Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 34 of 46.
“I would also like to ask the Minister, besides educating and encouraging individuals and companies to participate in recycling, what other measures are being taken to reduce the amount of waste produced in Singapore. For instance, what is being done to encourage companies to use recyclable packaging and is there any attempt to reduce the amount of plastic consumption in Singapore?”
“The writer further noted that rubbish was simply thrown to the ground even with the many rubbish bins available. Sir, we have been trying to tackle the littering problem since the 1970s, but like stubborn stains on white shorts, it refuses to go away. I would like to ask the Ministry how it plans to meet this challenge in the coming year. Sir, another fundamental issue relates to our standard of public hygiene and cleanliness of our public toilets. Since the retreat of SARS, it seems that the standard of hygiene and cleanliness in many public toilets has also retreated, and many of the toilets which have been given the "Singapore OK" mark seems to have k-oed. In fact, the label itself has k-oed, because it is faded and filthy. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry plans to review and revamp the whole initiative to improve the standards of cleanliness and hygiene of our public toilets. Sir, it is noted that households here do produce less rubbish than in the West, but they lag behind in recycling. It is also noted that whilst the number of homes participating in recycling is high, the volume of recyclables collected is low compared to those overseas. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry could look into improving our infrastructure, such as having more recycling bins at convenient locations in housing estates and commercial areas, as well as working with the MND to have flats with separate rubbish chutes for food waste and other recyclables like paper. This would help to improve the participation rate as well as the amount of rubbish recycled.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the NEA has stated that it aims to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 190,000 tonnes by 2012, by reducing energy wastage and promoting its conservation. In relation to this, I would like to ask the Minister to provide us with an update of these efforts and, in particular, whether the Ministry would implement a mandatory energy labelling scheme, at least on all airconditioners and refrigerators, which are guzzlers of energy, and whether the Ministry will be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as yet another sign to the international community of our earnest efforts and commitment to promote energy efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions. Going forward, what does the Ministry see as other global trends and challenges facing us on the environmental front, and how does the Ministry plan to tackle them? Sir, Singapore's pole position in the region for its stringent controls with clean air and water and green urban designs is undisputed. However, we will be hard put to say that we have the same high standards of public hygiene and cleanliness or recycling habits. To me, these relate to basic behavioural patterns and social graces. Cumulatively, shaping them is even more important in environmental conservation than mere programmes or campaigns which have limited shelf life. Every year, after the New Year countdown or the Chingay parade, there never fails to be letters to the Forum pages on the amount of litter left at Orchard Road. In 2004, it was reported that two tonnes of litter were left behind after the Orchard Road Chingay parade. On 31st December last year, it was reported that the litter generated at the Orchard Road New Year countdown amounted to some six kilotonnes!”
“Sir, I want to thank the Minister for his detailed and considered response to our queries and concerns and for the amendments that have been made to some of our suggestions. I hope that he will consider further the concerns and suggestions that we have also made where no amendments have been made to it. With this, I would like to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $672,459,270 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $3,115,198,400 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head V - Ministry of Trade and Industry”
“How can the Ministry allow for more organic, bottom-up ideas to germinate and take root?”
“Sir, the Prime Minister's National Day Rally Speech last year was entitled "A Vibrant Global City Called Home". The aim is to create an outstanding living, working and recreational environment for all Singaporeans. Yet, Sir, there appears to be many detractors of whether Singapore can ever achieve its aim - which I recently learned to have originated from the wonderful late Mr S Rajaratnam - of becoming a "Global City", comparable to the likes of New York and Tokyo. Many global cities evolved organically from the industrial and transport hubs of the past, largely through the entrepreneurial drive and energy of their populations. Singapore has done well through excellent urban planning and execution. But - and this is the intriguing question - can Singapore continue to use a largely top-down approach to move to the next plane on its quest to successfully transform itself into a global city? Sir, there is widespread perception that Singapore is too well-planned, even over-planned, and that this accounts for the relatively sterile environment relative to other major cities. I fully appreciate that our planners have become more accommodating, more private enterprise driven and more flexible. But I submit that more needs to be done. I hope that the "Duck Tours" example, cited by PM Lee, is consigned to history. But a number of businessmen and developers have told me that if their idea is not one that can fit into any of URA's current planning drive, it would be difficult to get planning approval. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what other plans, going forward, has the Ministry to help turn Singapore into a truly Tier One global city. What does it consider are the necessary ingredients of a global city? What challenges does it foresee?”
“Sir, it was announced that using the new technology for lift upgrading, the Government will save $1 billion on its Lift Upgrading Programme. Nonetheless, the Minister had noted that it is still too costly to extend the lift upgrading to the 190 blocks that are ineligible under the existing cost regime. Sir, I hope that the usual cost-benefit equation underlying this "nay" will take into account non-economic factors. Sir, due to our ageing demographic profile and increasing expectations of Singaporeans, access to lifts at every floor is now considered a "must have" for everyday HDB living, and not an optional item. I would like to urge the Minister to consider extending lift upgrading to these 190 blocks. Since there is a $1 billion cost savings arising from the new technology, a small sum could be used to cross subsidise the Lift Upgrading Programme for these blocks. Otherwise, these blocks are destined to suffer from lack of resale demand, thus consigning them to a bleak future, unless, of course, HDB carries out its SERS programme.”
“Sir, the Minister said that this subsidy, if I am not mistaken, is much more than the housing grant given to first-time buyers of resale and DBSS flats. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify how exactly this implicit subsidy is actually arrived at. How are the new HDB flats priced such that the buyer will enjoy this significant subsidy? Given that new flats actually have a lot more restrictions than resale flats, by right, they should already be priced lower than resale flats, all things being equal. After that, is there a further discount, which is presumably the implicit subsidy, given to these new flats? If it is so - and this is much more than the housing grant that is given - I would like to ask the Minister: does it mean that we are actually penalising first-time buyers of resale and DBSS flats, simply because they choose to buy resale or DBSS flats?”
