1 Ms Joan Pereira asked\tthe Minister for National Development in view of complaints by owners of HDB BTO projects, how does HDB ensure the quality of its flats and what recourse do owners have when defects have not been rectified to their satisfaction.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, HDB adopts a comprehensive management system to track the construction process of all BTO projects.
First, HDB engages consultants with full-time staff onsite to supervise the construction works. The consultants will set up a supervision system at the site at the beginning of the building project.
Second, HDB keeps a list of recommended building materials and equipment suppliers to prevent the use of sub-standard materials or equipment.
Third, HDB takes a systematic approach to deliver buildings of high structural quality, such as checking that the building piles are constructed to the correct depth.
Fourth, HDB requires the contractor to provide timber mock-ups for the toilets, kitchens, air-con ledges and service yards to be constructed. This will help HDB identify potential design, safety and maintenance issues, and get the contractor to resolve these issues upfront before construction begins.
Fifth, HDB requires samples of actual units to be constructed for each different flat type in the project. Once these sample units are approved, they serve as the benchmark of quality for the entire project.
Sixth, HDB conducts regular audits and deploys its Central Audit Team to perform focused process checks at different stages of construction.
Seventh, HDB's Project Directors also make regular checks on the works for compliance with approved drawings, specifications and work methods.
Eighth, all flats, when completed, will have to pass the handover inspection by HDB. Finishes and fittings are inspected for proper installation and compliance with the required standard. All visible defects found by the inspection team will be rectified before handover.
Ninth, HDB conducts functional tests to check on the mechanical and electrical services installed as well as the water-tightness of bathrooms, windows and external walls.
Finally, HDB conducts a final inspection before the keys are handed over to the buyers.
After the keys are handed over, a one-year Defects Liability Period (DLP) will kick in. During this period, the contractor will be obliged to rectify any other defects that are detected. During the DLP, a Building Service Centre (BSC) is set up in every new precinct to attend to feedback from residents promptly. The BSC will operate for a year on site so that residents have sufficient time to submit their feedback. All feedback to the BSC are monitored closely to ensure defects are rectified in a timely manner and to an acceptable quality standard.
The rectification works will be inspected and certified by HDB's supervising consultant before a joint inspection with the owners is arranged to hand over the unit. For cases where owners are not fully satisfied with the rectification works, they can approach HDB, who will look into very case and take all reasonable efforts to address the owner's concerns. HDB will get the contractor to rectify the defects in accordance with acceptable industry norms.
An objective assessment of the quality of HDB flats is the BCA's Construction Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS) score. This is the industry standard to measure the quality of building projects. Over the years, the quality of BTO flats has improved from a score of 79 in 2003 to 89 in 2014. This is comparable to that of private developments. This reflects HDB's push to secure high quality and workmanship standards for its flats.
While the situation has improved, HDB is continually looking at ways to do better. It will continue to seek improvement in its design, choice of material and construction to improve the quality of its flats.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to ask would the Ministry consider making public on HDB website for each BTO project the nature of complaints and the progress and schedule of rectification works so that it becomes transparent. When this happens, such information not just helps educate the owners on industry norms and standards, but would also better manage expectations.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for her suggestion. The CONQUAS score reflects three components: architectural merit, which is what the Member is concerned about, quality of finish and the build quality; as well as two other components, such as structure and M&E. CONQUAS score for each development, each BTO already reflects the standard, albeit in a numerical nature.
Each BSC will typically receive one-third of the residents approaching them for various issues: complaints, defects as well as requests for information. About 25% of them relate, for example, to water flow. This is because there are water management and flow requirements at the input. The remainder relate to a variety of issues that reflect build quality and other areas. Many of these can be solved and HDB's BSC staff continue to work on this.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification. Can I just check and clarify what recourse does a resident have if the defects were reported within the DLP period, but rectified not to the satisfaction of the resident and the defects continue to persist? Will HDB then consider extending DLP?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, each case will turn on the facts. For specific cases, let us have a look at them. HDB will do what is appropriate and right in the circumstances.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what can the owners do if the contractors or the BSC are reluctant or are dragging their feet in responding to the defect complaints, knowing very well that time is not on the side of the new owners because they have a short window within which they must move in? They know that if they can drag further, the likelihood is that the owners will just accept the defects. So, what can the new owners do? How can we help them?
Secondly, my sense on the ground is that in some of the projects that I have encountered, there are really quite a number of defects. The HDB officers are just not able to cope with them. Manpower resource is a problem and they may not be empowered to do some of the things to rectify certain defects. It always comes upon the contractor. The contractor will again try to use the default response and push back and say, \"No, it could be due to some other things\". How do we help the new owners so that they have a positive experience moving into the new flats?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, HDB sets a 14-day period as a standard for contractors to rectify defects that are reported. Of course, if the defect needs more work, on exceptional basis, these would take more time. Based on the statistics that we have, some 95% of these defects reported through BSCs are rectified within 14 days. Some take longer.
If the Member or his residents are aware of these incidences where they feel that the contractors are dragging their feet, alert the BSC and HDB, and he can alert us.
As for the capacity of HDB branch offices and BSCs to cope with the number of issues that are raised, let us know which areas are of concern. We will look to enhancing them. Already, HDB has increased the number of staffing at BSCs to deal with the issues that are surfaced by residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demand and Supply of Heavy Vehicle Parking Lots","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) how does the current number of heavy vehicle parking lots measure up with the current number of such vehicles and the demand for these lots; and (b) whether there are plans to review the location and availability of such lots.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (for the Minister for National Development) (Mr Desmond Lee): Madam, currently, there are 34,400 heavy vehicles in Singapore and about 44,170 heavy vehicle parking lots island-wide. There are more lots than there are heavy vehicles. Seventy six percent of the lots are provided by the private sector, with the rest by URA and HDB.
We recognise that there is demand for more public heavy vehicle parks near housing estates as drivers prefer to park near where they live. However, there are practical difficulties to provide more heavy vehicle parking lots in residential estates. First, these estates are highly built up; second, land is needed for housing and other community uses residents need; and third, we also receive feedback of residents' concerns on noise and above all, safety arising from heavy vehicular traffic in or near residential areas.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of business owners to have parking solutions for the vehicles they own and also to work out with their drivers appropriate transport options to commute to work, especially for those who have to drive during the wee hours.
\t\tAssoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. There are quite a few occasions where I have come across drivers who actually have to sleep in the vehicles because they really cannot find a heavy vehicle parking lot and they have to park by the roadside somewhere and they are worried about summonses.
I was wondering whether the Ministry can do some kind of review. We understand the disamenities that can arise from heavy vehicles parking close to residential areas, but perhaps a review targeted to specific areas would be useful as well.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, perhaps to set the Member's concerns in the context of the nature of this issue, let me start out by saying that LTA currently requires every heavy vehicle to secure an overnight heavy vehicle parking lot at an LTA-approved vehicle parking area. And the Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC), to that effect, needs to be produced before: one, a heavy vehicle is registered; two, before road tax is renewed; and three, before the ownership of the heavy vehicle is transferred.
Technically, every single heavy vehicle that runs on the road in Singapore already has a designated lot and a VPC. Otherwise, they cannot be driving. The drivers that the Member referred to, there are already designated lots for their vehicles, by way of the VPC.
I said earlier that numerically, there are more lots than there are vehicles. The problem that the Member articulated in context is largely one of localised mismatch of supply and demand. There are a variety of instances, but let me draw to the House's attention, three situations that we can encounter.
The first situation is business owners want to park their vehicles after the working shift, near to their business premises. It is a factor of production; they went to keep it nearby for servicing, maintenance, security and so on. But they cannot find lots, because the parking in that area is heavily subscribed.
The second situation is a bit more interesting. Business owners have a VPC for their vehicle, that means they have a certificate and a lot, but they are not permitted to park in the lot for which they bought the VPC. Sometimes, we find that it is because the private operators of that particular parking lot is misusing the space, for example, using it to store goods, equipment for his own vehicles. So, it is a phantom lot. It is a VPC on paper; the business owner buys it, can renew road tax and all, but for all purposes and intents, the business owner does not have a lot and the driver bears the brunt of it.
The third situation is probably the one that Members see the most. The vehicle owner has secured the VPC but the driver prefers instead to park as close to home as possible, often, in and around HDB residential estates. But there are not enough of such lots and there is a waiting queue. I said earlier in my reply that these lots are scarce. They are located in heavily built-up areas. There is demand for land and there is a lot of security and safety concerns. In these situations, the drivers have difficulty getting to and from the lot in which the owner has gotten. The owner just gets a lot but leaves it to the driver to sort out his own commute. If it is ending work at 11.00 pm, midnight or starting work at 2.00 am to 3.00 am, for some drivers, that can be a challenge. It is largely because the company, the employer does not provide for that commute.
We will look to address the three big scenarios in a number of ways. For the first situation, we plan to inject more heavy parking lots in industrial estates where business owners have a lot of demand. For example, URA and JTC will continue to mandate the building of heavy vehicle parks in heavy industrial developments. The Member may like to know that since two years ago, since 2014, successful tenderers of selected Government Land Sale sites for industrial development have been required to build and to co-locate a multi-storey heavy vehicle park with their industrial development because it then supplements the spaces in that area.
For new industrial estates and whenever older industrial estates are being re-developed, both HDB and JTC will inject more heavy vehicle parking. This will be particularly useful for HDB industrial estates being redeveloped because they are not that far from some of our HDB estates.
For the second situation, the phantom lots, it is an issue of enforcement. The drivers who are faced with this ought to make a report so that the proper action can be taken.
For the third situation, and this is the one we are most sympathetic about, when employers get a lot and it is far from the driver's home and the company does not provide or does not wish to provide a service to bring the driver to work. We are looking at how best, through a number of levers, to get companies and businesses to meet the transport and commuting needs of their drivers. For public heavy vehicle parks that are at the fringes of residential estates, URA is looking at putting bicycle racks to enable the drivers to cycle home, if they wish to.
There are a number of areas that we need to look at and it is not an issue that is one dimensional.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry of National Development (MND) will consider other options. I raised this during the Committee of Supply (COS) last year, which is about using other car park places available at night. For example, sports stadiums. If you go to a sports stadium, the car parks at night are totally empty because there is nobody in the stadium. Can we not think about converting such places to become parking lots for heavy vehicles on a temporary basis?
Essentially, we are talking about more efficient use of land. Whenever we talk about heavy vehicle car park lots, most of the time in the day, they are empty. So, we are keeping them empty in the day, only to be used at night. Can we not think of a way where we have lots of car park spaces that are for commercial or sports use and they are available at night, and we allow the heavy vehicle drivers to park there.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his suggestion, which we have noted from various previous COS sessions. A whole variety of out-of-the-box solutions is certainly being looked at all the time. The idea about parking space at stadiums, at schools for school buses, all these are things we look at. We need to be mindful, of course, about the concerns that are raised about safety. If the car park is near or within residential estates, then, that poses concerns that residents will raise.
\tMr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): What about working with industry associations or unions? Individual companies arranging transport for one person may be difficult, but as an association or union, perhaps, they can cobble up enough companies and drivers to run a transport service circuit to address this location mismatch.
\tMr Desmond Lee: About 92% of all heavy vehicles are owned by companies with the remainder being owned by individuals, maybe they are sole proprietors or otherwise. So, 92% owned by businesses large and small and even medium size. Apart from working with businesses, we will also look at associations to see how they can come in and play a part. I thank the Member for his suggestion.
\tMr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Currently, there is a situation where the company buys the VPC for a location in Changi but the driver stays in Jurong. Another company may have bought the VPC in Jurong but the driver stays in Changi. Can we not have a matching system where they can just swop the VPC? Because currently, on its own, the company would not have the resources and the network to realise that there is an opposite match.
\tMr Desmond Lee: This is about coordination at the broader level. From the company's point of view, if they know the driver lives in Jurong, they should try to look for a heavy vehicle park that is not that far away. As I said, there are about 30,000-plus vehicles and 40,000-plus lots. Businesses can play a part and they can have a conversation with their drivers to get a better sense of what their needs are. There are many levels where people can play a part.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Replacement of MRT Parts and Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) whether any of the MRT's components or systems are operating past the manufacturer's recommended end-of-life date and/or end-of-life operating cycle; (b) if so, what is the planned approach to replacing these components or systems; and (c) what measures does the Ministry plan to take to ensure a systematically timely replacement of MRT parts and systems.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mdm Speaker, the recommended lifespan of train components and systems is taken into account when decisions have to be made as regard their replacement. In practice, many components are replaced before their expiry, for safety and reliability reasons. This is because how long they will actually last depends on many other factors, such as how often they are used, how they are treated and maintained, as well as the operating environment.
It is the responsibility of the train operators to make this detailed assessment and replace deteriorated components earlier than their end of life if necessary, to maintain the safety, reliability and performance of the system. This is especially so for critical components and those with safety implications. This expectation of the operators is set out in the Rapid Transit Systems Act, the Licence Agreement with the operators and the Code of Practice on Maintenance, amongst others.
To further ensure timely replacement and upgrades, LTA has been working with the operators to install condition-monitoring tools – tools that can continuously monitor the condition of the components that they are interested in – as well as sensors, when they become available in the market. They also jointly monitor and analyse data and trends to try to anticipate any asset deterioration so as to eliminate such risks. LTA will continue to work with the operators to further tighten the maintenance and replacement regime. This is a top priority for us.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for providing the answer to my question. I have a few supplementary questions. The first is a clarification: I am not sure I heard the Minister correctly as to whether he has answered the first part of my question on whether any of the MRT's components or systems are operating past the manufacturers' recommended end-of-life date and end-of-line operating cycle.
My next supplementary question: if a certain part has already expired according to the manufacturer's recommendation, but for some reason SMRT has still decided that they are in working condition, what will be the margin of tolerance that the Minister feels may be acceptable? Would it be six months to a year or more?
My next supplementary question: would the Ministry consider requiring the transport operator to have a proper rail asset renewal schedule for the expired or soon-to-be expiring parts, even if the parts do not seem to be breaking down yet, so that we can stay on top of the curve as far as system performance is concerned?
My next supplementary question: would the Ministry consider publishing input KPIs to measure parts replacement and maintenance works, setting targets and benchmarks against other MRT systems to track not just that the inspections are done regularly but also indicators like the ratio of engineers to the length of tracks and proportion of parts past their end-of-line dates?
My last supplementary question: under the new contracting model, who pays for and is responsible for triggering parts replacement. Is it LTA or SMRT? If there is a change from the current situation, when will this take place, given that negotiations between LTA and SMRT have dragged on for two years or so?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank the Member for the questions. It is quite a number of questions, but actually my reply has contained the essence of what I wanted to say. Trains are a very complicated system, much more complicated than, say, cars that most people are familiar with.
Madam, I hope the Member was in this House when my GRC colleague, Minister Ong Ye Kung, gave his speech, which I thought was an excellent speech. He talked about evolution and the way going forward. He said we should have \"faster legs, bigger hearts and wiser minds\", and in particular, the point about wiser minds. His point was that when things are simpler, it is possible to distill it into one figure or one rule, and then, we just go \"law by law\". But when the situation becomes more complicated, then you would require judgement, which requires hands-on experience and with time, you will develop judgement because you cannot just simply go \"law by law\".
So, if we applied it to preventive maintenance, cars, especially new cars during their first five years, it is simple. Anyone who buys a car knows that the dealer will give him a book: first 5,000 kilometres, send the car into a workshop; the next 10,000 kilometres, do this; the following 10,000 kilometres, do that.
When it becomes more complicated, like a train, which requires interactions between many components, systems and parts, it is no longer so straightforward. That is why I said that a manufacturer's recommendation is just a reference, a guide. Specifically, when do you replace it? That must take into account various other factors which are included in my reply.
In fact, we have gone beyond this. It is just no longer a case of \"Well, just replace those parts because manufacturers say year x\". We are now often in situations where parts are replaced, not because they are going to reach or about to expire, but because of obsolescence. Just this morning, I read an industry article talking about German trains. The knowledgeable analyst made a comment that because trains took many years to manufacture and trains nowadays contain a lot of electronic components, and, dramatising a little, he said that there are occasions when as soon as a new train is delivered to the operator, some of the components are already in obsolescence, to the extent that the supplier of the components may no longer maintain them.
The report talked about the development in Germany where they have an engineering firm who decided to set up a factory to take care of these obsolescent components where no more suppliers want to deal with them. In layman terms, you know that some of the early-generation PCs are still functional but nobody maintains them anymore. In that case, the operators do have some problems.
In short, sometimes, we have to replace before the expiry date, even though they are still functioning, because of obsolescence and sometimes, better, more reliable and easier to maintain parts are now available. That is the situation we are working in.
On asset replacement and who does it, that depends on ownership. If I own the assets, then, I take charge and I decide on when I should replace them. But you must have a reason if you want to vary or adopt a particular approach, to decide if you want to keep it for a longer or shorter time. There must be valid engineering reasons for doing so and that has to be captured and explained if you are confronted by the regulator.
The Member asked can we publish KPIs for every component: when are you going to replace this, and so on and so forth? I suppose you can. But, Madam, as you probably know, I have been spending a lot of my time visiting depots because I wanted to talk to the people on the ground and also see their working life.
The first time I visited one depot, I was curious to look at their warehouse where they stocked all the spare parts. It was a huge place. They have to make use of automated warehousing with computerised forklifts to move the stock. I asked, \"How many items?\" It is a five-digit figure. Tens of thousands of components, which just shows how complex a train system is. So, if you publish for each item and track when you are going to replace this, and so on, I think it would be such a mass of data that I do not think it conveys much useful information.
The bottom line is this. Rail reliability is an engineering problem. Let us let our engineers solve it the engineers' way. As users, commuters, commentators and some armchair critics, you can just look at it from the outcome point of view; say to yourself, \"When I need a train, is it there?\" Yes, we are not quite where we want it to be, but we are making improvements. This is a top priority for myself, for my Ministry. Members could just look at me; look at my hair! I think it is mess of duckweed, multiple colours! I promised my wife last night that I will make time to go and dye it before Chinese New Year.
Just to conclude the story. Yesterday, I talked about my cholesterol. This morning, when I went to see the cardiologist, I expected it. He upped my dosage again. Over lunch just now, I was chatting with some colleagues and they asked, \"Well, what has changed in the last few months?\" They asked if I had changed my lifestyle or diet. I said, \"No, nothing\". But I can think of one change, which is I changed my job. So, maybe that is the reason. I believe I have answered the questions, Madam.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pedestrian Safety on Footpaths Open to Cyclists","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for Transport in view of the recent instance of a child being hit by a cyclist at Serangoon Park Connector, what are the measures taken to safeguard vulnerable persons on footpaths such as children and the elderly.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, the incident to which the Member referred to concerned a three-year-old boy. I believe his name is Kyle. His parents had posted a photograph of him after the incident on social media. Some of us would have seen the photograph. Kyle suffered nasty bruises around his mouth. His lips were swollen. His teeth loosened. As a result of that, he could not eat or sleep very well. It has been about three weeks since the incident. I hope he has fully recovered by now.
His parents were very sensible and mature in their handling of the matter. Even though they posted the photograph on social media and it went viral, they made it very clear that their purpose was not to denounce the cyclist but to alert other cyclists of the potential risks when they use shared pathways, such park connectors.
Indeed, although such cycling is allowed, cyclists must always remember that they have a duty of care not to endanger others through inconsiderate, reckless or irresponsible behaviour. In this incident, as is the case for other accidents, the Police will investigate and, if the cyclists are found to have been errant, the Police will take appropriate action against them. At the same time, LTA is stepping up enforcement efforts, it is developing a National Cyclist Education Programme with the Singapore Road Safety Council. It is clear that we do not just need enforcement. We need more education in order to further promote safe and considerate cycling.
The Active Mobility Advisory Panel led by my colleague, Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal, is also reviewing the rules and safety guidelines for cyclists and users of personal mobility devices. The panel is expected to release its report in the second quarter of the year.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. It is an issue that residents in Clementi, both cyclists as well as pedestrians, have raised on how to peacefully and happily co-exist and share spaces together.
Would the Ministry consider mandating the use of licensed plates on bicycles to enhance accountability in the unfortunate event of accidents and also to protect cyclists from cases of mistaken identity?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is a pertinent question, whether licensing will help. And one can imagine the benefits of doing so. With licensing, you could maintain a register and, in the event there is an accident, presumably we can trace who might have caused it. But it really depends on whether the register is regularly updated and whether the information which it contains is accurate.
Years ago, I was living and working in China, and I remember buying a bicycle. It was a pink one. My memory is fading but I can remember having to give my name, address and, of course, I had to pay a fee. And then I was given a small little plate to affix to my pink bike. So, there was a register that said who had purchased this bike. When I finished my posting and was packing to go home, this bicycle just would not fit. So, I gave it away and, if you ask me whom I gave it to, I honestly cannot remember. Quite frankly, whoever was maintaining that register is not any wiser.
This is just one of the implementation difficulties. As Members of Parliament on the ground, we have also encountered in void decks sometimes abandoned bicycles, unclaimed bicycles still chained to the bicycle racks. We are at a loss as to what to do because we cannot figure out who owns it and what will happen if we just removed it.
Bear in mind also that bicycles are owned by people of a very wide age range. So, you could have children owning bicycles. They use it for a few years and then the family decides to hand it down to someone else. There will be movement of these bikes and we will have to decide where to draw the line.
These would be some of the practical difficulties involved in licensing bicycles. I am not sure whether in China they still maintain such registers but, in fact, most countries do not have licensing for bicycles.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, the Senior Minister of State has said something about education for safe and considerate cycling. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) would think about introducing speed limits for cycling at parks or park connectors?
Just to share that I was doing a jog at Gardens by the Bay East and I had cyclists zipping by at high speed as if they were on a racing track. I thought it was very dangerous because there were also young children running along the park connectors. It may be a Ministry of National Development (MND) issue because we should not really design park connectors with too-wide bicycle paths that allow bicycles to speed.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Lim, can you put the question, please?
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan: Yes. Would MOT introduce speed limits for cycling at parks or park connectors?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, I believe this is one of the questions that Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal is considering as part of his panel's work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Professional Assessment of Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 \t \tAssoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development what are the current waiting times for children and adults with disabilities to get their assessments made by psychologists, speech therapists and other trained personnel.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Madam, the waiting times to have a disability diagnosed or assessed depend on a number of factors, including the purpose of the assessment. As at October 2015, for pre-schoolers aged six years and below, who have developmental problems, the median wait time for an appointment for an initial assessment by a doctor at KKH and NUH is between seven and 17 days. For children of schooling age, the corresponding median waiting time for an appointment at KKH, NUH and IMH is between six and 19 days. Compared to 2014, both figures have shown an improvement.
Some of the children need to be assessed for suitability for early intervention programmes. For example, the Development Support Programme (DSP) supports children with milder needs who are in mainstream preschools. The time taken for assessment for suitability for the DSP is below four weeks from the time of referral. The Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) serves preschoolers with more severe needs. The average time taken between referral and assessment for suitability was about three months in 2015.
Students in our mainstream schools can be referred for assessment conducted by MOE psychologists. Such referrals are prioritised jointly between the school and the MOE psychologist based on the urgency and severity of the child's needs. In 2015, the median time taken to complete a case assessment was about 2.5 months.
