that\r\nas a starting point, given that the Prime Minister's new salary\r\nwould rank him at almost 400th, I do not see a pool of 1,000 Singaporeans\r\nas being unreasonable.
\r\nPage: 1042
\r\n\r\n And I would add that for all the loud\r\ncries of disagreement by the Workers' Party, their own number actually\r\ngets us to within the same ballpark. You have heard the hon Member\r\nMr Vikram Nair yesterday. You\r\nhave heard several other comments today. The fact is they start\r\nwith the same or higher base pay and, in fact, they pay more and\r\ncontinue to do so even after five years. I have taken the liberty\r\nof preparing a table which I felt best summarises the respective\r\npositions. If I could invite hon Members to please have a look at\r\nit. I have taken some numbers from the Committee's report and I\r\nhave also extracted propositions from the speeches made by several\r\nMembers of the Workers' Party the last few days. If you look at\r\nthe base scenario of a 13-month package and -- there is a typographical\r\nerror here -- it should be $46,750. That is based on paragraph 89,\r\npage 33 of the Committee's report. That is a 15% discount of $55,000.\r\nThat gets you to a base salary of $607,750. You contrast that base\r\nsalary with the recommended proposal of $55,000 on a 13-month package\r\nthat gets you to more than $700,000 as a base salary. If you add\r\nthe bonus -- the Committee's proposal for the benchmark bonus at\r\nmid tier would be $1.1 million. That is based on thirteen months\r\nplus the seven months which includes the bonus at $55,000, and that\r\ngets you to $1.1 million. It would be lower if it was used at 15%\r\ndiscount to the $55,000.
\r\n\r\n On the Workers' Party\r\nproposal, we have heard from the hon Members Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Gerald\r\nGiam, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Pritam Singh. Collectively, they say\r\nit is three to five-and-a-half months, and I have given the reference\r\nat the bottom of the page. You will see that we get to an upper\r\ntier salary with bonus $990,000 or something just shy of $1.1 million.\r\nIt is true that the Committee's proposal does recommend an additional\r\nbonus should Singapore exceed target expectations, but that is the\r\nbenchmark. And if you do compare the benchmark, you will see that\r\nwe are not far off. The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh says,\r\n\"Well, the numbers are about the same but our principles are different.\"\r\nBut earlier in this debate, the Member for Aljunied Mr Chen Show Mao says, \"Actually\r\nwe agree with the principles.\" So, which is what? Do they agree\r\nor not?
\r\n\r\n Sir, in the past, absolute\r\nnumbers were used to stir emotions and sentiments against the salary\r\nscale. Now that the Workers' Party's proposal gives us the same\r\nballpark, a different slogan is being trotted out – the people-up\r\napproach based on five times, nine times – but what does that mean?\r\nThe hon Member Mr Chen says that the Workers' Party agrees that\r\nsalaries have to be competitive. Competitive means attractive relative\r\nto what the comparable alternative is. In other words, what is your\r\nmarket value? If you accept that the competitive wage needs to be\r\npaid, then why peg it from the bottom up? I know of no corporate\r\nin the market which pays its CEO \"X\" number of times the salary\r\nof the tea lady, or \"X\" number of times the salary of some division\r\nmanager. For all the criticisms of arbitrariness, on what basis\r\ndo we arrive at five or nine times, if it were not just reverse\r\nengineering after already having arrived at a desired number? So,\r\non this point on the benchmark alone, I would invite all those who\r\ndo not support this motion to re-consider. Accept the recommendations\r\nof this Committee.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I would like to next\r\nturn to another feature of the report which I feel is important,\r\nand, that is, of accountability. There are two aspects to it. The\r\nfirst is the recommendation to keep to the \"clean wage\" principle.\r\nIt has been addressed by several Members of this House, but it is\r\na vital core principle and I will summarise why I say so. Political\r\nremuneration packages should be fully transparent and accounted for\r\nwith absolutely no hidden perks and privileges. That has been the\r\nhallmark of Singapore's political-remuneration principle and I am\r\nhappy to see it continue; and happier that on that score, there\r\nis at least consensus with the Workers' Party.
\r\n\r\n In the period before and\r\nafter the Committee's report was published, one argument against\r\npolitical salaries which kept surfacing was that our salaries were\r\nnot comparable to international standards. Again, we have heard\r\nthat several times, and that on the salary of our own Prime Minister,\r\nwe could get both Barack Obama and Tony Blair combined. But, is\r\nthat what we really think or want? It must have been tempting for\r\nthis Government to have said that you know what, let us get paid\r\nlike Obama with the 132-room White House accommodation thrown in,\r\nan expense account, a private jet, paid vacations, and a private chef. It\r\nmight have been easier. According to BBC reports, senators in Italy\r\nalmost double their official remuneration with expense allowances\r\nas well as free rail, free flight tickets, and so on. In France,\r\npoliticians get very low interest rates on housing and what is not\r\ncommonly known is that if a Member of Parliament loses their seat\r\nin an election, he or she remains on full pay for half a year, and then\r\na gradually declining proportion of the salary for a further two-and-a-half\r\nyears.
\r\nPage: 1043
\r\n\r\n The Prime Minister has\r\ntouched on what some of the members of the parliament in the UK\r\nhave claimed for. And in the UK today, some three years later, it\r\nstill remains an issue which continues to bedevil the proper functioning\r\nof parliament because they cannot work out how to really pay the\r\nMPs, and worst of all, this casts a great shadow, not just on the\r\nintegrity of the parliamentarians but on the office of the parliamentarian\r\nitself. A number of parliamentarians, both of the front and back\r\nbenches, from both sides of the House, including the Speaker of\r\nthe House of Commons, all resigned in the wake of those disclosures,\r\nand some peers were also charged for false accounting. So, is this\r\nwhat we really want? Why are the critics of our formula seemingly\r\ncontent to accept and indeed advocate what is practised by other\r\ncountries: a low official pay but supplemented by a variety of perks\r\nand benefits? It is a complete paradox and totally regressive. What\r\ndo these perks cover? How much, for what period? For the spouse\r\nas well? Today, the claim is for home improvement, travel; tomorrow,\r\nit could be a whole lot more. You just make one exception, and we\r\nwill go down the slippery slope.
\r\n\r\n Even the Australian Government,\r\na model which the Workers' Party has said we should consider, has\r\nfor some time now been criticised for being less than transparent\r\nand the addition perks and benefits which make up the Prime Minister's\r\nsalary are unknown. This is not even taking into account a pension which\r\nex-Prime Minister John Howard continues to enjoy, and the fact that\r\nsome of these benefits or the benefits available to him in his tenure\r\nas a Prime Minister would continue to be available to him and his spouse\r\neven after he has stepped down from office. Can any serious comparison\r\nbe made between the remuneration system of Australia and what the\r\nCommittee has recommended? Sir, surely not. We should not even be\r\ncomparing ourselves with governments who lack the political will\r\nand courage to be completely transparent with what each and every\r\npolitical office holder is paid. Sir, the value of a clean, transparent\r\nwage system cannot be under-estimated. What you see, is what you\r\nget. And we cannot move away from that bedrock which is the clean,\r\ntransport system, to the slippery slope of hidden perks and benefits.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the second point\r\non accountability is that of performance. The Prime Minister has\r\naddressed this in some detail but I would just like to make the\r\npoint that if we accept the principle that we benchmark our political\r\noffice holders against the market, then it would follow that similar\r\ncomparisons ought to be made when it comes to the assessment of\r\nperformance. The corollary of the market benchmarking is that our\r\npolitical office holders must therefore be held accountable like\r\nthe private sector, and subject to the same rigours and risks. In\r\norder for Singaporeans to support remuneration formula, Sir, they\r\nmust have the confidence and conviction that our Ministers and office\r\nholders will be held accountable to those very high standards, and\r\nI am glad to have heard the Prime Minister re-affirm that belief.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai\r\n :\r\nYes, Sir. Let me just sum up then. I will make a few brief points.\r\nI think we have agreement in this House over the key principles\r\non which salaries will now be determined. In terms of numbers, we\r\nare also in the same broad ballpark; there is clearly a significant\r\nnarrowing of the gaps which previously existed. And by all accounts,\r\nthis Committee's report and recommendations are, at the very least,\r\na step in the right direction and based on right and sound principles.\r\nI think it is well reasoned and I think it makes the right judgment\r\ncalls. It is, however, not perfect, it must be tested in application.\r\nIt will evolve and I am sure it will continue to be fine-tuned at\r\neach review which the Government\r\nhas said it will do every five years. There may be still some Singaporeans\r\nwho will remain unconvinced; it will take some time to convince\r\nthem, but we should and I hope the arguments can be considered with\r\nan open mind, dispassionately and without emotion.
\r\nPage: 1044
\r\n\r\n As the hon Member Ms Denise Phua said, because\r\nthere are so many different views of the proverbial elephant, perhaps\r\nthis is just an issue on which there may never be consensus. But,\r\nSir, we have a duty to put out all the views so that even the blind\r\nwill be able to call an elephant, an elephant. I personally feel\r\nit is time to move on. This is a formula which has evolved over\r\n30 years, too much political capital from all sides have been spent\r\non this. It is time we let our Government get on with the business\r\nof governing and improving the lives of Singaporeans and demonstrate\r\nthat, indeed, it is worth the salary that we are arguing about.\r\nAnd then we might conclude that we are not really arguing over very\r\nmuch. I support the motion [Applause].\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nthank you very much. I would like to bring the House's attention\r\nto this table that was circulated by the hon Member Mr Edwin Tong. And, specifically,\r\nto the bottom left of the diagram: the Committee's proposal with\r\nbonusto p 13 months plus seven months. That is the average, I understand\r\nthe maximum is 13.5 months. And then we look to the right of that\r\ntable, listing the Workers' Party's proposal. The Member\r\nhas chosen five months or 5.5 months, which is the maximum of the\r\nWorkers' Party's bonus amount. So, rather than jump, as the hon.\r\nMember Tan Chuan-Jin\r\nsaid that somehow the Workers' Party is playing politics ---\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Sir, I\r\nam getting there. I would like to ask the Member, why did he choose\r\nan average figure for the Committee's proposal so far as the bonus\r\nis concerned, but the maximum figure for the Workers' Party's bonus.\r\nShould he not have compared average on average, or maximum on maximum?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai\r\n :\r\nSir, in my speech, I did say that $1.1 million represents what is\r\nthe bonus fixed by the Committee at seven months, based on what\r\nthey feel are achievements of the targets. And if they do exceed\r\nthose targets, then you get a few months more, and that gets us\r\nto $1.4 million or thereabouts. If you were to compare that, like\r\nfor like, I would still say we are in the same ballpark. If you\r\nlook at the comparison, at the baseline level, it is $607,000 against\r\n$715,000. At the upper end level, on the Committee's recommendation,\r\nyou get to a figure of about $1.4 million; at the Workers' Party's proposal,\r\nit is over $1.01 million. At the baseline level, the differential\r\nis also about $300,000 because if you look at the Committee's proposal\r\nat baseline, it gets you to a figure of about $900,000-odd versus the\r\nWorkers' Party's proposal.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Singh, last\r\nclarification, please. Keep it short.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Thank you,\r\nMr Speaker. I would just like to put it on record that in so far\r\nas this piece of paper has been circulated, it would have been just\r\neasier for the Member to compare like for like. I think he looked\r\nfor a conclusion that the numbers are similar, but he should have\r\njust put the maximum amount vis-Ã-vis the bonus in the Committee's\r\nproposal; because he put the maximum for the Workers' Party's proposal.