“Sir, I would like to seek a point of clarification. Firstly, on the resale levy, I note that the new mode of computation is much clearer. It gives more certainty. But it still does not seem very logical or equitable. Because the rationale for imposing the resale levy is really to reduce the subsidy enjoyed on the second flat. I want to know why HDB has not gone on the route of imputing the resale levy on the second flat, which was actually done previously. Because this will also take into account the fact that the purchaser may actually be buying a bigger or smaller second flat, and he may be enjoying a different quantum of subsidy, but HDB is pegging it on the first purchase. I would like to ask the Minister why is it that HDB has decided not to peg it against the second flat but to the first flat. Second point of clarification is regarding the concessionary loan. I would think that if we do not give the concessionary loan to first-time downgraders, are we not penalising them? Because many of them may be downgrading basically because of their social needs, or to reduce their financial burden. Although they are able to, they may actually be struggling to pay and they would just like to have a small flat so that the debt servicing is much more manageable. Why can we not just equalise and say that everybody who has a second bite of the cherry would get a concessionary loan? Otherwise, we might be sending conflicting signals, because we are now preaching prudence and, unwittingly, we may actually be sending the signal that if they upgrade, they can get a second bite of the cherry. But when they downgrade, they cannot. My third point of clarification relates to the implicit or market subsidy enjoyed by first-time buyers of new flats purchased directly from HDB.”
“Furthermore, I would like to urge the Ministry to integrate these 2-room flats with other flat types to avoid the social stigma that might be attached to a precinct made up entirely of these smaller flats and to facilitate better social integration. These 2-room flats should also not be too small to ensure liveability to both low-income couples as well as to those with, say, one or two children. Hence, they should be at least equal in size to the existing 2-room flats which are about 45 square metres or slightly larger. They could be built in a mix of locations in both new and mature estates to provide choice. A good way to gauge demand for these flats would be to sell them under the BTO system. HDB could also consider offering some of the existing 2-room flats for sale to the sitting tenants, much like what has been done previously for the 3-room flats.”
“Sir, the low-income housing grant which has been announced as part of the Workfare package is welcomed as it will make it easier for low-income families to own homes. However, Sir, I am very concerned that some low-income earners might over-stretch their budget in a bid to own a home. This could worsen their already tight financial position. This is, in fact, the situation a sizeable number of home owners are in now due to the housing fever in the early to the late 1990s. The very low-income households in the lowest 20th percentile may have very little, if any, extra money left after paying for all their household needs. This group should be especially cautious when deciding to buy a house. For them, their monthly debt service must be kept to a minimum and should preferably not exceed the monthly rental payments that they might already be incurring on their flats. The normal rule of thumb of allowing monthly debt service at between 30%-40% of the household income would not be realistic for such cases. Hence, HDB should be more stringent in their credit evaluation criteria for these purchasers and advise them to be prudent. Home ownership, for all its social and nation-building benefits, should not come at the expense of budgetary prudence. Perhaps, a lower ratio of monthly loan repayment to household income should be placed for at least the lowest 20th percentile income households to prevent over-consumption. I support the Ministry's current thinking to place an income ceiling for purchasers of the new 2-room flats to be built so as to allow the lowest income households to have priority over these flats. I would also like to urge the Ministry to build these flats in more accessible locations as the low-income households are highly sensitive to transportation cost.”
“Even if this were not so, they might not have the cash to pay the resale levy for the purchase of the second flat since the gain from the first flat is low. This is a perennial complaint, but the Government's response has always been to return to first principles of why the levy was introduced in the first place. Sir, however right the policy intent may be at the beginning, the consequence in the end is possible hardship that, to my mind, negates the intent of the levy. Sir, a good policy intent is not a sound enough reason for bad policy outcome. One way to resolve this is to give the buyer the option of paying for the levy either as a percentage of the sale price of the first flat or as a premium of the second flat which will cream off the subsidy for the second flat, which is the real intent to begin with. A second but perhaps more radical way would be to simply sell all HDB flats at market value pricing with the additional restrictions placed on the first-time buyers of new HDB flats, and give the first and second-time buyers of such flats different quantums of housing grant, with the housing grant for the first direct purchase higher than the second. There is no necessity to impose a levy since the differential for the two housing grants will reflect the fact that buyers of a second flat will enjoy a lower subsidy. In a way, this is already being done for DBSS flats and HDB's unsold flats which are being sold in the resale market. In these instances, qualifying buyers are given housing grants to purchase these flats.”
“The policy allows all first-time flat buyers and first-time upgraders to have access to the HDB concessionary loan, but not first-time downgraders. This two-bite of the cherry policy for HDB concessionary loans was implemented in 1997 as part of the Government's anti-speculation measures at a time when the property market was buoyant and speculation was rife. Since then, the market has experienced a downturn and speculation has largely been curbed. Additionally, with the Government and even some finance practitioners now warning us against the dangers of over-consumption of property, why do we still need to penalise downgraders and not grant them the concessionary loan even though they qualify in all other aspects? Why deter people from practising prudence? Instead of making exceptions to the rules for hardship cases, why do we not just equalise the policy and allow first-time downgraders to also enjoy a second HDB concessionary loan? According to MND, between 2002 and 2004, on average, about 12% of the total bank loan cases, or close to 4,000 cases, are downgraders and two thirds of the appeals for concessionary loans for 2004 and 2005 numbering some 1,000 cases were by downgraders. Hence, each year, there are a sizeable number of downgraders who are affected by this rule and the numbers could be more as others who wish to downgrade may have been deterred to do so by this rule. Secondly, resale levy. This is a levy imposed on the sale proceeds of the first flat which is supposed to reduce the subsidy enjoyed on the second flat bought directly form the HDB. This works well under a rising market. However, HDB resale flat prices have fallen by more than 20% since the late 1990s. Hence, there are many who, if they sell their flat now, would suffer a loss.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, in defining HDB's role, the Minister had noted at last year's COS that, going forward, the Board must continue to plan and execute our home ownership policies such that the HDB experience to the Singaporeans is a memorable and rewarding one. Among other things, this implies that HDB flats must remain affordable and that public housing policies are fairly crafted and implemented. These are compelling motivations in the next phase of Singapore's housing policy. For HDB to meet these objectives, it ought to undertake a comprehensive review of its rules and policies with the aim of rationalising and simplifying them so as to make them more easily understood by the average HDB flat buyer and dweller. It should also reduce any unwarranted rigidity in the system that makes it more difficult than it should for flat owners to deal with their properties in congruence with their life cycle needs, changing economic status over time, and their social aspirations or needs. The HDB Rule book has not only increased in thickness over the years, but now also has many addendums like band aids due to the numerous exceptions that have been made to the rules to cater to the many circumstances that have arisen. Whilst I commend the HDB for showing compassion and flexibility in the application of its rules and policies, there is the broader movement in the public sector to cut red tape and unnecessary rules. I would like to highlight two policies in particular that require review due to changing market circumstances. Firstly, the HDB concessionary loan.”