Adults with disabilities may also require assessments for suitability for a range of Government-funded programmes. The time taken from referral to assessment for day care services was around three months in 2015. For services, such as home-based care and drop-in services, the waiting time was between one and three months.
After assessment, some of the children and adults may have to find a place to receive the appropriate service. MSF is working with VWOs and other Government agencies to further improve both the waiting times for assessment, as well as the time for subsequent placements into the most suitable services. We will continue to expand the capacity and improve the delivery of services for both children and adults with disabilities. We are also working on manpower initiatives, such as developing hubs that employ psychologists and therapists so that their services, which are needed for assessments and intervention, can be rendered more efficiently.
\t\tAssoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I just have two points to raise. Firstly, several months ago, I was seeing parents who approached me because the waiting time was ranging from six months to over a year. But if the response is that the waiting times have improved, then I am heartened to hear so. I hope that we can continue to monitor this because, as you can imagine, the parents are anxious when it is an initial diagnosis that needs to be made, especially in the case of EIPIC for infants and children where I think they are really starting very early these days. The earlier the intervention starts, the better the success and outcomes.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I agree with Assoc Prof Fatimah's suggestion and I would like to assure her that we are looking at this trend, keeping a close eye on it. And particularly, for EIPIC, we are also increasing, the number of places available. Three new centres with about 400 places will be opened in the second half of the year. Following that, we have also planned for three other centres within the next three years. All in all, by 2018, we should be able to have 3,200 EIPIC places in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Exposure to Haze","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide data on the long-term impact of Singaporean children's exposure to haze in terms of the likelihood of developing respiratory illnesses, including chronic conditions such as asthma, later in life; and (b) what is the estimated healthcare cost of this impact.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, in Singapore, transboundary haze is a short-term, episodic, recurrent event with varying severity every year. There is currently no data both locally or internationally, that looks into the long-term health effect of short-term, episodic exposure to the haze.
Researching this would be highly challenging as any results would be based on observational studies only which would not be able to show a definite cause-and-effect relationship. Hence, it would be difficult to ascertain the direct long-term health effects due to the episodic exposure to haze as there could be many contributing factors to the long-term health outcome we are measuring. For example, it would be difficult to determine that intermittent exposure to haze 20 years ago would have caused the chronic obstructive airways disease in a person, since it could also have been caused by other factors such as smoking, previous lung infection, or existing lung diseases.
However, overseas studies on long-term health impact have been based on long-term exposures, which are different from the pattern of exposure here. These studies showed that continuous, long-term exposure to air pollutants over several years may result in lung function abnormalities in children and subsequently, in adulthood. This could lead to greater susceptibility to the effects of ageing, infection and other pollutants, such as tobacco and smoke in adults.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that as parents, we are concerned about the impact of haze on our school-going children. The short-term health impact of haze is well documented for children and adults alike. Short-term exposure to high levels of haze particles may cause irritation of the eyes, throat and nose. Such irritation usually resolves on its own. In individuals with pre-existing chronic heart or lung diseases, short-term exposure may trigger an episode or exacerbate the underlying diseases, such as an asthma attack.
Besides widely publicised health advisories, we have put in place several measures to protect and enhance the health and well-being of Singaporeans.
First, the Haze Subsidy Scheme (HSS) assists children, the elderly and the lower- to middle-income Singaporeans with their outpatient haze-related medical treatments. We provided subsidies of more than $3.3 million in 2015 which helped with over 77,000 haze-related attendances.
Second, my Ministry has also worked with community partners to distribute we-care packs and masks to the needy, ensuring there are adequate supplies of protective masks in the market, educating the public and raising awareness of the health effects of the haze. In addition, my Ministry also welcomed the efforts by ST Dynamics to develop N95-equivalent masks that can fit children's faces. We note that preliminary data from ST Dynamics indicate that the mask should pose no safety concerns when used with the micro-ventilator. To ensure that it is safe for children to wear the masks even without the micro-ventilator, there are plans for clinical trials locally. In the meantime, we have stockpiled these smaller sized masks to ensure that there would be sufficient supply available to the general public.
Third, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has school continuity plans in place to take appropriate haze management measures.
Two days ago, my colleague from MOE outlined the move to provide air purifiers to all primary and secondary schools to further enhance the well-being of our schoolchildren. Most importantly, we want to prevent haze from occurring in the first place. To this end, Singapore is working closely with neighbouring countries to tackle the haze issue, which is largely caused by irresponsible business practices. The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution is the key framework for ASEAN Member States to work collectively and take concerted action against haze. Singapore has also led the development of the ASEAN Haze Monitoring System which would help to increase transparency and accountability of errant companies that are responsible for the forest fires.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive and helpful reply. Notwithstanding the difficulty of predicting longer term health outcomes, would the Ministry consider developing an estimate for what the long-term health impact would be in terms of the healthcare cost that would have to be borne by the Singapore Healthcare System, both Government and consumers and companies in the long term, from our children suffering exposure to haze so that we can use that dollar figure, even if it is an estimate, derived from other international studies that have been done – as the Minister of State acknowledged – so that we can use that estimate as a planning parameter to decide how much to invest in haze-proofing our schools and ensuring our children are better protected against haze? This approach to policymaking and decision making may be helpful to assess the future impact, so as to decide investment today.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for the suggestion. As I have mentioned in my reply, it is indeed rather difficult to ascertain the long-term health effects of short-term exposures like those that we have encountered in Singapore. Having said that, I think, we will continue to look at what the other countries have done; the studies that they have conducted. And whatever information that we can get from these studies, we will definitely put them into our planning norms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ambulance Evacuation for Accident Victims and Seriously Ill Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked \tthe Minister for Home Affairs what are the measures that the Ministry is considering to put in place to ensure accident victims and seriously ill patients continue to receive timely ambulance evacuation to hospitals
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)'s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to more than 155,000 calls in 2014. This means that there are more than 400 calls a day. Despite the high volume of calls, SCDF has responded to 83% of these cases within 11 minutes in 2014. This was an improvement from 78% in 2013. The 2015 figures are still being finalised and will be released in February.
The number of emergency ambulance calls has been increasing at a rate of about 5% a year. At this rate of growth, we can expect the number of calls to double in 15 years' time. However, it will not be possible to grow our number of ambulance and ambulance crew at the same rate. So, SCDF has adopted a number of strategies to cope with this trend.
First, SCDF will be increasingly adopting a tiered response model so that resources are channelled to areas of greatest need. For example, to ensure swift response to critical cases where time is of the essence, SCDF deploys Fire Bikers in addition to emergency ambulances. Equipped with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) and other medical equipment, these Fire Bikers have been effective in ensuring that cardiac arrest patients receive prompt medical attention before the arrival of the emergency ambulance. In the case of industrial accidents or road traffic accidents, fire fighting vehicles may arrive earlier than an ambulance. These fire fighters would be able to render the initial assistance to stabilise the patient before the arrival of the emergency ambulance.
Second, SCDF has been implementing initiatives to equip and train members of public to render assistance. This is important as every minute counts for certain time-critical cases, such as cardiac arrests. For example, SCDF's \"Save-a-Life\" initiative trains and mobilises volunteers to respond to cardiac arrest cases. As part of this initiative, SCDF has begun installing AEDs in public spaces for use during medical emergencies and created a mobile app to alert the Community First Responders should a case happen nearby where they are.
Together, these strategies will allow SCDF to optimise its limited resources to deliver swift medical support to critical cases and calibrate its response for non-critical cases.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive answer. If I may just ask a supplementary question: he has mentioned the time criticality and indeed, as a medical professional, we are often aware of time critical situations such as acute myocardial infarction, which lay persons understand as a heart attack. There is data showing that the door-to-balloon time – the time from getting the patient evacuated to getting the angioplasty – can be important, in such cases. So, in a situation where the ambulance crew has a working diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction, would the ambulance prioritise evacuation to a hospital with the facilities and staff for coronary artery angioplasty?
\tMr Amrin Amin: In a medical emergency, the timely arrival of patients at the nearest hospital with the appropriate facilities can make the difference between life and death and that is very important. Based on this principle, SCDF conveys patients requiring emergency medical treatment to the nearest available MOH-designated hospital based on the fastest possible route.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Construction of Ramps at Main Entrances of Selected HDB flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked\tthe Minister for National Development whether HDB can include the construction of portable/fixed ramps at main entrances of HDB flats that have more than a single step as part of the Enhancement for Active Seniors funding package/scheme.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme offers a set of standard and cost-effective items to make the flat more elder-friendly. These items include ramps for single-step entrances. For flats with more than a one-step difference, there are technical, space as well as configuration challenges to building a standard ramp. These challenges are not insurmountable, but they require customised solutions to fit the various flat configurations and resident needs.
And this is why our approach is to let flat owners identify and choose their preferred solutions from among the wide range of commercially available options in the market. What HDB does then is to work with the relevant agencies and the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to assist those who need help in implementing these solutions. And for those who need help with financial assistance, they can also seek assistance from ComCare, SG Enable, as well as various VWOs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proper Maintenance of Perimeter Areas Accessible by Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked\tthe Minister for National Development what can be done to owners/lessees of commercial premises/land who fail to properly maintain their perimeter/surrounding areas including footpaths and roads which the public and pedestrians have access to.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, it is the responsibility of the private landowners and lessees to maintain their facilities and surrounding areas on their land. So, we are very clear it is the responsibility of these landowners.
For specific cases where public safety is concerned, Government agencies can and will carry out enforcement action against the private owner. For example, SCDF will carry out enforcement action if there is any infringement of fire safety regulations. Building and Construction Authority (BCA) may issue Notices to Maintain under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act if commercial buildings and their surrounding structures are not properly maintained in a serviceable condition. Under the Street Works Act, LTA may also require private footpaths and roads that are in a dangerous or defective condition to be rectified.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Minister for his reply. I will ask this particular question, I think he is very familiar to the Boon Lay constituency, certain parts of the constituency where there are some commercial premises in which the roads which are publicly accessible are actually in disrepair. I hope the Ministry will take action to ensure that these potholes and other disrepair would be rectified so that the senior citizens and those who make use of those private areas, but publicly accessible roads, are not in any danger.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, I have moved from Boon Lay to Marsiling, Yew Tee but I have not forgotten my old constituency, so I would like to assure the Member that we will follow up on the areas of concern and get the relevant agencies to take enforcement action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Free Parking at NParks Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked\tthe Minister for National Development whether NParks will consider providing (i) free parking at its facilities for the public for the first two hours and at off-peak times; and (ii) free parking for residents holding a season HDB parking label within a reasonable vicinity and, if not, a concessionary parking rate for such residents.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, most of our parks are within 400 metres or a 10-minute walk from residential areas. Our parks are also well-linked by the extensive park connector network and are served by public transport. Aligned with Singapore's car-lite vision, we encourage Singaporeans to walk, cycle or take public transport to our parks.
For those who need to drive, parking spaces are provided but these are limited. These car park lots are charged to regulate usage and to ensure availability of lots for park users.
Since September last year, NParks has revised the car park operating hours for various car parks in seven parks, to effect charging from 8.30 in the morning to 6.30 the next morning, instead of doing so on a 24-hour basis. This is to benefit early morning park users, many of whom are seniors and retirees. NParks has been monitoring the usage patterns in these car parks and will consider extending this scheme to other parks.
The users of our parks come from all over the island. Therefore, it would be difficult to justify why those staying within the vicinity of a park should be given preferential treatment and accorded free or concessionary parking rates, over those who live further away. In fact, for those staying near a park, we would want to encourage them to leave their cars at the HDB parking lots and walk or cycle to the park.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answer. If I may ask just one supplementary question, which has been very much on the minds of my Clementi residents who are affected by the change in policy. Would MND be able to share to what extent car park occupancy was reduced following NParks' decision to start imposing charges for car-parking at these public parks?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, let me first say that there are 71 car parks managed by NParks, of which 42 remain free. There is charging in 26 car parks: 18 since last year, eight from before that. Three are under re-development.
Some car parks managed by NParks were observed to have occupancies from 60% to about 100% prior to the implementation of charged parking at these more popular parks. And at times, park users were unable to find a car lot due to high demand and low turnover because people were not leaving.
NParks also received feedback over many years that some non-park users, such as weekend car owners, second-hand and rental car dealers, goods vehicle owners and vehicles belonging to residents living nearby, have been parking at these free car parks and, therefore, depriving genuine park users who need to drive from parking space. In fact, last year, a total of 1,178 Notices of Offences were issued by NParks for such misuse of car parks. It takes time and enforcement effort and there is a need to investigate circumstances.
Following the introduction of charged parking at those car parks, occupancy at car parks with such high demand has reduced to a more manageable 20% to 60%, depending on the time of the day.
As I said earlier, to benefit early morning park users, many are seniors and retirees, they go almost every day, even on weekdays, and if they need to drive, we have revised the operating hours for various car parks in those seven parks since September last year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Gondolas in High-rise Residential Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Zainal Sapari asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) whether the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) will approve the installation of gondola points in the private areas of flats in high-rise residential developments; and (b) what recourse do home owners have to request developers to use alternative gondola systems that are not installed at the expense of their family safety.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): BCA does not regulate the use of gondola systems nor specify the location of gondola points to anchor the system.
Such gondola points or other building maintenance systems are provided by the developer to facilitate maintenance works on the building facade, such as cyclical maintenance, cleaning or repairs. These gondola points are typically provided at the roof of the development and, in the case of some private residential developments, they may also be provided at the external wall, planter, air conditioner ledge, roof terrace, balcony of some of these units.
Developers will generally inform home buyers of the gondola points and the need for access through their Sale and Purchase Agreement. Any request to change the gondola points or system is a contractual matter home buyers need to settle with the developer and, subsequently, the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST).
The safety requirements for the erection and operation of gondolas are governed under MOM's Workplace Safety and Health Act. Gondolas are required to be of good construction and sound material, and adequately and securely supported. Operators of these gondolas are required to be trained and competent. These measures ensure the safe use of gondolas in high-rise residential developments. Members of the public who are concerned about the safe usage of such gondolas can call MOM's hotline at 6317 1111 to report workplace safety and health violations or lapses.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Would the Ministry agree that developers must opt for alternative gondola points or systems if proven viable to fix these points at common areas without resorting to installing these points at the private balcony areas of home owners, which would compromise the family's safety and privacy?
\tMr Desmond Lee: These developers generally inform home buyers of where these gondola points are – it is all in the documentation – and the need for access in order to do so. Home buyers should engage the developer on any request regarding gondola points or systems. If they have difficulty, then of course, at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) or Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) it may be necessary for residents to reflect this request to their Managing Council.
\tMr Zainal Sapari: Madam, in most cases, the clauses in the Sales and Purchase Agreement are very generic and not being made very clear to the potential home owners. Should there be any dispute, who could actually mediate the developers and the home owners in such cases?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, I believe in some of these Sale and Purchase Agreements for condominium developments, you may find or tend to find clauses that provide for mediation. One institution that can help the process is the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC). Of course, they can approach the developer directly or go for an AGM or EGM. If they approach URA, and some residents have done so, URA will facilitate by getting the developer to look seriously at the residents' concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inconsistent MRT Fare-pricing along Downtown Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked\tthe Minister for Transport (a) why are the fares for Downtown Line (DTL) stations between Bukit Panjang and Newton and between Bukit Panjang and Bugis inconsistent and exceptionally high; and (b) whether this is a fair and logical basis to compute fares for commuters.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Madam, fares should be based on the actual distance covered by commuters. However, different commuters may take different routes on different MRT lines to connect between two stations. To compute the fare, the Public Transport Council (PTC) uses the route which enables the shortest time of travel.
Before Downtown Line 2 (DTL2), commuters travelling from Bukit Panjang to Newton or Bugis would have had to use the North-South East-West (NSEW) Lines. With DTL2, a faster route is now available. Logically, PTC should then use this DTL2 routing to compute the fares. Unfortunately, while this would mean lower fares for adult commuters, it would result in higher fares for two other groups of commuters: the seniors and the disabled.
Fares from Bukit Panjang to Newton or Bugis for these two vulnerable groups are currently $0.88 based on the NSEW Lines routing. Had PTC used the DTL2 routing, our seniors and disabled would have had to pay a higher fare of $0.92. This is because of the way their concessionary fares are calculated and capped, coupled with the fact that higher fares are charged for travel on completely underground MRT lines like DTL2 where the stations are all air-conditioned, which incurs higher operating costs.
PTC has, therefore, applied an additional fare charging principle: it will use the route for fare calculation only if all commuters will enjoy lower or the same fares. For DTL2, this is, indeed, the case for almost all journeys.
With DTL2, with so many stations, it is quite easy to work out different permutations, how many possible journeys can be generated – something like 11,000 possible journeys. Actually, 99% of the journeys will be based on the distance approach to calculating fares. Therefore, commuters using 99% of such journeys will get to enjoy faster time and cheaper fares.
For example, for an adult commuter travelling between Farrer Park and Newton, their fares have come down from $1.09 to $0.93. This is a saving of 15%. DTL2 has saved them both time and cost. However, for a few station pairs, such as Bukit Panjang-Newton and Bukit Panjang-Bugis, PTC has used the old NSEW Line routing to compute the fares so as to ensure that no commuters need to pay higher fares as a result of DTL2. This directly benefits our seniors and disabled, while the fares for all other commuters do not increase. In fact, by adopting this method, it benefits the seniors largely living near Bukit Panjang station. At first, I thought it was in Mayor Teo Ho Pin's constituency but it has turned out to be Mr Liang's constituency.
This method of computation by PTC therefore benefits the seniors and the disabled living in Mr Liang's constituency, without causing any additional cost to all the other commuters. In fact, the other commuters also benefit because of time-saving. If you take DTL2 from Bukit Panjang to Chinatown or wherever, the savings sometimes can be half an hour or 25 minutes.
Understandably, this approach by PTC gives rise to some inconsistency, some anomaly, in the fare framework. But PTC did so in order to take care of the interests of the more vulnerable commuter groups amongst us. I think it is a commendable principle on the part of PTC.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Patents Developed by Government Research Institutes and Autonomous Universities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what is the breakdown of the number of patents developed by Government research centres/institutes and Autonomous Universities in the past 10 years which have been commercialised by the private sector by way of (i) licensing via A*STAR's Exploit Technologies Pte Ltd (ETPL); (ii) licensing without going through ETPL; (iii) mechanisms other than licensing via ETPL; and (iv) mechanisms other than licensing without going through ETPL; and (b) for each group, what is the breakdown by Government-linked companies, public-listed companies, MNCs and local SMEs.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran): Mdm Speaker, from 2004 to 2014, a total of 1,759 patents were awarded to Singapore's public sector research performers in A*STAR and our Institutions of Higher Education.
A*STAR and MOE track the total number of licensing agreements executed by Exploit Technologies Pte Ltd (ETPL) and the Autonomous Universities (AUs) including those that involve Intellectual Property (IP) that is not patented.
The total number of licensing agreements signed by ETPL with private sector companies between FY2004 and FY2014 was 920. Of these, about 80% were with SMEs and start-ups.
The number of licensing agreements signed by the Technology Transfer Offices in our AUs from FY2008 to FY2014 was 418. MOE does not have a breakdown of the number of licensing agreements by corporate segments but plans to start collecting this data from FY2016.
Companies collaborate with our public sector research institutions on R&D in different ways. However, licensing is the primary mode adopted by ETPL and the AUs for the commercialisation of IP. A formal licensing agreement between research performers and companies ensures that both parties entering into such a commercial arrangement fully understand their rights and obligations.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I just have two supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Minister consider creating a more active match-making function or facility among the Government agencies involved, such as SPRING, A*STAR, IDA, and so on, in order to make our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) more aware of the available IP that they can license or commercialise in a more proactive way?
My second supplementary question is: would the Ministry consider creating a facility whereby SMEs may be able to approach the research centres, institutes and universities in some collective way to request if a certain kind of IP can be developed for their commercial purpose; and if there is a research institute or research team that is willing to take that up, to then execute the research and allow the SME to commercialise that IP when it is developed, with some cost and profit-sharing from the Government.
The reason I ask this is because there is a database of IP, there are events to promote this, there is a scheme to attach researchers to SMEs, but I think this sort of match-making and system whereby we can request the institutes to develop IP may be a way to be more proactive to enable our SMEs to really leverage the expertise in our community of researchers in a similar way to, for example, the Fraunhofer model in Germany.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I think, in essence, the question is whether we can have more intermediation between the research performers in the public sector on one hand and the potential users of research on the other.
As I have said in my reply earlier, there are different ways to achieve this. Licensing is but one mechanism. In fact, with many companies, we have joint laboratories which do proto-typing and test-bedding in order to develop new products. We also have research collaboration agreements which may entail a group of research institutes collaborating with one or a group of companies on specific projects.
Also, we do have other efforts in order, to facilitate greater engagement between our companies and our research institutes. For example, A*STAR does an annual SME Day, where SMEs from very diverse sectors are invited to participate, not just those which are already in collaboration but many others, so that they understand the suite of capabilities that are available for them.
As the Member has alluded to, and I will just elaborate for the benefit of all Members, A*STAR does engage our SMEs in a very deliberate fashion.
One mechanism is the Growing Enterprises through Technology Upgrade (GET-Up) programme which essentially allows for the secondment of researchers to these SMEs, whether it is to work on specific ideas or to map out a larger technology blueprint for them. And similarly, we have got Technology Adoption Programme (TAP) where they modularise technology like radio-frequency identification (RFID) and others so that SMEs which are not really capable or keen at this stage to engage in a very deep research, but want simple modular technology that they can plug in to, or that can be plugged into their systems. Those are some of the products that A*STAR has also developed and RFID is one example.
In general, I would say that that has been the mechanism of engagement and we are always open to other ideas on how it can be improved. But I would say that we need effort on both sides: both on the part of the research institutes to reach out and also for the end-users or those who have the need, to also make the effort to find out more and participate actively.
I would say that the trade associations and chambers, particularly those that are focused along sectoral lines like the precision engineering groups and so on, I think they have very good mechanisms through which some of the more broad needs of an industry cluster can be raised by SMEs.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registration of Criminals (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Registration of Criminals Act (Chapter 268 of the 1985 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by Mr Desmond Lee; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on President's Address","subTitle":"Fifth Allotted Day","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [25 January 2016] (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]
'[(proc text) We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'.\" – [Mr Christopher de Souza]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address. In his Address, the President highlighted the need for the Government to partner citizens to shape our common future. He also urged all Members to work closely with the people to write the next chapter together. We must and we shall. As a more diverse society emerges and with a more complex global environment to navigate, we should put our heads together, to take things forward as one people.
Madam, in 2012, we held Our Singapore Conversation to listen to what mattered most to Singaporeans. We heard from some 47,000 Singaporeans, expressing views on matters concerning our livelihood, such as job opportunities and housing. We also heard calls for a more fulfilling pace of life, where we can pursue other aspirations outside of work. There was also interest among many to forge a stronger sense of a national identity and these are all important, and have guided the Government's work in the last few years. This is still work-in-progress.