\r\nPage: 1045
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nEdwin Tong Chun Fai\r\n : Sir, I am not sure if there\r\nwas a question in that, but let me just point out, too, that the\r\nCommittee does say that at seven months plus the 13th month bonus,\r\nit is for meeting and achieving the standards, and those are good\r\nstandards.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, the debate over the past few days is encouraging\r\nbecause what it shows is that there is, in fact, more common ground\r\nthan differences in the Review Committee's recommendations which\r\nthe Government intends to adopt, and the Opposition's position.\r\nThis shows that we have in Parliament a broad consensus on the fundamental\r\nprinciples which should govern Ministerial salaries, although there\r\nmay be differences in details for final quantum. And we therefore\r\nhave common ground on which to move forward.
\r\n\r\n The Committee based its\r\nrecommendations on three key principles and there is no dispute\r\non both sides that these principles are good ones and should be\r\nadopted. And I have some comments on them.
\r\n\r\n The first principle: the\r\nCommittee benchmarked the salaries against the top 1,000 earners\r\nand applied the 40% discount. Now, it has been suggested that this\r\nis elitist, and that immediately makes it an emotive issue, because\r\nthe underlying thrust of that assertion is that if you use this\r\nbenchmark, then potential Ministerial candidates would not be in\r\ntouch with the man-in-the-street.
\r\n\r\n I would like to suggest\r\na different way of looking at it. In his speech on Monday, Deputy\r\nPrime Minister Teo said that the most important criterion for anyone\r\nseeking political office is the motivation to serve the people and\r\nthe nation. Mr Chen Show Mao stated that \"political service is a\r\ncalling and that it is a privilege accorded by the electorate to\r\nserve Singaporeans\" and that it is primarily \"a privilege, not a\r\nburden or a sacrifice\". These are similar sentiments, albeit expressed\r\nin different ways. But then, we must ask ourselves: to whom will\r\nSingaporeans accord this privilege? Singaporeans are discerning. They\r\nwill not accord the privilege of leadership to just any and everybody.\r\nThey know what good government entails. They also know what kind\r\nof Ministers they want. The type of person to whom Singaporeans\r\nwill accord the privilege to serve them, must be a person with certain\r\nqualities. These include integrity, honesty, compassion, a desire\r\nto act for the better good of all as well as ability, leadership\r\nskills, communication skills, organisational skills and technical\r\nskills.
\r\n\r\n But where do you find\r\nthese people? Chances are people with these qualities would by their\r\nvery nature tend to be successful and would normally have risen\r\nto the forefront of any organisation in which they work, whether\r\nit be public sector or private sector. And this means that people\r\nin those positions would command a certain remuneration and have\r\nmore options and choices. And this brings us right back to the first\r\nprinciple on which the Committee based its recommendations which\r\nis that salaries must be competitive so that people of the right\r\ncalibre are not deterred from stepping forward to serve. So the first\r\nprinciple is not inconsistent with the concept that political service\r\nis a calling and a privilege. In fact, the first principle is intended\r\nto help us to get the right kind of persons to whom Singaporeans\r\nwill accord the privilege to serve them.
\r\n\r\n Let me deal with the third\r\nprinciple now. There is no dispute on the third principle either.\r\nEveryone agrees that we should have a \"clean wage\" system. However,\r\nI find that whenever there is a discussion on a \"clean wage\" system,\r\nthere is always a distorted comparison with other countries. The\r\nWorkers' Party mentioned that their proposals were derived after\r\nreviewing the remuneration systems in 12 developed economies, including\r\nthe UK and US. Now, the UK and US are the two most often cited examples\r\nof where their politicians earn far less than ours. And I thought\r\nthat because they are cited so often, it is worthwhile to examine\r\nthe politicians' remuneration packages in these two countries in\r\na bit more detail.\r\nAnd you will see that in these countries, political office is not\r\nonly a privilege, it is also about privileges. In fact, our more\r\nis less, and their less is more, more or less!
\r\nPage: 1046
\r\n\r\n The UK. When citing the\r\nremuneration of UK Ministers, one must take into account the Green\r\nBook. The Green Book is the Guide to the UK MPs' allowances. The\r\nUK Ministers' salaries may be lower but they get a whole host of\r\nallowances contained in the Green Book. Now, I encourage our MPs\r\nand members of the public to look up the Green Book 2009 Edition\r\nwhich is available online. It is seemingly transparent, yet totally\r\nopaque. It seems to be transparent because the type of allowances\r\nallowed are listed out, but it is totally opaque because you have\r\nno idea what amounts these claims come up to.
\r\n\r\n UK Ministers and MPs get\r\nthe following allowances: Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure.\r\nThis is reimbursement for additional expenses staying away from\r\ntheir main home. It covers payments for a second home: Includes\r\nrent, mortgage interest, council tax, hotel accommodation, utility\r\nbills, gas, water, electricity, oil, telephone calls and line rental\r\nservice charges, insurance and overnight subsistence of £25 per\r\nnight that a UK MP spends away from his/her main home on parliamentary\r\nbusiness. They also get administrative and office expenditure. They\r\nget staffing expenditure. They get travel expenditure. This includes\r\npublic transport fare, mileage for cars, motorbikes and bicycles,\r\nreasonable parking, taxi and private hire car cost and overnight accommodation\r\nfor parliamentary business. They have a travel card for train, air,\r\ncoach, ferry and parking costs for themselves, family and staff,\r\nEuropean travel and family travel. There is no restriction on the\r\nclass of travel. They have communication expenditure. They have\r\nhouse stationery and postage. They have a re-settlement grant. They\r\nhave winding-up expenditure. They have a security budget. And they\r\ndo not have to pay income tax on any of these.
\r\n\r\n And this does not take\r\ninto account the food privileges. I read an interesting article\r\nin the International Express, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 which\r\nreported that in the financial year of 2010/2011, the UK taxpayers\r\nhad to fork out £5.8 million for their MPs' food. Under a UK taxpayer\r\nfunded subsidy, UK MPs enjoy cheap meals, wines and spirits in the\r\nHouse of Commons. The International Express reported that\r\nin the last year this amount soared to £5.8 million, an increase\r\nof £87,000, notwithstanding that in June 2010, the Commons Commission\r\nsaid £500,000 should be loped off catering costs, and bar prices\r\nshould match those of the High Street pubs.
\r\n\r\n In the UK Members' dining\r\nroom, the UK MPs apparently enjoy artichoke and tomato salad with truffle\r\ndressing for £2.05, or a char-grilled rib-eye steak with hand-cut\r\nchips and béarnaise sauce for £7.80. So the International Express reported\r\nthat this means that a total of £1.33 million was spent in the Commons\r\nbars, which basically means that for every £10 that a UK MP spent\r\non lunch, £7.60 was paid for by the British public.
\r\n\r\n Workers' Party has cited\r\nBritain as an example of a country where information on political\r\nsalaries and allowances is available and they have stringent disclosure\r\nrules. The UK system is not transparent. Transparency on the allowances\r\nwas only forced upon them after an investigative journalist pursued\r\nthe matter and even then it was only after years of trying to force\r\ndisclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The House of Commons\r\nresisted it on the basis that it was \"unlawfully intrusive\". It took\r\na court action to get the information and it was discovered that\r\nthe perks came up to millions of pounds. You can find this on Wikipedia\r\nand there is also the BBC website online.
\r\n\r\n I know that the Workers'\r\nParty is not suggesting that we should have the same kind of allowances provided\r\nin the Green Book. But the point is this: the UK Ministers have\r\nlower salaries precisely because their system gives them the Green\r\nBook allowances which are not transparent. To cite one part of the equation\r\nwithout also citing the other part is not giving the Singapore public\r\nthe full picture, which is not right.
\r\nPage: 1047
\r\n\r\n I move on to the US. It is often said\r\nthat our Prime Minister gets more salary than the US President. Our\r\nPrime Minister may get more salary but he gets far less in terms\r\nof the value of the total benefits package of the US President.\r\nThere is an article on the Internet titled \"10 Most Expensive\r\nPresidential Perks\". You should read it. It makes for interesting\r\nreading. This is what the US President gets and this list is not\r\nexhaustive. In addition to the US$400,000 salary, he gets US$100,000\r\nfor travel expenses, US$19,000 for official entertaining. The salary\r\nis taxable, the allowances are not. And I also saw in Tuesday's New\r\nPaper that he gets an allowance of up to US$1 million a year\r\nfor \"unanticipated needs\". One has no idea what \"unanticipated needs\"\r\nare.
\r\n\r\n The White House is not\r\njust an office. It is a residential home. It has 132 rooms, 35 bathrooms,\r\na movie screening room and a bowling alley, swimming pool, tennis\r\nand basketball courts, jogging track, putting green, cleaning, laundry\r\nand errand services and a whole house staff. The upkeep is US$4 million\r\na year.
\r\n\r\n The US President gets\r\na Chief Usher, an Executive Chef, an Executive Pastry Chef, a whole\r\nmedical unit, a Social Secretary, a Chief Calligrapher. Oh! I forgot\r\nto mention he has a beehive. There is a beehive in the South Lawn\r\nwhich is installed to provide honey for use in the White House kitchen.
\r\n\r\n He also has for his transport\r\nCadillac One - armoured limousine, valued at US$300,000. He gets Ground\r\nForce One, that is, two Black armoured buses for himself and dignitaries\r\ncosting US$1 million each; Air Force One, that is actually two Boeing\r\n747 jets under the name of \"One\" and it has a personal suite, a\r\n26-member crew, a telecoms centre. Do not forget the C141 Starlifter\r\nCargo Plane -- that is to carry Cadillac One to go wherever the\r\nPresident goes. Then there is Marine One which is the helicopter that\r\ntakes him for short-distance travel and there is also a helicopter\r\nfleet which includes Sikorsky and Black Hawk helicopters. Then there\r\nis the holiday home and the retirement perks, personal security, state\r\nfuneral. As I said, the list is not exhaustive. These things we\r\ndo not give our Prime Minister and I am not suggesting that we should.\r\nThese excessive trappings of pomp and grandeur are not what we want\r\nin our system. But the point is that if you wish to compare what\r\nthe US President gets against what our Prime Minister gets, then\r\nyou must take these things into account.