“It is also a Budget designed to arrest the simmering tensions that arise from a widening income gap that could tear our social fabric apart. And I think this is really a timely comprehensive package. It is a Budget that tries to ensure that all Singaporeans march in step and progress together, with no one falling behind. Sir, I support this generous and most enlightened Budget. 2.03 pm”
“6% of the cohort in 2005 and 3% over the previous five years, these premature school-leavers with no job ready skills are likely to add to our existing underclass earning low wages. Although it is estimated that, on average, there might only be about 1,000 students who drop out before completing secondary school every year, over time, on a cumulative basis, they could form a sizeable portion of our low-wage workers. At the ITEs, the dropout rate is higher at about 12%. These students could also have little job ready skills. Hence, more effort must be made to further reduce the dropout rates and at the same time help these premature school-leavers to acquire useful work related skills either through the enhanced Vocational Training Centre or through the WDA's Workforce Skills Qualification System. To further reduce the dropout rates at primary and secondary schools, we must do more to help these children cope in school. At the primary schools, more resources should be put into helping children from needy families who are unable to cope with their studies, such as extending the Learning Support Programme. Teachers and counsellors must also work together to identify these children and help them cope. The community could also help identify and encourage low-income families to send their children to pre-school so that they will not lag behind and become demoralised and disheartened when they attend primary school. Notwithstanding all the concerns that I have raised, this is a heartwarming Budget which aims to put in place sustainable solutions to ensure Singapore's continued economic viability in the face of increasing global competition.”
“On average, about 70% of the cases received by my South West CDC are walk-ins, whilst the rest are referrals from the CCs and the MPs. This trend indicates that most residents know where to get help from. This is a far cry from the days when help was centralised at the MCYS. However, besides the CDCs, the grassroots and CCs, we need to rally every one in the community to help identify those in need and refer them to the CDCs or CCs so that all who need assistance would be catered for. Some elderly and uneducated may still be unaware of the help available and we need everyone in the community to be the eyes and ears of our help agencies in order to be able to deliver a holistic help package to our disadvantaged. (iii) Prevention is better than cure Sir, anecdotal evidence suggests that children from poor and/or dysfunctional families have a higher risk of leaving school prematurely or not doing well in school. Studies in the US have indicated that even with the same given ability, children from rich and poor families do not have equal chances of success. Hence, I applaud the Government's initiative to invest more in the education of children from low income families to help them become school and work ready by expanding and enhancing the scope of financial assistance available to these children in the kindergarten and in the schools. The move to upgrade the Vocational Training Centre (VTC) and its programmes so as to allow more youths to acquire employable skills is also welcome to cater to those with no aptitude or interest in academic studies and are likely to drop out of school. Sir, while the overall dropout rate of students from our primary and secondary schools is only 2.”
“Most of these are already provided ad hoc but could be given on a more sustained basis on "workfare" conditions, ie, that the beneficiaries put in effort to find a job and/or upgrade their skills. Transport subsidies, co-paid by the transport companies and the Government, which were previously given to needy families, have been very well received and ought to be resumed in some form, be it in the form of transport vouchers or travel fare card for the needy. Sir, I note that nothing has been mentioned in this Budget about costs of healthcare which Singaporeans, especially the low income and the elderly are very concerned with, despite the CPF top-ups for elderly as well as 10% of the Workfare Bonus going into the Medisave account. These are great for old age requirements but are still not much help to the present drain on resources. Sir, we need to deal with the problem of the inevitable increase in costs in the light of improving medical technology and our aging population profile. Allowing a wider use of Medisave such as for outpatient treatment for chronic illnesses would go a long way towards alleviating the plight of the needy who are afflicted with such illnesses. (ii) Widening the reach Another key principle would be to involve and mobilise the community's social support network to reach out to all in need of help with a holistic assistance package. Often times, it has been noted that ours is not so much a case of insufficient help available but of its accessibility and getting it to the right people. Since the introduction of ComCare, besides the CDCs, help is now available through each constituency via the CCs and the grassroots.”
“, even when they are being helped with a package of assistance such as school fee subsidy, food rations and utilities and conservancy charges on a regular basis. So how then can we provide more comprehensive, yet targeted and customised assistance to the disadvantaged workers and the needy in general? Sir, in many ways, this is already being done, especially with the recent slew of measures that have been announced by the various Ministries. However, I would like to highlight three cardinal principles that ought to underline such a programme. (i) "Different Strokes for Different Folks" An oft-cited criticism of our present social assistance regime is that there are simply too many, perhaps even overlapping, help schemes available. Whilst it is useful to simplify and streamline some of the schemes, it must be remembered that there is really no one size that fits all and there is a need for a variety of schemes to help the vulnerable with different age and economic profiles. The recent slew of MOE initiatives of extending the assistance given to students from low income families such as raising the qualifying household income ceiling for financial assistance and bursaries as well as expanding the scope of assistance to include national examination fees and miscellaneous fees and free breakfasts - whether my colleague, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, in the House agrees or not - are steps in the right direction. Other indirect income support we can give to this vulnerable segment until they attain financial independence include child care and kindergarten fee subsidy, partial payment of utilities and service and conservancy charges and transport subsidies.”
“It is clear that the problems facing our low skilled and low wage workers are unlikely to go away anytime soon and a one-off Workfare Bonus and Progress Package, although much welcome, are only temporary pain relievers. There is also some justification for a "longer" multi-period Workfare Bonus, perhaps over two consecutive years instead of a one-off scheme (though paid over two years) to provide greater encouragement to low wage workers to remain gainfully employed. But the inherent negative effects of an entrenched income subsidy scheme as experienced in other countries cannot be ignored. So how can we solve this dilemma? There is no ideal solution but, going forward, we should monitor the impact of the Workfare Bonus as well as other related initiatives and weigh the pros and cons carefully, before deciding if more Workfare Bonuses are warranted under future budgets. However, on balance, I would favour a more comprehensive, yet targeted package of measures to help this group augmented by Workfare Bonus as and when our fiscal position permits. This would be much better than a recurrent direct income subsidy due to the latter's inherent perverse disincentive to work and moral hazard of breeding a crutch mentality. As aptly noted by the Straits Times' Editorial dated 21st February 2006, "The problem of passing out handouts too frequently is the entitlement belief it is bound to encourage.", no matter how much the Government preaches to the contrary. Already, we are seeing an entitlement creep in some residents who unabashedly turn up repeatedly either at the MPS or CDCs to demand for financial assistance, supermarket vouchers, etc.”