But we need to adapt how we, as Singaporeans, want Singapore to be run, with the new challenges we face. And as it is evolving quicker than ever, we need everyone to chip in, to make it work for all of us. As Minister Grace Fu said last week, we need all hands on deck to face the challenges ahead. It is time to take action. We want to build a democracy of deeds, where Singaporeans have a greater sense of ownership, responsibility and a greater connection to what it means to be Singaporean.
That is the premise behind the SGfuture engagements launched last November. It is an opportunity for Singaporeans to come forward to share their views and suggestions on how to build a better future for Singapore. These are focused engagement sessions, aimed at looking into specific topics, including the arts, sports, volunteerism, environment and even hawker food culture. These are not just discussions, but brainstorm sessions to establish the next steps on matters that concern us.
I attended one of the sessions last Thursday with over 70 youths. Their enthusiasm was infectious. Ideas came fast and furious, on ways to help other segments of society. For instance, one participant had the idea of building public gyms for people with special needs. Another suggested having retro disco parties for the elderly in the void decks of housing blocks. There are all ideas worth pursuing, so I encouraged them to take it further and, if necessary, consider how they can partner the relevant Government agencies and other organisations to turn these ideas into reality.
Madam, I believe we have all seen on reality TV shows, how it is not just the celebrities, but also ordinary people who shape the plot and attract viewership. Not everyone can be on the show. But there is a role for the audience to play in deciding who gets to go, who gets to stay and who finally wins the contest. Hence, we should not sit passively to watch the Singapore Story unfold. Take part in one of the SGfuture sessions, or get involved in other forums that exist. We should take an interest in following the developments and better still, play a part in shaping the Singapore we want for our future generations.
We have all seen the power and effectiveness of collective wisdom. Crowd-sourcing and crowd-funding, for instance, are concepts that have fuelled opportunities for many people and businesses. The run-away successes of Kickstarter, Uber and AirBnB for instance are not solely because of the technology or the products they offer. They manage to effectively match demand with supply and vice versa. Their apps bring people together for a mutually-beneficial outcome and their apps make it easy for people to see what is out there, seize it and achieve a better outcome for themselves. In the same way, SGfuture harnesses the wisdom of crowds.
This idea of co-creating with the people is not entirely new. But SG50 has given us a renewed sense that Singaporeans want to be involved. This democracy of deeds will therefore be an integral part of this term of Government. This also means within the Government, public agencies will need to reorganise ourselves, in order to effectively involve and engage Singaporeans. The SGfuture engagements give a glimpse into how we are intending to do so by matching ideas with action and people with projects.
As Members of the House, we also need to do more engagement with our residents, whether is it to decide on what to build and where to build in estate upgrading projects.
Madam, one of the groups that I hope to involve closely in this, is our youths. They are vocal, energetic and teeming with ideas. I know many of them want to be involved in shaping the Singapore they hope to live in. I have been hearing from more of them since taking up my appointment at MCCY. Recently, I spent a day at Outward Bound Singapore on Pulau Ubin kayaking and abseiling with students from Bartley Secondary School and Tanjong Katong Girls' School. As I think about the time we spent together that day, I was encouraged by the display of teamwork and resilience in our youths.
I hope to be able to catch up with more young Singaporeans in the coming months. I want to hear about what moves them and what they want for Singapore. I hope to share with more of them that they are in a good position to make a difference for Singapore and that the future is theirs to own. I hope to do so through more informal ways, including more kayaking or abseiling, if necessary.
Over the last few years, as a Member of Parliament, I have found it useful to create such relatively informal channels to reach out to Singaporeans, through face-to-face conversations, social media and even exercising.
Madam, since General Elections (GE) 2011, I have been holding monthly \"KopiTalks\" in a food court and online chats through my Facebook account. It is a way to connect with my residents in Tampines and the public at large. During these informal sessions, my residents raise questions as well as give feedback on improvements for the constituency. We also talk about ways to manage issues, from noisy neighbours to national topics like whether there should be free parking at national parks, which the Senior Minister of State talked about just now. It is all very casual and free-flowing. But from these regular check-ins with my residents, and even some non-residents, I get a good sense of what concerns them.
What I have observed, over the last few years of such engagements is that Singaporeans are moving away from just giving feedback or complaints. Increasingly, I see offers to get involved, for example, the Hope Centre's monthly bread distribution to rental flat residents in Tampines North which started last year. Hope Centre and Tampines North grassroots organisations are now discussing and planning for a new free tuition service for children of needy families.
At the same time, I am also getting requests to help with their causes, for instance, in promoting a giving culture, better road manners and even attending their baby shower parties. This is encouraging and affirms, too, that the approach we are taking as a Government, starting with the SGfuture citizen engagement, is timely and a step in the right direction.
Madam, another way I try to reach out to fellow Singaporeans is through exercise. I run about twice a week. Regularly, I would post an open invitation on social media, for anyone to join me in my runs. These sessions, which I call \"Run with BYK\", allow me to meet more people. As we jog around places like Marina Bay or Tampines EcoGreen, we chat and learn more about one another. These groups are not large; in fact, often, there are just about two, at most six people. But what makes it different is that it is also very conducive to hear from one another because every new person I speak with is a new opportunity to learn about them, to gather feedback and to look at how we can improve the way we do things in Singapore.
I think this is the mentality we should adopt when we talk about engaging the public, that there are no \"right\" platforms. We just need to recognise the many opportunities around us to engage with one another, to enlarge the common space to collaborate and to co-exist. And \"Run with BYK\" is all the more meaningful too now that I am with MCCY, where together with Sport Singapore, we are promoting better living through sport. During each small group run, we enjoy our conversations as well as the beautiful sights and green spaces of Singapore along the way. So, if you are keen, you can look out for the next run through hashtag #runwithBYK. Well, this is my personal exercise regime which I do anyway. I am just opening it up for others to join me. Likewise, public engagement should be and will be in the Government's DNA.
These channels will augment the other established channels that the Government already has, from the REACH platforms, to the hotlines and Facebook pages that almost all agencies have. Our Singapore Conversation and the SGfuture engagements are the most recent efforts to reach out. These are not one-off efforts, but they are a continuum in the Government's plans to reach out to Singaporeans over the years. And with SGfuture, we also want Singaporeans to take up projects, to seed a change and to shape our future.
Many views will emerge, as well as ideas to take Singapore forward. Importantly, we want people to take these ideas and views further, to translate them into action. The Government cannot do it alone or unilaterally, more so as our society becomes more diverse and the demands more diffused. But the Government can and will partner people in making Singapore a better home for all.
Madam, on this note, I would like to comment on several issues raised by Members Sylvia Lim and Leon Perera earlier in the week.
Mr Perera spoke about an op-ed piece by Arts Engage on the Government's role in funding the arts. In Singapore, funding of the arts is a partnership between the state, corporates and individuals, which reflects the spirit of shared responsibility and co-creation that I talked about earlier on. This approach acknowledges the role that the Government plays in supporting the development of the arts sector. Over the last three years, with the Arts and Culture Strategic Review, we have not only seen increased funding but also more arts groups and talents in the arts community are benefiting from this funding. This is because the Government sees the importance of the arts and culture in meeting the aspirations of the people and in building a sense of national identity.
But as the custodian of public funds, the Government is also accountable to the public in the application of funds towards achieving our social objectives. The need to maintain a wide common space among communities and ensure social harmony in our multi-racial and multi-religious society has been expounded by many speakers before me. The public expects the Government and public agencies to uphold these values in our policies, including our funding guidelines for the arts.
At the same time, there is funding from the private sector: corporates and individuals. They do not necessarily carry the same social objectives and are not bound by our arts funding guidelines. However, one can expect conditions to be similarly imposed by these private donors and individuals. The conditions may vary from meeting brand attributes to audience size, but the point is that there will be conditions.
It is therefore not realistic to expect any public funds to be given out unconditionally. For example, the Productivity and Innovation Credit that helps companies raise productivity comes with conditions in employment. Sports scholarship for our athletes comes with conditions in training and in performance. The public expects us as custodian to discharge our responsibility with care and to good effect.
But rest assured, as an advocate of the arts, NAC will continue to focus on arts excellence and continue to make the case for enlarging the space for our artists and arts groups to grow. We will get better in doing this. And when there are broader interests of society that may be at odds with this role, we will try to bridge the differences. At the very least, we seek to help all parties see the other points of view. After all, there should be better and deeper engagement.
Madam, let me now talk about the National Sports Associations (NSAs) that Ms Sylvia Lim had talked about. She questioned the need for Members of Parliament to take up leadership roles in NSAs. I would like to clarify in the House that all the leaders in NSAs have to be elected in accordance with the respective constitutions. The Ministry does not appoint Members of Parliament to head NSAs. They must be elected by their members.
The only exception today is the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) where the President of FAS has been appointed by the Minister responsible for Sports. But this, too, is changing. FAS is transiting to a system of election by members. By June, an AGM will be called during which members will elect their next president.
Members of Parliament who are holding NSA leadership positions have to earn their stripes and gain the respect of the members of the associations. They bring along with them experience and expertise in their own right. At the same time, the vast majority of NSAs, in fact, 55 out of the 63 NSAs, do not have Members of Parliament as their leaders, for example: Singapore Swimming Association, Singapore Sailing Federation, Singapore Bowling Federation, Singapore Rugby Union, Fencing Singapore, Singapore Silat Federation and many others; and these are very good NSAs. In fact, leaders from NSAs have joined us in the Chamber as Nominated Members of Parliament. We have Jessie Phua, Nicholas Fang and Dr Benedict Tan. Madam, I would like to clarify in the House again that leadership in NSAs is not dictated by the Government.
Madam, let me now touch on my last topic of today's speech, long-time PRs. There is a group of Permanent Residents or PRs in Singapore who have been calling Singapore home for decades but they do not enjoy the privilege of having our red passport or pink IC. Many of them live through the years when Singapore and Malaysia were both British colonies, when Singapore joined and subsequently separated from Malaysia.
Typically, they will fall in such a profile: with little or no education, about 60 years old and above and have raised a family of children who are Singapore Citizens. Usually, only they themselves or sometimes with their spouses, still hold Malaysian passports.
I have seen enough appeals for citizenships and permanent residency to speculate that ICA look at the following key factors in assessing the application: applicants' educational level, income status, age and how well they have integrated into the Singapore community. This group I am speaking up for today, most probably or most definitely, would fail the first three criteria miserably. They would also fail the minimum English Language standard for new citizens as proposed by Member Darryl David.
However, they would be able to strike a good conversation with many of our Pioneer Generation members in Mandarin, dialects, Malay, Tamil; and Mr Seah Kian Peng would be happy to hear, probably Singlish, too. After living in Singapore for the most part, and some, all of their life, they are as Singaporean as can anyone can be in their experiences, lifestyles, attitudes and social habits.
Some of these PRs tried applying for citizenship in the past but did not succeed. Others did not even try, for two reasons: either they did not think they stood a chance, or they did not see the need then. To be fair to them, Singapore only started to make a bigger distinction between citizens and PRs in the last five to 10 years. For a long time, PRs were treated no differently from citizens. Hence, many of them did not bother with the hassle of going through the paperwork.
But now, there is a huge difference between subsidies for PRs and citizens especially in education and healthcare, for very good and valid reasons. While education may not be the top priority for this group of residents at this phase of their life, healthcare cost is. So, do we begrudge them that they are now seemingly only re-aligning their loyalty or allegiance for selfish interests?
Yes, indeed, they may now realise that by not being citizens in Singapore, they would face higher medical expenses. But it is probably their Singaporean children who have to shoulder the heavier burden. What matters to them too is that after all these years in Singapore, they hope to able to travel with their children without having to apply for visas. They hope to queue in the same line when they are at the Singapore immigration counters, or simply to rest in peace as Singaporeans. There is a Chinese saying, 没有功劳，也有苦劳. While these people may not be well-qualified in education, may not earn a high income, they have contributed to Singapore, even as a housewife, taking care of children, raising a family of children. They have done their part as good member of the Singapore society and the Singapore community. Therefore, I hope the Government can give this group of long-time PRs from Malaysia special consideration and concession in their citizenship application.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude by re-affirming my support for the Motion and for the President's call to partner citizens in writing the next chapter of the Singapore Story, as we progress towards a better, more inclusive nation in SG100.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have a clarification?
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam, a clarification for the Parliamentary Secretary. He spoke in his speech about leadership of sports groups and also referred to what I had said earlier. I am glad to hear his confirmation for the association where the Government is nominating all the council members, in other words, in the Football Association of Singapore, that that is being changed and now they would have an election. But, of course, he brought up the bigger point about leadership in other sports associations and he pointed out that many of them who are led by non-politicians are actually doing very well.
I wonder if the Government thinks it is actually better for politicians to refrain from going into contest in these sports associations. After all, we have enough talent in the sporting fraternity and I am not doubting the sincerity of the PAP Members who have gone into certain sports associations, but the bigger point is: is it not better to build a stronger sporting leadership and for politicians actually to sort of step back and let others take the lead and they can always support in other ways?
Mr Baey Yam Keng : I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the question. I was the President of the Volleyball Association for eight years. Honestly, I do not know a lot about volleyball. But the Association had benefited from various Presidents coming from Parliament through our networks, through our grassroots experience and they have continued to request for us to continue and for other Members to succeed when our term ends.
As I mentioned, currently, there are only eight NSAs with Members of Parliament at their leadership. A huge majority of NSAs do not. The Government does not ban politicians from entering NSAs nor dictate that the leadership must be helmed by Members in this Chamber. So, it is really up to NSAs to decide and to elect their president, their leadership as they deem fit, that is, in the best interest of the NSA.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would just like to put a clarification question to the hon Parliamentary Secretary Mr Baey Yam Keng. Mr Baey referred to my speech when I quoted from an op-ed piece by some of our artists.
I would like to ask the hon Parliamentary Secretary if he agrees with the views specifically expressed because it was not entirely clear. So, here, I am quoting from the op-ed piece by Mr Tan Tarn How and Mr T Sasitharan. Mr T Sasitharan, as you know, if I am not wrong, is a Cultural Medallion recipient. In any case, he is a very prominent local artist speaking on behalf of the Arts Engage network of Singapore which involves a number of local artists.
The view that he expressed was, and I quote verbatim here, \"Our website also documents cases of works censored to protect the Government from embarrassment rather than for society's good. Perhaps it is fitting to remember here that arts funding is not the Government's but the people's money.\" So, I would like to ask the hon Member does he agree with that view; and if not, why not?
Mr Baey Yam Keng: As part of the funding principles of NAC, there is a requirement and understanding with the arts groups and the applicants that they should not put any public institutions in a bad light or put them in a derogatory position. It is in this context that was quoted by Arts Engage that the funding was re-considered.
But also, there was a change in substance of the content of the works that were first submitted for application and the eventual product that was produced by the artist. So, there was a difference in what was submitted earlier. There was also some of this to and fro that happened. Among the many applications and support that NAC has given to the many arts groups and artists in Singapore, these are a minute minority of cases which the group has pointed out.
As I said in my speech, in MCCY and NAC, our role is to advocate the arts. We will stand on the side of the artists in their pursuit of artistic excellence. We hope to create and develop a bigger common space so that Singaporeans and the community-at-large can enjoy the works of our very talented artists in Singapore.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Much of the attention surrounding the President's speech at the Opening of Parliament concerns the upcoming changes of the political system. The President's speech intermitted that an inclusive Singapore is a clear objective of the Government. I will speak on one aspect of the political system that I believe can play a very significant role to improve both politics and policies in Singapore and that is through Parliament and the institutions it offers.
Mdm Speaker, Woodrow Wilson was quoted to have said, \"It is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work\".
To this end, Select Committees that meet regularly when Parliament is not session are fundamental pillars of many parliamentary democracies. The Erskine May on parliamentary procedures, the signature reference book used by parliaments in the Commonwealth, including Singapore, notes that Select Committees \"have over recent years become the principal mechanism by which the House discharges its responsibility for the scrutiny of Government policy and actions\". It goes on to say \"the Select Committee members have been able to acquire significant levels of expertise in the specific areas for which that committee is responsible. This, together, with the resources available to them have reinforced the authority of their reports\".
Mdm Speaker, Select Committees are also an important means by which Members of Parliament build a public record, communicate with other Members of Parliament, civil servants, activists and the general public. It is my view that the processes afforded to Select Committees are helpful because the testimony of witnesses, who could be private sector individuals, civil servants or implementing agents on the ground, would lead to greater information sharing and the acquisition of greater knowledge on specific policies by all Singaporeans, not just parliamentarians.
In addition, an appreciation of the trade-offs in a more complex Singapore and a more complex international environment beyond SG51 would, in my own estimation, significantly mature our political discourse, level up knowledge and serve to unify our people. It would also encourage Singaporeans not just to look at an issue more deeply, but to understand why what may be a solution to some, has to be balanced with other demands, all of which must confront the question of financing, a question that a small country with no natural resources can ill avoid. The depth of knowledge of policies and their trade-offs enabled by Select Committee hearings and reports can also be a strong insurance against the danger of retail politics and political aspirants who irresponsibly make policies in the hopes of winning votes.
Fast forward to the next 50 years, any conversation with Singaporeans cannot only be about seeking feedback and brainstorming sessions from the people before policy-crafting and implementation, which is important in its own way. But instead, it has to involve Singaporeans along every step of the way, including during execution, so that mid-course corrections, reviews and assessments can be made together.
In September last year, as Members of this House were busy at the election hustings, the UK House of Commons' Select Committee on Business Innovation and Skills received evidence on the UK government's productivity plan. This plan sought to address the main causes of low productivity in the UK. The Select Committee sought to determine whether the government's policies were likely to achieve their desired results. Ordinary citizens were able to submit their evidence to the committee through the UK parliamentary website. There was also the prospect of giving oral evidence at hearings that are open to members of the public and companies.
As an example, some of the companies that gave evidence at the productivity inquiry included Rolls Royce and Virgin Atlantic, hence, providing a lot of scope for a deeper understanding of the problems of the day surrounding productivity from a wide canvas of citizenry.
Even Hong Kong's Legislative Council carries out significant policy work behind the scenes. The Hong Kong Legislative Council hosts 18 different panels to deliberate on issues relating to specific policy areas and also to give views on major legislative or financial proposals before their formal introduction to the Council or the Finance Committee. These panels also examine important issues of wide public concern as referred by the Council or raised by the panels themselves. These include the development of elderly care services, retirement schemes, studies into free kindergarten education, animal welfare and cruelty to animals and even hawker policy.
In practice, Mdm Speaker, our Parliament does not need to mirror the UK system, Hong Kong system, or any other system in its entirety, nor do we need to establish an excessive amount of Select Committees for the sake of it. However, there is a number of issues that would clearly keep the Government and the Opposition occupied in the years to come.
In view of the longer experience and size of the UK, they host an extensive A to Z of Select Committees. Our Parliament, on the other hand, can establish Select Committees for key issues of the day as determined by Parliament. What could be some of these issues?
First, there is a prospect of a Singapore where the number of elderly Singaporeans is expected to double in the next decade. It will have an attendant impact not just on our healthcare system, but on families too with more children having to take time off to look after their parents to see that they age well and gracefully. An Active Ageing Select Committee would be helpful in this regard to understand what gaps need to be plugged, in addition to where the deficiencies continue to exist in the system, the reasons for their existence and how they can be overcome.
Second, there is a difficult population policy issue for which the Government has announced a mid-course review to take place around 2020. The Population Select Committee could potentially start hearings on this issue early, allowing Singaporeans to understand the decisions taken thus far and outline what other policies need to dovetail closely with our population strategies. It could also flesh out the different perspectives of Singaporeans with regard to trade-offs between the dwindling Singaporean Core and the economic strategies required for Singapore not just to survive, but to thrive in the next lap.
Mdm Speaker, this House can endeavour to establish just one Select Committee in the immediate term, as a pilot Select Committee, and that is a SkillsFuture Select Committee. In his speech, the President clearly emphasised the importance of SkillsFuture to the economy, how important it is for SkillsFuture to be a success and how it must to be a national movement. There are many dimensions to SkillsFuture: PMETs, career guidance, sectoral manpower plans, Earn and Learn credits, individual learning portfolios, amongst others, across the age spectrum.
Then, there is the issue of productivity. As I noted in my Budget Debate speech last year, the National Productivity Council has now come under the purview of SkillsFuture. For many advanced economies including Singapore, improving productivity is a serious matter. Even in Singapore, we have not achieved the productivity aims set in the Economic Strategies Committee Report 2020 of 2%-3% each year, and our numbers continue to look weak.
As productivity and the acquisition of new skills are closely linked, a SkillsFuture Select Committee of Parliament comprising Members of Parliament from all parties would be in a good position to pursue and consider improvements and innovations to the Government strategies. This would ensure that SkillsFuture would work well on the ground, and examine how it could do more and to account for the taxpayer dollar that is eventually expended on it.
The presence of Select Committee Members from all parties would not just be symbolic. In fact, it will be in step not just with the wishes of many voters, but it would mirror the inclusive Singapore the President spoke about and the Singapore we all desire. More importantly, it would operationalise what the President meant when he said, \"Individual aspirations may defer, but we have to work together to create a common future\".
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the tremendous scope of Parliament and specifically Select Committees to make our politics more accountable and better accessible to all Singaporeans should not be underestimated. This proposal to establish a SkillsFuture Select Committee can be read in two ways. The more cynical view is that Select Committees could be used to secure information not in the public domain on Government processes and decision-making, and to embarrass the Government. But there is another long-term perspective to be considered. And that is the in-depth granularity offered by Select Committees on vital issues affecting Singaporeans which would contribute significantly to create a culture of mastery and excellence; and for Singaporeans to take a deep interest in policies and to understand the trade-offs surrounding policymaking.
This theme of excellence and mastery, not just competence, was covered in the Finance Minister's Budget speech 2014 and that is exactly what SkillsFuture is about.
Parliament is in a privileged position to re-configure the relationship between the public and the Government as we march towards SG100. A more public role for Parliament and more time spent in it by Members of Parliament, offers greater scope to better our political system so that it governs effectively in the interests of all. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of the first session of this Parliament.
President Tan reminded us that we are a small country with no natural resources and our strength is our people. This improbable nation, Singapore, is the result of the people who came before us. Their conviction, courage and hard work brought us to where we are today.
There are several areas that are important. Many Members have discussed in the last few days in terms of ensuring that Singapore continues to be a special place for all Singaporeans, young and old, to realise their aspirations. I would like to speak about jobs.
We all have aspirations to provide for a better life for ourselves and our families. To enable Singaporeans, no matter where our starting point, to continue to improve our lives, I believe that Singapore must be able to give Singaporeans fulfilling jobs. I believe that to have meaningful work gives confidence to our people to not only make a living but also to feel included and, hence, a sense of belonging and commitment.
This point was so nicely said in a movie that I recently watched titled \"The Intern\". Robert De Niro, who plays a 70-year-old retiree, decided to apply for a job as an intern in an online fashion site, a work environment very different from what he knew. He spoke about why he was doing so and I thought was so apt. He said that he wants \"the connections, the excitement, I want the challenges and I guess I want to be needed.\"
With evolving business models, our economic changes, technological and social changes, the kind of work and the \"workplace\" is changing rapidly. Many of today's top jobs did not exist a few years ago and even how work is organised is changing. The workplace is evolving. There is no longer a place for people to go to work, with more people being able to work from anywhere.