\r\n\r\n I come back to the second\r\nprinciple which is the discounted salary. And the benchmark figure\r\nthat the Review Committee arrived at was S$55,000 a month. The Workers'\r\nParty disagreed with this approach in principle and they said, \"if\r\nthis benchmark is accepted by the Government, it would continue to\r\nsend the message to potential office holders and Singaporeans that\r\ntop pay is the benchmark by which the importance of the office is\r\nto be judged, and the value of political office in the final analysis\r\ncan be monetised. It cannot be. Not even at the highest income levels.\"
\r\n\r\n Fair enough. Workers'\r\nParty says that we should instead apply the principle of political\r\nservice first and then MPs as elected representatives of the people\r\nshould be the starting point for the determination of Ministerial\r\nsalary. The Workers Party then applied the principle of political\r\nservice first and the figure they have come up with is $55,000 per\r\nmonth. So it is exactly the same figure as the benchmark figure. And\r\nthe target or the group from which you would draw people who earn\r\nthis is really within the same cohort. So we started from the top,\r\nworked our way down; they started from the bottom, worked their way\r\nup, we arrive at the same place. There is no disagreement there.\r\nThe main disagreement is on bonuses. But even then you will find\r\nthat there is no disagreement on the fact that there should be bonuses.\r\nAnd when you look at it, the amount, difference is not hugely significant.\r\nIt is significant to wage earners who earn less. That is correct.\r\nBut the difference between the two positions is not that much.
\r\nPage: 1048
\r\n\r\n Another point where we are not very different:\r\nyesterday Mr Yaw Shin Leong said that the Workers' Party had two\r\nother proposals to enhance the \"twin towers of accountability and\r\ntransparency\". He suggested an independent commission for the Prime\r\nMinister whenever he seeks to change how political pay is determined,\r\nand he suggested that the findings of such a commission be subjected\r\nto debate in Parliament and to Parliamentary approval. Here we have\r\nthe Review Committee. It is an independent committee. It is not\r\ncalled a commission, but it is the same thing. Now, we did not make\r\nit as a matter of law subject to parliamentary approval but the\r\nDeputy Prime Minister has brought the Committee's recommendations\r\nto Parliament to seek Parliament's endorsement. Same difference.\r\nThe principles of accountability and transparency are met. So there\r\nreally is very little difference between the two positions.
\r\n\r\n But at the end of the\r\nday, while I support the Committee's recommendations and I would\r\nendorse the motion -- because it significantly brings down the remuneration\r\nwhich was a cause of concern -- but at the end of the day, from\r\nthe public's perspective, the issue of Ministerial salaries is not\r\nabout logic, economics or formulas. It is about the connection between\r\nSingaporeans and their elected leaders. In any age, in any country\r\nand in any culture, what do people want of their leaders? They want\r\ngood, capable people of integrity who can provide leadership and\r\nhave the right technical competencies. They want leaders who they\r\ncan identify with and, more importantly, leaders who can identify\r\nwith them. They want leaders who empathise with them, who feel their\r\npain, their worries, will listen, address their concerns, and provide\r\nsolutions to the problems that people face.
\r\n\r\n And the thing is this:\r\nmost people do not earn this kind of salaries. The instinctive feeling\r\nis: how can you connect with me? How can you feel what I feel when\r\nyou do not have the same financial constraints that I have? How\r\ndo you know what it is to feel like to live day after day in fear\r\nthat you cannot pay your rent, your mortgage, or something as basic\r\nas food? How can you know what it is like to be afraid that you\r\nmight lose your job because someone else, a foreigner who is a younger\r\nand cheaper option for your employer? How can you know this when\r\nyour pay is so high? That, I think, is the real issue with Ministerial\r\nsalaries.
\r\n\r\n And the answer does not\r\nlie in pegging Ministers' salaries so low that everyone has to struggle\r\nalike. No, the answer lies in this. That the Ministers, with the\r\nabilities that you have, with the skills that you have acquired,\r\nthat you place these skills and abilities at the service of Singaporeans\r\nand help solve their issues for them. People do not object to good\r\npay when it is well-earned. And if they feel that a Minister is\r\nreally working hard for the people, then they are fine with that.\r\nWhere they get upset is if they feel someone gets a good pay just\r\nbecause he or she happens to land the job of a Minister, and they\r\ndo not see a real or visible effort on the part of that person.
\r\n\r\n What this means is that\r\nfor each and every Minister, he or she must show that he or she\r\nis truly indeed deserving of the pay, and the policies that he or\r\nshe initiates and implements must address Singaporeans' needs. Equally\r\nimportant is the Minister's connection with people. People respond\r\nwell to Ministers who are in tune with issues of concern to Singaporeans,\r\nwho identify the solutions and take action on behalf of the people.\r\nThese are the ones that Singaporeans are happy to work with to achieve\r\na better result for all.
\r\n\r\n Singaporeans do not appreciate\r\nit if a Minister talks down to them or in a way which they feel\r\nis patronising or condescending, or who brushes aside their concerns\r\nor worries. These, to me, are the key to public acceptance of high\r\nministerial salaries: sincerity, compassion and high performance\r\nby Ministers, coupled with a real connection and close bond to the\r\npeople they serve. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.
\r\nPage: 1049
\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 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 Deputy 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 to so 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 Standing\r\nOrder No. 48(8) in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech\r\n– [Dr Ng Eng Hen].
\r\nPage: 1049
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai\r\n :\r\nSir, if I may just go back to an answer I gave to the Member, Mr\r\nPritam Singh, earlier. I just want to clarify the position. If the\r\nMember could please go back to the table, the base salary is $46,750\r\non both the left-hand side boxes. On that calculation, let me just\r\nstate the numbers: on a minimum basis, the Committee's proposal\r\nis $607,750. The Workers' Party's position would be $715,000. At\r\nthe norm or baseline level, on the Committee's recommendation, it\r\nwould be $935,000 versus the Workers' Party's proposal of $880,000.\r\nOn the maximum position, the Committee's proposal is $1.3 million\r\nagainst the Workers' Party's proposal of $1.017 million.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nI would like to thank the Member for that clarification.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister\r\nfor Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nover the last three days, we have heard 29 Members share their views\r\nand suggestions about political salaries.
\r\n\r\n I was heartened by both\r\nthe tone and the substance of the debate over these past three days,\r\ncompared to the three previous occasions that I have attended debates\r\nin this House in 1994, 2000 and 2007 since I was a Member.
\r\n\r\n While the earlier debates\r\nwere marked by sharp divisions and strident rhetoric, what struck\r\nme this time was the degree of convergence and agreement that we\r\nhave arrived at.
\r\n\r\n We all agree on the objective\r\nof the debate, on what we are trying to achieve. Members all agree\r\non the need for Singapore to continue bringing in capable and committed\r\npeople into political office. Yesterday, the Prime Minister shared\r\nwith us his worries and concerns about how we can continue to bring\r\nin able and committed Singaporeans in their late 30s/40s to serve\r\nSingapore, in the face of the many exciting and challenging opportunities\r\nthat they now have open to them, here in Singapore and overseas. He explained\r\nwhy establishing an appropriate salary framework is so important\r\nto ensure that we have the leadership that we need for our future.
\r\nPage: 1050
\r\n\r\n We also agree that it\r\nis the spirit of service that brings us to this House. Members like\r\nMr Sam Tan emphasised that political service is, first and foremost,\r\nabout having \"a heart of service\". Or in the words of Mrs Josephine\r\nTeo, Mr Chen Show Mao, Dr Lam Pin Min and Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, it is\r\na noble office, a \"calling\", a \"privilege\", a \"hard-won honour\".\r\nSir, I look around at the faces of my fellow Members of this House,\r\nand I see that it is this spirit or ethos of service that has brought\r\neach one of us here; and this spirit, this ethos of service, is\r\nwhat brings us together, and does not separate or divide us, Members of\r\nthis House. We are all clearly in agreement on that.
\r\n\r\n I was heartened that Members\r\nhave endorsed the three principles which the Committee has distilled as\r\na guide to decide on the salary framework:
\r\n\r\n First, salaries must be\r\ncompetitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred\r\nfrom stepping forward to lead the country.
\r\n\r\n Second, the ethos of political\r\nservice entails making sacrifices and hence there should be a discount in\r\nthe pay formula.
\r\n\r\n Third, there should be\r\na \"clean wage\" with no hidden perks.
\r\n\r\n These three principles\r\nhave been the underlying basis for the Government's salary proposals\r\nover the past many years.
\r\n\r\n There was also unanimous\r\nsupport for the clean wage approach, paying a cash salary and without benefits\r\nin kind. Members, such as Mr Arthur Fong and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah,\r\nhave shared with us how this approach is something not found in\r\nmany countries, and creates confidence in the integrity of our Government.
\r\n\r\n Sir, now that both sides\r\nof this House have agreed on the principle of clean wages, I hope\r\nthat this will also put an end to misleading comparisons, both in\r\nthis House and outside, between the clean wages of our political\r\nappointment holders with just the cash salaries of leaders from\r\nother countries that provide many benefits which are often not quantifiable.\r\nSuch misleading comparisons are unhelpful, and just rile up emotions\r\nin an otherwise already emotive debate.
\r\n\r\n One significant feature\r\nof the debate this time is that no one suggested benchmarking our\r\npolitical salary levels to foreign leaders' cash pay. This is quite\r\nremarkable as this had been a feature in the past.
\r\n\r\n As mentioned by Dr Amy\r\nKhor, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Edwin Tong, Ms Indranee Rajah and others, there\r\nwas also general agreement that a Minister's responsibilities are\r\nat least as complex and heavy as the jobs held by those in the more\r\nbroad-based benchmark of 1,000 persons proposed, and Ministers have\r\na much wider impact on the lives of Singaporeans, as Mr Alvin Yeo\r\npointed out. I did not hear any disagreement on that score either.
\r\n\r\n Many Members also expressed\r\nthe view that the resultant 37% reduction in MR4 salaries was deep and\r\nsignificant, and appreciated that the starting salary for a Minister\r\nat $46,750 a month or for a basic 13-month salary of $607,750 provided\r\nthe Prime Minister with more flexibility for emplacing new Ministers.
\r\n\r\n Sir, as I listened to\r\nthe many thoughtful, heartfelt speeches, what gratified me most\r\nwas that we have come a very long way on this issue of political\r\nsalaries, and have moved much closer together, Members from both\r\nsides of the House.
\r\nPage: 1051
\r\n\r\n On its part, the Government has responded\r\nto feedback in a number of areas.
\r\n\r\n In response to feedback\r\nthat there should be an independent review process for political\r\nsalaries, the Prime Minister appointed a committee to independently\r\nreview salaries for political appointment holders. The Review Committee,\r\nchaired by Mr Gerard Ee, comprising eight well-respected members from\r\na range of sectors, had a free hand, contrary to what Mrs Lina Chiam\r\nsaid, and Mr Yaw Shin Leong alluded to. They were allowed \"to take\r\ninto account salaries of comparable jobs in the private sector and also\r\nother reference points such as the general wage levels in Singapore\".\r\nI am glad to hear that Mr Pritam Singh has full confidence in the\r\nCommittee and its independence. The Committee has arrived at fair\r\nand balanced recommendations. Members of this House have accepted\r\nthe key principles that it has put forward for determining the salary\r\nframework, and also many of its key recommendations. The Government\r\nhas also accepted the Committee's recommendation for the Prime Minister\r\nto appoint an independent Committee to review the salary framework\r\nevery five years.