“Sir, I would also like to ask MINDEF what about all those retired from the army once they reach 45 years of age, what proportion has been redeployed to other jobs. Sir, I appreciate the need for a young and fighting fit army and the need to constantly groom top talent for the all-important armed services, but 46-year old national servicemen taking early retirement can surely contribute in many ways. (2) Help No Enough Sir, although it has been announced that the Workfare Bonus is one-off and contingent on the economy doing well, many are already harbouring hopes that this may continue indefinitely. It takes time to redesign and upgrade skills, so in the meantime they would need assistance beyond these one-off measures. The question then arises if the Government should provide direct income support to this group of vulnerable Singaporeans in the form of a regular, sustained Workfare Bonus or even a negative income tax. There has been some talk of a negative income tax regime such as the Earned Income Tax Credit that is now used in the US. In this case, the Government gives tax credit to people who are already working but earning below a certain income. The percentage given is often a percentage of their actual earnings, subject to a cap, thus rewarding those who work hard. The worry is that they may breed an entitlement mentality with little incentive to upgrade oneself and get a better paying job. Moreover, such schemes may be viewed as a subsidy given to employers of low qualified jobs, giving them no incentive to re-design the jobs and pay their workers higher wages.”
“(ii) Redefining "jobs" We should also rethink some policies that hinder our drive to create more jobs and opportunities for the unemployed and low income. For instance, instead of tendering out the hawker and school canteen stalls or rent them to anyone that comes along, the Government could stipulate that a certain percentage of these stalls should be allocated to our unemployed or low income workers. NEA is already issuing some street hawker licence to the unemployed as well as low income households but there are few of such licences available. WDA, the CDCs or other self-help groups could provide training to such unemployed people to create a pool of stallholders who are versed in the art of running a small food business and who can be matched with these stall openings. The CDCs and MPs at the MPS regularly receive many requests from our unemployed and needy for such stalls so that they can become financially independent again, yet there are hardly any such stalls available. (iii) Role of the Government The Government itself as the largest employer around should take the lead by re-designing jobs and adopting employment practices which will allow it to hire older workers, employ retirees as well as offer part-time work. I would like to ask the Government what percentage of the employees who have been made redundant over the last few years due to the Government's economy drive, outsourcing and best sourcing efforts were re-deployed to other departments instead of being retrenched and of these, how many were retrained. Also, what proportion of work in the Government and statutory bodies is available on flexi-time and part-time basis so that more women can join the workforce and those who wish to supplement their family's income with part-time work can do so.”
“This vulnerable group of job seekers may consider relief in the form of a job or a better paying job to be too slow in coming and hence become disgruntled, more so if that deprives them from being able to qualify for the Workfare Bonus that will be given this May and next May. For Workfare to work - excuse the pun - we therefore need to more aggressively explore ways to create more jobs for this group of job seekers as well as ameliorate the current skills and job mismatch through skills upgrading and retraining. Three areas which we could consider in our job recreation efforts are: (i) Reserving some jobs Sir, given our very small and open economy, it will be contrary to our strongly held belief in the efficiency of markets for us to distort the labour market by safeguarding jobs for locals. Notwithstanding this, we could still review our foreign worker ratio for various industries and identify certain jobs in these industries which are more amenable to locals and tweak the foreign worker ratio as well as expand the scope of these jobs to cater to at least a higher percentage of locals. For instance, I once met a resident who was a former painter who felt aggrieved that his job had been taken over by foreign workers. Such measures should not significantly distort the labour market since it is only applicable to selected industries and job specifications, and productivity ought to be increased to justify the higher pay for locals. Indeed, we are already doing this to some extent in the cleaning industry, where the foreign worker ratio has been tweaked and also crane drivers in the construction industry. But more can and needs to be done.”
“Given the volatility of economic cycles nowadays, retrenchment is likely to be a constant refrain. So, where do we find enough of such jobs on a sustained basis especially during an economic downturn when the less educated and skilled would be the most vulnerable to retrenchment? In Singapore, much has been done by WDA and NTUC to reclaim, redesign and/or re-create jobs by giving low end jobs a makeover under the Job Recreation Programme (JRP) launched last year. While good progress has been reported in sectors like landscaping, security, cleaning and healthcare with 7,200 jobs targeted for re-creation last year and 4,600 job seekers matched, the process is painfully slow and unemployment and skills are in a frequent state of mismatch especially for the lower skilled, less educated and older workers. The number of jobs recreated pales in comparison with the estimated 60,700 unemployed Singaporeans and PRs as at December last year, even though not all the 60,700 unemployed are older and less skilled workers. The Government had also previously set aside $10 million to redesign jobs for about 5% of the estimated 300,000 low wage workers. But this still leaves a gaping 95% unattended to. PM Lee has announced in his Budget statement that WDA and NTUC will be given $40 million over three years to ramp up the JRP, targeting to recreate 10,000 jobs per year. There is also the "Advantage" scheme with $30 million over two years to incentivise employers to adapt their employment practices and hire older workers and/or re-employ retiring workers. Even with this boost for JRP and the new Advantage scheme, it is likely that the number of jobs created or reclaimed is insufficient to meet the demand of job seekers and low wage earners due to mismatch of skills.”
“(1) Jobs No Enough Sir, as expected, the Workfare Bonus has been warmly received by low wage workers who qualify for it. The Workfare concept, which is a key feature of this year's Budget, seeks to ensure that all who can work will find meaningful jobs and earn adequate wages to support their families. The success of Workfare hinges on the success of our efforts to, firstly, create, reclaim and redesign jobs for those able and willing to work, and, secondly, to ensure that workers upgrade their skills so that they can earn more. Sir, one key concern therefore is whether we would, in fact, be able to find sufficient jobs for all who are able and willing to work as well as better paying jobs for them to upgrade to. For instance, how do we provide for housewives who are nudged by the Workfare concept to re-enter the workforce to supplement their household income? What about the elderly who have passed their retirement age but who desire to work and/or need to work to support themselves and their families? I envisage that there might be an increase in the number of such job applicants, but I fear that many of them might be disappointed, as finding suitable work for these job seekers and/or retraining them in order to help them find suitable jobs would take time, and lots of time. Workfare is not a new concept. It was started in the US and has been adopted by countries such as Canada and the UK in various forms. A major criticism of Workfare is that while it is supposed to help people under this programme get "real" jobs, jobs not financed by welfare, in reality, there are not enough of such jobs to go round. This situation could be aggravated during an economic downswing when jobs are cut.”