I am both somewhat optimistic of the new opportunities that will be created, as well as concerned of the impact and disruption on Singaporeans that these changes will bring. According to preliminary estimates released by MOM, while the unemployment rate in Singapore remained low last year, total employment growth slowed to a 12-year low. Redundancy increased in the fourth quarter of 2015, as 4,200 workers were laid off. This was higher than the previous quarter and the year before.
Although anecdotal, I am hearing residents' concerns about losing their jobs and the anxiety of not being able to get another job given the slower economic growth or taking longer to get another job, given what businesses are going through in terms of the changes.
The World Economic Forum's \"The Future of Jobs\" report that was issued this month outlined that these changes are not unique to Singapore. It highlighted that \"many of the drivers of major transformation currently affecting global industries are expected to have significant impact on jobs, ranging from significant job creation to job displacement and from heightened labour productivity to widening skills gap.\"
While we must have strategies to ensure that Singapore continues to have good growth and quality jobs, what is equally important will be to ensure that Singaporeans are able and more importantly, ready to take advantage of these job opportunities and that businesses in Singapore are also able to fill these jobs with the right talent. This readiness goes beyond just the hard skills and knowledge and will involve greater adaptability.
Given these employment trends and feedback from businesses that it is taking them longer to find the right persons to fill the roles they are hiring for, I believe that there is urgency to ensure that we adapt to this changing employment landscape.
So, how do we future-ready our workforce? There are fears that these changes will displace jobs and routine work would be automated or business models would change and make certain jobs go away. These changes can also create new jobs or greater job scope and opportunities.
While both these views are valid, if we want to be future-ready and if we want to future-ready our workforce, we must advocate a mind-set of learning and curiosity. This will enable us to adapt and embrace these changes so that we can take advantage of these opportunities. We will have to acquire new skills on an ongoing basis. And this ability to continue to learn and to build a portfolio of skills and experience will affect everyone regardless of whether we are young and just entering the workforce, or an older person, or whether we are a lower skilled worker or PMET.
Technology is pervasive and is impacting many aspects of our work and life. Today, with the ability to use search on even, what many of us have in our pockets, a smartphone, you will have quick access to information, to knowledge, even on a subject that you know nothing about. And with this, you can ask, \"Is that good? Is that bad?\" I think it is a good thing in the sense that it enables us to do work more quickly and more efficiently. But it is also important that we understand the information that is coming towards us and what to do with that. That is what we have to equip our people to be doing.
So, in that sense it frees us. But if we are not careful and we do not apply it, then that becomes a challenge. With technology, relationships are also becoming more networked rather than hierarchical, so hence, being able to use these technologies will enable us to have faster and more effective communications and connections.
But it is important to prevent an opportunity divide. We must ensure that all people at all levels and ages are comfortable and able to leverage the use of technology. We need to better equip our people and we must invest in developing strong communication skills so that people can communicate their ideas better and connect and share these ideas.
Some fear that the lower skilled jobs will disappear with technology and that these roles will be displaced. I think that it is true but it could also create new and better jobs. Let me give an example: the cleaning industry. Without having to do extra work, if we put sensors in the areas being cleaned, one person could probably be able to monitor a larger space and then go to the places where there are more people and where more cleaning is required. And you can do that without having to make that person work extra hard. But it has to be applied correctly.
To differentiate our workforce, as many have said in this House, we must have a mastery of skills and innovation. With the rapid changes that we are experiencing, while knowledge is easily obtained and probably computers can handle information better than a human being, I still think that the person has a very important role to play and if we know how to leverage this knowledge, we would be able to leapfrog on innovation.
I believe you cannot replace a good teacher, a good nurse or even a good salesperson. But with the use of the right business processes and technology, you can provide them with the ability to do what they do best and improve the experience for the student, the patient or the customer.
One area that I must emphasise that we must never lose, is our desire to improve and a mind-set of resilience. I want to share a story of a young boy whom I met many years ago in my first term as a Member of Parliament. He and his mother had come to see me because this boy felt that he was being singled out by his teacher. When he came to see me he was suspended for some incident in school and he felt that he was being singled out. And he said to me, \"I have been unfairly singled out by a teacher.\" Then, I asked him why, and he said, \"Yes, because he does not think I am capable.\"
I said, \"Okay, if he does not think you are capable, do you think you are capable?\" He says \"Yes!\" I said, \"Then, the best way to win your teacher over is to show him that.\" And I did not see this boy after that, but one day when I was in a school at a Book Prize Award ceremony. This lady came up to me smiling away and I was trying to figure out where I had seen her. She said, \"I am here because my son is getting an award and recognition.\" And guess what, it is the same boy, in the same school, a year or so later, being recognised for his capabilities.
While circumstances can affect us, we have to have that mindset of resilience and we must have that confidence and that belief.
Another area that I feel needs attention is the Human Resource (HR) function. As we talk about all these changes, businesses will need the HR function to be a lot stronger because not only will your talent base come from within your company, you will need to source available freelance talents somewhere else; you have to go into partnerships; you have to plan for that. And in order to do that, you need a very strong HR function. I do not think we are doing enough in Singapore to develop this competence and capability and I hope that we can do more.
Let me finally talk about a very important area, called the Singapore Core, and, in particular, the Singapore Core in our workforce. As outlined by MOM in the Addendum, strengthening this Singapore Core in the workforce in very important. I believe that given that Singapore has a highly educated workforce with more than 50% holding PMET jobs, this trend will continue to increase and, so, we must have high-quality jobs that Singaporeans aspire to do and can do.
What must we do to achieve this, apart from the measures that MOM is driving? I believe that employers must play a big role for a strong Singapore Core to be successful. It will require employers to be willing to make a deliberate bet on building a Singapore Core. Because with the rapid changes in the workforce, regardless of whether you are a large or a small organisation, it is difficult for your talent to keep up to reskill and upskill fast enough that there would not be skills gaps. Businesses would find it difficult to find the exact skill they will require and, so, if you do not take proactive actions to develop them, then it is not going to be possible.
The Member Pritam Singh talked about SkillsFuture, PMETs, all these programmes. I encourage employers, workers, educational institutions to leverage and use these. I must say that while I do applaud the involvement of Select Committees to do this, I think what is more important now is for us to exercise what is there so that businesses, individuals and associations and educational institutions will be able to knock out the kinks to see what those requirements are, to further refine it so that we can really build up that skills base that is required for our workers to be really strong and to really build a Singapore Core.
I do implore companies, because this is not about companies doing what is right or what is good. It is a win-win situation. You have access to a talent base in Singapore that is highly educated, very, very highly educated, both men and women. In fact, the women are more highly educated now, so do tap on the women as well.
My point is, for companies, you have a very strong base to tap on; why ignore that base? Yes, you have to put some investment into it. But you have the backing of funding for the programmes and at the same time, you also have the educational institutions. If you are a small company, you have the educational institutions working with you and with that talent over a period of time, to actually help you with the skills development and skills match.
It is a win-win for all and the individual as well. I would say, go in with the right mind set. And I am not talking about just the graduating workforce. We have a very, very precious workforce called the middle-age or the mature PMEs. They have a wealth of experience. Go watch this programme that I talked about, \"The Intern\" and you will know what I mean. When you bring that diversity of talent together, both young and old, you will see the impact that will bring. Therefore, I do encourage all of us to go forward to build that Singapore Core.
If I can quote President Tan in his speech, \"To remain special, we must first resolve to move ahead together\". In order to future-ready and build a strong Singapore Core in our workforce, I implore all of us to work together.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address this House in this new term. Incidentally, I have made a mental note to watch \"The Intern\" this weekend. Thank you to Member Jessica Tan.
I rise in support of the Motion. Madam, please allow me to begin my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore's ability to thrive and survive as a prosperous nation with a plural society depended upon several fundamental principles, which did not come about by accident. It is an ongoing effort that includes good and credible governance that corresponds with current and future needs.
Nonetheless, the situation will not remain static. Just look at the ever-changing global situation, whether in terms of the economy, politics, social and security, it will affect and impact us greatly. The harmony in society is one of the most valuable assets that we must look after.
Hence, I truly welcome the review of Singapore's political system in order to secure the future of the nation for the long term. The changes proposed take various aspects into consideration, among others, ensuring good policymaking through good politics.
The Elected Presidency, for instance, it is appropriate that the qualification criteria is reviewed because many changes have taken place, including the administration of the state institution, while the size of national reserves have also changed since the system of Elected President was introduced.
We have to be responsible in ensuring stability, because when a leadership change occurs in the Government, we will need sufficient safeguards to ensure that any government, regardless of which party it is, will act responsibly when making key appointments and in the protection of reserves.
The role of the President has undergone many changes, not only as the Head of State who represents Singapore's interests, but also as the guardian of the national reserves. We must use this review process to further highlight the actual role of the Elected President, and the people need to recognise and understand the President's functions and powers, that is, the President's role is not imbued with political power, and he does not play a role in developing policy initiatives. Many people are still unclear, including some candidates, about the actual role of the Elected President and they may even confuse the voters.
I welcome the move to form a commission to analyse the qualification criteria for Presidential candidates because it is important that we get male or female candidates of a high calibre and who are suitable and can represent us inside and outside the country. The proposed changes will further strengthen the institution of the Elected President that is already robust. However, a review needs to be done to make this institution more relevant and able to constantly meet future needs.
I would like to now touch on an important area regarding the changes proposed in the Prime Minister's speech, that is, the interests of minorities which have always been the concern of the PAP Government.
I am sure that the Malay community welcomes the considerations made to provide for a minority candidate for the office of the Elected President. Although it is too early for us to understand how this will be implemented, nonetheless, in terms of concept and principle, it is something that is gladly welcomed by the minorities. It will certainly fulfil the aspirations of the Malay/Muslim community, who have longed for a Malay President. Singapore had not had a Malay President since the late Encik Yusof Ishak in 1970, which is over 45 years ago.
We still remember the vast contributions of Encik Yusof Ishak, the people's President. It has been a source of great pride for the Malay/Muslim community.
If the community is proud to have had President Yusof Ishak performing that role – he represented all races outstandingly – surely, there will always be a Malay of a suitable calibre and can fulfil the qualifying criteria. But it will be unfortunate if our qualified Malays do not have this opportunity just because of the voting pattern.
Another important issue is how the provision is implemented. It must be done by ensuring that there are no perceptions that this is an affirmative action; and it must ensure that the candidate is presented on the basis of merit, and can fulfil the qualifying criteria. Ultimately, what is important is that we must ensure diversity, without compromising the issue of merit and without affecting the quality of candidates.
Our meritocracy system has worked well. We can see more of our Malays in key positions and there have been no questions on their abilities or qualifications.
The GRC system is a concept that looks after and protects the interests of minorities in the landscape of a plural society in Singapore. As we plan for more Single Member Constituencies, the Government must also ensure that minority representation continues to be safeguarded.
As a community, the Malays support this concept and this can even help us contribute more at the constituency and national levels. The increase in the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) also allows more Opposition representation in Parliament, which will ensure more diverse views and opinions, and may also give more opportunities for Malay opposition candidates to enter Parliament through this scheme.
Hence, I support the intent of these changes, in terms of providing diversity in this House and also because the Government is trying to fulfil the aspirations of the younger generation, who desires diversity in the Parliament of Singapore.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, as President Tony Tan mentioned in his Address at the Opening session of Parliament, we need to keep our politics and our governance updated. In this regard, Prime Minister's speech on Wednesday was a timely reminder of how our political system had evolved since Independence and why we need to continue to evolve our political system to prepare Singapore for the future, from the NCMP and GRC schemes to the Elected Presidency.
The NCMP and Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) schemes both came about as a response to have more diverse views in Parliament – one partisan and the other one not. The Elected Presidency came about 25 years ago as a custodian and a checking mechanism to protect Singapore's national reserves and the integrity of the civil service. In doing so, the President would help to deliver long-term stability for Singapore.
As we have seen in the last Presidential Election in 2011, this function of the President can no longer be taken for granted. To be a stabilising force, the President has to be above party politics and play a stabilising role for Singapore, even if there was a change in the ruling party. Since the last election for the President, there are concerns that the election process was seemingly politicised and threatened to divide a nation, rather than stabilise it. And I agree with the Prime Minister that the process and the elected position remains objective and non-political, supported by a capable and wise Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA).
The revision of the qualifying criteria by the Constitutional Commission is timely – it was 25 years ago since they were drawn in 1990 – as the complexity of safeguarding our state institutions and reserves has gone up in magnitude since then. For instance, in 1990, the Temasek Net Portfolio Value was S$10 billion. As of March last year, this amount has grown by more than 25 times to S$266 billion.
So, it is important that we find men or even women of calibre, of excellent standing who can represent us here and on the international stage. However, the weightage in qualifying criteria cannot just be heavily weighted on one's ability to manage high-value companies or based on the limited number of key public sector appointments. It is an important criterion as a proxy to one's ability to fulfil the role of Presidency, but we must also ensure that this does not reduce the number of potential candidates, especially those from the private sector.
Given the proposal to have the CPA's advice to the President to be given greater weight, it is therefore, just as important that the selection process and the merits of the selection of the CPA be made more transparent to the public. Also, if they had provided advice contrary to the President and a vote needed from Parliament, there must also be greater transparency on why this is so.
But, we also want Presidents who can represent the diversity of Singapore's society, especially when we want to project the accurate image of Singapore's meritocracy and multi-culturalism to the rest of the world. The announcement by Prime Minister is thus welcomed by the minority races as it will go a long way in strengthening multi-culturalism in Singapore.
In the early years, our nominated presidential system ensured we had minorities like Mr Yusof Ishak and Mr Benjamin Sheares. We were also fortunate to have Mr SR Nathan as an Elected President but his term came at a time when elections were uncontested.
Given the current climate and competitive nature of the last Presidential Election, I wonder when another minority can be expected to be elected to the office in the years to come. In fact, we have not had a Malay President in Singapore since Mr Ishak, in 1970, almost 46 years ago.
Here, I also note the concerns from the ground as to whether the intervention to ensure a minority President is elected then becomes a form of affirmative action and against the principles of a free election of the President. Personally, I do not believe that we should revert to the old system of the appointed President.
But as a guiding principle, any mechanism that is chosen, the minority candidate must first and foremost, meet the qualifying criteria of any Presidential candidate, so that the merit of his or her abilities and character will not come under question.
But perhaps, one proposal to catalyse a minority in the office of the Head of State is to consider the concept of a Vice President, where President and Vice President candidates are elected as a team and either one should be a minority. This may set the path for a minority Vice President to build his credentials and stand in good stead for the Presidency in subsequent elections in the event that we are unable to elect a minority President in the role directly.
While we keep a view on ensuring diversity, what is important, ultimately, is that merit is not compromised and that the quality of the representation is not compromised. We must find men and women of good standing to safeguard the nation's and people's interests.
On Prime Minister's announcement on tweaks to the NCMP scheme, I am supportive, in order to promote greater diversity in Parliament in terms of voices. Many I spoke to were surprised that after winning a strong mandate from the people of Singapore last year, the PAP Government could have easily kept the status quo, ensuring that Singaporeans can afford to continue to vote a PAP Government and yet have diversity in Parliament through the existing NCMP scheme.
But yet, it has opened the competition wider by expanding the NCMP scheme by as much as 25% in the spirit of having greater debate in Parliament. To the outside world, this may sound a bit strange as the PAP is seemingly diluting its hold in Parliament.
But I support this move, to increase the number of NCMPs and allow them equal voting rights with constituency Members of Parliament, to assure Singaporeans and Singapore that the Government respects the need for diversity, though it was not what the electorate expressed through the results of the last General Election.
Given the increased voting privileges to the NCMP, I would like to point out that the position is one that has been given more respect and dignity and not turned down so easily for replacement. Parties cannot also assume that just because one of its candidates turned down the offer of being an NCMP, that it is their entitlement to offer it to anyone of their other candidates.
As a constituency Member of Parliament, if elected, you are expected to serve the five-year term. Any Opposition candidate who stands for elections knows the system. Once you stand for elections, you must then be ready to serve if you are called upon as an NCMP. You cannot just have a myopic view of being \"a duckweed in a pond that cannot sink roots\" and not give the NCMP position any dignity and \"suka-suka\" swap candidates. This is a privilege enshrined in the Constitution.
We do not want political parties playing the system to provide parliamentary exposure to whoever they like. If we want to take the NCMP system seriously, we should treat it like any seat left vacant by a constituency Member of Parliament moving forward, any seat that is left vacant should only be considered for replacement should there be a by-election before the next General Elections.
Madam, moving on to my next topic, the challenges confronting Singapore becoming more complex. Increasingly, the Government will have to grapple with heightened terrorist activities and the rise of ISIS in Southeast Asia, as well as the possibility of Islamophobia and increased religious tensions.
All of these also mean that there is a new normal in governance and society in Singapore. That is, the increase of religiosity and issues concerning religion and how the Government will manage this going forward. There are many such examples in recent times. Like dealing with the sensitivities in the City Harvest case or the changes made to the rules for Thaipusam. Or even addressing issues on radicalisation or extremism and learning how we need to deal with the hijab. All of these things are fast becoming a norm and the Government has to understand and work out how it should manage this \"new normal\".
For one, the Government may need to review how it engages all the different racial and religious groups. For example, today, the Government uses a hub-and-spoke model, where it is at the epicentre governing the different groups. In doing so, sometimes, the Government gets caught in between and, thus, has to calibrate its intervention and relationships.
This model should change into a roundtable where each group is an equal partner and a stakeholder to the social harmony and stability. Such a model will also foster collaboration between the different groups and have more ground-up initiatives without the Government always having to play the role of catalyst.
Such a roundtable will also not just mean involving the leadership of all faiths but also to engage them at their congregation level and that will help to gather their views on tough questions affecting the community. This not only helps to promote greater understanding, it also allows us to reach a new calibration, that is, what we are each prepared to accommodate as Singaporeans in our respective common spaces. Otherwise, the Government may be behind on where this \"new normal\" of acceptance is.
Religious leaders may also try to second guess the Government in what it is prepared to accept. So, this roundtable multi-way dialogue should become an important feature of Singapore's future. In building this new construct, let us also not forget the atheists as I have also received feedback on whether they have a say and if policymakers understand their perspectives, too.
Hence, social cohesion today becomes more difficult as you try to figure out friend from foe. And I fear most when this manifests, where opportunities and progression become more limited due to fear in our workplaces, schools and social environment. We must thus safeguard against intolerance.
However, our policies and how we manage increased religiosity must also take into account the \"new normal\". So, Muslims here are not consciously distancing themselves from the mainstream. In fact, the majority of Muslims I spoke to recently do not take any issue in respecting other people's religions and practices as well, or in greeting them during their religious holidays. So, how the Government handles issues concerning Muslims and inter-faith must evolve, including the use of hijabs in civilian spaces. I understand the limitations of the uniformed services and schools, but the trends have also changed.
If you look the consumer groups today, hijab wear is big online. Even global brands, such as Dolce & Gabbana and H&M, which are mainstream brands, have shifted to embrace hijab fashion as the mainstream. So, I just picked up a few. I think you would probably have seen them, quite common, with many of the young ladies. Maybe, Madam, you also want to consider this. This is H&M, by the way. This is Dolce & Gabbana, by the way, with nice handbags and nice shoes. So, they are quite mainstream today. That is the \"new normal\", it is not just about religion but, really, how it has come to mainstream as a fashion statement and how people dress.
I agree that any threat from any religion that may threaten our social cohesion among the religious and race groups must be curtailed. We cannot accept intolerance. And for the Muslim community, the Muslim identity in Singapore must also be strengthened, due to the many interpretations and influences given our open borders and the age of the Internet. Given this \"new normal\", it may now be a good time to recalibrate and also sense where each of the other faiths are with all these difficult issues.
I would ask the Government to establish a task force, made up of members of diverse religious and racial groups, to study and recommend appropriate mechanisms to strengthen this inter-racial and inter-religious fabric, as well as discuss areas where we need to recalibrate our policies to accommodate new developments or requirements of different faiths, areas that other respective faiths are also prepared to accept. Simple things even, like altars, altar fixtures outside your HDB flats, for example. Today, these fixtures are illegal when these are installed at public spaces. How do we manage this? We look at some of our policies.
While religion and faith cannot be ignored in our policies to maintain religious harmony, to preserve our secular nature of politics, we also need to be vigilant that we do not go the way of other countries by having religious-based politics.
For instance, during the last General Elections, campaigning by certain candidates took a religious tone and I was surprised that the Elections Department did not intervene or come out with a warning sooner. This is probably because it did not lead to any open conflict, which the Parliamentary Election rules specify as a premise for intervention.
But when candidates start to campaign along religious lines, what does this indicate about our political landscape? It has been seen in many countries that religion and state can be hard to separate and once we go down that path, away from the open and secular spaces that we have built after decades of Independence, there may be a point of no return. So, we have to be careful.
Madam, our way forward, our social fabric is as important, if not even more important, than the hard economic policies that we are proud of. With wise, calibrated and relevant political reform, and with the Government reviewing terms to manage the \"new normal\" in handling religious harmony, our social fabric will be strengthened. I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mdm Speaker, Members have spoken about the policies and the politics we need for a better Singapore. I appreciate the thoughtful points raised and congratulate the new Members on their maiden speeches. I encourage all Members, new and old, to continue to speak from the heart, as Mdm Speaker has advised, and I would add, with heart, on the things that matter to Singaporeans.
Members have spoken about the \"whys\", the \"whats\" and the \"hows\" of our way forward. The \"why\" is the world has changed and we ourselves have changed in the last 50 years. The \"what\" is the kind of good policies and good politics that we need to navigate this changed world. And the \"how\" is the way, throughout the changes to come, we remain as one dynamic, cohesive, caring people.
Today, I wish to speak about the \"so what\" and \"what for\".
Let me share a memory to explain why. This is the first Parliament without our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Throughout this week, his words have come up repeatedly in Members' speeches. In this time, one word of Mr Lee kept sounding in my head. You could say that was his favourite word. And the word was \"So\"? When I worked for Mr Lee; this is now more than 15 years ago. He liked to ask, \"So?\" Say, I would report some facts to him. He would say, \"So?\" I would talk about the implications of those facts and he would say again, \"So?\" And it would go on like that until we got to, \"So, what does this mean for Singapore and Singaporeans? So, what must we do differently to ensure the success of Singapore and Singaporeans?\" All that, in one word: \"So?\"
Members spoke about profound changes taking place around us: in the global economy, in security, in society. And I asked myself, so what? So, what does this mean for Singapore and Singaporeans? So, what must we do to ensure the success of Singapore and Singaporeans?
And I would like to suggest, the \"so what\" is this.
First, we need to continue creating value for the world and for ourselves, if we are to make a living and survive. We can continue to do this by staying open, innovative and adaptive to change.
Second, the value that we create, we must share, in a way that lets us continue to be our best. We must create value for the world and ourselves, so as to achieve a society based on justice and equality.
This is how we can enable every Singaporean to reach our dreams.
