Anthea Ong
Singapore
“Hence, I recommend that the Government reduce the required period for involuntary no pay leave or duration of income loss from three consecutive months to one month and allow individuals with no bank account and daily-rated or ad hoc workers to be eligible for CSG.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low for her response. I would like to ask if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could answer my question. Should there be a mechanism to make companies that are unaffected by or even profiting from the crisis return their JSS payouts? That is one.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I then ask if MOH has the intention to increase funding for these community health organisations?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I am very happy to hear that we will be co-investing in these start-ups. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State if there is a plan in this co-investing to take equity or is that in the form of grants?”
“Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,851,670,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates.(proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,710,800,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary De…”
“Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for your response. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,063,442,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Anthea Ong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for your response. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,063,442,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Hence, I recommend that the Government reduce the required period for involuntary no pay leave or duration of income loss from three consecutive months to one month and allow individuals with no bank account and daily-rated or ad hoc workers to be eligible for CSG. The duration of support should also be extended from three months to nine months or when applicants are able to secure a job, whichever is earlier. If the Ministry disagrees, individuals who have been financially affected by COVID-19 will be forced to apply for ComCare financial assistance in the interim or after they have exhausted their full CSG payout. Given the almost five-fold difference in income eligibility criteria of CSG versus ComCare, will the Ministry consider enhancements to ComCare such as: (a) increasing the income eligibility caps for ComCare and (b) increasing the flexibility with regard to supporting documents required? For instance, instead of strictly requiring bank statements, one could be allowed to produce documents that show job or income loss. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100". The Government has signalled that the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) is an important piece in the array of COVID-19 welfare schemes by pumping in $800 million as part of the Fortitude Budget. However, I would like to bring attention to several aspects of the scheme that obstruct it from fully meeting the needs of those who need it most. First, its overly strict eligibility criteria. Applicants have to first show that they have lost or will lose income over three months. For those whose initial conditions of no pay leave or reduced income do not reflect at least three months, they will have to wait to become eligible for CSG. This will be the case for most employees, especially lower wage workers, many of whom who do not even have a document from their employers spelling out conditions of leave. It would be inconceivable to expect employers who lay off employees to provide a confirmation that the employee will have three months of income lost, nor is it logical to expect individuals to show loss of future income of at least three months now. From May 2020, there is no interim support scheme that can help to tide such individuals over. Further, the amount and duration of support provided under CSG is ungenerous, especially when compared to the Self-employed Persons Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). Crucially, members of society in precarious positions are excluded from CSG, such as individuals with no bank account or daily-rated workers.”
“I will just keep it to two then, Mr Chairman, on your cue.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low for her response. I would like to ask if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could answer my question. Should there be a mechanism to make companies that are unaffected by or even profiting from the crisis return their JSS payouts? That is one. Secondly, I am very heartened that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is reiterating that employees should come forward because they are protected under the Employment Act, if they have errant employers. How are we actually making sure that this is made known, particularly to the more vulnerable employees, that they have this right? Many of them are sharing with me that they are so afraid to come forward because, first of all, they do not know they have this right and, secondly, they are worried about employers actually making life harder for them.”
“Further, instead of relying on goodwill, should there be a mechanism to make companies that are unaffected by or even profiting from the crisis return their JSS payouts?”
“Yes, I know. Sorry. I missed that. The intention behind the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) to protect jobs and salary is welcome. However, abuse has been ongoing. MOM has received complaints about companies taking JSS monies and not using them to support their employees. It appears that workers have been threatened with dismissal if they complain about their employer's errant behaviour. IRAS announced on 3 June 2020 that employers who abuse the JSS may be charged under the Penal Code and face imprisonment and a fine. I applaud this strong stand against abuse of the scheme. However, I also note that IRAS continues to encourage individuals to report malpractices and abuses of JSS. Despite IRAS' promise that whistle-blowers' identities will be kept strictly confidential, I foresee many cases in which this will pose little obstacles to the employer discovering the identity of the whistle-blower. Some complaints may never make it to the authorities because the employees do not know of the avenues for complaint or are afraid of souring their relationships with their employers. This is particularly true for elderly or lower income employees who will be most affected by the loss of their jobs and are consequently more vulnerable to exploitation. To empower employees to make complaints against errant employers and protect the most vulnerable in our workforce, will the Government consider a strong whistle-blowing protection law similar to the protected disclosures regime in the UK's employment Rights Act 1996 that is adequately communicated to all workers so that they are aware of the channels and feel safe exercising their right to whistle-blow.”
“Yes, Mr Chairman. Businesses have been hard-hit by COVID-19. Not referenced in the Fortitude Budget is the impact of the pandemic on the mental well-being of employees. I have mentioned earlier that in a survey of business leaders and HR professionals, nearly one in two Singaporeans has had their mental health adversely affected by COVID-19. A recent survey also found that employees without managers attuned to their well-being are 61% more likely to say they have been less productive. Hence, establishing workplace adjustments for mental health must be an urgent priority for business and overall economic recovery. The inter-agency advisory for employers to support employee well-being, which Senior Minister of State Amy Khor alluded to earlier, is a step in the right direction. Protecting jobs is as important as protecting employability, which includes mental well-being. Can the Ministry integrate the inter-agency advisory into the Job Support Scheme (JSS) such that beneficiary employers must demonstrate effort to introduce workplace adjustments to support their employees? I propose that businesses should adopt Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), mental health insurance coverage for employees and/or other well-being programmes to qualify for JSS payouts in July and October. Also, will the Ministry consider encouraging these progressive well-being practices with further incentives? I propose that the Ministry expands the scope of the Enhanced Work-Life Grant beyond flexible working arrangements (FWAs), for funding EAPs and/or other well-being programmes. Jobs Support Scheme – Mitigating Failure of Trickle-down Economics Next cut. The Government has signalled that the COVID-19 Support Grant is an important—sorry, that is the wrong one.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,851,670,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates.(proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,710,800,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Development Estimates.(proc text)] Head S – Ministry of Manpower”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I am very happy to hear that we will be co-investing in these start-ups. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State if there is a plan in this co-investing to take equity or is that in the form of grants? And if, once the start-ups are on their way to growth, would we then ask for a clawback of the initial investment or grant?”
“Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Estimates be reduced by $100." I would like to declare my interest as an impact investor and also founder of social enterprise Hush TeaBar and A Good Space Co-operative. Both are start-ups. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that $285 million will be set aside to support “promising start-ups”. I appreciate that this is a longer term view to maintain our attractiveness and robustness as one of the top start-up eco-systems in the world. However, start-ups are inherently risky and identification of "promising start-ups" is often a hit-and-miss endeavour. I know this as an investor and an entrepreneur. Economic downturns often sift the wheat from the chaff, leaving the most resilient ones behind. By intervening in the sifting process, is there a danger of the Government artificially propping up ailing start-ups and distorting market forces? Moreover, an inability to adapt to the changing economic landscape by continuing to rely on Government financing seems to go against the spirit of start-ups. 6.00 pm What was the reason behind dedicating $285 million to support "promising start-ups", which can also tap into the many support schemes for SMEs, over other areas of spending, such as extending greater support to struggling households like public rental waivers? Which immediate concerns or areas of national priority will the $285 million be used to address, for example, climate change? What are the checks and balances in place to ensure that the $285 million will be effectively utilised? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $7,000,900,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)] Head V – Ministry of Trade and Industry”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I then ask if MOH has the intention to increase funding for these community health organisations? Many of them have actually shared with me that, well, we know that there is a long tail to the mental health impact and they are also sharing that increased funding would really help them in terms of increasing their capacity.”
“Would the Ministry consider appointing mental health experts for the Multi-Ministry COVID-19 Task Force, to advise on mental health implications as we extend the stringent safe distancing measures to re-open cautiously? Singapore’s economic woes are likely to continue for the long term, as GDP growth forecasts have been downgraded from -4% to -7%. As the resident unemployment rate climbed to a 10-year high of 3.3% in March, a survey by Profile Asia indicated that many employees are facing increased levels of stress dealing with uncertainty over future pay cuts and their jobs. Deputy Prime Minister Heng talked about seeking out “opportunities in adversity” during his Fortitude Budget Statement. The COVID-19 crisis also offers us an unprecedented opportunity in equipping businesses and workers for the rebound through improving workplace wellness. A recent report has linked business recovery from COVID-19 to a sustained focus on employee well-being. Would the Ministry consider appointing at least one mental health expert on the Emerging Stronger Task Force to advise on well-being policy interventions to strengthen our recovery from this crisis? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head O of the Estimates be reduced by $100.” As Singapore extends safe distancing measures to protect lives, we must remain aware of how doing so leads to not only “costs” for our economy and businesses, but real and significant detriments to our mental health. The World Health Organization (WHO) has confirmed “widespread psychological distress” in COVID-19 affected populations, with mental distress being reported in 35% of the population surveyed in China and 45% in the United States. A similar picture of a “mental health pandemic” is being observed in Singapore. In an Ipsos survey of 1,000 Singaporeans between late April and early May, one in four respondents said they were not in good mental health. Our national suicide prevention hotline, operated by the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS), received 23% more calls in April from March. Caregivers Alliance Limited (CAL) has shared with me that their caseloads have significantly increased in the last three months, with many care-givers reporting increases in mental health relapses and crisis incidents experienced by their care recipients, four of them have even lost their loved ones to suicide just in the last six weeks. To deal with the psychological fallout from COVID-19, countries like New Zealand and Scotland have relied heavily on mental health experts in their COVID-19 response. The extended safe distancing measures for Phase One of exiting the circuit breaker is likely to prolong mental distress, as we continue to deal with social isolation, the lack of personal space, and disruption to routines.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $3,650,000,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)] Head O – Ministry of Health”
“Only when we include those who have chosen to make Singapore home and help raise our children can we truly say we are “SG United”. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Low-income transnational families have been particularly hard-hit by COVID-19 and circuit breaker measures. According to an AWARE survey with migrant spouses of Singaporean citizens in May, 99% of 36 respondents have either lost their jobs or seen a drastic decrease in income since the onset of COVID-19. Close to half were not earning any income from work because their jobs did not allow them to work from home. Migrant spouses are particularly vulnerable in times of economic crisis as they are often the first to be let go, especially since COVID-19 related job support schemes do not provide incentives for employers to retain non-citizen workers. Can the Ministry consider funding an online platform to facilitate job-matching for these workers at a national level so that employers looking to hire overseas workers could be encouraged to hire from this pool, which includes migrant spouses, first? This widespread loss in income is making it difficult for many migrant spouses and their families to meet basic needs. They can receive a $300 one-off Solidarity payment but only if they are on LTVP+. Even so, this amount may be insufficient. According to AWARE's survey, more than half of the respondents reported that, in addition to their current household income, which mostly falls below $2,000, they still need more than $300 a month to meet their basic needs. To cope, some have cut down on food-related expenses; a few said they were unable to pay rent. 5.45 pm Can the Government consider relaxing the citizenship criteria for COVID-19 related financial assistance and make them available for all migrant spouses with a Singaporean in their household?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask Deputy Prime Minister Heng if he could address the question in my speech about asking if he would consider waiving six months' rent for all households residing in rental flats except for those whose rental is already covered under the ComCare scheme?”