“Sir, weeks before the Budget announcement, there were great expectations that this year's Budget will have lots of goodies to offer, especially to individual Singaporeans. Nonetheless, I was still pleasantly surprised by the Government's unprecedented generosity when the Budget was actually announced. The "special transfers" reached an astounding $2.6 billion. More significantly, the projected budget deficit of $2.86 billion for 2006 is said to be the largest budget deficit in at least 20 years. Sir, the $500 million ComCare Endowment Fund and the over $600 million of top-ups and rebates, announced at PM Lee's first Budget Statement last year, was the first substantial and very tangible expression of the present Government's commitment to help needy Singaporeans. This year's Budget is even more heavily skewed towards social objectives and should leave no one in doubt of the Government's commitment to help vulnerable Singaporeans, especially the low skilled and low wage workers, suffering the painful effects of globalisation. Sir, this is a Budget where the heart and the head beat with wonderful symmetry. I am so delighted that almost all the recommendations made by the various committees have been accepted and, in many instances, enhanced. It reinforces the hallmark of PM Lee's leadership, which is to be an inclusive and consultative Government that listens to and, more importantly, acts on feedback. But - there are always "buts" in life - there are two areas of concern that linger. Actually, this Budget is so well crafted and comprehensive that I am hard put to come up with the customary three points to highlight. Adapting from one of Jack Neo's memorable movie titles, the two areas of concern are: (1) Jobs No Enough; and (2) Help No Enough.”
“Sir, a point of clarification. I would like to note that while Sentosa Cove is a unique development, so are many other properties in Singapore itself, because really every property is unique, different, and heterogeneous, and so would be good class bungalows. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if it were so for Sentosa Cove, because it is termed unique as the Government sees it, and it is to attract international clientele, whether the Ministry would then consider relaxing the restrictions on other unique developments that may arise, ie, similar developments which offer unique lifestyle preferences, and so on, that would also attract international clientele. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Of course, every property is unique in a general sense - the facing is different, the facade is different, the heights are different. I think Dr Amy Khor cannot stretch that term too far. But Sentosa is unique in the Singapore context. It is offshore; it is in a setting where there are waterfront bungalows; the lifestyle offered is unique. So, for that reason, we are prepared to lift the restrictions. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ACCOUNTANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.53 pm”
“And more importantly, we are also sending a stronger signal so that any ill-gotten gains, including a Singaporean who may be holding the property on trust for a foreign person, if the Public Prosecutor sees the need to do it and makes out a case, then, the Public Prosecutor can apply to the court to also have that property or the proceeds representing the property, should there be a sale, confiscated. Sir, these are the points I want to make.”
“Let us keep the principle and keep the concession only to unique projects like Sentosa. Indeed, there is ample housing on the Singapore mainland for foreigners, even the better endowed ones, to have a choice in Singapore mainland, including, of course, luxurious penthouses and other apartments of varying sizes in various districts. So, I think there is enough choice. Let us keep that balance. Because, as Dr Amy Khor has rightly mentioned, it is a matter of balance. Whilst we want to attract and root foreign talents here, we also have to take into account the fact that Singaporeans do also want an adequate supply of housing and, in particular, landed properties. The other question she asked was new housing forms. When new housing forms emerge, we will consider whether or not to lift restrictions on them. But now, I think, the categorisations are quite clear. So all the other categories of housing which are in existence in Singapore have been clarified. Basically, we just lifted restrictions on flats below six storeys, ie, from 19th July 2005. For the other forms of housing, including strata titled landed housing in cluster developments, those remain restricted. The third point is on whether there is a plethora of many cases concerning Singaporeans who stand as nominees and hold properties on trust for foreigners. There have not been many cases. So far, there have been only two reported cases. It is not because of the large number of cases out there that we are amending the law. But the current punishment of $5,000 is, indeed, very low. So we are raising the punishment to $50,000.”
“In line with this, Sir, I urge the Ministry to further consider relaxing the restrictions on foreign ownership in respect of good class bungalows and also to regularly review the Act to take into account new housing forms that may emerge so as to make the Act relevant to the priorities and realities of the times. With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank Mayor Amy Khor for her support of the Bill. She makes three points. The first point concerns good class bungalows in Singapore. She argues for the lifting of restrictions on foreigners buying good class bungalows in Singapore and she premises her argument on what we have done in Sentosa Cove. But, Sir, we have explained before in this House and also publicly that Sentosa Cove is in a class of its own. In fact, she used the word "unique", and, indeed, it is unique because for Sentosa Cove, we have taken a liberal approach, since it is a unique integrated waterfront development with complementary recreational facilities located on an offshore island. And the purpose really is to attract a clientele, both local and, of course, foreigners, who desire the lifestyle that is found in other places in the world. So we have made that concession, based on these special premises which do not apply to land in Singapore, including good class bungalows. Good class bungalows may be bigger, more expensive or, indeed, more exclusive, but they are still part of the category of landed properties in Singapore. As Mayor Amy Khor knows, we have been very strict on that because we all know Singaporeans cherish landed property - they value land - and there is limited supply. So I think we should not cross that line.”
“The Bill has increased 10-fold the penalties imposed for those caught trying to buy a landed home as a nominee of a foreigner from $5,000 and jail term of up to three years to $50,000 with a similar jail term of up to three years. Furthermore, the amendments will allow the Government to confiscate any financial benefits of or derived from the property. I would like to ask the Minister whether this implies that there are indeed a relatively sizable number of such offenders every year. On average, how many of such cases are there per year and has anyone been sent to jail for such an offence? I would also like to ask the Minister if the Ministry knows for what purpose these properties have been illegally bought on behalf of the foreigners. Are they subsequently occupied by the foreigner's family members or for the purpose of investment or trading? Additionally, do these offences primarily relate to conventional terraces, semi-detached houses and bungalows, or do they also include good class bungalows? Whilst I agree with the harsher penalties to deter those who try to circumvent the law, I would like to urge the Ministry to evaluate the reasons for such offences and determine if there is a need to review the policies and circumstances under which approval can be given for the purchase of a landed home by a foreigner. Sir, I support the amendments made to the RPA as they clearly complement our current drive to develop Singapore into a city that will be exciting to the global talent and investors we seek to attract and retain.”