Singapore will have a place in the world, if we are of value to the world. Throughout our history, that was what we did, by being of use to the world. For hundreds of years, we were a key node on the Maritime Silk Route. We served as an emporium. We welcomed traders from all over the world. Just outside these Chambers, on the Singapore River, traders exchanged a wealth of not only goods, but also ideas, cultures, friendship. Our streets remember that trading emporium history today in name: Arab Street, Armenian Street, Muscat Street. Our spirit retains that same trading emporium history in our openness to the world.
In the last 50 years since Independence, we have found new ways to be of value to the world. During the wave of globalisation in the 1960s and 1970s, we welcomed MNCs, and differentiated ourselves as a first-world oasis in a third-world region. In the 1980s and 1990s, as the region grew, we regionalised and grew an external wing. In the 2000s, as the knowledge revolution took off, we made the shift to a knowledge-intensive economy.
The global economy goes through waves of changes. It has been one wave after another. Each time, we have been able to catch the wave, we have asked, \"So, what does this coming wave mean?\" And, each time, we unlock how we can be of value. We have been resourceful and resilient.
A new wave is coming. Some are calling it the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It will bring disruptive changes in connectivity and extreme automation. It will transform lives. Already, we are facing an explosion of data and information. Global digital data usage is doubling every two years. By 2020, the size of the digital universe will increase 50-fold from 2010. This is like each household in the world having around 300 iPhones! Each household in the world. We are more and more connected: humans to humans, machines to machines and humans to machines.
A more connected world can be a more dangerous world, as the recent well-orchestrated terrorist attacks show. Terrorists are using social media to radicalise and recruit new members.
But a more connected world is also a world of new possibilities. Alibaba and Amazon are more valued by some investors than Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has a more extensive physical infrastructure, has a longer history, but the e-commerce giants are better connected and more nimble.
So, what does this mean for Singapore and Singaporeans? We may be at the beginning of a major structural transformation. Disruptions are coming much faster. To succeed, we must remain at the forefront, not just of having new ideas but, more importantly, to have the capacity to turn ideas into useful products, services and business models. We must create value, by being a place where good ideas for the world can be realised; where people can come together to create value, to make an impact. If we can be a place to help solve a fraction of the world's challenges, we will create value, we will have our place in the world.
I am optimistic that we can be a place where good ideas for the world can be realised. Why am I optimistic? There are several reasons.
First, no choice. It is a question of necessity. We have to solve many of our own pressing challenges. We did not have enough water? We created the water technology to overcome this. We are ageing? We will find a way to make that a source of new life in our society. It is most striking that so many Members this week, when speaking on ageing, viewed it not as a problem, but as an opportunity. Dr Chia Shi-Lu said, \"80 is the new 60 and 60 the new 40\".
We want Singapore to be a place where we can age with opportunity, dignity and vitality. This will drive us to be innovative. Last year, the National Innovation Challenge on Ageing crowdsourced solutions in areas like better home-care, increasing healthy lifespans and creating ageless workplaces. We got over 100 good proposals and these have been evaluated and the good ideas will be put into action. In fact, we have heard many good ideas in this House just over the last few days.
The second reason I am optimistic? We have no lack of support. We have been investing in R&D, in knowledge creation, in connecting with the world. Just two weeks ago, I hosted 21 Nobel Laureates and eminent technologists from all over the world. Imagine 21 Nobel Laureates and the Millennium Prize winners, the Technology Prize winners, all congregating in Singapore. Why? They were inspired by what we are doing and they want to come here to inspire our young people in Singapore and the region so that they can go out and make an impact.
Last week, we saw the first-ever Southeast Asia Venture Capital Summit. There is a great deal of energy around how Singapore can serve as a base for good ideas from around the world and how we can deploy good ideas from Science, Tech, Engineering and Math (STEM) domains, especially in Asia, to uplift lives.
Third, there is no limit to our imagination. We may not realise this, but we are a people with a habit of innovation and a habit of applying innovation in every aspect of our life. Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister spoke at length on the innovations in our political institutions over the years and the changes that the Prime Minister is proposing will serve Singapore well in the long run. Our social policy innovations in CPF, HDB, healthcare, social safety nets and the Pioneer Generation Package are studied by people around the world. In fact, some academics have said that our social policy innovations are most remarkable.
So, no choice but to innovate. No lack of support to innovate. No limit to our imagination to innovate. We have these three conditions. Of course we can be a place where good ideas for the world can be realised.
We also see innovation in many areas of life. One inspiring example which I learnt recently is our Chinatown library. It is a public library with no staff. It is manned entirely by a team of volunteers! Everyday Singaporeans who care about our libraries enough to make a difference. The readers return the books to the right shelves. Best of all, of all libraries in Singapore, it has one of the highest user satisfaction rates. It just shows how a simple idea of reshaping the relationship with library visitors not only saves manpower, but enhances their experiences.
Singaporeans have the attributes for innovation. We are a people who care to innovate and innovate to care better. We still have a long journey ahead, but I am confident that we will deepen our innovative instincts, that we will continue to see, in every constraint and every challenge, the possibility of solutions and opportunities, and we have the confidence and can-do spirit to figure things out.
In our early days, we were a trading emporium. We then became a First World oasis in this region. Let us strive to be an innovation lab for the world, where the best ideas from around the world for the world can be realised. Let us catch the next wave.
This is a subject that the Committee on our Future Economy will study in detail.
But so what? So what if we create value? Is that all we hope for? Is value creation alone all that we mean, when we think of the success of Singapore and Singaporeans? It cannot be. It cannot be just that.
Innovation, prosperity, progress, growth. These achieve their true value when they are shared. If we want to move forward together, we must share value, in a fair and inclusive way. That is how we bring out the best in one another, and help each of us to continue growing. Value created is measurable. Value shared is immeasurable.
I have been struck by how SG100 has entered our vocabulary. A week in politics is a long time, as they say in the West. For so many Members in this House to mention SG100 is really remarkable.
When I first mentioned SG100 to my residents, their initial reaction was: it is so far away! But I pointed out: our SG50 babies will be 50 years old in SG100; a Primary 1 student will be 57; a Secondary 4 student will be 66; a young adult who starts work at 25 will only be 75. And the parents saw that SG100 is about our children's future. Will the next 50 years be better than the last 50 that we had? And how do we make sure they will be the best years of their lives? How do we give them the best chance of success? What kind of society do we want them to grow up in?
A Singapore that is of value to the world must be of even deeper value and meaning to Singaporeans. I hope to see a Singapore that brings out the best in every Singaporean, and enables each of us to fulfil our potential and aspirations, and to lead a life of opportunities and purpose. It should be a society of opportunities for all, a society that is fair and inclusive.
Many societies, in wanting to be inclusive, start with redistributing wealth. Election becomes an auction. There is a Chinese saying, “坐食山崩”. Even if you have a pile of grain as large as a mountain, if you sit there and eat, it will run out one day.
In Singapore, we start with fostering the conditions for all of us to create opportunities for ourselves. While it is easy and tempting, to redistribute what we have today, it is much harder to think of how we can create opportunities, not only for today, but for the future, and for future generations. But this is critical if we want Singapore to succeed, beyond SG50 and even beyond SG100.
I recently met a professor who explained to me why his family and his relatives were all highly successful, through education. His parents were refugees who had to flee their homeland, losing all their possessions. No matter how little they had, they always made sure that they invested in his education and his siblings' education. And he told me, \"Whatever the tumultuous changes outside, however you may be dispossessed, what matters most is what is in your head. No one can take that away from you. It stays with you for life.\"
Indeed, the best gift we can give to each child for the SG100 journey is the gift of education. This is what we have been doing since Independence. We must continue to share the value of education with all, so that every Singaporean, regardless of family background or starting point, is empowered to build a better life. We are continuing to make significant changes in our schools, so that our students can learn through multiple pathways, in multiple domains, to achieve multiple peaks of excellence. Applied learning, inquiry-based learning and the emphasis on empathy will sharpen the innovative instincts of our students, as they connect learning to real world needs.
One very significant innovation that we are embarking on is SkillsFuture, which will enable our people, regardless of age, regardless of professions, to continue learning all their life. The other significant area of work is in healthcare. The Pioneer Generation Package takes care of our pioneers, while MediShield Life provides for risk-pooling. The next major area in healthcare would be preventive and primary care, as set out in the MOH Addendum. And all these come on top of the commitment to enable Singaporeans to own a home.
Education, healthcare, housing are major ways that the Government is sharing the value of what we have created together. All three share one quality, one very important quality, that these are of value throughout one's life. Education to enable us to realise our potential and healthcare to keep us active and vigorous, in our lifetime; and housing to build our life and family.
Yesterday, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that for Singapore to shine, we must enable Singaporeans to shine. This, in fact, is what we have been doing all these years, and I am glad Mr Low agrees with this direction. SkillsFuture is another important step in this direction. Unfortunately, Mr Low made a convoluted link between SkillsFuture and politics. And Mr Low claimed that all our schools emphasised too much on cohesion. I was quite surprised that in a world where there are so many forces that can fragment a society, Mr Low thinks we could place too much emphasis on cohesion and that our education system does not appreciate the importance of diversity, differences and even dissent.
Mr Low is mistaken both in facts and in his reasoning. Valuing cohesion does not come at the expense of critical and creative thinking. So, let us be very clear-headed when we make education policies. Education policies must be made with serious intent, and not superficially, and certainly not for political purposes.
Having worked with our educators, I have every confidence that we have a strong team of professionals with the experience and insights to educate our students well and prepare them well for the future.
In fact, we must continue to value the unity and cohesion of our people so that our students learn from young to share the value of what we have created. And, in fact, sharing the value of what we have created makes us more cohesive and enables us to go on to create more. So, we must continue to make Character and Citizenship Education meaningful, as Mr Christopher de Souza stressed in moving this Motion and to empower our young to make a difference to others.
Sharing the value of what we have created, building an inclusive society, goes beyond policies. It is what each of us does, day-in, day-out. Members have shared many heart-warming stories; let me share one more.
In July last year, we had \"Youth Celebrate!\" A team of about 500 swimmers from all schools were seeking to break the record for the most number of laps swum in one hour. It was the students' gift to the nation. When I met the swimmers, they were so fired up. Among them is Lim Kah Yi, a Secondary 3 student from Pathlight School. Kah Yi's mother told us how happy she was that he took part in this event, to be part of the team.
Our students swam to a new record of 7,505 laps within one hour, almost double the old record set by adults. The swimmers included novices and experienced ones, from young ones in Primary 2 to tertiary students, and Kah Yi.
This, to me, symbolises how we are moving forward as a country. We move forward together and everyone has a place. Some may swim more laps and some fewer; some faster and some slower. But we do it together. We set a record together. Every person's contribution counts. Everyone is valued.
However many opportunities we create, there will still be people who are vulnerable, who need a helping hand. This is where the community plays such a critical role. It is most encouraging that many acts of giving are underway. Acts of kindness big and small.
When we were planning SG50, we sought to rally Singaporeans to share. I am delighted that over 200,000 volunteers came onboard our SG50 Care and Share movement. Mr Philip Tan, who chairs the SG50 Care and Share movement, regularly updates me on the progress of the fund raising effort. Each email he sends me speaks of his passion and joy in helping others. I am happy to say that with Government's matching grant, Community Chest and the 240 VWOs under the movement expect to raise more than half a billion dollars by March this year. More than half a billion. This will give the social service sector a big boost and support good work that cannot be measured in dollars.
I support Ms Denise Phua's call on Government to work closely together with VWOs, because together, we can achieve more than what each of us alone can accomplish.
These are the foundations of a society where people care for and lift one another up. There is a richness in our relationships, reflected in the way we lead our daily lives, as peers and equals, regardless of class, status, age, race, or religion. The quality of these relationships cannot be measured by metrics like GDP. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Members have debated about the good politics and good policies we need over the past few days in Parliament. Ultimately, why must we make these changes? Our objective is very clear: to keep Singapore prosperous and stable, and improve the lives of succeeding generations of Singaporeans. In order to achieve our objective, we must create value together, shape our future together and share value amongst Singaporeans.
Throughout our history, we have found new ways to create value to the world and for ourselves in different areas. Singapore is now at a critical juncture. Our development has taken off; it is difficult to draw from the experience of other countries. We face many uncertainties, both internally and externally. Therefore, we must constantly innovate and adapt our political, economic and social systems. In order to create value successfully in the future, we need to go beyond the development of hardware. More importantly, we need Singaporeans who are innovative. We also need to continue to keep an international outlook, have the ability to bridge cultural differences and seek new business opportunities. In this way, we can better attract talents and pool resources together to become a global innovation centre, continually create new value and more opportunities for Singaporeans.
Even as we create value, we must also think deeply about how to share value amongst Singaporeans. This is not just about wealth re-distribution. We must be people-centric and foster the conditions for Singaporeans to pursue their dreams. Education is the best gift that we can give to each child. This is because we can bring out their potential through education. Every child, regardless of family background, should have a chance to succeed. At the same time, we must share value in a fair and inclusive way if we want to move forward together.
Last year, I attended \"Youth Celebrate!\". Seeing how children from different backgrounds worked hard and performed together, I was very much moved. In 50 years, these children would only be in their 50s or 60s. This reminds us that SG100 is not so far away. What we do now will determine whether our children will have opportunities to showcase their talents and realise their dreams, just as we now have. We owe the success we enjoy today to the hard work and sacrifice of our Pioneers who continually sought to create value. It is now our responsibility to continue this mission, to create value together, share value with every Singaporean and build a better future that belongs to us all.
(In English): I believe Singapore can succeed in our journey to SG100. We can create value for the world, and for ourselves, if we rely on our people, remain outward looking and possess the guts and gumption that our Pioneers had, to adapt and turn constraints into strengths.
To share value, we must preserve our sense of togetherness, see value in every individual and help them flourish. We believe that individuals thrive when others thrive too, when our community is harmonious. We are a society that moves forward together, because we believe we are part of something larger than ourselves.
When we look at the sum of all that has brought us to where we are today, the changes and challenges we face today and our hopes for our shared future, this is the \"so what\", we must keep creating value for the world and for ourselves. And we must share the value we create in a fair and inclusive way.
Which brings me to \"what for?\" I learnt to ask and to answer, \"so what?\" from Mr Lee. But I also learnt the \"what for?\" from him. Mr Lee was always focused on outcomes and purpose. What are we doing all this for?
The \"so what\" changes all the time. With every new circumstance, every new challenge, we need to examine anew, so what does this mean? So, what do we do? But the \"what for\" is evergreen, be it 1965, 2015 or 2065. The \"what for\" is this: to build a Singapore where every Singaporean can reach our dreams.
A Singapore where every Singaporean can reach our dreams is a Singapore where our people are fully aware of, but are not one bit afraid of, our challenges. It is a Singapore where our people can reach high in our lives no matter what background we come from and where our people can hold our heads high no matter where in the world we go. It is a Singapore where our people never fear, never give up, never leave anyone behind.
It is a Singapore where we are confident that we can each be at our best and are caring enough to support and cheer one another on to each be at our best. This is a Singapore where every Singaporean can reach our dreams. This is our \"what for\".
Many good ideas were raised in this Chamber over the past few days. Now, all of us, together, need to put words into action, turn our aspirations into reality. As representatives elected by the people, we share a collective responsibility to bring Singaporeans together, listen with humility and find the best solutions for Singapore. As we start towards SG100, as we weather the challenges ahead and forge our future together, I encourage every Member of this House: always ask, \"So what?\", and always remember, \"What for.\" Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): \"You must first be honest. You must next have idealism. You must have convictions. Finally, you must organise to bring home your convictions to the people.\" Relevant today as when these words were first spoken by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the Legislative Assembly in 1957. It reminds us that our positions in this House must be motivated by honesty, integrity and conviction.
Mdm Speaker, 62 Members have spoken in support of the Motion, including the Prime Minister. New Members made their maiden speeches, and returning Members brought to the debate their vision for Singapore based on the political experiences they have accumulated so far. It has been, as the Prime Minister aims it to be, a serious forum. I hope to be able to do justice to all fellow Members and thank you, Madam, for allowing me to round up the debate.
Madam, during his Address, the President highlighted five key aims that the Government hopes to fulfil. I propose to categorise the speeches that we have heard into these five areas.
First, building a safe and secure Singapore. Given the current geo-political climate, it is no surprise that many Members echoed the President's reminder of the importance of safeguarding our sovereignty. Mr Vikram Nair highlighted how the threat of terrorism, especially from non-state actors like ISIS, is real.
Just in the last few months alone, Jakarta, Paris, Istanbul and Beirut were hit by terrorism. The recent arrest of 27 radicalised individuals right here in Singapore is a sobering reminder of this new reality.
Terrorism is no longer fought using conventional means. Dr Mohamad Maliki accurately noted that the far reach of social media has allowed radical ideologies supporting terrorism to invade the thoughts of our people. Mr Png Eng Huat noted that self-radicalisation is almost impossible to prevent. This makes the threat of terrorism even more insidious than other more conventional threats.
However, a \"safe and secure\" Singapore does not just refer to safeguarding Singapore and Singaporeans from physical harm; but should also encompass creating a strong and united Singapore that is able to overcome adversity should a threat materialise.
As Mr Amrin Amin rightly pointed out, in order to achieve this, \"legislation, policies and even weapons alone are not enough\". We need to win hearts and minds of all Singaporeans, and when the time comes, we have to stand as one united people. This was echoed by Ms Joan Pereira.
And as both Mr Ng Chee Meng and Dr Janil Puthcheary shared, our National Anthem, Majulah Singapura, is itself a source and symbol of unity and strength, to re-energise us to soar to even greater heights as a nation.
Madam, since Independence, Singapore has overcome adversity, through the leadership of effective Government and a united people. It is a good partnership and we must do our best to preserve it.
Second, economy. Calls to renew and restructure our economy were heard from several Members of the House. Big developing economies are showing signs of distress as Mr Sitoh Yih Pin pointed out.
But in order to overcome this period of economic uncertainty, we cannot afford to be stagnant; it is imperative that we adapt and face the threats of the new economy head on, as highlighted by Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Yee Chia Hsing. And this is a challenge that I am confident Singapore is ready to face, because Singaporeans have proven time and time again, that we have the will, not only the will, but the acumen to overcome obstacles put in our way.
The formation of the Committee on the Future Economy, helmed by our Finance Minister, Mr Heng Swee Keat whom we just listened to, shows the Government's emphasis in developing economic strategies that will position Singapore well for the future. This also emphasises the need for a whole-of-Government and whole-of-Singapore effort to renew our economy, points emphasised by Mr Heng in this House just moments ago.
With the SkillsFuture initiative, we should be ready for a future economy where workers are empowered to re-skill, up-skill, allowing us to develop a strong Singaporean Core in the workplace, issues raised by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Heng Chee How. Mr Pritam Singh himself has suggested applying SkillsFuture ideology in Parliament.
Another key component to overcoming this economic uncertainty is for the tripartite partners to innovate and reinvent our economic landscape. We must not be afraid to adopt new policies and ideas and to discard or reinvent outdated ones. Perhaps as Mr Zainal Sapari suggested, the tripartite partners can champion new approaches to improve productivity in our economy by reinventing business processes and rethinking creative use of robots and machines in the workplace. As Mr Patrick Tay stated, we should not forget to care for our Singapore PMEs in the process.
At the same time, as new technologies develop and we continue to restructure our economy, there will be a need for us to optimise our workforce for the future. Some industries will need more manpower, some require manpower in new skills, others may need to shed manpower through automation. This was highlighted by Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Jessica Tan. But as Minister Yaacob Ibrahim noted, all these efforts will only succeed if Singaporeans step forward with a desire to learn and equip themselves with new skills, and if companies actively support and invest in developing their workforce. This might even mean Singaporeans taking on a different role like that of a freelancer, as Mr Ang Hin Kee shared.
There were also calls to continue supporting SMEs and entrepreneurs to inculcate a vibrant start-up ecosystem in Singapore. Dr Koh Poh Koon, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Leon Perera pointed that SMEs and startups, especially those with high growth potential, are an important source of innovation in our economy. They will help to rejuvenate our business landscape and therefore should be supported. As Mr Liang Eng Hwa highlighted, we need to continue staying open and plug into the global network so that we can give our local entrepreneurs and local innovators access to more opportunities and enhance our chances of succeeding as a value creating economy.
Essentially, Madam, we need to overcome challenges innovatively. If I may borrow the analogy that Mr Alex Yam used on the first day of the debate, we all know that Singapore's economy stars have not always aligned. Drawing from Mr Yam's own words, \"On paper, Singapore was never meant to be the successful economically. A country with no land or natural resources. But as a nation, we stand here today as a testament to the importance of hard work, carefully forward planning and team spirit.\" I think we can all align to such thinking. And as an aside, Madam and Members, at present for Mr Yam, his stars have all aligned again. He became a father for the second time, to a second baby, on the second day of this debate. Two-two-two! [Applause.]
Not to be outdone, Mr Louis Ng has passionately volunteered to keep this going and had declared yesterday in this House that he will help to increase our TFR by having at least one more baby soon. Good luck!
Next, fostering a more caring and compassionate society in Singapore. This is a topic that is very close to my heart and, if I may say so, Madam, your heart, too. So, it was heartening to hear many Members of this House highlight the importance of creating a more compassionate society in Singapore. For our seniors, innovative ideas like co-locating senior care centres at community clubs and planning for active ageing hubs in new HDB developments as well as the planning for multi-generational neighbourhoods were mooted by Dr Amy Khor and Miss Cheng Li Hui respectively. And more than just having community spaces and activities to keep our seniors active, there is also a need for us to encourage engaged lifestyles to keep our elderly engaged, happy and mobile. We need to build a strong social network for them, as were importantly raised by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Dr Chia Shi-Lu. A key component of a caring and compassionate Singapore is the role active citizenry takes and the growth of an altruistic spirit.
Mr Louis Ng shared his daring vision to set up ACRES and spoke with passion to help us ensure our policies relating to animals are humane. They too share this home with us. Ultimately, bolder steps need to be taken to entrench this value of care into our system, as Ms Denise Phua stated. This compassion should even extend to ensuring that people have access to justice, as Ms Indranee Rajah explained. As Members of this House, an important role that we play is to give a voice to the voiceless, and those who are marginalised in society. If we do not include their voices in law making, who will?
And as Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Muhd Faisal Manap shared, we must care for the less well-off, the less fortunate. Ms Low Yen Ling reminded us that the values of our pledge should be upheld for all of society, a theme echoed by Mr Darryl David.
The creation of a Coordinating Minister for Economic and Social policies, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, reflects the Government's emphasis on aligning our social policies with those of our economic policies, for our economic policies must meet our social needs. This helps us in our vision that no Singaporean is left behind. A vision shared by Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr David Ong and Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Next, transforming our urban landscape. As highlighted by several Members including Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Ong Teng Koon, this transformation should involve building better and more affordable public housing, creating more green spaces within our communities, embarking in long-term infrastructural plans to support a changing population, and harnessing technology and its potential benefits. To achieve this transformation, we need to put in foundations now, so that our children and our grandchildren will be able to benefit when these plans come to fruition in the future. As clearly put by Mr Henry Kwek, we should prepare our citizens so that they can go beyond Singapore, but let us build a home so that they would want to stay.