“It will take our collective imagination, courage and collaboration to walk through this crisis and emerge stronger, together. Let us start the work for that to happen today with fortitude. I support the Budget. 12.35 pm”
“However, if we are to recognise a wide range of stakeholders in our future and commit to re-imagining the way forward, changes must be made. I am glad to hear Deputy Prime Minister note that the Task Force will partner with SME owners, industry experts and trade associations as part of Emerging Stronger and his invitation for Singaporeans to participate. I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister if there are plans to formalise this partnership and citizen participation under this Task Force. This is necessary to integrate meaningful and transparent input from all corners of society. The current members of the Task Force represent industries that we have traditionally treated as pillars of our current economic structure, the composition does not represent the true diversity of economic players in Singapore. For example, I am surprised by the omission of SME, minority, even disability and mental health representation. Companies committed to delivering a sustainable future are also unrepresented, under-represented. So are women. I believe that if we sideline these views now, we are sabotaging our own futures and those of our children’s. Can I please ask the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure a more diverse and better representation on this Task Force to secure a truly resilient and united future for Singapore? Unity, resilience, solidarity, fortitude. The names of the four extraordinary Budgets this year speak to our desire as a nation to overcome this crisis together and stronger. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that emerging stronger means placing our people front and centre of our plans for the future. Our economic structures must be realigned to put people first so that we build back better as a well-being economy post-COVID.”
“McKinsey noted in April that “not only does climate action remain critical over the next decade, but investments in climate-resilient infrastructure and the transition to a lower carbon future can drive significant near-term job creation while increasing economic and environmental resiliency.” The President of the German Parliament recently called for the stimulus plan to focus on “climate policy, digitisation and innovation”. Subsidies and support to companies accelerating climate change should come with conditions for absolute emissions reductions that enable us to accelerate our Paris Agreement commitments. As countries grapple with what a green and healthy recovery looks like, measurement and accountability may again be instrumental for change. The Task Force of Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework should be the norm. Science-based targets should form the basis of discussions on business transformations. Such requirements could be considered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore as a cornerstone of future environment risk management guidelines for our financial industry. These safeguards will require strong political will, Mr Deputy Speaker, because they will meet with resistance. But if we want a flexible and responsive society that is able to absorb shocks and rebound from them, I believe we must recalibrate current power structures for a fairer economy that considers key stakeholders in our economic system equally. I hope Deputy Prime Minister addresses this need for safeguards and conditions in his response. The Government is demonstrating its commitment to longer term planning through the Emerging Stronger Task Force and the Future Economy Council. I applaud the intention.”
“Possible measures are curbs on layoffs, excessive executive compensation, and excessive use of share options in compensation structures that disproportionately align managers only to shareholders’ interests. Government bailouts and support may reduce shareholders’ risk-bearing responsibilities. Safeguards against moral hazard can include: reducing dividends, restricting stock buybacks and requiring that any M&A activity should seek to pay back the support provided, that is, a clawback. Measuring and reporting should be used to hold companies accountable for how they have used Government grants, therefore taxpayers’ monies. An example is the independent accountability and transparency board created by the Obama administration in 2009. It performed a crucial monitoring function by requiring any entity receiving contracts, grants, or loans to file quarterly reports. We could adopt a similar mechanism to ensure that companies channel Government support to those for whom it is intended. Corporate reporting requirements could compel companies to demonstrate behaviours that meet broader societal and sustainability goals. We must also use the support packages as carrots for companies to actively enhance social equity by integrating community engagement and social responsibility into business strategy, so each can be a Company of Good – a national effort I believe Deputy Prime Minister is very familiar with. This could include an obligation to judiciously use the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme or BIPs, to make in-kind donations to charities. Lastly, promoting sustainable business models will be key to building a better and safer future.”
“Such considerations are not new. The World Economic Forum was established in 1971 to further the idea that business should serve all stakeholders. A hundred and eighty one CEOs of the Business Roundtable signed a statement last year, committing “to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders.” Investors also value businesses that take care of its stakeholders. Workers are a major stakeholder. In April 2020, the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) led by investors responsible for assets of $54 trillion called for companies to “prioritise employee safety and welfare” and “take a holistic and equitable approach to capital allocation decisions, considering the workforce”. Deputy Prime Minister Heng alluded to similar sentiments in parts of his speech. The Government’s strategy to help Singaporeans ride through this crisis is by safeguarding jobs and income, which it is doing by supporting businesses. Across all four Budgets, around $28 billion has gone towards supporting immediate cash flow needs and overheads. This is about a third of the total Budget to date. The Government has also provided support through enabling credit access and matching investments for start-ups. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the intention to protect jobs and income to strengthen the economic position of our individuals and households. Reducing inequality would also increase resilience across our society, especially in times of hardship, so that economic buffers and important resources do not become accessible only to the privileged few. Therefore, we must enact measures to protect individuals against employers who may be more interested in self-enrichment than in their workers’ rice bowls.”
“Last year, the Clinicians for Planetary Health initiative was launched. It committed to increase awareness of the severe public health impacts of environmental change. Therefore, it is safe to say that to safeguard our economic future, the balance of resources across people, planet and profit needs to be re-examined. First, we can no longer look at our risk response in silo. Risks are multi-dimensional and cross-cutting, and must be addressed as such. Our healthcare system had integrated and implemented the playbook from SARS well – only 3.1% of our infections had been healthcare workers so far, compared to 41% for SARS. Yet, systemic gaps in worker welfare, specifically for migrant workers, left us unprepared for the infection levels in the dormitories. The risk assessment framework should have included the adequacy of safeguards for worker health. This would have required MOH and MOM to work together. Second, existing societal inequities create disproportionate stresses on vulnerable communities. My previous speeches provided several examples of persons with mental health conditions, lower income households and migrant workers being disproportionately affected in terms of income loss and economic and psychological resilience. The digital divide amongst lower income families, the differently-abled and the elderly became more evident. All these could deepen social and community fault lines. What does all this mean in terms of transformation? What society should we envision for ourselves? I call for Singapore to move towards multi-stakeholderism. Governance-wise, this means a policy design process centred around and in collaboration with the actors with a “stake” in the outcome. Business-wise, it means considering workers, suppliers and customers equally.”