“The argument that good class bungalows are very limited - there being only 39 good class bungalow areas with an estimated current total stock of some 2,500 units - and hence ought to be safeguarded for Singaporeans does not hold, since Sentosa Cove properties which are fully available to foreigners under some conditions would be equally limited. There is a need to regularise the policy. Second, new housing forms. Clause 4 of the Bill states that foreigners are allowed to purchase any residential property that is not a landed dwelling house. It is conceivable that new housing forms would be developed over time to meet the changing needs and aspirations of home purchasers. Recent new housing forms include strata bungalows and cluster housing, which essentially share common facilities such as swimming pools and tennis courts, and the owners of these properties own a share of the common property, much like condominiums. Under the present Bill, it is not clear if foreigners can purchase such properties. Are they considered condominiums since their legal interest in the property is similar to condominiums or are they considered as landed properties for which there is restriction on foreign ownership? Hence, I would like to ask the Ministry to periodically review new housing forms that may come up and clarify if they are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, if this is not evident. Additionally, the Ministry should also consider lifting foreign ownership restrictions on such properties, if there are no compelling reasons not to do so. Third, harsher penalties.”
“Hence, it is vital that talented foreigners wishing to set up home in Singapore be able to enjoy as many housing options as possible to suit their varied lifestyles and preferences. From that perspective, Sir, I fully support this Bill. But I would like to raise three issues in relation to the Bill for the Minister's further consideration. First, lifting foreign ownership restriction for good-class bungalows. Sir, I had asked the Minister for Law in May 2005 if the Ministry would consider lifting restrictions that bar foreigners from purchasing landed residential properties in Singapore since such restrictions have already been lifted for Sentosa Cove. Sir, the Minister had then noted that Sentosa Cove was given this special exemption as it is considered a unique world-class integrated waterfront development. He noted that it was the intention of the Government to create a niche for the international clientele wishing to buy these waterfront homes and help develop Sentosa Cove to its fullest potential as a world-class development. Sir, I note the need to strike a balance between keeping landed properties affordable for Singaporeans and attracting foreign talent and investors to our shores to make Singapore truly an attractive global city for investors. Based on feedback from the real estate industry, there is considerable interest in good class bungalows from foreigners looking to invest and live in Singapore. They wish to buy homes which are commensurate with their lifestyle and preferences back in their home country. Hence, may I urge the Ministry to consider lifting the ownership restrictions for good class bungalows altogether, of which Sentosa Cove in reality is a subset.”
“Sir, the property market welcomes the amendments to the Residential Property Act, as it relaxes the restrictions on the foreign ownership of residential property, reduces business cost and imposes heavier penalties for offences committed under the Act. This relaxation is seen by industry stakeholders as complementing the Government's efforts to attract and anchor global talent in Singapore. With the amendments, foreigners are now - for all intents and purposes - allowed to own all types of residential properties in Singapore, except landed homes for which approval is still required from the Controller of Residential Property. The previous restriction which prohibited foreigners from owning landed properties as well as apartments below six storeys, unless they have condominium status, was put in place some 30 years ago in the 1970s when the Residential Property Act first came into force. The policy intent was to safeguard certain categories of properties from excessive foreign ownership and prevent them from driving up their prices beyond the reach of Singaporeans. But times have changed. Those earlier concerns which were the genesis of the original Act have subsided in importance against the backdrop of new economic realities. Our size and limited pool of labour impose limits to our growth. Most people therefore accept, perhaps grudgingly, that we need to supplement this local limited workforce with enough critical mass to draw a pool of self-sustaining high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries, to capitalise on our own niches, and to ensure our continued prosperity. But the competition for global talent has intensified, and such talent is highly mobile. Urban sociological research has shown that the quality of life in general is an important draw for such talent.”
“In this regard, I urge the Government to monitor the situation carefully and remain open to fine-tuning the safeguards and policies where it is warranted. Of course, this should also take into account the fact that they must not be too onerous and unfair to the casino operators who have embarked on the project with a given understanding and set of parameters. With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.48 pm”
“Did this exclusion order lead to a discernible increase in family violence in their case and how were family members who suffered from such resulting violence protected and assisted? Finally, on loan shark and vice activities. There is also considerable concern from the public on the potential increase in loan shark and vice activities. Clause 129 of the Bill requires the casino operator to take the appropriate steps to ensure that criminal activities, such as soliciting with a view towards prostitution and loan sharking, do not take place within the casino premises. Presumably, this is in accordance with international standards. However, I am told that there are always loan sharks hanging around even at the children's playgrounds at Genting and that there are many prostitutes milling around even in high-end casinos in Las Vegas. Whilst the Government has enacted tougher laws against loan sharks, I would like to ask the Minister what added measures would be taken to minimise criminal and vice activities that may arise due to the existence of these casinos. For instance, how would it ensure that we do not have similar situations of loan sharks and prostitutes milling in the areas around the casinos and control the increase of such criminal activities? Sir, I note that the Government has carried out thorough studies and sought extensive consultation before finalising this Bill. Rightly so, because as we embark on this journey, fraught with economic opportunity but also with social ills, we need the experience of other countries to guide us in our own formulation. But there are still many concerns about the effectiveness of the control measures and, in reality, we can never be sure that these controls, no matter how stringent, would do the trick.”
“I would like to ask the Minister to comment on this possibility to assure Singaporeans that it does not succumb to economic pressure and thereby compromise on the social safeguards. Secondly, on exclusion orders. In addition to third party exclusion orders, which bar those on state-funded social assistance programmes, bankrupts and those who have bankruptcy petitions filed against them as well as people with poor credit records, the Bill also provides for family exclusion orders. I understand that apart from South Australia, we are the only jurisdiction to have such a family exclusion clause which prevents family members from entering the casinos. Whilst I support this move to minimise the untold distress and harm that a gambling addict may bring upon his family members, like many others, I am wary of the possible violence against family members that may be perpetuated by the member against which the exclusion order applies. Whilst clause 163(2)(a) states that the Committee of Assessors under the National Council on Problem Gambling may refer the respondent for counselling or rehabilitation, it does not necessarily follow that the respondent would oblige. If the respondent does not oblige, what recourse, if any, does the Council have? For example, if the family ties with the respondent become acrimonious because of the family exclusion order and the respondent turns violent, what protection and assistance would the family members have? How can the police effectively and speedily render assistance to such cases? I would also like to ask the Minister how effective has this family exclusion order been in South Australia which provided the model for our own family exclusion orders.”