\r\n\r\n The Committee's recommendations\r\nhave resulted in a number of significant changes from the previous\r\nsalary framework which the Government has accepted and that Members\r\nof this House have welcomed.
\r\n\r\n Pensions for political\r\noffice holders have been removed, which Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Lim Biow Chuan,\r\nMr Pritam Singh and others have supported.
\r\n\r\n And a new broader based\r\nNational Bonus has replaced the GDP Bonus. Many Members, including Mr\r\nZaqy Mohamed, Mr Yaw Shin Leong and Mr Zainal Sapari, welcomed the\r\nintroduction of the National Bonus which reflects a stronger link\r\nwith Singaporeans' interests and concerns, though some did express\r\nviews on the size and ratio between the different factors. Mr Zainal,\r\nin particular, made a strong pitch to increase the weight in the\r\nnational bonus given to wage growth for the lowest 20th percentile\r\nincome earners, and Mr Alex Yam reminded us of the important goal\r\nof raising median incomes of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Sir, we ought to accept\r\nthe Committee's proposal as it is, and see if there are improvements\r\nthat can be made subsequently.
\r\n\r\n Members who had expressed\r\nreservations about the previous salary framework have also been prepared\r\nto accept the proposed framework. For example, Ms Denise Phua spoke\r\nout strongly and passionately in 2007 about there being good people\r\nwho would come in regardless of pay. In her speech on Monday, she\r\nacknowledged that she \"could not find enough of them\" – such good\r\npeople, even to run her charity, let alone this country. Mr Inderjit\r\nSingh, who had spoken against the previous 2/3M48 benchmark, has\r\nanalysed the Committee's proposal for a broader-based, 1,000 person\r\nbenchmark carefully, and the rationale behind it, and expressed\r\nagreement.
\r\n\r\n But I was most heartened\r\nto hear Mr Chen Show Mao say clearly and in very definitive terms,\r\non the first day of the debate, that \"We (ie, the Workers' Party)\r\nagree with the three principles that political salaries should be\r\ncompetitive, that political service is a calling and has its own\r\nethos, and that wages should be transparent.\"
\r\n\r\n These are the three key\r\nprinciples put forward by the Committee as a guide to setting salaries.
\r\n\r\n This is a significant\r\nchange and a significant step forward. For the first time, the Workers'\r\nParty has stated that it accepted benchmarks, benchmarking salaries\r\ncompetitively, similar to the approach taken by the Committee, and\r\nit is a fundamental departure from their past proposals. For example,\r\nas reported in a Straits\r\nTimes article on 5 May 2006, in the run-up to the 2006 General\r\nElections, the Workers' Party said that they wanted the benchmark\r\nto be based on what the poorest 20% of Singaporeans earned, and that\r\nMinisters' pay could be multiplied by a factor of 100, making their\r\nsalary, at that time, $80,000 a month.
\r\nPage: 1052
\r\n\r\n Subsequently, during the\r\n2007 Debate in this House, Ms Sylvia Lim said that we should benchmark the\r\nremuneration of political office holders to that of leaders in foreign\r\ncountries. The Workers' Party made Ministerial salaries a hot campaign\r\nissue last year during the General Elections and proposed, as an\r\nalternative, that \"€¦these countries pay political office-holders\r\njust a fraction\" of what our leaders are paid, and \"we should benchmark\r\nagainst those countries.\" Sir, this is very different from what\r\nI just heard Mr Giam said, that the position that the Workers' Party\r\nis proposing in Parliament is the same as what they had said prior\r\nto the GE and in their manifesto.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Workers' Party\r\nhas clearly made a fundamental change, and taken a new position,\r\nwhich I hope they will hold to in the next General Election. I welcome\r\nthis change.
\r\n\r\n This change has certainly\r\nhelped this debate to move forward and arrive at areas of convergence.
\r\n\r\n The Workers' Party's new\r\nposition is to peg an MP's allowance to a senior civil servant of\r\nMX9 (Superscale) grade, on the basis that it is \"competitively benchmarked\r\nto general wage levels of Singaporeans\".
\r\n\r\n This benchmarking approach\r\nis in line with the principle of competitive benchmarking to local conditions\r\nwhich the Committee recommended, rather than to the salary of foreign\r\nleaders.
\r\n\r\n And while the Workers'\r\nParty has stated that the Committee's benchmark is \"elitist\", the\r\nMX9 (Superscale) pool is actually quite a small group. In fact,\r\njust 1.2% of our 76,000 civil servants across all services are in\r\nthe MX9 (Superscale) grade or above.
\r\n\r\n Sir, in ratio terms, this\r\nworks out to one out of 83 of our Civil Service workforce, or in\r\nround numbers, roughly, one out of 100 civil servants. These MX9\r\nofficers carry out significant duties and responsibilities, and\r\nare senior civil servants.
\r\n\r\n So is this a reasonable\r\nratio for a leader? Think of it this way: if a person is in charge\r\nof a 10-person organisation, he is 10% of that organisation's workforce.
\r\n\r\n If he leads a 100-person\r\norganisation, he is 1% of the workforce. And if he leads a 1,000-person organisation,\r\nhe is 0.1% of the workforce. If he is responsible for an organisation\r\nwhich has 1,700 people in it, he is 0.06% of that organisation's\r\nworkforce -- a number highlighted by the Workers' Party as being\r\n\"elitist\", or too small. There are a number of organisations in\r\nthe public service which are comparable or larger than 1,700 people,\r\nand the leader of such an organisation is 0.06% of that organisation.\r\nIs that an unreasonable ratio for a Minister? And the impact of\r\na Minister's work goes well beyond that and affects all Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Does being able to lead\r\nan organisation of 1,700 people reflect the qualities we look for\r\nin a Minister? That's what 0.06% means. And does being able to lead\r\nabout 100 people reflect the qualities we look for in an MP? That\r\nis what 1% means.
\r\n\r\n Both 0.06% and 1.2% are\r\nsmall numbers, but when we look at them in terms of these ratios\r\nwe might be better able to assess and understand whether these reflect\r\nthe type of qualities we are looking for in our Ministers and our\r\nMPs.
\r\nPage: 1053
\r\n\r\n Sir, I would also like to clarify that\r\nthe MX9 (Superscale) salary is not pegged to the \"general wage level\r\nof Singaporeans\". The MX9 (Superscale) officer is not representative\r\nof an average \"whole-of-government\" officer. He is a senior officer\r\nwith significant responsibilities, in the ranks of the senior leadership\r\nof the Civil Service. It is, in fact, pegged to the salaries of\r\nquite senior people in the private sector, who hold jobs which have\r\nequivalent significant responsibility and scope. So, in fact, Sir,\r\nthe Workers' Party is proposing that we benchmark MPs, not Ministers,\r\nat the top 1.2% of the Civil Service. About half the Civil Service\r\nare teachers, and we select our teachers from the top one-third\r\nof the cohort. So 1.2% of the Civil Service is quite a select group.\r\nBut I leave it to Members and the public to decide whether this\r\nis an appropriate way to compare. But, Sir, I wish to make the point\r\nthat this is quite far from the \"general wage level\" of Singaporeans,\r\nand what the Workers' Party has described as a \"people-up\" approach.
\r\n\r\n Nevertheless, what is\r\nmore significant in this analysis is that the principles as well\r\nas the way that the Workers' Party have worked out their salary\r\nproposals are actually quite similar to what the Committee has done\r\n– the principle of benchmarking by selecting a set of jobs, skills\r\nand qualities which they feel are comparable, in one case to that\r\nof MPs, and in the other to that of Ministers. So the basis for\r\nsetting salaries is basically similar to that which the Committee\r\nhas used.
\r\n\r\n So while the Workers'\r\nParty has previously expressed disagreement over not just the basis\r\nfor determining salaries but also their overall levels, I am heartened\r\nnow that the Workers' Party's own proposals are at the same general\r\nlevels as those proposed by the Committee.
\r\n\r\n For example, the MP's\r\nallowance proposed by the Workers' Party, is benchmarked to MX9 (Superscale)\r\nof $11,000/month, as compared to the Committee's proposal of $13,750/month.\r\nThe Workers' Party makes much of this difference, but actually when\r\nyou look at it, $11,000 is at the lower end of the MX9 (Superscale)\r\nsalary grade, and $13,750 happens to be about the mid-point of the\r\nMX9 (Superscale) grade. So you can pick whichever one you want but,\r\nsay, you pick $13,750, which is the mid-point of the MX9 benchmark\r\ngrade that the Workers' Party has chosen. If you churn out the numbers\r\nand multiply them up, you come up with an answer which is a bit\r\nbigger, but still generally in the same ballpark as well.
\r\n\r\n As pointed out by Mr Vikram\r\nNair yesterday, the monthly salary for Ministers proposed by Workers' Party\r\nis actually higher than the starting salary of $46,750 per month\r\nproposed by the Committee. And the Workers' Party has proposed a\r\nratio for the Prime Minister's salary: 1.8 times that of a Minister, while\r\nthe Committee has proposed 2 times. There is a certain amount of\r\njudgement in this. I would use the word \"judgement\" rather than\r\nthe word \"arbitrariness\", which has been used quite widely by some Members\r\nof this House. The ratio of MP's allowance to Ministers' salary\r\nis also about the same – 17.5% versus 20%.
\r\n\r\n We should also note that\r\nif the Workers' Party came into power tomorrow, it would pay its\r\nMinisters a salary which is not much different from what the Committee\r\nhas recommended. And this would still mean that leaders elsewhere\r\nwould likewise be paid a fraction, in cash terms, of what a Workers'\r\nParty Minister would be paid. This is quite different from the view\r\nthat it strongly advocated just a few months ago.
\r\n\r\n As Mr Vikram Nair pointed\r\nout, the main difference that remains now is really over variable bonuses,\r\nwhether there should be a norm of three months of a higher monthly\r\nsalary, or seven months of a lower monthly salary, including the\r\nAnnual Variable Component. Mr Edwin Tong tried to work out the numbers,\r\nbut you can see that they are all roughly at the same general salary\r\nlevels. The matter of salary structure and design and how one apportions\r\nthe salary between fixed and variable components is a matter which\r\nHR and compensation specialists have a view on. The Committee had\r\nthe benefit of a compensation specialist, Mercer, to advise on this,\r\nwho recommended that for jobs at this level, about one-third of\r\nthe total annual compensation should be variable, so that a good\r\npart of the salary is not fixed or guaranteed, but instead linked\r\nto actual performance. I do not know if the Workers' Party also sought\r\ncompetent HR or compensation specialist advice. But even compensation\r\nspecialists might offer different views on what is the appropriate\r\nway to apportion between fixed and variable components. A higher\r\nnumber of months of bonus in years when targets are met also means\r\na lower guaranteed monthly wage, and a larger reduction in bonus\r\nwhen targets are not met, as shown in Mr Edwin Tong's numbers.