“For context, the Government is extending $334 million in rental relief for Government tenants in this Budget. A further $2 billion will offset SMEs’ rental costs.. A similar waiver for rental flat households would cost between $16 million and $57 million, based on my rough calculation. Mr Deputy Speaker, while acute pain is undeniable and deeply felt by both citizens and migrant workers, future shocks could be more frequent and unprecedented. The World Economic Forum has called turbulence “the new normal” in its latest Global Risks Report. I will focus on the long term in this speech. The hard work of Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as well as prudent financial management of our Reserves, has allowed us to save up for this rainy day. It is only fiscally responsible for us to ensure that we spend the monies to build a stronger foundation for this new turbulent normal. This demands that we push boundaries and reimagine a social and economic structure that is more responsive, flexible and interconnected. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me first outline why a re-imagination and deep transformation is the only prudent way forward. I will then discuss the considerations in our current spending and planning processes that can set us on the path towards this stronger, more sustainable and more inclusive future. Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned that this Budget’s focus is to “enable our businesses and workers to adapt, transform and seize new opportunities”. Indeed, but even more so, our society and economy need a deep transformation. The COVID-19 crisis has shown us unequivocally that human health is intrinsically linked to planetary health. Our increasing urbanisation and disruption of ecological balances increase our risks of exposure to pathogens.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Heng and his team at MOF for their hard work in devising a fourth Budget within a space of four months. I also appreciate the sensitive consideration of naming each Budget such that we are emotionally connected to them. "Fortitude" is an excellent name for this Budget as we dig deep into courage to face the painful effects of an unfolding economic crisis. The pain is widespread. Many have reached out to me with their stories. Witnessing this suffering has compelled me to file cuts tomorrow, so that the issues faced by struggling groups are raised to this House. Public rental households are one such group. The number of households who have suffered complete loss of income since the beginning of April has risen sharply. Average income levels have gone into freefall. On the ground, community organisations have observed that households face mounting debt, including rent arrears. MND shared that “about 5,200 public rental households, or about 10% of all public rental households, are in rent arrears”. Around one in four such households owes more than $3,000 in rent. As the economic impact of COVID-19 worsens, we can expect that more households residing in rental flats will struggle to pay rent. The Deputy Prime Minister said in his Ministerial Statement last week, "Our path forward will be tough, but we will journey together". So, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he could consider waiving six months’ rent for all households residing in rental flats, except for those whose rent is already covered under financial assistance from ComCare. This will provide immediate and targeted relief that goes directly to the low-income households in need.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I ask the supplementary questions, can I put on record, given what the Minister had said, there was actually no intention and no implication on my part to say that employers treat local workers better than foreign workers. Especially for myself, I am an employer of local employees. So, I do not think it was fair to infer that was my implication from the question that I asked. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. She mentioned TADM and we are aware of it; and given that in-person services for TADM and also that the Employment Claims Tribunal are currently suspended due to safe distancing measures, could I ask the Minister how has the Ministry communicated the online process of filing salary and wrongful dismissal claims to work permit holders. And again, if this communication for the online process is also translated into their native languages. The second question is, there was a advisory dated 25 April 2020 regarding salary and leave arrangements during circuit breaker, where employers of work permit holders are responsible for their maintenance and upkeep. As we exit the circuit breaker, for work permit holders who cannot work due to COVID-19 or the fact that their dormitories are being gazetted as isolation areas, could the Minister please clarify if employers of work permit holders must continue to pay for: one, their salaries; two, their living arrangements; three, their food expenses and also last but not least, miscellaneous expenses.”
“We must not leave any citizen in the past.”
“Much public policy has been characterised by efficiency, effectiveness and economy, emphasising outcome that are easily measured rather than what might be most helpful to measure. In the UK, for example, the Office for the National Statistics studies the digital divide across locations, gender, age, income, disability, ethnic groups and language, education and other social and economic determinants of digital inequality. Such information will be helpful to policy design. Mr Deputy Speaker, COVID-19 has spotlighted our deep digital divide and the "digital outcasts" in our midst. Our clarion call for SGUnited must surely be a Singapore that is also digitally united through community digital resilience. I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister also acknowledged this need for resilience through digital inclusion earlier in his speech. I therefore want to conclude by imploring the Government to ensure that every digital policy design intentionally includes the views and experiences from our vulnerable groups, these digital outcasts. I propose that a Citizen's Workgroup be established comprising citizens and community groups to complement the Digital Readiness Workgroup made up of leaders in public, people and private sectors. The observations and recommendations outlined in this speech have been the result of consultative and collaborative efforts with, and between, these community groups and citizens. Like the MOH's commitment that "no Singaporean will be denied appropriate care because of an inability to pay", the Digital Readiness Blueprint takes the position that "no Singaporean will be denied adequate digital access because of an inability to pay, or use". I am energised by this vision, Mr Deputy Speaker. COVID-19 has thrust Singapore into the digital future.”