On the fifth theme, there has been strong support by fellow Members for the call by the President to engage and partner Singaporeans. The Government's emphasis on active citizenship engagement saw Our Singapore Conversation in 2012. Moving forward, the President has highlighted two national platforms, namely the SGfuture dialogues and the Committee on the Future Economy. That will be used to engage Singaporeans on creating a common future together. The keen value of these face-to-face interactions was brought to bear by Mr Baey Yam Keng. As Dr Tan Wu Meng highlighted, we each have a role to play – Government, politics, citizens – all together. No part operating in silo. This was echoed by Miss Cheryl Chan who noted that, as Singaporeans, we can and should aspire to be part of nation building. In shaping the future of our economy, as Mr Seah Kian Peng shared, we must embrace what it means to be Singaporean. Our future, and that of our children and grandchildren, lie in our hands as a community, society, a multi-racial nation. As Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef pointed out, the only upper limit for our future is the one that we set in our own mindsets.
Together we must strive to improve ourselves as a nation, and to quote Mr Ong Ye Kung, \"to develop faster legs, stronger hearts, wiser minds\". I trust Mr Ong has all three.
There has been a call to renew or resolve to march towards our common destiny. And as Mr Chee Hong Tat passionately proclaimed, \"We are the descendants of lion-hearted Pioneers who built this country. Stay united, work hard and embrace the pioneering spirit of our forefathers.\"
The vehicle to which these five aims will be delivered is a decisive, stable and reliable Government, one that is effective and leads by example, and that introduces well-crafted and effective initiatives. Ms Sylvia Lim had rightly stated that Singaporeans want a strong Government, she went on to say with checks and balances. In my view, an increase in the seats of NCMPs to 12 and equipping them with constitutional voting rights, provide assurance of more voices in Parliament, more diverse views and, consequently, a greater need to persuade, placed on the Government's shoulders. I should say as with any checks or balance or insurance, as Mr Low Thia Khiang calls it, much depends on the quality and credibility of such insurance. But I believe Ms Sylvia Lim's premise remains that Singaporeans have a desire for a strong Government and that Singaporeans must feel they can make a difference.
Over the past five years, we have heard various views about the need for the renewal of the political institutions and for political change. Many Members, like Mr Edwin Tong, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Zaqy Mohamad just recently spoke passionately about how they envision our political landscape moving forward and how policies should be tweaked for better and more effective results.
The Prime Minister outlined how the Government will be making the necessary refinements to the current system to make our political system more robust and responsive to the changing political landscape. To many of these proposals, I am in agreement, but one caveat. I would like to say that any change needs to be closely accompanied by a deliberate retention of the existing culture of mentorship and the passing down of experiences. That should not change.
Let me share why it is important. Starting politics at a young age, I had to learn humbly and fast, and more than anything, it taught me the importance and value of mentorship. Therefore, while we tweaked and refined the system, let us not throw out the continuity of mentorship, especially in the ecosystem of politics. The value of mentorship from more experienced Ministers, Members, senior leaders, the imparting of values, and the training of reflex actions to make important decisions in crisis situations must never be sidelined. This is especially important for a young nation who is storing up its own precedence of experiences to learn from and to rely on in future.
I hope there will continue to be a long path for senior leaders to impart lessons on how to tackle difficult situations and most importantly, values even after they leave day-to-day leadership roles. In the same way, it is valuable for a young nation like Singapore, such mentorship and teaching is valuable to younger office-bearers and elected Members of Parliament alike.
Madam, please allow me to share real examples: Emeritus Senior Minister Goh. He led Singapore as our Prime Minister and still continues to serve his constituency and our nation as a Member of Parliament with loyalty. To have him as an elected Member, still imparting lessons, is a treasure. Even more encouraging was watching news clips of Emeritus Senior Minister Goh walking under the blazing hot sun from home to home in areas within his constituency like Frankel Estate, where he encouraged Singaporeans to consider carefully their vote and what it would mean for Singapore. It encouraged me and I am sure many of us here, to dedicate ourselves to the constituencies we serve.
Similarly, Mr Lim Swee Say and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, my senior in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, impressed the importance of constituency work, being resolutely focused on residents and ensuring changes are made in Parliament if one believes hard enough in the causes one holds. Mentorship is very important. Without it, we will be adrift at sea.
Another example: President S R Nathan continued to mentor well into his 80s and still does. I remembered I accompanied Mr Nathan on a state visit to Istanbul. It was quite a long flight. So, Singapore Airlines dimmed the cabin lights after the meal was cleared. During the flight, I remembered going through in my mind the briefs MFA had issued us on Singapore's purpose and objectives for the trip. And all of the sudden, I found Mr Nathan seating on my seat's arm rest in the plane. He had walked over from his seat. I stood up immediately and anticipating he would ask me questions on the briefs. He did not. Instead, he spoke with me about Singapore, \"Never let our guard down, stay driven, stay focused\". He then talked with sincerity and insight about the Singapore-Eurasian community and asked after it. He was mentoring there, at 33,000 feet, when the rest of the cabin was asleep.
He left a deep impression on me. I thought how fortunate we are to have such a man as our Head of State and that he was our President, makes all races, majority and minority all very proud.
The value of mentorship is in ensuring that values continue. These can only be passed down by human beings. Not an SOP, not an Instruction Manual. Mr S Dhanabalan himself, an exceptional person, recounted the value, talked of the value of being mentored by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his eulogy at Minister Mentor's funeral. The returning Members, both PAP and Opposition, would remember what Minister Mentor said to all of us after cutting his 90th birthday cake, just there, in the Members' Room. \"Keep it clean. Keep it honest,\" was what Minister Mentor said.
How much richer we are as a nation that we have men with deep reservoirs of personal experience who are able to impart life lessons and leadership long after they step down from day-to-day leadership positions. This must continue.
I was in the region on travel recently. A trusted friend many years my senior said Singapore had got it right. Former leaders helped. They do not ambush. In 2012, when the Minister Mentor was accepting less public engagements, I wrote him a note expressing thanks for his mentorship. He wrote back within a day; the letter stated \"I'm glad you found our conversations over the years of value. When meeting people, you need EQ. You need IQ because the margin of error for Singapore is very small.\" The need to ensure continuity of mentorship.
Madam, one final example on this point. The Prime Minister has regular lunches with two or three Members of Parliament at a time. Sometimes, we have no idea what we will be quizzed about. It is always a healthy lunch which almost always ends with fresh fruits. Like the meal, the discussion is healthy. The content invariably revolves around four areas: one, how can we better the lives of Singaporeans; two, how we should never be afraid of breaking out of outdated mind sets; three, how we each play a part in advancing Singapore; and four, very importantly, how are our constituents? Are they well? Are the children advancing? Are they happy? Do they have opportunities?
A 360-degree conversation on Singapore and Singaporeans. Living, thinking Singapore.
The store of experience in the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues is immense. While we tweak and refine the political institutions and the landscape, I ask because I believe this to be important, that we preserve the model of having long paths for senior leaders to impart values and lessons even after they decide to leave apex or active leadership positions. There is much value for Singapore to reap, provided Singaporeans and their advancement always remain the focus of political energy.
In conclusion, two weeks ago, Madam, you reminded us that as Members of this House, we must speak honestly, sincerely and from the heart, for the good of our residents, for our communities and for all Singaporeans. Let us respect the precious trust that has been placed in our hands by the constituents we serve. Let us build on foundations past and deploy ourselves, our whole selves, for our country's future. [Applause.]
I now call upon all the Members of this House to join me in thanking the President for his Address.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]
[(proc text) 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Constituency Member","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker: Before we proceed with the next Motion, I wish to state for the record that at the General Election held on 11 September 2015, Ms Lee Li Lian of the Workers' Party was declared by the Returning Officer as the candidate elected as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) in accordance with section 52 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
With reference to section 53 of the said Act, I also wish to state for the record that Ms Lee Li Lian did not take and subscribe the oath of allegiance before this Parliament at its first or second Sittings in its First Session held on 15 January 2016 and 25 January 2016, respectively.
Mr Low, please move your Motion and make your speech.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move,
[(proc text) \"That this Parliament, pursuant to section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act – (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) declares that the seat of Ms Lee Li Lian, who was elected a Non-constituency Member of Parliament under section 52 of the Act, has become vacant by reason of her having failed to take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first and second Sittings of the first session of the present Parliament; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) resolves that the seat be filled in accordance with sections 52(2) and 52(3B)(a) of the Act.\" (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker, the Motion before the House is to provide for the filling of the vacant seat in accordance with the relevant section of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Ms Lee Li Lian of the Workers' Party was declared an NCMP at the General Elections 2015 but has decided not to take up the seat. Ms Lee Li Lian has not taken the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first Sitting on 15 January 2016 and the second Sitting on 25 January 2016 of the First session of Parliament. Under the Parliamentary Elections Act, three NCMP seats were declared elected. Since Ms Lee Li Lian has not taken up the seat, Parliament has the power to resolve to fill the vacant seat.
Madam, under the Parliamentary Elections Act, if the election results of the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) qualifies for the NCMP seat, two seats are offered to the team of candidates in the GRC. However, there were only three NCMP seats declared under the Act at the last General Election. As a result, East Coast GRC despite being qualified as the next succeeding GRC, only one candidate instead of two was declared NCMP. Under the circumstances, it is logical that Parliament consider filling the vacant seat by declaring another candidate from the East Coast GRC team as NCMP.
Madam, it is public knowledge that the Workers' Party opposes the NCMP scheme. The Workers' Party believes that the NCMP scheme is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. The NCMP scheme has become an attempt to whitewash the tremendous negative impact driven by the change in our political system from Single Member Constituency (SMC) to the creation of GRCs to entrench a one-party political system with no insurance against the failure of the Ruling party.
The Workers' Party is a rational and responsible political party. We understand the political reality. We understand that the struggle for a functional democracy by a loyal Opposition must be fought from within the existing system under the law legislated by Parliament even though we disagree with that. Therefore, we do not oppose individual Members who are willing to sacrifice their time and energy to contribute to the national debate in Parliament.
Hence, if one Member who is declared as NCMP is unable to take up the seat, it is my duty as the leader of the Workers' Party to nominate the next best volunteer. This is why I have decided to move the Motion.
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides us for a maximum of nine NCMPs from the Opposition in this House if there are none being elected at the January elections. When the NCMP scheme was proposed in 1984, three benefits were given in support of the scheme. These purported benefits were repeated again in 2010 when NCMP seats were increased from six to nine seats.
The first reason is to provide PAP Ministers and Members with the experience of the cut and thrust of debate by sparring with Opposition Members. The second reason is to allow the electorate to judge for themselves what elected Opposition Members can and cannot do for the people. The third reason is to dispel any suspicions of cover-ups, since Opposition Members would give vent to any allegation of misfeasance or corruption or nepotism, even if these proved false and allow the Government to rebut them.
From the above, Mdm Speaker, it is clear that the creation of the NCMP scheme is chiefly for the benefit of the Ruling party and Opposition Members are deemed as valuable only in relation to the training they give the PAP Ministers and Members. Although the PAP is trying very hard to convince Singaporeans that NCMPs are on par with elected Members, they have shown the cloven hoof by referring to the NCMPs as second-class Members in this House and Opposition best losers who crave for publicity and personal fame.
Such a view was characteristically articulated two days ago in this House by Member Cedric Foo who was so arrogant to say that Mr Leon Perera's presence here is by the grace of the PAP.
Madam, with the backdrop I have described above, it should be no surprise that the Workers' Party has been opposing the NCMP scheme, a scheme which was created to the PAP's political advantage. It is the view of the Workers' Party that the only way forward for a strong Parliament, one that can hold the government of the day to account, is for the Ruling party, in the position of strength, to create a political system that would allow both genuine and loyal Opposition parties to grow as well as the Ruling party to perform and compete for seats.
I expect the Workers' Party's NCMPs to grow strong from their position of weakness and to hold their heads up high with pride and dignity. They will respect Parliament, respect the law and respect themselves. Thank you.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Charles Chong.
Mr Charles Chong (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, I am indeed very disappointed that this House would not benefit from Ms Lee Li Lian's membership in this Parliament. I remember, in particular, her speaking passionately during the Population White Paper debate in 2013. She had only just entered Parliament then but brought with her a passion for matters she felt strongly about.
As my opponent in Punggol East SMC in last year's General Election, Ms Lee fought a very good clean fight. When the election results were announced, I was happy to note that she qualified for an NCMP position and the residents of Punggol East could benefit from the voice of someone who had worked with them for more than two and a half years. But this was short-lived as Ms Lee declared soon afterwards that she would not be taking up the NCMP position.
Mdm Speaker, the NCMP scheme has been part of our political landscape since 1984, more than half the time that Singapore has been an independent nation. The Prime Minister, on Wednesday, had given a detailed explanation of the purpose of the NCMP scheme and indicated his intention to increase the number of Opposition Members in this House and to give NCMPs voting rights equal to constituency Members of Parliament. This was really not for the benefit of the PAP but for the Opposition. So, I am a bit puzzled by Mr Low Thia Khiang's claim that the NCMP scheme is for the benefit of the PAP to provide them with sparring partners. If this was so, then why do we get Workers' Party's candidates accepting the position in the first place for the benefit of the PAP?
While the Workers' Party was initially extremely opposed to the scheme, and some of them may still be opposed to the scheme, their position towards it in recent years appears to have softened somewhat, as they must have come to realise that whatever the shortcomings they perceived the scheme has, it does actually confer benefits on members of the Opposition parties.
I say \"appears\" because we have received mixed signals from the leadership of the Workers' Party, with Mr Low Thia Khiang being on record as saying that he would resign from his Party if it is insisted that he takes up an NCMP seat. On the other hand, members of the Workers' Party, who have previously been NCMPs, have spoken positively of their experience. But we are not here to debate the inconsistencies in the Workers' Party's position or what their internal politics are. There is a more important issue which this House needs to consider.
Mdm Speaker, we are bound by the rules which we have established for ourselves, either in the Parliamentary Standing Orders, in our legislation or in our Constitution. Where there is a framework within which we must work, everyone involved should respect it and not try to find ways to game the system. This applies across the board regardless of party affiliation or political inclinations.
Insofar as the NCMP scheme is concerned, while we must indeed respect the decision of the majority in our General Elections, which was the first of the reasons Ms Lee gave for declining the seat, we must also accord sufficient respect to the decision of the minority as provided for in our statutes. This means, in this case, respecting the results of voting in Punggol East SMC, which saw sufficient numbers of voters in my constituency giving Ms Lee Li Lian a mandate to enter Parliament, a privilege which she has, regretfully, declined to accept and one which the Workers' Party now seeks to transfer to another candidate who did not qualify on the basis of the GE results.
As pointed out by Mr Low Thia Khiang, while the Parliamentary Elections Act allow for Opposition parties to nominate the NCMPs where a GRC is concerned, the Act is really not intended to allow Opposition parties to pick and choose which best losers from different constituencies to enter Parliament. We would be very disappointed if Ms Lee's decision to decline the NCMP position was supported by her party for that reason. It would be a rather unfortunate misuse of the guarantee in the Constitution that at least nine Opposition Members of Parliament will be offered places in Parliament.
My experience with having an NCMP working in my previous constituency was a very positive one. Although Mr Yee Jenn Jong was, as the title suggests, a Non-constituency Member, his presence in this House gave residents of Joo Chiat SMC an additional voice in Parliament, which was only natural as he was closely in touch with issues in Joo Chiat.
For example, when there was a serious dengue outbreak in Joo Chiat, while I worked the ground with the grassroots leaders and NEA officers, Mr Yee raised this issue in Parliament. Although we were political rivals during the Elections, I believe that we were more interested in working for the good of residents after the Elections, notwithstanding our different party colours. I commend Mr Yee for this and I thank him for his commitment to residents of Joo Chiat while I was the serving Member of Parliament there.
To come back to Ms Lee's reason for declining the seat, which I mentioned earlier, I do not think that Mr Yee's decision to take up the NCMP position was in anyway disrespectful of the decision of the majority. On the contrary, it was a benefit to all residents in Joo Chiat SMC. He is an example of an NCMP who sought to grow his roots in the constituency that he had contested in and I certainly do not consider him to be anything like duckweed, without roots; or a vase only for show. Both descriptions do him and the work that he has done a great disservice.
Mdm Speaker, I do not doubt that if the situation was such, that an NCMP seat was offered to Mr Low Thia Khiang, he would either decline it or, as he has stated previously, resign from the Workers' Party if the seat was forced upon him, but that latter circumstance seems unlikely.
It is clear that there is a precedence within the Workers' Party for declining an NCMP position and still retaining your party membership. But whatever their internal positions and intentions may be, as the members of the Workers' Party have now largely seem to accept the NCMP scheme, I would urge them to play by its rules, to abide by its spirit and not to use non-acceptance of a seat by properly-elected candidates as a backdoor way to have someone who did not qualify for the position into this House.
As the Prime Minister has now announced that the NCMP scheme will be tweaked, it seems to me an opportune time for the Government to review the provisions relating to filling a vacated NCMP seat to prevent abuse of the current system. In particular, the practice of transferring an NCMP seat to a candidate in a different constituency is not sound in principle.
It would be like allowing me, after having won the Election in Punggol East, to decline my seat in Parliament and instead pass it on to the PAP candidate who stood in Aljunied GRC or Hougang SMC. This is not something we permit for constituency Members of Parliament, so we need to review whether this is something which makes sense for NCMPs.
In the light of these concerns, I would like the Workers' Party to clarify their position on the transfer of NCMP seats, so that Members, in consideration of the Motion, can make a more informed decision of the factors prompting the request of the filling of the vacated seat with another Workers' Party candidate. For example, it would be useful to understand if the Workers' Party would support a transfer where the next best loser was not a Workers' Party candidate but a candidate from another Opposition party.
Mdm Speaker, I am in favour of diverse voices in Parliament. I agree with the Prime Minister this is, on the whole, beneficial in providing a diversity of views, contributes to more considered debates and, therefore, beneficial for Singapore. So, I welcome the amendments to the NCMP scheme proposed by the Government, and in respect of the Motion being debated, I believe the House would be worse off with one fewer Opposition Member contributing to debates and deliberations. However, I do think that it is unfortunate that Ms Lee Li Lian has decided not to accept the seat even though she was the first best loser in the 2015 General Elections.
This is a point of principle. I have nothing against the Workers' Party's prospective candidate for the vacated NCMP seat. But I feel it is a point which bears further consideration. While voting against the Motion would not be in the interest of debate and diversity of voices in this House, this is a Motion that I have difficulty supporting as it stands without expressing my reservations. [Applause.]
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Normally, I do not like to criticise the Opposition party, but this time, I really have to get it off my chest.
The Workers' Party (WP) has always insisted that, in principle, they object to the NCMP scheme. They said that if the Government did away with the GRC system, then there would be more Opposition Members in Parliament and we would not need the NCMP scheme.
Let us not debate for now whether this is true or not. I just want to remind all Members, as the Prime Minister said two days ago, that the objective of the GRC system was to ensure enough non-Chinese Members in Parliament to defend our multiracial and multicultural spirit and to ensure that the minorities are not marginalised. This scheme should not be abolished easily.
Of course, WP has the right to uphold a principle that is different from PAP's. But the problem is that, when facing an NCMP seat, WP members have a different attitude.
WP's Secretary-General Mr Low Thia Khiang said in Parliament in 2010 that he would never accept an NCMP seat. If WP forces him to take up the NCMP seat, he would rather resign, but whether or not other WP members should accept the NCMP seat is up to the Party's decision.
WP's Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, said in 2009 that this scheme was, in her own words, \"overall supportable\". She said that Singapore's election system is a first-past-the-post system, which can easily result in a situation whereby one party takes up an overwhelming majority of the seats. Hence, the NCMP scheme can allow the people who have voted for the Opposition to be represented in Parliament.
If you think these words sound familiar, then you are right! This is the exact reason why the Government implemented the NCMP scheme.
Ms Sylvia Lim accepted the NCMP seat in 2006. Back then, she said that since there were more than 50,000 voters in Aljunied GRC who had voted for WP, she felt that she had the obligation to accept the NCMP seat. Since 2006, there have been five WP members who had accepted the NCMP seat.
It looks like WP is saying one thing yet doing another when it comes to the NCMP seat. Two days ago, we even heard Mr Low Thia Khiang referring NCMPs as \"the duckweeds in a pond\". Today, however, he is moving a Motion to bring another piece of \"duckweed\" into Parliament; or, to \"float\" into Parliament. I do not understand what the real stance of the WP is!
If it is indeed like what Mr Low has said, that the NCMP scheme only benefits the PAP or the Ruling party, then why bother bringing another NCMP into Parliament?
Even if we accept that the WP regards the NCMP scheme as an interim measure, there is, however, a WP member who has gone against this stance.
Ms Lee Li Lian has refused to take up this seat. I understand that she has her own considerations. However, before the election, the WP should have ensured that all the candidates were prepared to abide by the Constitution and our political system to serve the voters. No candidates should have this attitude that they will serve the voters only if they are elected. The WP has failed to do so and I am very disappointed.
WP has recommended Mr Daniel Goh to take over Ms Lee Li Lian as an NCMP. I think this is not a reasonable request.
Let us compare an NCMP with an elected MP. Just like my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Charles Chong, has mentioned: if any elected Member of Parliament cannot fulfil his duty for some reasons, the seat cannot be transferred. If it is an SMC, then according to our Constitution, the seat must be filled through by-election to elect another Member. Back then, Ms Lee Li Lian was elected into Parliament through a by-election. To be fair, the NCMP seat should also not be transferable.
If there are only three Opposition Members in Parliament now, then perhaps for the sake of having enough Opposition Members, we can allow one of the NCMP seats to be filled. But now, we already have a total of eight Opposition Members. If Ms Lee Li Lian did not decline this seat, there would have been nine Opposition Members. In the future, there will be at least 12 Opposition Members. Furthermore, an NCMP will have the same voting rights as an elected Member, which means that they will be able to influence national policies. Hence, the legitimacy and the appointment of the NCMP will become more important. I hope that the Government can review the relevant legislation to make sure that the NCMP seat will maintain its legitimacy.
The NCMP scheme is already written into our Constitution. The system ensures that, regardless of the election results, in constituencies where the vote shares are very close, the Opposition parties will have the chance to represent their voters in Parliament. Therefore, only the losers who garnered the highest vote share can be qualified as an NCMP. This scheme should not become something like a proportional representation, to allow the party with the second highest vote share to have a certain quota to nominate their candidates.
If we change the NCMP scheme into proportional representation to a certain extent, will it be constitutional? The percentage of votes garnered by the WP in Punggol East was almost 9% higher than that in the East Coast GRC. However, the WP is now proposing to transfer the Parliament representation entitled by the Punggol East voters to East Coast GRC voters. Is this fair to the Punggol East voters?
WP claimed that they wanted to represent Singaporeans, but does their Motion truly respect the people's will? I hope Members can ponder on this carefully.
The Prime Minister mentioned two days ago that the Government would confer NCMPs the same voting rights as elected Members and will increase the minimum number of Opposition Members in Parliament. This means that the NCMP scheme will become even more important.