\r\nPage: 1054
\r\n\r\n But what is most important\r\nis that the overall levels of the salaries being put forward are\r\nboth around the same general levels. The Workers' Party has quietly\r\nabandoned proposing salaries that are \"a fraction\" of what they\r\nare now proposing. They have indeed recognised that a pragmatic\r\napproach is needed when setting salaries, and they have recognised\r\nin their proposal that pragmatism and idealism need to be balanced.
\r\n\r\n I have gone through these\r\nproposals in some detail not to point out the differences, but in\r\nfact, to demonstrate the clear similarities with the Committee's\r\nproposals. When we strip away the rhetorical wrapping, and take\r\na closer look, the Workers' Party's proposals are in fact based\r\non the same set of principles, have taken into account pragmatic\r\nconsiderations, have resulted in salaries that are at about the\r\nsame general level, and have the same structural features of fixed\r\nand variable bonuses, though in different proportions, as what the\r\nCommittee has proposed.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I have pointed out\r\nthese similarities to demonstrate that there is, indeed, much common\r\nground. We should not be accentuating the differences when there\r\nare, in fact, so many similarities. Mr Yee Jenn Jong came out strongly\r\nto say yesterday, \"In conclusion, the annual levels we have proposed\r\nare not the same as the Review Committee's. More fundamentally,\r\nwe object to the principles used to set the benchmark for Ministerial\r\nsalaries. Therefore, I oppose the motion.\" After hearing Mr Chen\r\nstate clearly on Monday that \"We (ie, the Workers' Party) agree\r\nwith the three principles,\" I thought that we were quite close together.\r\nSir, I am still optimistic, in spite of what Mr Yee said yesterday,\r\nbecause the actual proposals are really quite close.
\r\n\r\n Yesterday, Mrs Lina Chiam\r\nfrom the Singapore People's Party (SPP) updated the estimated pay\r\nthat a Minister would need, in her estimation, to live comfortably,\r\nwhich former MP Mr Chiam See Tong had calculated in this House in\r\n1994. In 1994, Mr Chiam's estimate was $50,000 a month, actually $51,000.\r\nIn this House in 2007, Mr Chiam updated the number to $70,000 per\r\nmonth. Mrs Chiam has now, in her estimation, adjusted this figure\r\nto $60,000. I was trying to understand the reason for this adjustment.
\r\n\r\n But nevertheless, while\r\nthe SPP has a different method of computation still tied to local\r\nconditions and standards of living, it has similarly come up with\r\na monthly pay of $60,000, which is a little higher than the benchmark\r\nMR4 monthly salary that the Committee has proposed – and an overall\r\noutcome that is within the same general level and similar to what\r\nthe Committee had proposed.
\r\n\r\n Sir, let me now speak\r\na little about one subject which this debate was totally silent\r\non. And it is quite remarkable. We are discussing salaries for political\r\nappointment holders and Members of Parliament, and unlike many Houses\r\nin many other countries which have been cited as models, this debate\r\nwas silent on allegations of corruption and dishonesty.
\r\n\r\n It was silent on allegations\r\nof abuse of benefits. This is quite remarkable, and is a vindication\r\nof the integrity of the Members of this House, and of the system\r\nthat we have put in place to keep it so.
\r\nPage: 1055
\r\n\r\n Let me now address the issue of accountability\r\nthat a number of MPs, such as Mr Inderjit Singh, have raised, and\r\ntransparency, which Mr Yaw Shin Leong and Mrs Lina Chiam have raised.
\r\n\r\n I believe that the Prime\r\nMinister has addressed yesterday quite comprehensively how he holds Ministers\r\nto account and assesses them.
\r\n\r\n The Prime Minister yesterday\r\nalso provided information on the salary grades of the current Ministers.\r\nThe National Bonus is also fully transparent as the mode of calculation\r\nand the numbers that go into it each year from the Department of\r\nStatistics, are known to all. And the Prime Minister has periodically\r\nprovided this House with information on the performance bonuses\r\nfor Ministers in bands. This provides the public assurance that\r\nthe salary framework is being applied in a fair and reasonable way,\r\nwhile maintaining a certain amount of privacy for the office holders.\r\nI think that is fair. Mr Pritam Singh also asked for a list of pensions\r\nfor individual Ministers. He wanted to know why the Government has\r\nprovided the method of calculation of an office-holder's pension,\r\nbut not given the individual numbers for each person. The Government\r\nhas provided the method of calculation of an office-holder's pension\r\nin detail and stated that the maximum amount is about 11% of the\r\nannual salary in the previous framework. Why have we provided the\r\ncalculation method and not the amount for each individual? Again,\r\nthis balances the requirement for transparency for the purpose of\r\nknowing how the salary framework is applied and to be sure that\r\nit is applied properly, while respecting the privacy of individuals.
\r\n\r\n Mr Yaw has suggested that\r\nwe should learn from other countries that have websites that also\r\nprovide listings of Ministers' allowances and other benefits. Well,\r\nthey have websites listing out the benefits, not just how the Ministers\r\nhave used their benefits. I am amazed at the research which Ms Indranee\r\nRajah and Mr Edwin Tong have done. But we have indeed learnt from\r\nother countries, and the most important lesson that we have learnt,\r\nis that providing allowances and benefits is a veritable minefield,\r\nand hence the most important lesson that we have learnt is to go\r\nfor clean wages, so that we can avoid such thick books, such big\r\nwebsites, and such huge problems of abuse. Sir, if we put up a website\r\nto account for usage of benefits, the only variable item that will\r\nbe there is how much a Minister claims for dental treatment – so\r\nthat is a maximum of $70, and I suppose we will all know how many\r\ntimes he goes to the dentist, and whether he has used up his maximum\r\nclaim of $70. Mr Pritam Singh knows that this is the position of\r\nthe Government. So when he made a passionate discourse just now\r\non dental benefits, I think he was making a political speech that\r\nwas not grounded in any reality that this Government believes in.
\r\n\r\n Sir, it has been a long\r\nand thorough debate lasting two and a half days. But it has been\r\na most fruitful and useful one. I would like to again thank all\r\nMembers who spoke, earnestly and from the heart.
\r\n\r\n I am gratified that after\r\nthe many, sometimes heated, emotional discussions over the past\r\n30 years, we have now taken a major step forward to bridge the once-wide\r\ngap – the Government, by accepting the wide-ranging proposals that\r\nthe Committee has recommended, and the Members on the other side of\r\nthis House by departing from their old positions and accepting the\r\nprinciples and many key features that the Committee has put forward,\r\nas I enumerated earlier.
\r\n\r\n As a result, we have come\r\nto very similar conclusions about how to benchmark political salaries\r\nin Singapore by adopting the three key principles: market-competitive\r\nsalaries; ethos of political service; and clean wage. And after\r\napplying these similar principles and methods, arrived at salary\r\nlevels which are about the same. We have made real progress.
\r\n\r\n Sir, a number of Members\r\nexpressed concern about whether the proposed benchmark and framework will\r\nresult in huge salary increases in the future. Mr Baey Yam Keng\r\nand Mr Hri Kumar have suggested keeping\r\nsalaries fixed for five years. Even under the previous framework,\r\nthe Government had been judicious in making changes if the benchmark\r\nchanges very rapidly in any one year. In any case, every change\r\nin salary level will have to be done openly and transparently, as\r\nwas always done in the past, and this House will know about it.\r\nAnd Members have every opportunity to raise questions and take issue with\r\nit if Members for any reason have concerns. And of course, I, and\r\nthe Prime Minister, will do our best to address the concerns that\r\nMembers have.
\r\nPage: 1056
\r\n\r\n Furthermore, the salary\r\nframework will be reviewed in five years. After we have worked with\r\nthis framework for five years, we will have more experience and\r\nperhaps we can take on board the many interesting and potentially\r\nuseful suggestions that have been put forward by Members, such as\r\nMs Denise Phua. If structural changes need to be made to the framework,\r\nwe will then have the opportunity to do so.
\r\n\r\n Sir, there will never\r\nbe a perfect formula, as many Members, such as Mdm Halimah, Mr Faisal Manap,\r\nMr Baey Yam Keng, have highlighted and acknowledged. I acknowledge\r\nthat too. So ultimately, this boils down to a judgement call, in\r\nfinding the right balance between recognising the ethos of political\r\nservice and providing an appropriate and competitive salary. And\r\neven the Workers' Party, including Mr Yaw, agrees that the Committee's\r\nrecommendations are an improvement over the status quo.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Prime Minister\r\nappointed a Committee of independent persons to study the matter\r\nand make a recommendation. They have studied the matter thoroughly,\r\nconsulted widely and considered the views put to the Committee carefully.\r\nThey have exercised their collective judgement, and come up with\r\na set of recommendations which have found acceptance in large if\r\nnot most part by Members from both sides of this House. The Government,\r\non its part, is prepared to accept the judgement of the Committee\r\nas fair and balanced.
\r\n\r\n The Government sees the\r\nCommittee's recommendations as a step forward. We are happy that\r\nthe Workers' Party has also changed its position, and converged\r\nmore closely on the substance of the Committee's recommendations.\r\nThe principles which the Committee has proposed, and that both the Government\r\nand the Workers' Party have endorsed, are important principles to\r\nguide ministerial salaries in future. We hope that this will help\r\nto settle this important matter for some time to come, and enable us\r\nto avoid politicising ministerial salaries, in order to focus on\r\ngetting the best team to do the best job for Singapore and Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Sir, we have spent much\r\ntime discussing this issue of political salaries in this Debate\r\nfor the past two and a half days. It is an important subject that\r\nmerits such a full debate. Let us now vote to accept the Committee's\r\nrecommendations, and focus on the real work at hand. As Members\r\nof Parliament entrusted by the people to be in this House, let us\r\nnow focus our energies on our real work – which must be for Singapore,\r\nand for the people of Singapore. Sir, I beg to move [Applause].
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, may I first thank the Deputy Prime Minister. If indeed\r\nthere is convergence today, and if indeed as has been mentioned\r\nthat today is much like a dance, I would like to thank the Government\r\nfor leading the dance and taking the first step towards acknowledging\r\nthat political office salaries in this country need fixing.
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Chen Show\r\nMao, do you have a point of clarification that you want to make?\r\nThis is not a speech.
\r\nPage: 1057
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nChen Show Mao\r\n : Yes, this is to seek clarification\r\nfrom the Deputy Prime Minister and also to clarify my position as\r\nmentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister – while we agree with the\r\nthree principles distilled by the Committee, including that political\r\nservice is a calling and has its own ethos, does the Deputy Prime\r\nMinister agree that under the Committee's application of the principles\r\nwe have produced a new formula that is really quite distinct from\r\nwhat the Workers' Party has proposed? For example, if maximum bonuses\r\nwere received under the Committee's proposal, Ministerial salary\r\nwould, in fact, be reduced by 8% as opposed to 31% calculated by\r\nthe Committee. And under the Workers' Party's ---
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Chen Show Mao\r\n : Under\r\nthe Workers' Party's proposal, it will be reduced by 37%.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I think it goes to the nub of what I said just now. We are\r\nabout at the same levels of salary. There is not a great deal of\r\ndifference between what the Workers' Party has proposed, what the\r\nCommittee has proposed and what the Government accepts. Mr Chen\r\nis bargaining over small differences here and there. I would have\r\nhoped that Mr Chen would have taken a more elevated view of the\r\nsubject. He has agreed to accept the three principles. The Committee\r\nhas, in its wisdom, after consulting many people, including some\r\ninputs from the Workers' Party, come up with what it thinks is a\r\ngood formula for Singapore for the future. We are prepared to accept\r\nthat.