“In terms of a structural rethink to realise the Digital Readiness commitment to provide adequate digital access for those with limited resources, I propose that a Digital Adequacy Framework be considered. Because it is not enough to just be digitally ready or included, this digital participation must adequately support their learning, work and social connections meaningfully. Under this Framework, tablets must be decoupled from the definition of “personal computer” across the board for learning and work purposes. We should also view the amount of hardware deemed adequate for each household to be the aggregate of the needs of each member in it. For instance, should every student aged Primary 5 and above have their own laptop, considering MOE’s digital literacy plans for upper Primary schools? Should younger children have computer access in the home, sharing a personal computer with no more than one other person? The Framework should also fold Internet speed, hardware functionality and digital literacy into its analysis to enable meaningful digital participation. Within this Framework, universal Internet access should be provided as a public utility especially for low-income households. Can IMDA and HDB work with commercial providers and Town Councils to ensure that all low-income households have adequate Internet connection? For instance, can Wireless@SG be expanded to cover all rental flats in Singapore and enhanced with sufficient speed, much like the ubiquitous wi-fi access available in shopping malls? Finally, the Digital Adequacy Framework should underpin the Digital Readiness Blueprint to inform and guide its work. Meaningful statistics and metrics across more diversed groups should be gathered regularly.”
“MCI has boldly committed in its Digital Readiness Blueprint that all Singaporeans will be digitally ready, no matter their income or current IT abilities. I support this commitment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and would like to offer some suggestions from the ground regarding enhancements to existing schemes and structural changes. The NEU PC Plus Scheme could be further streamlined. The five gaps I mentioned earlier should be plugged. For instance, beneficiaries of various financial assistance schemes could automatically qualify for new PC Plus. For instance, can MSF and MOE work together to ensure that every family with a child on MOE-FAS, or every family supported by ComCare who has a child in school, automatically gains adequate access to a fully subsidised personal computer? Should adults supported under ComCare or residing in HDB rental flats not have the option of receiving a partially or fully subsidised digital device, depending on their income. IT subsidy schemes should also include device replacement and customer care. The scheme should also be broadened immediately to permit applications to benefit all children whether pre-school, home-schooled or university students, and adults from low-income families. PWDs should be subsidised equally to students, especially given the changing nature of work post COVID-19. To reduce the time and resources required to deliver digital devices to families, can we have a Digital Empowerment Voucher (DEV) scheme that combines aspects of the existing Public Transport Voucher and Innovation & Capability Voucher schemes? Families would then get the devices themselves. The vouchers could be stipulated for use only with local SMEs which would also directly assist our local enterprises in these trying times.”
“They do not capture whether every citizen has internet access commensurate with their needs. In fact, certain classifications obscure infrastructural inadequacy. As they influence and inform policy-making, it is important to get them right. First, our statistics do not reflect the sufficiency of devices in each household. Instead, they measure the number of houseFholds with access to a personal computer, which includes tablets. For example, if a household of seven has one tablet to share between them, they are classified as having access to a personal computer in the home. Second, our metrics do not measure under-connectivity. Simply owning a personal computer and being connected to wi-i is not the end of the matter. Poor connection or an underperforming hardware creates further obstacles. Xiaoqian, a Secondary 2 student, recently shared her home-based learning experience on a public podcast. Before ReadAble provided her with a new laptop, she only had an old laptop at home. I quote from her: “It will be very slow for me to switch on and I have to wait. I wake up early to switch on the computer to wait for it, but in the end I was late for class because it was still uploading. I wouldn’t have a full lesson.” I am sure we will agree that it is unacceptable in a Smart Nation for a child to receive a deficient education because of faulty hardware. Third, our KPIs conflate personal computers with other digital devices. This is undesirable for reasons I have already discussed earlier. If our metrics do not highlight these fault lines, we remain blissfully misinformed of reality and true digital inclusion will continue to elude us.”
“IMDA enhanced the NEU PC scheme. MOE worked with schools to loan out personal learning devices and kept schools open for those who struggled with digital access. But gaps persist. The device loan programme came with conditions and liability provisions. Community organisation 6th Sense shared that there were families who were too scared to bring these devices home as they would not be able to afford to pay the schools if the devices got lost or broken. Further, the families were rightly worried about going to school and risk COVID-19 infection. One teenage student I know developed severe COVID-19 related-anxiety before HBL. Why should any child be required to go to school and use IT facilities at the height of a pandemic? Given these gaps, community organisations found that it made more sense to give every family good internet connection and every child a personal computer. By personal computer, I mean a laptop or a desktop, and not a tablet. Personal computers, including laptops, are the engines of creativity and productivity. Tablets and smartphones are not enough for work and learning. A child who has to type out an essay on a smartphone or a tablet is not on the same footing as a child with a laptop. Yet, some low-income families reported that their children were told to do home-based learning on their mobile phones! The Minister for Education has said that, by 2024, every Secondary 1 student will have a tablet, a laptop, or a chromebook, which the Deputy Prime Minister just shared that this timeline will be accelerated earlier. I commend the policy intent, but I propose a broader, cross-Ministry change in the form of a Digital Adequacy Framework on which I will elaborate later. Now, let me move to the gaps in our statistical metrics and KPIs.”
“I remember this clearly as I was running my own education technology company then and was very energised by this vision of a digital future which my company also participated in. Sadly, despite this iN2015 ambition, our efforts to become a Smart Nation since 2014 and the Digital Readiness Blueprint released in 2018, we continue to struggle with a deep digital divide in Singapore. I would like to highlight two structural issues that perpetuate the digital divide: gaps in Government intervention as well as metrics that miss the mark. Market forces are the key driver of this divide. Today, Internet connectivity and personal computers are necessities but they are still priced beyond the reach of the low-income in our society. This disparity in turn perpetuates further inequality. The Government intervened by introducing the NEU PC Plus Scheme in 2006, offering students and PWDs from low-income households a new personal computer bundled with three years of free internet connectivity. While it has benefited more than 40,000 households, the scheme falls short in several ways. First, it only permitted one laptop per eligible household regardless of the household size, increasing to two only last month due to HBL. Second, the application process is complex and bureaucratic. Third, it is limited in scope, excluding pre-school, home-schooled and university students and adults. Fourth, it discriminates against PWDs, who only receive a 50% subsidy as compared to 75% for students. Fifth, under the Home Access Scheme, adults have no option to apply for a personal computer, only a tablet or smartphone. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend and appreciate the civil servants at MOE and IMDA who have worked very hard to resolve digital access issues during this circuit breaker period.”