“Nonetheless, it is imperative that the Government closely monitors the impact of the entry levy on local gamblers as against Singaporeans who travel to other places in the region to gamble. Also, for the entry levy to be effective, it is crucial that the Government keeps a close tab to ensure that this is not circumvented by the casino operators. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister what disciplinary action would the casino operator be liable for under clause 116(6) if he contravenes clause 116(3) by devising some ingenious way to circumvent the levy, as this has not been explicitly stipulated in the Bill. I would urge for strong penalties if this law is flouted as we should adopt an uncompromising stance against the casino operators to ensure the effectiveness of the social safeguards. Furthermore, clause 116(4) stipulates that the levy may be varied by the Minister after 10 years from the date of gazette. While I appreciate that this fixing of the duration for the amount helps the operator in their budgeting and assessment of the potential catchment, there could be policy weakness issues downstream. I would like to ask the Minister if subsequently it is found that the current proposed levy does not achieve the purpose for which it was intended, whether the levy can be varied before the expiration of the stipulated 10 years. If not, would we be tying our own hands with regard to the effectiveness of the social safeguards imposed by this clause? On the other hand, there has also been speculation in the press that with only four potential bidders for the Marina IR site, these bidders would have stronger bargaining power and may push for the scrapping of the $100 a day or $2,000 a year levy on local gamblers.”
“However, on balance, it would seem that the current proposed levy would help to discourage the casual and impulse gamblers and/or prevent them from becoming habitual gamblers. As an illustration - and I would like to clarify that I learn this strictly from my grassroots - presently there are operators who bring Singaporeans to a casino operating on a cruise ship stationed some 20 minutes by ferry from Batam. To patronise this casino, you take a 45-minute ferry to Batam and another 20-minute ferry from Batam to the casino. The cost of the ferry to and from Batam is $41.50 and those aged 55 years and above get a discount of $20 when they visit the casino. I am told that many elderly Singaporeans regularly visit this casino, despite the inconvenience of getting there as they are enticed by the prospect of making some money with a very low upfront initial investment and also as a means of passing their time. The $20 discount on the cost of the ferry offered by this casino is clear evidence that the elderly make up a sizeable number of the casino's clientele. This implies that any financial deterrent to keep out casual gamblers will have to be fairly substantial in order to work. It will have to be more than, say, the cost of the ferry which is $41.50 or $21.50 with the discount, coupled with the inconvenience caused by the casino's relative inaccessibility. One can well imagine that without the $100 entry levy, many elderly and even housewives with time on their hands may be tempted to frequent the upcoming casinos which are easily accessible. Hence, to me, doing away with the levy is certainly not an option that we can afford to take.”
“This is to safeguard against any operators who may try to circumvent this rule by, say, returning the equivalent of the levy in the form of perks or chips. The Government has explained that the purpose of the entry levy is to discourage Singaporeans from casual gambling and to remind them that gambling is an expense - not a means to earn a living, much less a way to get rich. This levy, which I understand to be unique to Singapore, has attracted much debate and controversy. The anti-casino camp has called for an increase of this levy to ensure that it is high enough to discourage the poor and vulnerable from frequent visits of the casinos. Yet, others have called for the levy to be scrapped. One argument against the levy - a moral hazard one - stems from the belief that it could lead to perverse selection where the gambling addicts who ought to be kept out do not mind paying the "small" sum of $100 a day or $2,000 a year, which is equivalent to about $5.50 a day, in the hope of winning big. Of course, in their desire to satisfy their addiction, they forget the principle that the house always ultimately wins. Yet others feel that the entry fee will simply encourage some gamblers to go overseas or simply stay longer to recoup their upfront "investment", defeating the very purpose of the levy in the first place. There are also those who questioned why Singaporean gamblers should be discriminated against. Sir, in this respect, I support such discrimination, since it will conceivably narrow the road to perdition for Singaporeans whose gambling habits may ruin their families. But, ultimately, only time will tell what effects the entry levy will produce.”
“Sir, if the thickness of this voluminous 153-page document is any indication, the control measures and social safeguards promulgated in the Casino Control Bill must be detailed and comprehensive. As the Minister has noted, they have been drafted after extensive studies of relevant legislation from many other countries. In fact, as testimony of the immense effort that has been put into the drafting of the Bill, the Bill is unique as it even has cross-references of some of its clauses to the relevant sections in the Victoria Casino Control Act 1991, the Nevada Statutes, the New South Wales Act 1992 and the South Australian Problem Gambling Family Protection Orders Act 2004. But, Sir, until the casinos are up and running in three to four years' time, it would be difficult to determine if these measures fit our own social circumstances, and are enough to serve their purpose of, firstly, minimising the social ills that may arise; and, secondly, keeping out criminal infiltration. I am of the view that both the Government and the public should keep an open mind, and the Government will no doubt closely monitor the effectiveness and consequences of these control measures with a view to refining them based on the experience gleaned. There are three particular control measures that I would like to highlight, balancing between the need for toughness to minimise social ills and allowing the casino to operate profitably. First, the entry levy. Clause 116(1) imposes an entry levy of $100 per day or $2,000 per annum on local patrons of the casinos. Clause 116(3) further states that a casino operator shall not refund, remit or reimburse, directly or indirectly, any entry levy paid or payable.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State why were there two concurrent fee increases for the polytechnics, ie, one the year before and one last year. Why is that so? The other question relates particularly to students in ITE. If the financial schemes available are actually clearly made known to the students or if the teachers actually help to identify students who are in need of financial help, why is it that often, at my MPS, there are students from ITE who say that they drop out of school because they are unable to pay for the fees?”