Hence, I hope that the WP will be able to clarify their stance regarding the NCMP scheme. Do they support the NCMP scheme? In the next election, will they ensure that all their candidates are prepared to fulfil their duties towards the voters under the system? I hope the WP would be able to clarify this so that the voters will be well-informed in the next election before casting their sacred votes.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Madam, I was an NCMP from 2006 to 2011 and I wish to share my perspective on this Motion which will determine if the House will have another NCMP or not.
First, Madam, let me refer to Member Charles Chong's earlier speech where he made some comments about being disappointed that Ms Lee Li Lian would not take up the seat and how Punggol East residents would be disappointed.
Madam, I can fully understand why Ms Lee Li Lian did not want to take up the NCMP seat offered to her after the general election. She has explained her decision publicly. The first and most important reason, she cited, was that she had been the incumbent Member of Parliament in Punggol East SMC for two and a half years, and had to respect the voters' collective decision not to re-elect her. In other words, she had the mandate of the voters of the constituency but it had been lost.
Madam, if an incumbent Member of Parliament who had served the constituency, was just defeated and yet returned to Parliament as an NCMP, it might be deemed undemocratic. And Madam, contrary to what Mr Charles Chong had earlier said, the Party did not support Ms Lee's decision because we \"want to swop candidates\". We respect her decision that she was the incumbent Member of Parliament who had lost and she wanted to give due respect to the voters' collective decision not to re-elect her. That is the critical difference, Madam. Personally, if I had been in her shoes, I would have done the same.
Madam, the Workers' Party is proposing that the vacancy be filled by the next succeeding candidate in accordance with the Parliamentary Elections Act. The next succeeding candidate would be one of the team-mates of NCMP Leon Perera from the East Coast GRC team. The Party had earlier announced that should Parliament declare the vacancy and resolve that it be filled, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh would fill the seat.
Madam, earlier, Mr Charles Chong referred to the legal framework and suggested that we all should follow the legal framework and abide by it in our decisions on NCMP. Madam, there is actually precedent for Parliament to fill an NCMP vacancy. The only time this arose previously was after the 1984 General Election, when it was the Government itself that moved the Motion to fill the vacancy.
At that election, the Workers' Party candidate, Mr MPD Nair was offered an NCMP seat, having narrowly lost the contest in Jalan Kayu by 571 votes, out of about 23, 400. When Mr MPD Nair did not subscribe to the oath of allegiance in the first two Sittings of Parliament, then Leader of the House, Mr S Dhanabalan moved the Motion to declare the seat vacant and to have it filled by the next succeeding candidate.
So, Madam, the Government itself condones the filling of a vacancy when an NCMP does not take up the seat or as Mr Charles Chong and Er Dr Lee had said, the Government condones the \"transfer of NCMP seats\". No by-election was held in that instance to fill the seat.
Madam, the NCMP scheme was put in place by the governing party and Workers' Party cannot change it. We are moving this Motion today because the Constitution provides for it. We also recognise that the Workers' Party can make a contribution to the nation this way.
Madam, earlier, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah commented on some of my earlier comments about the NCMP scheme, and I would suggest that she reads my comments in totality. Because what I had said was that the scheme was overall supportable in the context of GRCs and gerrymandering that has been taking place in our political system, which I think I do not have to elaborate on. And I mentioned in Parliament that the Prime Minister was trying to make a bad situation better. But the NCMP scheme is not the way forward to make the system more robust. And that was why the Workers' Party voted against the Constitutional amendment in 2010.
Madam, it would be a dangerous day indeed if Singapore was to function on the basis that all that was needed for good politics was the NCMP scheme. Entrenching the NCMP scheme as good politics sends the wrong signal. To Singaporeans, the signal being sent is having Opposition voices is enough. It is not.
Madam, the most effective check and balance on the Government is the prospect of, and, in fact, the actual loss of constituency seats.
Madam, Singaporeans would remember what happened after the 2011 GE five years ago. At that election, the PAP faced a national swing that reduced its vote share to 60% and the first loss of a GRC. At the post-election press conference, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was in a sombre mood. He reflected that Singaporeans were concerned with various issues such as the cost of living and housing, education and healthcare, and also with the PAP's approach to Government. Prime Minister Lee pledged that the PAP would \"analyse the results, learn from what has emerged, put right what is wrong, improve what can be made better, and also improve ourselves to serve Singaporeans better.\"
Madam, last year at the state funeral of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, we even learnt that the Prime Minister went into meditation after the 2011 GE.
Madam, lately the PAP has sought to downplay the effect of the 2011 GE and insisted that it has started reviewing its policies since 2006. However, Singaporeans could not have helped noticing the slew of palpable changes in many unpopular policies after the 2011 GE, including the slaughtering of some sacred cows. These included reviewing benchmarking Ministerial salaries to top private sector earners, delinking prices of BTO flats from market transactions and putting Government monies into acquiring buses for the use of public transport operators.
Madam, Singaporeans should pat themselves on the back for sending the Government a strong signal in 2011 that they were not satisfied with some aspects of the PAP's governance. In 2013, the PAP lost Punggol East SMC to the Workers' Party, the second blow in two years that made them quicken the pace of change. Singaporeans forced the PAP to review their policies, at the risk of losing more ground.
Madam, in our system where the PAP is so strongly entrenched, Singaporeans must always remember that their vote is the loudest check of all.
Madam, do we want a system where Opposition Members only get to debate? If Opposition Members do not manage constituencies, they would not be able to demonstrate that they, too, were up to the task of representing their constituents, building vibrant communities, and, yes, running the Town Councils. Should the Ruling party decay or become corrupt, it would be too late to look around for any other party with ground experience, as there may well be none.
Madam, even as we move this Motion, we are under no illusion that NCMPs can replace the check and bargaining power the people have with elected Opposition Members in Parliament. Madam, I urge the House to support the Motion.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat, are you going to make a clarification?
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): May I join in the debate?
Mdm Speaker : Yes, please.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Mdm Speaker, the last time a Motion of such nature was tabled in Parliament was in 1985. Back then, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development Mr S Dhanabalan moved the Motion stating that it is to provide for the filling of the vacant NCMP seat.
The PAP then believed that it could define its brand of democracy by allowing up to three Opposition Members in Parliament. So, the law came to pass. Mr Dhanabalan simply added that, \"the Motion is just to implement the law.\" Nothing more, nothing less.
The PAP Government of today believes it could retain its influence and power with up to nine Opposition Members in Parliament and amended the law in 2010.
Madam, today the Workers' Party is here to move a similar Motion to implement the law pursuant to section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. This Motion does not change in any way the stand of the Workers' Party that the NCMP scheme is not necessary if we had adhered to our original Constitution and reverted to a democracy comprising only Single Member Constituencies.
My colleagues in this House have spoken in detail on the Motion so I shall not repeat those points. It is understandable for some PAP Members in this House to want to take this opportunity to score some political points. After all, in the Motion of 1985, Mr Dhanabalan said, and I quote, \"politicians are practical people\" and that \"they look at the practical exercise of influence and power\".
A distribution of power and influence in this House is so lopsided that the Ruling party can dictate the number of NCMP seats it allows, and at the same time, denying these seats to be filled through its sheer majority. That is the reality in this House. The Ruling party may say that it has given us three NCMP seats but it is the Workers' Party that created the vacancy.
To that argument, I agree. But the PAP Government has also enacted the law for such vacancy to be filled in the event that a candidate does not wish to take up the NCMP seat. The Workers' Party respects the wishes of its members and I am sure the PAP will do the same.
So, this is what the Workers' Party is doing today and that is to implement to the letter of the law what is provided in section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. Thank you, Madam.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, I rise to speak with a heavy heart. As the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah said, none of us, none, would like to see this House criticising each other. This is not the purpose of why we are gathered here. We are gathered in this House because we want to make a difference to the lives of fellow Singaporeans and we want to leave behind a better Singapore for our children and generations to come.
The Motion before us goes beyond the procedural issue of filling an empty NCMP seat. The Motion that stands before us has far more fundamental implications. It goes to the heart of the rights and responsibilities of all of us being elected Members of Parliament (MPs), be it MPs or NCMPs. We are all elected by the voters into this House, including NCMPs.
In response to Mr Low's earlier point, I would be the first to say that if any of my PAP MPs dare call an NCMP a second-class citizen, I, as the Whip, will put them in their place. But on the other hand, please do not call them duckweeds because even in a pond, duckweeds have a purpose. Let us respect each other. Let us respect the different roles that we play in this House, be it as MPs, NCMPs or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). We may play different roles but we can all be united by a common purpose to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, our primary concern and focus for this House in the coming years will continue to be the continued survival and success of our country, Singapore.
Many Members in this House have spoken, including our Opposition colleagues, and everyone has pointed out that for Singapore to continue to enjoy success, we must continue to have the diversity of perspectives. We must continue to have robust decision-making in this House.
One of the ways in which this Government has sought to achieve this is through the NCMP scheme where the best losers in a General Election can still enter Parliament, participate in the debates and participate in the decision-making for the good of our country. Even if a single party today wins all 89 seats in this Parliament, we are assured of nine NCMPs and nine NMPs, by law, for them to join this House to participate in our decision-making.
When we first started this scheme, we started modestly. To be frank, at that point in time, no one really knew what the future would be like. Over time, we grew it to six NCMPs and then to nine. Two days ago, the Prime Minister proposed to further strengthen this scheme by further increasing the number NCMPs from nine to 12, and also to give NCMPs equal voting rights as those of elected MPs in this House. If Parliament accepts our Prime Minister's proposal, it will mean that 20% of this House will come from parties other than the governing party, in any electoral circumstances, even in extreme circumstances where one party wins all 89 seats.
Second, there will be no difference between elected MPs and elected, I say \"elected\", NCMPs. NCMPs will have the same voting rights although they do not need to look after a constituency. NCMPs can continue to contribute to the debates and the decision-making in this House regardless of whether they have a constituency or not.
So, the question is: why? Why does the Prime Minister, having just led his party to an election where his party won 69% of the votes, want to do this? Is it for selfish partisan political reasons or is it for something more?
We have always said the primary concern, the number one concern for the PAP is the longevity of our country, Singapore. We put that way ahead of the longevity of our own party and we have never changed from that position. We are making these changes because we want to continue to strengthen our political system, not just for this generation, but for many more generations to come.
Foreign observers looking at us are puzzled. Why do we have to do this? Is it, as some suggest, for narrow partisan political interest? Is this for our own selfish interest? If so, why do we need to do it? Why do we need to do it now?
Madam, this Government believes that it should, at a moment when it has won a strong mandate, to think beyond the immediate, beyond narrow party interests, to make sure that we can continue to grow a stable, open, contestable political system, for the future of Singapore, not the future of PAP per se.
And there are people on the ground who asked us: why are you doing this? Is this good for your party? We do not know, but we believe that this is good for Singapore and that is why we are doing it.
Madam, this very act is an embrace of diversity, not just in words but in actions. This very act is the embrace of debate, not the fear of debate. We walk the talk. No one should doubt that we are willing to fill the last vacant NCMP seat in this House.
We look forward to having a full and complete House, with MPs, NCMPs and NMPs all vigorously debating the future of our country, working hand-in-hand, for the good of our country. So, we have no trouble at all, supporting a Motion to fill the last NCMP seat. We look forward to it.
But we do have an issue with the reason that Ms Lee Li Lian gave for giving up her seat in favour of another Workers' Party's candidate. We do have an issue with the Workers' Party's motivation in supporting Ms Lee Li Lian's decision and moving this Motion to declare the seat vacant. Let me explain why.
The Workers' Party has often spoken up against the NCMP scheme, including in this very House, this very afternoon. In 2010, Ms Sylvia Lim said that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. In 2010, Mr Low Thia Khiang too said that, \"We will vote against it in-principle because that is not a system we should entrench as a political system.\" Just on Wednesday, Mr Low Thia Khiang repeated this outside the Chamber and I quote, NCMPs have no \"political muscle\". \"An NCMP is just duckweed on the water of a pond... You don't have roots, unlike elected MPs …\" and so on and so forth.
But, the Workers' Party obviously see advantages for itself in accepting NCMP seats. Because, despite the repeated objections, many Workers' Party candidates have in fact taken up the NCMP seats in the past and in today's Chamber. In 1988, Dr Lee Siew Choh became the Party's first serving NCMP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam who claimed that he wanted nothing to do with the NCMP scheme in 1984 accepted the seat himself in 1997 when it was offered to him.
In more recent times, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Gerald Giam both took up the NCMP seats that were offered to them last term. Mr Yee said in 2011, and I quote, \"It is more effective to be able to have a voice through the NCMP scheme than not\". So, obviously, they have found it useful. And they must have found meaning to be able to join the debates in Parliament to contribute to the future of our country.
In fact, Ms Sylvia Lim, Workers' Party Chairman, despite statements to the contrary, has publicly expressed support for the scheme. Let me quote. In 2009, she said the scheme is \"overall supportable\" because it gives \"greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for Opposition candidates in significant numbers which would otherwise be shut out in a pure first-past-the-post system\". And the next sentence is even more important. She said, \"It will also facilitate Opposition parties serving the people in Parliament based on results obtained at General Elections.\"
Mdm Speaker, Members of this House, this is exactly the reason why the Government introduced the scheme and now, to want to strengthen it further. Ms Lim was once an NCMP as she had shared. When she accepted her NCMP seat in 2006, Ms Lim said that it was with \"that sense of obligation\", to those voters who had voted for her, that she was taking up the appointment. She said that her decision to accept the seat was made easier because \"more than 58,000 people actually wanted a Workers' Party voice for Aljunied GRC\".
Mdm Speaker, at the start of this new electoral term, this House saw a new batch of Workers' Party NCMPs accept their seats − Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera. We welcome both of them as equal Members in this House in debate. But Ms Lee Li Lian did not accept the seat. Many in this House who have spoken in the last few days, including Mr Leon Perera on Tuesday, said that it was a privilege to participate in the debate in this House. And we all said that we want to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. Like her party colleagues, one would have hoped, expected, wished that Ms Lee Li Lian would have the same sense of obligation to do right by the support of the people who had voted for her.
So, the question is: why did Ms Lee, a Member of this House in the last Parliament, the Workers' Party candidate who came closest to being re-elected and returned to Parliament, decide not to fulfil her responsibility to the people of Punggol East who had voted for her? It is most regrettable that Ms Lee has chosen to reject her NCMP seat and, with that, her responsibility to her voters and Singapore. The voters of Punggol East have given Ms Lee Li Lian the right to serve and, I am sure, they look forward to her service to our nation. But, unfortunately, this is not to be.
On the day when Ms Lee lost the election, she said, \"I should give this chance to my other Workers' Party colleagues. We really have some good people who deserve the slot\". But Ms Lee got it wrong here. The right and the privilege were given to her by Punggol East residents. It was not for her to give it to someone else.
Then, the very next day, Ms Lee repeated a similar sentiment, that \"There are better people in the party that we should showcase. Let the people see how good these people are\". \"Showcase\". I was not sure what she meant. The honour and privilege to join this House are for service to our nation. It is not for us to showcase ourselves. It is not for us to showcase our party talents. If we do that, we come in with the wrong end in mind.
And for the third time, on 16 September, Ms Lee said, \"The NCMP role is better suited for an aspiring MP who has no such experience and should take this up to show how he or she can contribute in Parliament.\" Again, \"to show\".
Let us remember our duty and responsibility as Members of this House. Let us not turn the NCMP scheme into a revolving door to showcase our talent for our own party objectives. We are here to answer a higher calling: to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. We are not here to showcase our talent. It is not like this for the Prime Minister. It is not like this for any of the Ministers, any Members of Parliament, including NCMPs. And I hope that we, as Members in this House, will continue to bear this in our hearts as we go forth in our journey to serve Singapore and Singaporeans, first and foremost.
Mdm Speaker, this brings me to the central and troubling questions raised by this Motion.
First, let me categorically say this again that we want to see the third NCMP seat filled. What troubles us is the manoeuvring behind. Ms Lee Li Lian was the person who qualified. Mr Daniel Goh is the person that the Workers' Party supports to take up the seat. So, clearly, there are advantages to take up the NCMP seat. And let us be frank about it. I do not think people take up the NCMP seat to do the PAP a favour. I do not think so. Why would you want to do so and be so gracious to train the PAP? When one takes up the NCMP scheme, I hope it is for the correct reason, to serve Singapore. And I hope it is not for the wrong reason, to showcase your talent. We do not want the NCMP scheme to be a revolving door. This is the reason why I cannot understand the events that happened this week.
When the Prime Minister on Wednesday gave his speech and explained why we are going to expand the NCMP scheme in size and in scope, on the very same night, Mr Low completely dismissed the NCMP scheme. He even called NCMPs \"duckweeds\". I do not know how Mr Leon Perera or Mr Dennis Tan feel. But I would guarantee you that none of my PAP MPs would ever call you \"duckweeds\". We value you for your contributions.
So, why not let us be honest with each other, as our founding Prime Minister had urged us to be, as Members of this House? There are political merits for any political party to take up the NCMP scheme. And if we say that with a straight face, touch our hearts, I do not think anybody will fault the person for saying it. We just have to be frank with ourselves, why we do it.
The NCMP scheme must certainly have also benefited the Workers' Party. If not, why does the Workers' Party allow its members to take up the NCMP seats, not just two, but all three? If it is just for the PAP, why do it? And if Ms Lee Li Lian had been upfront, honest about it with her voters before they cast their votes, declare that she is not the best candidate and that even if she gets the highest vote share, she would not take up her NCMP seat, I think the Punggol East residents would feel that they are fairly treated, fairly respected.
Now, if you say that the NCMP scheme does not give any political party muscle, again, the question is: why bother to fill the NCMP seat? Why do we want Mr Leon Perera, Mr Dennis Tan and, perhaps, in time to come, Mr Daniel Goh, to spend their precious time to be here, if it is of no political advantage for the Workers' Party?
So, Madam, for this reason, my party will support the filling of the last NCMP seat according to the rules. But the motion must reflect the truth. We have to recognise that the Workers' Party has continued to criticise the system and, yet, deliberately made use of it to the hilt for its political advantage. As such, Mdm Speaker, with your permission I propose to amend the Motion with the following additions.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Chan, do you have a copy of the amendment? Can you give me a copy?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mdm Speaker.\t]
Mdm Speaker: The amendment is in order. Are copies available for Members?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Yes, Madam.
Mdm Speaker: Clerks, can you help to distribute copies of the amendment? [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.] Mr Chan, can you please move your amendment?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Madam, I propose to move,
\"to amend the Motion, to add '(c) but regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers' Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing Opposition candidates, has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, and that the Workers' Party supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its Secretary General criticises NCMPs as just 'duckweed on the water of the pond.'\"
Mdm Speaker, my party will support the amended Motion. Thus, let me conclude.
Madam, we look forward to all Members of this House discharging our responsibilities fully. We look forward to all Members in this House participating robustly in the decision making for the future of our country. We look forward to having a full and complete House to advance the future of Singapore. We also look forward to the day where every candidate who stands for election has in his or her heart the full commitment to serve, regardless as an MP or NCMP. That when we as candidates, when we walk the streets to ask for the votes of our electorate, to canvass for their support, and that when we tell them to place their trust in us, we mean it. When we say that, \"Let me be of service to you\", we mean it. And it does not matter whether we serve as an MP or NCMP. But it matters more than ever that we serve Singapore and Singaporeans and it matters that we respect the will of the voters.
An NCMP can contribute no less than any MP in this House. In fact, as I have said, an NCMP without constituency responsibilities should be able to contribute as much, if not much more to Parliament. An NCMP has the privilege to demonstrate to Singaporeans his capabilities and commitment.
Finally, I look forward to the day where every candidate respects the wishes of our electorate according to our laws. Let us not turn the NCMP scheme from one of service to the nation into a revolving door for partisan, political, talent displays.
With that, Madam, I beg to move the Motion as amended. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: It has been proposed, as an amendment, that the words \"(c) but regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers' Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing Opposition candidates has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, and that the Workers' Party supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its Secretary General criticises NCMPs as just 'duckweed on the water of the pond.'\", and these words be added at the end of the Motion.
Hon Members, it may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single Question. Do I have Members' agreement on this?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: The Question is, \"That the words proposed to be added, be there added.\" Are there any Members who wish to take the floor? Yes, Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): With your permission, Mdm Speaker, I would like to speak on the Motion. Mdm Speaker and hon Members of the House, I would like to share my thoughts on the amended NCMP Motion before us.
Mdm Speaker, over the course of the debate, over the last one hour or so, the thrust of the debate from the hon Members from the People's Action Party in this House has been to construct a narrative. That narrative is that the Workers' Party are bad people.
It is not an unfamiliar narrative. It is a narrative that is frequently heard. It is that the Workers' Party is shifty, somehow untrustworthy, our motives have to be questioned, our integrity is to be questioned, and that has found expression in the amendment to the Motion that has been tabled before the House.
It has been put across that we are contradictory; we are contradicting ourselves by accepting the NCMP seat and at the same time opposing the NCMP scheme in principle. I will share my personal perspective and point of view, because I think no doubt that it is relevant. Many people will want to know why it is that I oppose the NCMP scheme in principle, but I have agreed to accept an NCMP position myself. I intend to speak on that.
But before I do so, let me just suggest another consideration to this House which is this: the thrust of People's Action Party Members of this House in speaking on the NCMP scheme – both the current NCMP scheme and the new scheme that is being formed – is that this is, Mdm Speaker, a gesture of magnanimity on the part of the People's Action Party. It is charity that it is being extended, and for which we should be grateful. It is been put across that the People's Action Party does not stand to benefit in any way from the NCMP scheme. None whatsoever. It is sheer magnanimity.
But, Mdm Speaker, I do see a benefit to the People's Action Party that is not to the benefit of Singapore. That benefit is that the NCMP scheme allows the People's Action Party to send a very strong message to the Singaporean people. That message is you do not need to vote for any party other than the People's Action Party. You should, you ought, you can and you must return 100% of elected Members of Parliament seats to the People's Action Party and you should relegate Opposition parties to NCMP seats.
I can see how that benefits the People's Action Party. I suspect that that benefit may play out. But does it benefit Singapore, Mdm Speaker? Does it benefit Singapore? I am not so sure.
I think if that message is the message that is put across to the Singaporean electorate and that message is accepted by the Singaporean electorate, what will happen is the negation of the evolution of genuine democracy, real political balance in this country. And a passion for real political balance and genuine democracy, Mdm Speaker, is not just why I am here. It is why my Workers' Party colleagues are all here.
If Singapore's politics evolves, so that there are no elected Opposition MPs – which could well be a reality, it nearly happened in the last general election – what will happen is that the People's Action Party's hyper majority in Parliament – it is not a super majority; \"super majority\" is a term that comes from US politics and I think it refers to a 60% majority in the Senate, this is not a \"super majority\", Mdm Speaker. This is a hyper majority. It is 92% or 93% of all parliamentary seats —
Mdm Speaker: Mr Perera, please keep your speech relevant to the Motion and the amendment.
Mr Leon Perera: Yes, Mdm Speaker. If the hyper majority of the People's Action Party becomes basically unassailable, then the will of the people will not effectively be enforced. There will not be an electable and viable constructive Opposition party that Singaporeans will be able to support in order to hold the Government to account and ensure that the Government actually aligns itself to the political character of the country and the will of the people of Singapore.