“The bleak picture does not end at infrastructure, Mr Deputy Speaker. Stories from the ground reveal significant struggle in terms of digital literacy and skills, particularly among one, low-income households; two, the differently-abled; and three, seniors. ReadAble is a community organisation supporting families in rental flat communities. They shared that parents struggle with navigating donated laptops donated – whether with Zoom or even in-app functions, which compromises their children’s education. According to Society Staples, a social enterprise working with the differently-abled (PWDs) and the Disabled Persons Association, many lower income PWDs lack equipment, Internet access or the necesssary IT skills. It is difficult for them to work from home or participate in society online. This can mean loss of income and opportunities to retrain or learn new skills. They also missed out on maintaining or even expanding connections with family and friends which increases mental stress and strains existing coping mechanisms, especially for those with psychosocial disabilities. Cassia Resettlement Team, a community organisation, has had to support many low-income individuals, particularly seniors, who struggle with the digitisation of Government services. For example, many of them cannot use SingPass without help. SingPass, as we know, is required to access many such services including checking CPF accounts, which are regularly required to apply for welfare schemes; or checking medical appointments, medical tests results and prescriptions. In 2006, the Intelligent Nation or iN2015 Masterplan pledged that every household with a school-going child would own a personal computer by 2015.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the world has changed. The social glue has come unstuck and we are forced online to learn, work, live and stay connected. Yet there are many who are cut off from access due to lack of internet connectivity, requisite devices or digital literacy. They are not digital natives; they are digital outcasts. COVID-19 has exposed and deepened the digital divide in our society. To achieve an SGUnited Smart Nation, closing this gnawing digital divide must be an urgent priority. I am heartened that Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged this divide in the Fortitude Budget earlier. In this Motion, I will address three questions: how deep is the digital divide? What factors contribute to the divide? And what solutions can we consider? Mr Deputy Speaker, at least one in 10 households in Singapore are not plugged into our digital world according to the Household Expenditure Survey. Only 81% of resident households have a personal computer, and only 87% have Internet access. Only 45% of households residing in 1- and 2-room HDB flats have Internet access. Thirty-one percent have a computer, a personal computer. Contrast this with 96% and 95% respectively of households living in non-HDB apartments. These numbers mean that some of us are almost guaranteed to have internet connectivity and a personal computer, while more than five in 10 households living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats have no internet access or personal computer. This is also reflected in the ground realities exposed by Home-based Learning (HBL). MOE has loaned out an estimated 20,000 devices, including laptops and tablets. A few community groups I personally know including Engineering Good have given out more than 2,600 laptops in total. They have also provided wi-fi dongles or SIM cards to several families.”
“But we must also protect the rights of the electorate by continuing to give them direct and live access through live streaming as a continuity arrangement. We can keep distance for safety by closing the public gallery but we must come even closer between the Legislature and our people to forge a stronger compact for a post-COVID-19 world. Notwithstanding my suggestions and clarifications above, I support the Bill. 3.52 pm”
““I firmly believe that given our greater appetite for self-information in this digital age, we can nudge greater citizen participation by offering official channels they can trust,” these are not my words but yours, Mr Speaker. And I cannot agree with you more. COVID-19 has shown us how much of a highly wired world we live in, and live streaming is becoming a way of life. However, live streams of parliamentary proceedings are not news sound-bites competing with entertainment channels, they are in fact an investment in our future and our citizenry. And this investment is an investment we must make regardless of viewership, just like how we invested in the generous space for the public and press galleries regardless of visitorship. It must be made on a matter of principle, the same way that the Hansard and public gallery are manifestations of the democratic principle. So, will the Minister please clarify whether live streaming will be part of the continuity planning for public access to protect the integrity of our parliamentary process, especially with the public gallery closed to the electorate? Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister to clarify why the Bill does not provide for Parliament to meet remotely under the new Article 64A should such need arise so that we do not have to keep tabling urgent amendments, since experts have shared that COVID-19 would not be the last pandemic. Sir, this Bill is significant in that it protects the integrity of our democracy by ensuring continuity of Parliament, especially in a time where laws have to be changed, debated and made at record speed to keep pace with a rapidly evolving crisis in order to protect our people and our economy.”
“Yet, I would suggest that in fact, now more than ever, as this Chamber debates Bills and makes laws with urgency to save lives and livelihoods in our biggest crisis since World War II, our young must be engaged to witness history being made and be invested in this “war” that we are fighting together. Live streaming ensures the continuity of this critical part of their national education and citizenship-building, and provides the opportunity for this to take place at their homes as well. Lastly, I would also argue that we must engage in the same way with Singaporeans overseas to enfold them into parliamentary debates to tackle the crisis and our recovery after. Many of my Singaporean friends overseas would have appreciated watching the parliamentary sessions live in the last few sittings as they were so eager to know what the Government would do and what the Members of Parliament would be asking with such a colossal crisis at hand. Some have been away from Singapore for a while and are seeking ways to stay connected to Singapore in this trying time. This is even more important given that elections may be imminent. Having parliamentary live streams will allow Singaporeans abroad to stay connected and is valuable as a long-term measure to help these Singaporeans maintain their stake and commitment to Singapore. Mr Speaker, more than 90 countries have given their citizens the opportunity to access parliamentary proceedings through live streaming. Live streaming and maintaining archives are now mainstream technologies such that cost is no longer an obstacle.”