“I would like to ask the Minister of State when was the last time the fees were increased for the polytechnics and ITE. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister of State, for low-income families especially, every dollar increase in fees poses difficulties for them, whether the range of schemes available to help needy students in the polytechnics and ITE are actually adequate to cover all who need help, whether they are actually people who, say, in ITE did not get assistance when they applied for it. Because I understand that, for ITE, there are no loans available for the students.”
“Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister, in the light of the Workers' Party's manifesto which seems to suggest that they are proposing to dismantle the ethnic integration quota because they feel that we have already achieved a certain level of social integration, in his opinion, if we ever can dismantle this ethnic quota, that we can ever achieve a level of social integration where racial enclaves will not re-emerge.”
“Sir, I would like to state that I firmly believe that the ethnic quota remain in place as it would be naive to suggest doing away with the quota, especially at times like this where world events have shown that race and religion are very delicate and deep-seated matters that cannot be taken for granted. Sir, I would like to ask four supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry does regularly review the quota to see if it remains appropriate in the light of our evolving immigration and procreation patterns and, if not, whether the Ministry could do so to ensure the appropriateness of the quota as the percentage of, say, Indians relative to other races, could have changed in view of changing immigration patterns. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry could exercise more flexibility when the market is weak, not just in terms of time exemption but in terms of even extending interest-free loans to sellers of such flats who are adversely affected by the ethnic quota if they have to take possession of a resale flat. This is because in a weak market there are very few buyers for a single property and the probability of being affected adversely by this ethnic quota actually goes up. Thirdly, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry can consider casting the quota as a band rather than as a fixed and inviolate number for each race in each estate and in each block as this will then allow the policy to have some in-built flexibility and help minimise the number of flat sellers that could be adversely affected by the policy.”
“Sir, before I ask my supplementary questions, I beg your indulgence to make a statement lest I be misunderstood.”
“Moreover, living in crammed, unhygienic conditions would affect the health of these workers and thus place their lives and those of others at risk at the worksites. Sir, changing the safety regime from one based on compliance to one based on commitment to safety is a necessary step towards an accident free work environment. We need to change the philosophy of many from one of "Safety is somebody else's business" to "Safety is everybody's business". An important aspect of this new Bill is to get everyone to take ownership of safety, from the bosses down to the lowliest worker. And as Erik Peyrer, Vice President and General Manager, Asia-Pacific and Middle East, Cooper Cameron, which won MOM's Safety Gold Award for the second time in 2005 notes, "These things only work if the top man is passionate about it. These things never happen from bottom up." Hence, the Government should take the lead, both as a regulator and as a major employer, and work with all other employers to develop a zero tolerance towards unsafe practices and habits and accidents at worksites. Sir, I support the Bill, but urge MOM to do even more to raise our workplace safety record. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 4.59 pm”
“Talk is rife in the industry that instead of parcelling out their MYEs to the various sub-contractors for a project, some main contractors are selling their MYEs to labour agents to make up for their below-cost suicidal bids. Sub-contractors desperate for work may resort to hiring such workers, while others resort to hiring illegals. Whilst this is not a key factor resulting in the poor safety performance of our construction sites, it can exacerbate the problem, since it is unlikely that sub-contractors who secure their foreign workers through such illegal means would ensure that the latter are properly educated on worksite safety practices. As a result not only their lives but the lives of their fellow co-workers could also be endangered. MOM has said in June 2005 that about 10% of MYEs allocated to construction companies remain unutilised and, in fact, less than 20% of construction companies have fully utilised their dependency ceiling of 80%. Yet, many industry observers continue to claim that the illegal sale of MYEs through labour agents is common. Besides beefing up its enforcement team to clamp down on the hiring of illegal workers, the Ministry should also review the whole mode of allocation of MYEs, taking into account feedback from all players in the industry, which would include both the contractors and the sub-contractors. Sir, on another issue related to foreign workers, I would like to urge the Ministry to also focus its attention on the provision of adequate, humane and safe quarters for foreign workers. These foreign workers deserve to be treated with as much dignity as all other workers, and should not be exploited by irresponsible employers and agents.”
“The qualifications and criteria for independent safety auditors and safety auditing organisations should be reviewed in consultation with the relevant industry to ensure that these personnel have the relevant skills and experience to competently carry out safety audits. Furthermore, there should also be a thorough review of the system of site audits and monitoring to ensure that contractors and other employers take steps to immediately rectify the deficiencies identified by the audits. MOM should also conduct more frequent checks of the contractors if the audits of these contractors fall below a certain threshold. The construction industry is now required to prepare health and safety plans which are to be checked by qualified safety professionals to ensure comprehensiveness and compliance, even before a project gets started. This is a positive move as it ensures that safety is taken into account right from the inception of the project. However, MOM should ensure that appropriately qualified officials undertake the checking so that the project is not unduly delayed due to the lack of experience or incompetence of the checker appointed. Each day of delay could cost the developer and other stakeholders millions of dollars in holding and other costs. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how he would ensure that there are enough qualified professionals to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation. Fourth, resolving manpower needs. Sir, even as we enact tougher legislation to deal with safety violators, we need to review the whole issue of man-year entitlement in the construction industry, and resolve the problem of the illegal sale of MYEs.”
“Safety inspectors are now given very wide powers and hence need to have the requisite skills and experience to effectively and fairly carry our enforcement. This is because any stop-work order issued would be costly to the affected company. Conversely, if this were not issued when it should, then it could lead to accidents and loss of lives. Besides sending them for longer attachments to countries with better safety records, as suggested by the Minister previously, safety inspectors should also have some local experience in the relevant industry they are to oversee, say, by attachment to a firm so that they have a better understanding of the industry and the inherent risks involved. MOM must also ensure that there is adequate manpower to carry out regular surveillance. The Minister noted in March 2005 that MOM has 100 inspectors regulating about 16,000 workplaces. At the extreme, the ratio of one inspector to 160 sites, or roughly one site inspected every two days in a year, is onerous, to say the least. I would like to urge MOM to study best practices in other countries with better safety records to determine what would be an appropriate manpower requirement. Whilst whistle blowing could help prevent some accidents, many workers may still be wary of reporting unsafe work practices, even with the new legislation that protects whistle blowers for fear of negative repercussions, like being found out by the employers and being dismissed. This is especially so for foreign workers who have to pay off debts. Hence, regular inspections would have to be done to act as a deterrent against unsafe practices. This is especially important in the initial years of the implementation of the new Act.”