\r\n\r\n The Workers' Party has\r\ncome up with a different formula, but as I have pointed out in my\r\nspeech, very similar in principle, very similar in method, very\r\nsimilar in benchmarking against specific population groups where\r\nthey feel comparisons are relevant, and have come up with roughly\r\nthe same number. I think that this House should come together, accept\r\nthe Committee's recommendation and move forward; take a more elevated\r\nview of the subject rather than accentuating the differences.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for clarifying about the\r\nMX9 salaries. I would just like to ask him: does he expect the MX9\r\nsalaries to rise at the same rate as the top 1,000 Singaporeans?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : There\r\nare a couple of questions here. I would also ask the hon Member\r\nMr Giam whether he accepts that MX9 does not represent the general\r\nwage level of Singaporeans, as he has claimed. I would also say\r\nthat I do not have a crystal ball. I cannot tell what salaries will\r\ndo in the future. These are things which will have to be empirically\r\ndetermined at that point in time. I do not know.
\r\n\r\n The important point is\r\nthe principle here. We have now all agreed that we do competitive benchmarking\r\nagainst the market. The Committee's recommendation proposes that.\r\nThe Workers' Party's recommendation, in essence, proposes that,\r\ntoo. Because MX9, and in fact, all Civil Service salaries are benchmarked\r\nagainst the closest comparables that we can find in the market.\r\nBut does Mr Giam accept that the MX9 (Superscale) grade does not\r\nrepresent the Civil Service at large and the general wage levels\r\nof Singaporeans?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for explaining the MX9\r\nformula. The exact formula for MX9 was not something that we are\r\nprivy to. So I have no choice but to accept that the formula that\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister has revealed in this House regarding what MX9\r\nis pegged to [Interruption]. I have no choice but to accept\r\nbecause we are not privy to what the MX9 formula is but we are under\r\nthe understanding that it was more in line with general wage levels than\r\nit is to the top 1,000 Singaporean earners. So does the Deputy Prime\r\nMinister agree that the MX9 is pegged to a lower level than what\r\nis in the top 1,000 earners in Singapore?
\r\nPage: 1058
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nTeo Chee Hean\r\n : I accept that the MX9 is pegged to\r\na lower level than the 1,000 top earners in Singapore. I think that\r\nis self-evident and everyone looking at it knows that. But I am\r\na bit perturbed by what Mr Giam has just revealed. First of all,\r\nhe revealed that he really did not really know what the MX9 (Superscale)\r\ngrade was, but then he has based his entire system and proposition\r\non it. And he still has not answered the question that I asked him:\r\nwhether he believes that the MX9 (Superscale) salary grade is representative\r\nof the whole Civil Service and of the general wage level in Singapore,\r\nand therefore appropriate for use as a whole-of-government, people-up\r\nbenchmark, as he proposed?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nWe came out with the reason why we used the MX9 formula, it had nothing\r\nto do with whether or not we felt that the people who are earning\r\nthe MX9 salary, are a larger group of people than the top 1,000\r\nearners in Singapore. The principle why we took MX9 was because we\r\nfelt that that would be more representative of the majority of Singaporeans\r\nrather than the top 1,000. And that is the reason why we have chosen\r\nthat, it is not because we felt that it is a larger pool of people that\r\nwe can deal with.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Sir, I\r\nwould try once again to ask Mr Giam and see whether he will be able\r\nto give me a direct answer. And the question I have is a very simple\r\none. Now that Mr Giam knows what the MX9 (Superscale) is, does he\r\nbelieve that this is representative of the general wage level in Singapore?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nI do not think any salary formula can be representative of everybody in\r\nSingapore but I feel that it is closer to what the general wage\r\nlevels are than the top 1,000. And it is impossible for me to have\r\nknown that the MX9 itself is pegged to the senior management level\r\nof a certain grade. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister has not even\r\nrevealed what is that level that is being pegged to.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Sir, I\r\nmust take it therefore that Mr Giam's answer is \"no\". He did not\r\nknow what the MX9 (Superscale) salary represents, but nevertheless\r\nused it as the benchmark for the Workers' Party's proposal. And\r\nthat too, he agrees with me that the MX9 does not represent the\r\ngeneral wage level of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nI think the Deputy Prime Minister has tried to press me on the fact\r\nof whether I agree with him on whether it is pegged to the general\r\nwage levels. I have already said in my first reply that I have to\r\naccept that it is what the Deputy Prime Minister said. If it is\r\nnot pegged to the general wage levels, I have to accept that. The\r\npoint I was trying to make is that the reason why we came up with\r\nthe MX9 level was because we felt that, that was the general amount\r\nthat would be more representative of the majority of Singaporeans.\r\nAnd obviously it is not the median wage level, but it is more representative\r\nof the majority of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, I think this conversation is very, very telling. The\r\nhon Member has based an entire system on the MX9, which he had made\r\na big song and dance about, without understanding what it is; making\r\nassumptions, as with the earlier point about assuming that MPs' allowance\r\nis a quantum of Administrative Service pay when it was not.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin\r\n : So\r\nthe point is, the question has been put forward, whether the hon Member\r\nis clear about the details and whether he accepts it. But the point\r\nI am making is that I think it is very telling that this conversation\r\nhas been had, and I think it reveals the thoroughness in which certain Members\r\nare approaching policy-making, which would have an impact on Singapore.
\r\nPage: 1059
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nHeng Chee How (Whampoa)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, I would\r\nlike to ask the hon Mr Giam whether he was aware that the MX9 grade\r\nwas the entry grade into the Superscales?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Heng Chee How\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, may I ask Mr Giam whether he knows that the Superscales represent\r\nthe top echelons of the Civil Service grades?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nMy understanding is that MX9 represents the entry-level of the Superscale\r\nof the regular Civil Service, not the Administrative Service.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Heng Chee How\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I would like to ask Mr Giam, since he knows that for the MX scheme\r\nof service that the MX9 (Superscale) represents the top of those\r\nscales, whether he would then agree that by proposing to benchmark\r\nthe MPs' pay to MX9, that the Workers' Party are similarly benchmarking\r\naccording to what they themselves called an \"elitist\" approach.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song\r\n :\r\nSir, I think we have moved away from the whole concept of benchmarking\r\nagainst the lowest income earners in Singapore. MX9 is what we felt\r\nwould be a reasonable level to peg MPs' salaries against. And the\r\nreason why we chose the regular Civil Service rather than the Administrative\r\nService was because we were aware that the lowest entry Superscale\r\nfor the Administrative Service, SR9, is pegged to the 15th highest\r\nearners aged 32. And so it is a much higher benchmark than what\r\nthe MX9 is. So we felt that MX9 is more reflective of what the majority\r\nof Singaporeans earn rather than the top earners in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Question put, and agreed\r\nto.
\r\n \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.
\r\nPage: 1059
\r\n\r\n Order for Second Reading\r\nread.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr\r\nLim Hng Kiang)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That\r\nthe Bill be now read a Second time\".
\r\n\r\n The Economic Expansion\r\nIncentives relief from Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2011, comprises three\r\nkey legislative changes. These amendments put into legal effect\r\nthe income tax change announced in the 2010 Budget Statement as\r\nwell as other amendments arising from the regular review of our\r\ntax incentive regime.
\r\n\r\n Let me summarise the three\r\nkey changes.
\r\nPage: 1060
\r\n\r\n The first change is to remove the minimum\r\ntax relief period for Pioneer Service Incentive. The Pioneer Service\r\nIncentive was introduced in 1984 to encourage companies to engage\r\nin high value-added activities, such as consultancy and research\r\nand development in Singapore. The legislation currently stipulates\r\na minimum tax relief period of five years for companies awarded\r\nthe Pioneer Incentive Service scheme. The minimum tax relief period\r\nwill be removed to grant more flexibility to our economic agencies\r\nin the award of an incentive package to better meet the needs of\r\ncompanies. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 18 of the Act to\r\ngive legislative effect to this.
\r\n \r\n\r\n [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr\r\nCharles Chong) in the Chair]
\r\n\r\n The second change is enhancement\r\nof the Development and Expansion Incentive (DEI). The Development\r\nand Expansion Incentive (DEI) was introduced in 1996 to encourage\r\ncompanies to expand by investing in technology and major upgrading\r\nof equipment and operations. To ensure that only expansionary activities\r\nare incentivised, a base income is imposed on existing activities\r\nand the concessionary tax rate is applied, only to profits above\r\nthe base income. The base income is re-calculated on every extension\r\nof the DEI after year 10. Re-calculating the base income, however,\r\ntransits companies to a much higher effective tax rate and makes\r\nthe DEI less competitive in encouraging companies to continue to\r\nexpand and stay rooted in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n To provide companies with\r\ngreater tax certainty, we will remove the need for the base income\r\nto be re-calculated after year 10. Instead, the concessionary tax\r\nrate will be increased by at least 0.5 percentage points at the\r\nbeginning of the 11th year and the 16th year to ensure that tax\r\nrevenues will not be eroded. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section\r\n19J of the Act to give legislative effect to this enhancement.
\r\n\r\n The third change is DEI\r\nfor international legal services. The DEI for international legal\r\nservices was introduced in 2010 Budget Statement to encourage law\r\npractices to do more international legal services work from Singapore\r\nand to attract international law practices to set up offices in\r\nSingapore. This scheme will be reviewed after five years and can\r\nonly be awarded for up to five years of tax relief at a concessionary\r\ntax rate of 10%. Clause 6 of the Bill inserts a new section 19KA\r\nof the Act to effect these specific features of the scheme.
\r\n\r\n Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,\r\nthe remaining legislative changes arising from our periodic review\r\nof the income tax system are either technical in nature or relate\r\nto improvements in tax administration. The proposed changes to the\r\nEconomic Expansion Incentives Act seek to stimulate more economic\r\nactivities in Singapore. These changes also reflect the Government's\r\ncommitment to monitor the effectiveness of our tax incentive regime\r\nand to keep it relevant as economic conditions change.
\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister, with clause 3\r\nin this Amendment Bill, there seems to be now more flexibility in\r\nthe tax relief period that pioneer services companies can enjoy.\r\nI am not sure why the minimum requirement of five years of tax relief\r\nis being removed. Nevertheless, my interest in this lies in whether\r\nour local enterprises are benefiting\r\nfrom this Pioneer Status Scheme. Could I therefore ask the Minister,\r\nhow many certificates have been given to local SMEs versus those\r\ngiven to foreign companies and MNCs?