“Unfortunately, since the introduction of more drastic safe distancing measures, these galleries have been closed to the public and the media. How can we ensure continuity of this access to live proceedings? I would propose that we expand the notion of the public gallery online through live-streaming to ensure continuity of access. This may have been seen as a “nice to have” in the past but I would argue that in these COVID-19 times, this is now an imperative. Let me elaborate. First, the COVID-19 virus has challenged the status quo in so many ways. The daily updates by the Multi-Ministry Task Force, now live streamed to our homes, has begun to demonstrate the kind of leadership in transparency and accountability away from exceptionalism that has, in my humble opinion, been critical in inspiring the confidence needed in Singaporeans to ride this storm together. Could trust and resilience have been built without risking vulnerability, without risking bad but honest news? I doubt so. In the same vein, instead of relying only on media analysis which is constrained by limited air time and print space, Singaporeans should be given live access to parliamentary debates. This would allow them to be fully invested in the policies deliberated and enacted to tackle this public health and economic crisis. Second, you have made admirable efforts in engaging young Singaporeans to take more than a cursory interest in Parliament, Mr Speaker. “My Parliament Journey” allows students to observe the proceedings from the gallery – hordes of them would come in every sitting; I used to enjoy seeing and guessing which school they are from based on their uniform. Sadly, this live experience is no longer available to them at this time.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to create a mechanism for Parliament to meet under continuity arrangements, should it become impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Members to meet in Parliament. This is a prudent move to ensure that Parliament sittings continue in such unpredictable and challenging times, so that we can still debate and "properly pass the laws and any supplementary funds the Government requires to act in protecting our fellow Singaporeans", as you, Sir, had put it in the last sitting. Yet, as much as we strive to maintain continuity of Parliament, we must also maintain continuity of access for the public. Otherwise, this Bill and its intent in continuity planning is incomplete and creates an unintended dismissal of Singaporeans as part of our parliamentary process. Public access to Parliament is fundamental to our parliamentary proceedings. As you shared in your 2018 blog, Mr Speaker, “whatever happens in Parliament affects Singaporeans and Singapore,” so Parliament staying connected to citizens could “bridge knowledge gaps and combat misinformation for a more informed and constructive public discourse on Parliament matters”. Only with such intentional and on-going engagement can an informed and invested citizenry and therefore a “democracy of deeds” eventuate. Other than Hansard transcripts and assorted recordings by CNA, the most direct, engaging and intimate access to parliamentary proceedings for members of the public is to watch live from the visitors’ gallery and the press gallery. In fact, I understand that extensive attention was paid to public education of the parliamentary system in the form of galleries on a study trip by the Committee Members during the design of this building in the early 1990s.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister, first and foremost, for the comprehensive firm response. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Would the Minister consider making auto-renewal as well as the six-month period a default practice for the SMTA assistance scheme under ComCare? Also, would the Minister consider looking at how we can perhaps reduce the amount of resources spent on determining whether individuals do or do not qualify for ComCare but have these resources focused on supporting people in more meaningful and impactful ways?”
“If we are to pass this Bill today, we must make sure that the Bill is comprehensive in ensuring both the safety of the electorate, maximum suffrage and fair campaigning. This will also help to quell sentiments on the ground that an early election is being exercised for political expediency, avoiding an undue erosion of public trust. Mr Speaker, please let me conclude by reminding this House and Singaporeans that voting is not a fire drill exercise we conduct every five years; it is a right and privilege to have a say in how we want to build this nation and the life we want for ourselves and our families.The right to exercise this vote is therefore what holds our society together, and must not be denied by exclusions nor be encumbered with fear of infection. Any yes that is given without the ability to safely say no is never a true choice. And therefore not the kind of vote or mandate we want the new government to be built upon, especially to lead us in a post-COVID world. 7.20 pm”
“Mr Speaker, while the COVID-19 crisis has been foisted upon us without choice, we can still choose to protect the health of Singaporeans and safeguard our democracy. No one can say for sure how long this public health crisis will last until it is actually over. I do therefore humbly urge the Minister to direct the energies and resources of this Government – which still has a full year mandate ahead of it – to be focused on resolving the crisis and safeguarding the physical and mental health of Singaporeans. And not to burden the severely-stretched public service further with an early election, particularly with the colossal inter-agency efforts to resolve the migrant worker crisis that are ongoing and will be needed beyond COVID-19. Sir, if the COVID-19 crisis resolves before the due date of 21 April 2021, then we can hold an election as per normal. If not, we may consider holding an election at that time according to the terms of this Bill. Alternatively, if the situation in fact worsens in a way that will still hamper a fair election, this House may have to consider passing a constitutional amendment to extend the deadline for an election. Some may contend that passing a constitutional amendment with regard to elections would be unprecedented, but Mr Speaker, I think we will all agree that many of us what we have witnessed in this Chamber in the last months have been anything but “business as usual”. I would also like to seek the Minister’s assurance that this Bill is viewed as a last resort; that it should only serve as a guarantee, and not be interpreted as a go-ahead to hold elections immediately in this current climate.”