That is my fear for Singapore and that is why I oppose the NCMP scheme in principle. While we are discussing the NCMP scheme, I note in passing – I know you have said I should limit my speech to the Motion – that we do not have a completely level political playing field here. We should not forget the context. The Workers' Party has made a number of recommendations on its manifesto on political reforms. Now it is not the time to go into those in any detail, but I want to note that in passing, we do not have an independent Electoral Commission. The People's Association does not work with Workers' Party in the same way as the PAP —
Mdm Speaker: Mr Perera, that is not relevant to the Motion.
Mr Leon Perera: Alright. Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I will just confine myself then to talk about my decision to take up the NCMP seat while opposing the NCMP scheme in principle, before I move to my conclusion.
Firstly, it was not a decision I took lightly. I thought about it very, very carefully. It was a very difficult decision to make. But I decided that on balance, I could make a constructive contribution. And on balance, I could make a constructive contribution, and that the benefits will outweigh the risk. I could make a constructive contribution that would help in the longer term cause of political balance in this country.
Whether that was the right decision or not, I will leave that to others to judge, but I think it is something that all of us in the Workers' Party have to continually review as we move forward, whether in the context of a changing political landscape, changing rules, whether this balance and this decision still holds true.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I just want to make one final observation. We are here today to debate this Motion. We have heard many hon Members of the People's Action Party talk about Ms Lee Li Lian. To be very honest, Mdm Speaker, she is not here in this Chamber to defend herself. The Workers' Party Members have attempted to speak out to explain her reasons, but she is not here to defend herself. She is not a person who lacks integrity. She loves this country. She has worked very, very hard, as some Members have noted. Even when she was pregnant, she did house visits.
But we are gathered here today to debate this Motion which I think is having the effect of painting a certain narrative about the Workers' Party. But is the thrust of this Motion for the good of Singapore, or is it really undermining the long-term democratic hopes that I certainly would have for real democracy and for balance in this country? I am not so sure.
I would like to conclude with this one question, which I think is relevant when we talk about achieving political balance and achieving real democracy for the country that we love in the longer term. And this one question is this and it has not been answered to the best of my knowledge by the hon Members of the People's Action Party who have spoken, which is, what will happen to Singapore if we are dependent on just one party overwhelmingly and that one party fails and there is no other party in our political landscape that can step in to remedy that gap? What will happen to this country?
Can any member of the People's Action Party provide that answer? If you feel that that is an argument to develop more political balance, as I do, then that should be the consideration that guides us to have a political landscape that encourages the development of real political balance.
And if I just may be permitted one last point before I resume my seat —
Mdm Speaker: Do not stray from the Motion, Mr Perera. You are coming close to it already.
Mr Leon Perera: Okay. In that case, I will conclude, Mdm Speaker.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang, would you like to summarise and reply?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, I will first deal with the amended Motion. Madam, the Workers' Party rejects the amended Motion, the paragraph (c), because there is no basis to say that this is a political manoeuvre.
First of all, Ms Lee Li Lian did not accept the NCMP seat not because the party asked her to do so. She feels that she should not accept because she has lost the mandate to serve Punggol East. She was an MP with full mandate to be in this House. I will deal with that in terms of mandate and what Parliament is for. I think we better go back to the basics and fundamental. What is Parliament for?
I think it is what Minister Heng Swee Keat had asked, \"What for?\" I will go back to that later, but let me deal with the amended Motion first. The argument that because Ms Lee Li Lian has obtained 15,800 votes in Punggol East and thereby, she should represent the 15,800 voters who voted for her to be in this House to make a contribution.
It is illogical because NCMP, by definition, is Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. An NCMP cannot represent the minority who voted for her in this House. So, I do not understand the logic that because she has obtained the votes and, thereby, is \"elected\".
If you want to work the system to say that you wish the minority voters to be represented by MPs, then let us make it equal for all MPs and it should be elected by a proportionate representation system, not our system. NCMP is basically the \"best loser\". It is a very different concept from proportionate representation of party lists. So, I think let us not try to change the concept and tell people that this is the same. They are different.
Members are saying here that, \"Look, you don't take Punggol East voters seriously, you don't respect them\". But Madam, it is the contrary. It is exactly because Ms Lee did not and would not take lightly the voters of Punggol East, that she decided having been their elected MP for over two years, their rejection means she has no legitimacy to be in Parliament. This is the way of respecting the wishes of the voters.
Neither is she disrespectful of the Constitution, as the Constitution clearly allows it and precedence also permits for an individual to vacate the NCMP seat. So, I do not really understand what the fuss is about. It is not a political manoeuvre because it is provided for under the law that says if an NCMP like Ms Lee Li Lian has not taken up the seat, Parliament can decide to fill the vacancy under the law, and hence I moved the Motion to allow Parliament to decide.
The last part of the amended Motion, referring to what I said to the press, that I compared an NCMP to \"duckweed on the water of the pond\". Let us make no mistake about it. There is a fundamental difference between an NCMP and an elected MP, or a constituency MP because there are a lot of things you cannot do as an NCMP.
Ms Lee Li Lian just told me her application for the use of a venue, a common area, for some function has been rejected by the Town Council. Is there a difference? You cannot even have a place to organise activities for the residents. That is the difference of being an NCMP.
Even if she accepted the NCMP seat today, I think the outcome will still be the same. Let us not be hypocrites to say that, \"Look, they are the same\". They are different. I know because I have been an elected MP. And I see through how the PAP works. Of course, the rejection is explained as \"we do not allow political parties to use common areas \". You use the People's Association (PA), you use Advisers. Come on. Let us be honest about it.
So, it is correct, as NCMP, you cannot sink roots in that way because you just cannot possibly connect with the residents the way you want.
Next, the difference between NCMP and Constituency MP is this: as a constituency MP, you conduct Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), you represent the residents, you write to the Ministries. From the response of the letter, you will know what is the policy and what is the implementation of the policy. There are gaps. You follow up through the case. You know what is the trend.
Yes, NCMP can talk to people. You can do surveys and thereby, you can air your views in this House, but you will not know exactly the problem and the policy gaps, because you do not get those kinds of cases. So, that is fundamentally the difference between constituency MP, elected MP and NCMP. You cannot grow muscle because you do not have roots, you are floating. Let us be honest about the difference.
I have stated why we will reject the amendment because this amendment is not true. We are not manoeuvring. It is allowed under the law. We do not tell Ms Lee Li Lian, \"Look, you don't accept NCMP, and thereby, we can have whoever we like here\". We do not work that way.
Madam, the Government Whip asked why should the PAP, after having won 69.9% of the vote at the last Elections, do this. So generous? So magnanimous? To get more Opposition representation in Parliament? Mr Leon Perera has given a very good answer. Yes, you want Singaporeans to believe that there is no need to vote for Opposition. Just vote for PAP and let us have Opposition members as NCMPs.
And you are telling them, \"Yes, your views will be represented. NCMPs can participate in the debates here\". I am not saying that it is not useful. It can be useful, but fundamentally, this is not what Parliament is for, because Parliament is not a forum to talk shop, or just air views, or spar with Ministers to show that you are a smart guy.
Parliament is not an academic conference. A Parliament of a functional democracy must give Opposition MPs real power to check and to contest with the Ruling party of the day to hold the Government accountable.
The NCMP scheme can be a drug to Opposition parties, whose candidates may stand for Elections, aiming just to be NCMP, instead of elected MPs. This may cause Parliament to become a colosseum in the long run; for the nation to vent their emotions in a show, but with no real consequence.
As what Ms Sylvia Lim said, \"What makes the PAP change? What makes the Cabinet shift left?\" Not the voice here. The Workers' Party has been represented in the House since 1981. Mr Jeyaretnam was the first Opposition Member in 1981.
We have said a lot. Does the PAP change? No. If PAP does, I may not need to even move out of Hougang in GE 2011. I moved out exactly because I realised how much you can talk here, the PAP may not move, because you do not believe what I say. I am only one single Member here. How do you make a judgement?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low. Your speech will have to be relevant to the Motion. Please keep it relevant to the Motion.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, so I am talking about the amended Motion? I can continue with the Motion proper, right?
Mdm Speaker: The Motion and the amendment are taken together, so you are responding; this is your response. Because you moved the Motion, so you have the right of reply. But before you do that, I think we are running out of time. Let me make an extension.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time for today's Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes. Mr Low you can continue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Constituency Member","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mdm Speaker, I think I have said most of the things and answered some of the questions and doubts raised.
Madam, the Workers' Party remains, in principle, opposed to the NCMP scheme. I have explained earlier, we are a responsible and rational party; we work within the system. It is the same: we oppose GRC, but we contested in GRCs. There is no contradiction. Make no mistake about that. And that is the spirit of the Workers' Party in wanting to work the system by respecting the law.
Madam, essentially, Parliament is representative of the people. MPs secure a mandate from the people to make decisions on their behalf in Parliament, thus, representation is the foundation of Parliament. Any politician who aspires to enter Parliament must seek and obtain the mandate from the people to represent them so as to seek and effect positive change for the people, not just talk.
You can air your views, you can debate here, but is there change? Is there a new direction set? I think that is what matters most. That is what Parliament is for. We have to ask: what are we here for? What is Parliament for?
Therefore, the NCMP scheme is a distraction from the fundamental meaning of Parliament. The NCMP scheme has the potential to anaesthetise Opposition politicians from the consciousness that political conviction is what brings him or her into politics. Opposition politicians may delude themselves that they are checking the Government when they are, in fact, merely participating in the discussion forum with no real power to effect change.
The NCMP scheme can also inadvertently attract candidates with a different motive and intent to participate in the Elections basically to seek personal fame and glory. If such a political culture becomes the predominant phenomenon, we will have bad politics.
What is more worrying is, should the Ruling party fail one day, what we have left to form an alternative government may be such politicians who have gained exposure and fame through the NCMP route.
Madam, on the other hand, we also recognise that Parliament is a forum to discuss issues affecting the lives of Singaporeans and the future of our nation. We recognise that having one more NCMP will contribute to the debate and possibly, better policy outcomes. Hence, it is also meaningful for well-intended individuals who aspire to represent the will of the people to be NCMPs who contribute to the process. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Chan Chun Sing, you have a clarification?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, I am glad that Mr Low Thia Khiang has made a distinction between the party list and the NCMP scheme. Indeed, I fully agree with Mr Low that the NCMP scheme is not a party list scheme.
Second, I would like to clarify with Mr Low. He has mentioned many things that an NCMP cannot do. But why not think about the many things an NCMP can do for this House and for this country?
Third, the People's Association is a Statutory Board under the Government. It executes the policy and directions for the Government.
Fourth, Mr Leon Perera, you suggested you put yourself at great risk taking up this scheme when you also seem to suggest that this NCMP scheme will endanger the very future of Singapore. Why do you want to be a party to this?
And finally, Mr Low, you said you have raised many dangers. Indeed, we agree with you there are many changes to the NCMP scheme including people coming in for the wrong reasons, people deluding themselves to showcase. If these are clear, present dangers, why do you allow your party Members to take up this scheme? It must be because on balance, you have found this scheme to be useful perhaps not just to yourself but hopefully to the wider Singapore as you have suggested; that they can contribute something even if they are not taking care of a constituency.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, you are responding to the clarification?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am clarifying.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, we do think there is something to contribute and that is why we allowed individual qualified members to decide whether they want to be NCMP. But the NCMP scheme itself is not a scheme which we will support as what we explained many times, that the scheme itself is not going to serve us well. I have just explained earlier on why. I am not convinced that this is going to be a scheme that will be able to allow genuine, serious Opposition parties to develop.
Mdm Speaker: The debate on the Motion has concluded. I will now put the necessary questions on the Motion for Members' vote. I will first put the question on the amendment moved by Minister Chan Chun Sing.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the words proposed to be added, be there added\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Speaker —
Mdm Speaker: I have already put the question.
Ms Sylvia Lim: We would like our dissent recorded, Madam.
Mdm Speaker: Can I have a show of hands on who wants to have their dissent recorded?
[Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan raised their hands.]
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, we would like the dissent to be recorded that we are objecting to paragraph (c) of the amended Motion.
Mdm Speaker: Okay, it will be so recorded. As the amendment has been agreed to, the necessary consequential amendment to the Motion will be made. I will now put the Motion, as amended, for Members' vote.
[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, put. (proc text)]
Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, we ask for our dissent to be recorded.
Mdm Speaker: I just want to get this straight. You object to the amended Motion?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: We object to the amended Motion.
Mdm Speaker: You object to the entire amended Motion?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Paragraph (c) of the amended Motion, as what I had stated.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, I have to explain that the voting is only \"yes\", or \"no\", or \"abstain\" on the entire Motion. So, it has to be recorded as either you support or you do not. But your expressions of disapproval of paragraph (c), that can be recorded. But you have to be clear whether you support the Motion, or you do not, or you abstain.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mdm Speaker, can you repeat that?
Mdm Speaker: Okay, let me repeat very clearly. We are at the point where we are voting on the Motion as amended. When you vote on the motion as amended, there are only three types of votes that you can cast, either in favour, against, or you abstain. So, those are the only votes that will be recorded in terms of how you express it as your votes.
Your opposition or disagreement with paragraph (c) is already recorded earlier on, when we voted on the amendment. So, you have to now, make it clear whether you are supporting or you are against or you are abstaining against the Motion as amended.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Since our objection on paragraph (c) has been recorded, we will abstain from voting, instead of objecting.
Mdm Speaker: Can I have a show of hands as to who is abstaining, for us to record?
[Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan raised their hands.]
Mdm Speaker: Okay.
[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, again put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: I will take note of the abstentions on this side of the House [indicating the Opposition bench.]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this Parliament, pursuant to section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act – (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) declares that the seat of Ms Lee Li Lian, who was elected a non-constituency Member of Parliament under section 52 of the Act, has become vacant by reason of her having failed to take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first and second Sittings of the first session of the present Parliament; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) resolves that the seat be filled in accordance with sections 52(2) and 52(3B)(a) of the Act; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (c) but regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers' Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing Opposition candidates, has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, and that the Workers' Party supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its Secretary General criticises NCMPs as just 'duckweed on the water of the pond.' \" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.09 pm
to a date to be fixed.
1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider allowing early voting by postal ballot at the general elections, given that there are more than 200,000 Singapore Citizens living abroad and most do not vote using the current overseas voting facilities.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): In postal voting, there are risks with security and secrecy of the ballot as it may be lost or tampered with during postal delivery. In addition, ballot papers have to be sent to the voter at their registered overseas addresses and they have to mail back the marked ballot papers to the Returning Officer by a certain date. It is difficult to ensure that the ballots will get back on time to be counted. Late votes and missing votes will result in controversies. For now, voting by paper ballot at polling stations is still the simplest and most transparent method of voting that can ensure the integrity and secrecy of the voting process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mid-Career PMEs Hired by Ministries and Statutory Boards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister how many mid-career professionals, managers and executives aged 40 years and above have Ministries and Statutory Boards hired as (i) permanent and (ii) contract staff each year from 2011-2015.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Between 2011 and 2015, about 7,100 mid-career Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) aged 40 years and above were recruited by the Ministries and Statutory Boards, or an average of about 1,400 of such officers recruited each year. This is about 11% of all new hires during this period.
Most new hires in the Public Service are placed on contracts to assess their suitability for the job. If they have performed well in the job and are assessed to be suitable for a long-term career with the Service, they will be placed on permanent positions after one or two years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Off-peak Bus/MRT Travel Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport what has been the total cumulative number of applicants for the off-peak bus/MRT travel pass thus far.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Since the launch of the off-peak pass in July 2015, about 21,000 commuters have purchased the off-peak passes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Local and Foreign PMEs in Singapore by Industry and Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower what is the breakdown of Singaporean, Permanent Resident and foreign professionals, managers and executives in Singapore annually from 2013 to 2015, according to the various industries/sectors which include manufacturing, construction, services, banking and finance, IT and communications.
Mr Lim Swee Say: A breakdown of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) from 2013 to 2015 by residential status and sectors is provided in Table 1.
5 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower what is the unemployment rate of Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are professionals, managers and executives from 2011 to 2015, broken down by age and gender.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The unemployment rates of residents in Professional, Managerial, Executive and Technical (PMET) occupations by age and gender, from 2011 – 2015, are provided in Table 1.
6 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many low-wage workers, and what percentage of them, have received the dollar quantum payouts of $60, recommended by the National Wages Council (NWC) in 2015; and (b) whether these payouts can be made compulsory for workers from the bottom 10th percentile of the workforce.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Since the NWC quantitative guidelines were introduced in 2012, the proportion of full-time employed resident employees earning basic monthly salary of up to $1,000 is estimated to have decreased from 9.8% in 2012 to 6.8% in 2014.
The Ministry's Survey on Annual Wage Changes showed that, nearly six in 10 (59%) private establishments with employees earning a basic monthly salary of up to $1,000, had given or decided to give wage increases to these employees in 2014. This included three in 10 (31%) which gave the NWC's recommended built-in wage increase of at least $60 to this group of workers. Data for 2015 is not yet available.
The NWC Guidelines are arrived at through tripartite consultation and consensus, which recommend that businesses take into account economic conditions, business performance and employees’ contribution in determining wage increases. Such consensus-building helps facilitate the acceptance and implementation of guidelines.
While NWC Guidelines are not mandatory, they are widely referred to by companies in both the unionised and non-unionised sectors. They are also gazetted under the Employment Act and form the basis for wage negotiations between unions and management.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Career Support Progrmme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the types of jobs thus far identified in the Career Support Programme (CSP) that pay at least $4,000 a month; (b) whether the Ministry will be monitoring the employment status of those on the programme after the period of wage support ends so as to assess the value and sustainability of the CSP.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The Career Support Programme (CSP) was launched as a pilot programme on 1 October 2015 to provide Singaporeans aged 40 and over, who have been looking for jobs for at least six months, greater opportunities to access mid-level and above jobs. Under the CSP, wage support is provided to support employers who hire such individuals in any job that pays a gross salary of at least $4,000 a month. Jobs that have been supported by CSP so far include jobs in functions, such as Business Development, Project Management, Sales and Marketing, Finance, Operations, and Information Technology. Workforce Development Agency (WDA) will be monitoring the employment status of the individuals who have been placed through CSP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Salaries Due to Employees of Liquidated Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Law (a) from 2013 to 2015, how many workers did not receive their due salaries when their companies were liquidated; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider amending legislation to provide for the salaries of workers as a first charge on a company's liquidation.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the law, a private liquidator may be appointed to wind up the company, but if no private liquidator is appointed, the Official Receiver shall be the liquidator of the company. The amount that creditors can recover from winding up an insolvent company depends on the amount of assets the company has for distribution. Employees' salaries are paid out of the liquidation proceeds in priority to other unsecured claims, after deducting the liquidator's costs and expenses of winding up. Employees are thus paid as preferential creditors, second only to the liquidator's costs and expenses. This follows the practice in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
Windings up conducted by private liquidators typically involve insolvent companies with assets available for distribution, including to employees. However, the Ministry does not have statistics relating to insolvent companies that are wound up by private liquidators.
In comparison, windings up conducted by the Official Receiver typically involve insolvent companies with little or no assets available for distribution. Even where assets are available, they tend to be insufficient to cover the Official Receiver’s costs of winding up the company.
If the liquidator's costs and expenses of winding up are not granted first priority, the liquidator may not be willing to act in the winding up of the company. As this could ultimately prejudice the interests of the company’s creditors as a whole, there are no plans to amend the legislation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resale Levy on New HDB Flat Buyers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many new HDB flat buyers were made to pay the resale levy in 2010-2015; (b) of these buyers, how many paid up in full; (c) how many buyers requested to have the levy wholly or partially waived; (d) what were the main reasons given for requesting these waivers; and (e) what proportion of these requests was successful.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Singaporeans enjoy a housing subsidy when they buy a new flat from HDB or a resale flat in the open market with a Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grant. Flat owners who have sold their first subsidised flat have to pay a resale levy when they buy another subsidised flat from HDB.
The resale levy policy aims to ensure a fair distribution of subsidies between first- and second-timers and prioritise the allocation of subsidies to groups that need them most, such as first-timer citizen families seeking to buy a subsidised new flat to start their families.
From 2010 to 2015, about 7,900 second-timer households had paid the required resale levy amount. Over the same period, HDB received about 3,500 requests to waive the resale levy totally and about 4,100 requests to waive the resale levy partially.
HDB assesses the appeals based on the merits of each case and advises the buyers accordingly. HDB does not allow for full waiver of the levy. For those applying for partial waiver, HDB has acceded to about one-third of the appeals. These are usually second-timer households who sold their flats some time ago and have accrued high interest amounts and face significant financial hardship. So, HDB will take into account their family situations and circumstances and see how best to help them.
In some cases where buyers lack the cash to pay the resale levy, HDB would help by incorporating the resale levy into the purchase price of the second subsidised flat the appellant is buying so that the appellant can subsequently pay the levy by instalments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Water Supply Disruption in Clementi Town","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the causes leading to the water supply disruption in Clementi Town on 28 October 2015; and (b) what are the actions taken by PUB to prevent a similar occurrence from recurring.
11 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how does PUB determine the deployment of water wagons and an onsite technical team during a water supply outage.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The water supply disruption in Clementi Town on 28 October 2015 was caused by an unexpected closure of a valve on a key pipeline supplying water to the Clementi Town. PUB was carrying out upgrading works of the control system to the valve when a software glitch occurred. This resulted in the unexpected closure of the valve and interrupted water flow into the distribution network.
For such upgrading works, PUB follows the industry practice of factory testing, followed by site-testing prior to the commissioning of the works. Following this incident, PUB has tightened its testing and commissioning processes to prevent the recurrence of a similar incident. The upgraded control system has since been commissioned.
On the deployment of water wagons, PUB operates a 24-hour centre to receive, respond and monitor customers' feedback. Water wagons are deployed by the centre when there is a water supply disruption affecting a large number of customers. PUB's technical crew is deployed for all water supply-related feedback which requires on-site attention, for example, to check water pressure and quality.
In the incident on 28 October 2015, the customers affected were located at the lower floors, which receive water directly from the PUB mains. Upon receiving feedback at 5.40 pm, PUB had immediately deployed service vans and water wagons to the premises. The water supply was progressively restored from 6.40 pm, after PUB officers reopened the affected valve. Customers on higher floors were not affected as they get their supply from the rooftop water tanks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Wet Market in Simei","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether there are plans to build a wet market at Simei and, if not, whether the Ministry will consider conducting a study to assess the feasibility of the same.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Wet markets are typically integrated with hawker centres to ensure their viability. According to my Ministry’s study of the area, there are sufficient eating establishments and commercial facilities within the Simei estate. The Tampines Round Market and Food Centre is also located a short distance from the Simei estate. There is, therefore, no plan to build a hawker centre or wet market in Simei.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1581,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zaqy Mohamad","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160129/vernacular-Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf","fileName":"Zaqy Mohamad(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1582,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160129/vernacular-Heng Swee Keat(1).pdf","fileName":"Heng Swee Keat(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":2548,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160129/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah NCMP 29Jan2016_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah NCMP 29Jan2016_Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}