\r\nPage: 1061
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lim Hng Kiang\r\n : Sir, why\r\nwe remove the minimum period of five years is to give our economic agencies\r\nthe flexibility to award less than five years if the kind of activities\r\nbrought in do not justify for five years. Whereas the current registration\r\nrequires us to give a minimum of five years so we are committed\r\nto at least five years. So this gives us the flexibility. Pioneer\r\nincentives are available to all companies who qualify. And the third\r\npoint is, I do not have the specific statistics, if the Member would file\r\na Question for Oral Answer, we will provide the numbers.
\r\n\r\n Question put, and agreed\r\nto.
\r\n\r\n Bill accordingly read\r\na Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
\r\n\r\n The House immediately\r\nresolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang].
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n The Chairman: The\r\ncitation year \"2011\" will be changed to \"2012\", as indicated in\r\nthe Order Paper Supplement.
\r\n\r\n \r\n Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive\r\nordered to stand part of the Bill.
\r\n\r\n Bill reported without\r\namendment; read a Third time and passed.
\r\n \r\nPage: 1061
\r\n\r\n Order for Second Reading\r\nread.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam)\r\n :\r\nMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read\r\na Second time.\"
\r\n\r\n Sir, there are 33 operative\r\nclauses in this Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I will\r\nhighlight only the key amendments.
\r\n\r\n Clauses 2 to 6 provide\r\nthe procedure for the Rules of Court to prescribe a process for\r\ngoverning appeals from certain statutory tribunals.
\r\n\r\n These appeals now proceed\r\nas district court appeals, and with the amendments, these appeals\r\nwill proceed by way of originating summonses, which is a simpler\r\nprocedure.
\r\n\r\n The tribunals affected\r\nare:
\r\n\r\n (a) the Commissioner of\r\nLabour, in respect of his decisions under the Employment Act and\r\nthe Work Injury Compensation Act;
\r\n\r\n (b) the Goods and Services\r\nTax Board of Review;
\r\n\r\n (c) the Income Tax Board\r\nof Review; and
\r\n\r\n (d) the Tribunal for the\r\nMaintenance of Parents.
\r\nPage: 1062
\r\n\r\n Clauses 7 to 10 deal with quorums required\r\nfor meetings of certain statutory boards, to bring them in line\r\nwith the quorums required for other statutory boards.
\r\n\r\n The revised quorums require\r\none-third of the total number of members on the board, or the current quorum,\r\nwhichever is higher. The affected statutory boards are:
\r\n\r\n (a) the Agri-Food and\r\nVeterinary Authority;
\r\n\r\n (b) the Energy Market\r\nAuthority of Singapore;
\r\n\r\n (c) the Singapore Medical\r\nCouncil; and
\r\n\r\n (d) the National Environment\r\nAgency.
\r\n\r\n Clause 15 amends the Chemical\r\nWeapons (Prohibition) Act. It provides for information to be supplied\r\nunder the Act or the Chemical Weapons Convention to be disclosed\r\nfor national security purposes.
\r\n\r\n Next, clause 19, relating\r\nto the Coroners Act 2010, enhances the powers of forensic pathologists.\r\nIt enables them to more effectively investigate causes of death.
\r\n\r\n Forensic pathologists\r\nwill now be able to obtain information, data, relating to the medical\r\ntreatment or care of the deceased which are in the possession of\r\na medical or healthcare professional.
\r\n\r\n They will also be able\r\nto obtain medical records of the deceased from the National Registry\r\nof Diseases.
\r\n\r\n Clause 20 relates to the\r\nCorruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation\r\nof Benefits) Act. The main amendment is to section 39, to clarify\r\nthat the obligation to report suspicious transactions includes attempted\r\ntransactions.
\r\n\r\n This amendment arises\r\nfrom Recommendation 13 of the Financial Action Task Force, that\r\nis an intergovernmental body which develops and promotes policies\r\nto combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
\r\n\r\n The amendment to section\r\n39 will put beyond doubt Singapore's full compliance with Recommendation\r\n13.
\r\n\r\n Next, clause 21. This\r\namends the Criminal Procedure Code of 2010, and there are two main amendments.
\r\n\r\n The first relates to the\r\ncourt's discretion to grant bail.
\r\n\r\n The amendments provide\r\nfor the courts to grant bail in all cases except those where the\r\naccused person is charged with an offence punishable by death or\r\nlife imprisonment. In such cases where the accused person is charged\r\nwith an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment and also\r\nan alternative punishment, the court can also grant bail if the\r\naccused person is to be tried in the Subordinate Courts.
\r\n\r\n The second main amendment\r\nrefines the Subordinate Courts' power to remand accused persons.
\r\n\r\n Currently, a Magistrate\r\ncan only remand an accused person for eight days at a time. There\r\nis no similar limit for the District Courts.
\r\nPage: 1063
\r\n\r\n We have received feedback from the Law\r\nSociety that this does not work well.
\r\n\r\n An accused person who\r\nis in remand pending trial must be brought before the court every\r\neight days even though there are no updates to give to the court.
\r\n\r\n This affects the Magistrates'\r\nArrest Cases, as well as committal and transmission cases, which\r\nare mentioned before Magistrates.
\r\n\r\n With the amendments, there\r\nwill no longer be a distinction between a Magistrate's Court and\r\na District Court with regard to remand.
\r\n\r\n The distinction will be\r\nbetween cases where investigations are ongoing, and cases where investigations\r\nare complete.
\r\n\r\n Where investigations are\r\non-going, an accused person can only be remanded for eight days\r\nat a time and must be brought before the court again if further\r\nremand is sought.
\r\n\r\n This ensures that investigations\r\nare completed in good time and, where applicable, bail can be offered\r\nas soon as possible after investigations are complete.
\r\n\r\n Once investigations are\r\ncomplete, the accused person will be remanded pending the resolution\r\nof his case and if he is refused bail or cannot raise bail. At this\r\npoint, no reason to require that he can be remanded only for eight\r\ndays at a time.
\r\n\r\n Sections 174 and 238 are\r\nto be amended accordingly, and that will allow more efficient management of\r\ncases by the courts.
\r\n\r\n Clause 23 amends the Land\r\nAcquisition Act. It is to primarily change the mode by which interested persons\r\nare notified in relation to land acquisitions.
\r\n\r\n Section 8(1) requires\r\nthe Collector to notify interested persons by physically posting\r\nnotices at or near the land to be acquired. The feedback is that\r\nowners prefer not to have this process.
\r\n\r\n So, we propose replacing\r\nthat mode with a new requirement to publish notices in at least\r\nfour daily local newspapers in each of the four official languages,\r\nwhich is more effective and reaches a larger audience.
\r\n\r\n This, of course, is in\r\naddition to other existing means of notification, which include\r\nnotification in the Gazette, and sending registered letters to known\r\ninterested parties.
\r\n\r\n Clause 26 clarifies and\r\nupdates the provisions of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act.
\r\n\r\n First, the definition\r\nof \"maintenance order\" is expanded to allow the reciprocal enforcement\r\nof lump sum maintenance orders, in addition to orders for periodic\r\npayments, and that would better reflect the practice of local and\r\nforeign courts in awarding maintenance.
\r\n\r\n The other amendments refine\r\nthe scope and operation of the Act so as to better reflect how it\r\noperates in practice.
\r\n\r\n One example is the removal\r\nof a provision that deems an applicant for maintenance as a legal custodian\r\nof the child.
\r\nPage: 1064
\r\n\r\n This deeming provision was originally\r\ntaken from the United Kingdom. It is irrelevant in our local context\r\nbecause legal custody is not a pre-requisite for ordering maintenance.
\r\n\r\n Clauses 33 and 34 relate\r\nto the Public Trustee Act, as well as the Trustees Act.
\r\n\r\n They clarify that the\r\nPublic Trustee, and trustees generally, can make specific investments\r\nthat they were empowered to make before section 4(1) of the Trustees\r\nAct was amended in 2004. These amendments conferred upon the trustees\r\na broad general power of investment.
\r\n\r\n Finally, there are various\r\nhousekeeping amendments to various Acts, to improve the readability\r\nand administration of existing provisions and to repeal obsolete\r\nprovisions. Sir, I beg to move.
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while the Bill amends many Acts, I will\r\nfocus on two sets of amendments - those affecting the Criminal Procedure\r\nCode, and those affecting the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order\r\nand Nuisance) Act.
\r\n\r\n First, the Criminal Procedure\r\nCode or CPC. Clause 21(a) to (c) of the Bill amends the CPC with respect\r\nto bail.
\r\n\r\n Clause 21(b) of the Bill\r\namends section 95(1)(a) to allow a court to consider whether to\r\nrelease an arrested person on bail in all cases except where the\r\naccused is charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment\r\nfor life.
\r\n\r\n The provision, when amended,\r\nwill allow a court to grant bail where an accused is charged with\r\nan offence which attracts imprisonment of 20 years or more, which\r\nthe current provision does not allow. I support this amendment,\r\nas it will give a court the discretion to decide whether to grant\r\nbail in such cases. The court can then apply the usual principles\r\nin deciding whether to grant or deny bail to an accused, looking\r\nat factors, such as the seriousness of the offence and punishment,\r\nthe risk of the accused absconding and the risk of further offences\r\nbeing committed while he is on bail.
\r\n\r\n This amendment in clause\r\n21(b) also rectifies an issue which recently arose in the case of Mohamed Hisham\r\nbin Sapandi v PP [2011] 4 SLR 868. There, the prosecution and\r\nthe defence had argued that the wording of the existing section\r\n95(1)(a) was capable of two different interpretations, as the term\r\n\"20 years or more\" was ambiguous. In any event, the problematic\r\nclause will now be deleted.
\r\n\r\n Sir, since we are discussing\r\nsection 95, there has been an issue surrounding this section which\r\nwould be good to clarify in this debate.
\r\n\r\n Section 95(1) restricts\r\nthe court in granting bail in three situations: firstly, where the\r\naccused is charged with an offence punishable with death or life\r\nimprisonment; secondly, where he is a proven flight risk and the\r\ncourt believes he will continue to be so; and, thirdly, where he\r\nis arrested or taken into custody under warrants issued under the\r\nExtradition Act.
\r\n\r\n The issue of whether these\r\nrestrictions under section 95(1) apply to only the Subordinate Courts\r\nor to the High Court as well arose in Mohamed Hisham's case.\r\nThis is because there is an unqualified provision in section 97(1)\r\nof the CPC which allows the High Court to grant bail to any accused\r\nbefore it, or release him on personal bond, or to vary the amount\r\nor conditions of bail or bond required by a police officer or a\r\nSubordinate Court, as it thinks fit.
\r\nPage: 1065
\r\n\r\n In Mohamed Hisham's case, even\r\nthe Deputy Public Prosecutors appeared to accept that the High Court's\r\npower to grant or vary bail under section 97 was not fettered by\r\nsection 95. This view was accepted by the High Court in Mohamed\r\nHisham's case. However, it was noted that there had been an earlier,\r\nconflicting High Court decision in S \r\n Selvamsylvester v\r\nPP [2005] 4 SLR 409 which held that the High Court's power to\r\ngrant bail was subject to the restrictions in the equivalent sections\r\nof the former CPC.