“Can the Minister clarify how the Elections Department will ensure commensurate and fair campaigning across all political parties, given the extenuating circumstances? Last but not least, Mr Speaker, apart from the integrity of the mandate and democratic processes, we cannot discount the possibility that holding an election any time soon will increase the risk of transmission again. It is true that measures can be taken to ensure higher sanitary standards in voting booths throughout voting day. However, we must not forget that all it takes are a few minor lapses to trigger another dangerous bout of contagion. As of 15 April, there were over 2.6 million voters registered in the voter roll. The likelihood of such lapses on a day where we expect over 1.8 million Singaporeans to head to the polls is more than high. Just looking at how quickly the virus spreads in weeks with 200,000 workers across different dormitories should alarm us to what we would be risking to allow large hordes of people to come together at the polling stations. Some may urge us to look at the example of South Korea to suggest that elections can still be successfully held without risk to public health. South Korea, however, had managed to stem their flow of infections before they held their election. Besides, we do not even know if the South Korean elections will lead to a relapse in infections, given the 14-day incubation period. Already, there are worrying trends that the virus is more devious and more complicated than previously thought. South Korea, in fact, has seen more than 180 cases where recovered patients have become reinfected by the virus.”
“Yet, I cannot help but sincerely question just how strong and fresh of a mandate the new government can marshall in a COVID-19 General Election where there are such significant parts of the electorate excluded from voting by law, by illness, by fear and by choice, which would most certainly result in substantially lower voter turnout. Mr Speaker, I would like to now address if a COVID-19 election also runs the risk of an inequitable playing field for political parties in terms of campaigning. MHA, Cyber Security Agency and Elections Department have issued advisories to political parties on the threat of foreign interference. Under the guidelines of the advisories issued, political parties are expected to not only shore up their digital literacy but also beef up their existing IT infrastructure and security. Not all political parties will have the necessary resources to ensure full and adequate compliance with the advisories and this is especially concerning given that a COVID-19 election will likely heavily depend on social media and other online platforms for campaigning to replace rallies. Some believe that rallies contribute to the leveling of the playing field, and give fair opportunity for each political party to offer their pitch. To have an election without rallies would be disadvantageous to parties with less resources. In this regard, I think there was an online dip poll held by Lianhe Zaobao in late March about the desirability of an election found that 67.5% of those polled disagreed on holding an election during the ongoing pandemic as it would be difficult to hold rallies. This Bill does not seem to have any provisions for fair campaigning.”
“Explicitly, section 38(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act states that the presence of an elector in the register of electors is "conclusive evidence for the purpose of determining whether a person is or is not entitled to vote at the election". Does the exclusion of voters in this Bill not therefore deprive Singaporeans of this right? Will the Minister please clarify on the constitutional invalidity of depriving quarantined voters of that right to vote, especially how they have no legal defence if they exit their quarantine holdings to vote? Sir, aside from the explicit exclusions, we must not forget too that the Bill does not account for electors who may voluntarily abstain from exercising their right to vote out of fear of contracting COVID-19, including the elderly who are immuno-compromised and/or voters residing with elderly family members, regardless of the penalties incurred. An election cannot truly be held in good faith if Singaporeans are forced to choose between voting and protecting themselves and their families. Similarly, have we accounted for the thousands of eligible Singaporeans overseas who are excluded because they may not be able to vote at the designated polling stations because of lockdown measures and travel restrictions? Can the Minister please clarify if the Bill has been formulated with these concerns in mind and if not, how does the Government intend to rectify this potential loss of more voters? Mr Speaker, one reason that has been provided for why we should hold an election during this period is to provide the incumbent Government with a fresh and strong mandate to tackle our on-going public health and economic crisis.”
“In the case of voters under Stay-Home Notices (SHNs), the Bill stipulates that if at least two individuals residing in one boarding premise exist, the Returning Officer can then establish a special polling station for these voters. As at 2 May, 2,020 persons were under SHNs and approximately 28,000 under some form of QOs. Even if we discount those in the dormitories, I think we are still looking at about 15,000. This number is expected to rise, which gives a sense of the number of Singaporeans who would be prevented from voting. In addition, section 8 of the Bill allows for possible exemption of those who may be unwell or vulnerable to illness or exposure to be discouraged from voting, applying to those Singaporeans who may be first-order contacts. The number of cases in Singapore has exceeded 17,500, when I last checked, with unlinked cases in the community continuing to emerge, indicative of a larger, hidden reservoir of COVID-19 cases in the community that continues to go undetected. If an election is held in a time when we are still grappling with a high risk of community spread, we may be looking at a significant part of the population being discouraged from voting. Mr Speaker, since the beginning of our history as a nation, the principle of "one man, one vote" has been fundamental to Singapore such that our founding fathers made voting compulsory. "The right to vote is a constitutional right. It is an implied right, arising from the various provisions in the Constitution, including Articles 65 and 66," said the Minister for Law in a parliamentary debate in 2009.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill addresses the public health risk from an election amidst the COVID-19 crisis and works towards creating the possibility of a General Election that is safe and secure. There have been indications that an election is imminent. The Electoral Boundary Review Committee released its boundary report in March. Historically, elections have been called within a month or two after the announcement of the Electoral Boundary Review Committee. Prime Minister Lee has also not discounted the possibility of a COVID-19 election and said he would judge the situation at hand first. The Bill at hand is a laudable effort. However, I am not certain that its current form is truly sufficient to protect the safety of the electorate nor the integrity of our political processes should an early election be called for whilst we are deep in this battle with COVID-19. Please allow me to elaborate these concerns. First, Mr Speaker, the right to vote forms the foundation of our representative democracy. It concerns me that the Bill in providing for an election in a pandemic excludes a significant segment of the electorate. This, to my mind, inevitably threatens the integrity of our democracy by taking away the voting rights of citizens and, as a consequence, weakens the mandate. Let us discuss these exclusion provisions. Materially, section 3(2) of the Bill exempts individuals serving quarantine orders (QOs) from having to vote and subsection (3) makes it clear that quarantined electors cannot claim their right to vote as a valid defence for violating their quarantine order. What this therefore means is that citizens under quarantine orders face legal repercussions if they attempt to vote.”