\r\n\r\n As the High Court appears\r\nto be grappling with what Parliament's intention is in enacting\r\nthe bail provisions under the old and new CPC, could this Bill have\r\nincluded an amendment to clarify the position once and for all?\r\nOr would Minister assist at least to clarify what Parliament's intention\r\nis on this issue?
\r\n\r\n Sir, now I move to amendments\r\nconcerning the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). Under clause 28\r\nof the Bill, the Commissioner of Police may authorise any person\r\nor class of persons to possess truncheons which are batons, handcuffs\r\nor specified weapons or equipment in a public place if the Commissioner\r\ndeems it necessary and appropriate.
\r\n\r\n This amendment already\r\nwidens the worrying section 22A of the Act which allows the Commissioner\r\nto authorise persons in the private security industry to carry such\r\nitems in public. The existing section 22A was inserted in August\r\n2007 and, at that Parliamentary debate, I raised my concern about\r\ngiving private security personnel such items, when they did not\r\nhave police powers nor received the same training. Some of these\r\nitems are meant for use in physical confrontations with members\r\nof the public. As security officers generally have only citizen's\r\npowers which are limited, the risk of use of excessive force will\r\narise. Should security officers become overzealous, or even in good\r\nfaith act or cause injury to the public, will the citizen be left\r\nsimply to sue the individual security officer and his employer?\r\nIn other countries, the accountability of private security officers\r\nfor wrongful acts has been a big issue, and it is a matter of time\r\nI feel before this surfaces here.
\r\n\r\n Now, clause 28 proposes\r\nto widen the provision even further. The amendment will allow the Commissioner\r\nof Police to include any person or class of persons to carry truncheons,\r\nhandcuffs or specified weapons and equipment.
\r\n\r\n This new provision raises\r\neven more concerns. I would like the Minister to clarify which categories of\r\npeople the Commissioner has in mind for this provision and what\r\nsafeguards are in place to protect the public against excessive\r\nforce or abuse.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n : Mr Deputy\r\nSpeaker, Sir, may I draw the attention of this House to the Bankruptcy Act\r\nwhich clause 13 of this Bill seeks to amend. This clause makes changes\r\nto the adjournment of bankruptcy cases in Court and to bankruptcy\r\napplications. I have two questions for the Minister.
\r\n\r\n Firstly, can the Minister\r\nprovide us with the number of bankrupt individuals sent for debt restructuring\r\nschemes against the number of those who are discharged in the past\r\nyear? What I would like to know is whether the numbers of bankrupt\r\nindividuals are increasing or dropping, or if the majority of them\r\nare simply sent for debt restructuring schemes.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, I am reminded\r\nof a recent case that was reported in December 2011, in which the bankruptcy\r\norders for three former directors of the National Kidney Foundation\r\n(NKF) – Richard Yong, Matilda Chua and the late Loo Say San – were\r\nannulled. This has not been sufficiently examined by the media. Would the Minister\r\ngive details of this case and an account of the annulment of the\r\nbankruptcy orders for these ex-directors of the NKF? I am sure Singaporeans\r\nwould like to know more about bankruptcy laws in Singapore and how\r\nthey have been applied to major cases like the NKF saga of 2006.
\r\nPage: 1066
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr K Shanmugam\r\n : Sir, if\r\nI may deal with Mrs Chiam's questions first. As to the precise numbers which\r\nare sent for debt restructuring versus bankruptcy, I am afraid you\r\nshould file a Parliamentary Question and then I can get the data\r\nout. Likewise, the reasons why bankrupts get discharged from bankruptcy,\r\nthe Act sets out the requirements before one can get a discharge\r\nor annulment, and those conditions have to be satisfied objectively\r\nbefore you can get the orders. So if the Member wishes to know precisely\r\nwhat happened in those cases – because I do not track every single\r\ncase of bankruptcy or reasons for annulment, insofar as the law\r\nwould allow, and I would need to check that – if the Member would\r\nfile a question we will check that and we will provide the answer.
\r\n\r\n As regards the two points\r\nmade by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, I think the question on bail\r\nand sections 95, 97, is a valid one. It was considered recently\r\nlast year in Hisham's case. The High Court held that its power to\r\ngrant or vary bail under section 97(1) would be redundant if it\r\nwere qualified by other provisions, specifically section 95(1).\r\nAnd I think the statement is very clear, it was directly on point\r\nin contrast to the earlier case which I think was decided in 2005.\r\nAnd our view is that the statutory language is clear, the judgement\r\nis clear, and the latest decision sets out the law. Nevertheless,\r\nI thank the Member for raising it, allowing me to clarify that the\r\ndiscretion is unfettered, and if the issue arises again, we will\r\ncertainly amend, to put that beyond doubt.
\r\n\r\n On the second concern\r\non the power of the Commissioner of Police (CP) to authorise the\r\ncarrying, possession, and so on, of truncheons, handcuffs. Ms Lim's\r\npoint, and again it is a valid point, is about really the abuse\r\nof such powers. A number of our laws provide for law enforcement\r\nofficers to carry such equipment needed for their work. For example,\r\nof course, the Police Force Act, Immigration Act, Misuse of Drugs\r\nAct, including the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). The present\r\namendment supplements those provisions by giving the CP the general\r\npower to authorise the carrying and possession and control of these\r\nequipment. But before he gives any authorisation, the Commissioner must\r\nbe satisfied that it is necessary in the circumstances and appropriate\r\nfor the function to be given. And authorisations would be granted\r\nto law enforcement officers who need to carry or possess the relevant\r\nequipment in the course of their work. And that authorisation will\r\nhave to be stringently assessed; conditions will be imposed on authorised\r\npersons, including proper training for the use of the equipment;\r\nlimits on where, when and the purposes for which the equipment can\r\nbe used; proper safekeeping and issuance of the equipment; and the\r\ntype and specifications of the equipment. And the person who breaches\r\nthe condition will be acting outside his authority to carry, possess,\r\ncontrol or use the equipment. If he does so in a public place, meaning\r\nif he acts contrary to the authorisation in public place, that would\r\nbe a criminal offence. And if there is an unauthorised use of force,\r\nthat may disclose further offences. And those acts will be seriously\r\ninvestigated, any abuse of powers will be disciplined or prosecuted,\r\nand their authorisations will also, of course, be revoked. So I\r\nthank the Member for raising the question and allowing me to set\r\nout the framework within which these powers can be exercised.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim\r\n : Thank you,\r\nSir. Two clarifications for the Minister. The Minister mentioned\r\nin response that, for the MOA amendments, it is envisaged that the\r\nCommissioner of Police (CP) would be authorising law enforcement\r\nofficers to carry such items. But the existing provision actually\r\nforesees people from the private sector doing that. The existing\r\nsection 22(a) talks about private security. I would like the Minister\r\nto clarify whether there are going be, besides private security,\r\nother people from the private sector within CP's radar, for such\r\nauthorisation. Secondly, – it is a suggestion – I wonder if the Ministry\r\nhas considered that for these private sector people, whether there\r\nshould be additional insurance\r\nagainst public liability taken out to protect possible members of\r\nthe public who may need to lodge civil claims for compensation,\r\nat least to ensure that their claims would be met.
\r\nPage: 1067
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr K Shanmugam\r\n : Thank you.\r\nI think I will have to answer both questions on behalf of the Minister\r\nfor Home Affairs. My understanding is that it is not envisaged that\r\npersons other than private security industry professionals are intended\r\nto be the beneficiaries of the exercise of these powers. If there\r\nis a further clarification on that, I would certainly come back.\r\nThat is my understanding of the current position. And on the point\r\nabout insurance: I think it is a fair point that if they have these\r\npowers and there could be potential victims, albeit they will be\r\nacting ultra vires and illegally, nevertheless, I think insurance\r\nis a factor that the Commissioner should take into account before\r\ngiving such authorisation. I accept that.
\r\n\r\n Question put, and agreed\r\nto.
\r\n\r\n Bill accordingly read\r\na Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
\r\n\r\n The House immediately\r\nresolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr K Shanmugam].
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n The Chairman: The\r\ncitation year \"2011\" will be changed to \"2012\", as indicated in\r\nthe Order Paper supplement.
\r\n\r\n \r\n Clauses 1 to 23 inclusive\r\nordered to stand part of the Bill.
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr K Shanmugam\r\n : Mr Deputy\r\nSpeaker, Sir, I beg to move, in page 19, line 28, after \"(8)(a)\",\r\nto insert \", (b)\". Sir, this is to correct a minor drafting omission.
\r\n\r\n \r\n Clause 24, as amended,\r\nordered to stand part of the Bill.
\r\n\r\n \r\n Clauses 25 to 34 inclusive\r\nordered to stand part of the Bill.
\r\n\r\n Bill reported with amendment;\r\nread a Third time and passed.
\r\nPage: 1067
\r\nPage: 1068
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1\r\n Mr Yeo Guat Kwang\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts if he\r\nwill provide an update on the timelines for the introduction and\r\nimplementation of the proposed data protection law and the Do-Not-Call\r\n(DNC) registry.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim\r\n :\r\nLast year, the Government announced that it would introduce a data\r\nprotection law in Singapore to curb the excessive and unauthorised\r\ncollection and use of consumers' personal data, and that the proposed\r\nlaw was expected to be in place by 2012.
\r\n\r\n As data protection is\r\na complex issue with wide-ranging impact, it was necessary to undertake careful\r\nstudy and conduct in-depth consultations with stakeholders in order\r\nto formulate a framework that best meets stakeholders' needs while\r\nproviding adequate safeguards to consumers. As part of the process,\r\nMICA launched a public consultation on 13 September 2011 to seek\r\npublic views on the proposed framework, as well as initial views\r\non whether a national Do-Not-Call (DNC) registry should be set up\r\nin Singapore.
\r\n\r\n In view of the strong\r\npublic interest and support for the proposed DNC registry, a second\r\npublic consultation was launched on 31 October 2011 to seek public\r\nfeedback on the implementation details of the proposed DNC registry.
\r\n\r\n MICA and IDA have reviewed\r\nthe feedback received from the public consultations and are working with\r\nthe Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to draft the proposed Data\r\nProtection Bill, which includes the proposed DNC registry. Another\r\nround of public consultation will be conducted in the first quarter\r\nof 2012 to seek further feedback on the proposed Bill. We expect\r\nto introduce the Data Protection Bill in Parliament by the third\r\nquarter of this year.
\r\n\r\n While the data protection\r\nlaw is expected to be enacted by this year, a sunrise period of\r\nbetween one to two years, during which the data protection law is\r\nenacted but will not come into force, will be provided to allow\r\norganisations sufficient time to put in place the necessary measures\r\nto comply with the law. Based on the feedback we received from the\r\npublic consultation, most were in favour of a one- to two-year sunrise\r\nperiod.
\r\n\r\n As for the DNC registry,\r\nit is expected to be operational approximately one year after the\r\ndata protection law is passed. This period of time is necessary\r\nfor the registry operator to be appointed and to carry out system\r\ndevelopment and testing before the DNC registry goes \"live\".
\r\n