Denise Phua Lay Peng
Singapore
“Sir, as Singapore ages, disability and ageing will increasingly overlap. The line between disability services and elder care services will blur. Many adults with disabilities face similar challenges as seniors in varying degrees, but at a younger age.”
“But the SPED schools are run by a lot of the other professionals as well such as occupational therapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, coaches and so forth. And I ask for MOE, as it always looks at SPED educators, to also focus on this other very important group; because retention is capacity.”
“Are there other strategies that the Prime Minister will consider, like easier adoption procedures to have more people adopt, more of us Singaporeans adopting? The second is, in terms of immigration as well, to bring in people who are of the right profile and suitable profile to grow our Singaporean population?”
“Enterprise grants should include accessibility compliance requirements. Inclusion cannot rely on goodwill alone. It must be systemically built-in. And finally, move five: on strengthening intermediaries and social service agencies (SSAs). Sir, if AI is to be whole-of-society, then SSAs cannot be left behind.”
“When SSAs become AI-enabled, the most vulnerable of us benefit. In conclusion Sir, Budget 2026 sets an ambitious direction: AI ecosystems, SkillsFuture strengthening, innovation hubs such as Lorong AI and the future AI Park at one-north. Ambition is necessary, but it is execution that determines whether progress is shared.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her assurance, assuring the House that there are indeed alternative identification methods available for those who are unable to use facial recognition. Just a couple of supplementary questions. Number one, are these measures systemic and applicable for all fully digital or not fully digital banks?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,094 lines we hold for Denise Phua Lay Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 22.
“By comparison, one can easily conduct a desktop research to find that in many progressive education systems, Disability Support Offices are standard features and render services, such as a complete student guidebook for disability, teacher resources, assistance in registration and orientation of persons with disabilities, application and counselling in classroom accommodations, such as note-taking, sign interpreters, seat arrangements and liaison with the relevant faculty lecturers and tutors The same type of education support can be found in countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States and many other progressive systems. Singapore cannot expect to be a major global education player or a 21st century education provider if no support is provided in a systemic and structured manner for those with special needs or disabilities. Page: 141 Madam, I am confident that Singapore can develop its own brand of disability support offices through collaborating with the network of disability VWOs in its social service sector and the SPED sector. We will be in a tight labour market for a long while. Every developed potential will not only contribute to their own financial independence, thereby reducing the Government's need to provide them welfare; they would also contribute to the economy by becoming part of our country's manpower asset. Hence, the Disability Support Offices in the ITEs, polytechnics and universities should even have a larger vision to not only provide academic support but also consider working with the VWOs to provide employability assessments and training so that these persons could be gainfully employed once they graduate. Special Education”
“Madam, MOE has, in the 10 years, granted much needed support to the special-needs students in Singapore. Higher funding and attention in curriculum, quality assurance and governance are some of the deeply appreciated support granted over the years. MOE is working now on plans to continue raising the quality bar for the students in the SPED and mainstream primary and secondary schools. I ask that similarly structured education support be extended to the post-secondary institutions of higher learning. Many students with, for example, hearing impairment, dyslexia, ADHD, Asperger's syndrome, high-functioning autism and so on, have overcomed many challenges to be qualified enough to proceed to institutions, such as the ITE, polytechnics and universities. Support for these students, however, is dependent on the vision and resolve of these various institutions. The quality and range of support is found to be inconsistent. Sometimes, the needed support, for example, in sign language interpretation, is provided by student volunteers who themselves need to attend classes. These volunteers cannot be expected to volunteer when priorities, such as their own examinations and examination preparations, come in the way.”
“Learning can become a joy and habit that can be applied for life. Madam, there are countries in the world with highly regarded education systems, such as Finland, that do not feature high-stress and high-stake examinations such as the PSLE. When the stress of high PSLE scores is taken off, there is a bigger space for schools to experiment with 21st century learning methods, such as hybrid learning, flipped classrooms and character education applications. If the proposed pilot through-train school is explained well and led by strong school leaders and boards, I am sure there will be parents who are willing to give this a shot. A Less Stressful Education Environment”
“However, if that is too fast a bullet to bite, I propose that MOE consider incorporating some of the preschools it intends to pilot, into a bigger pilot – that of a full school which offers through-train preschool, primary and secondary school education. One of the biggest bugbears in preschool education is the missing link between what preschools teach and entry requirements of mainstream Page: 88 primary schools. A seamless transition between kindergarten and Primary 1 will help address this gap. The PSLE has now become one of the top stress triggers in education. The PSLE T-score syndrome actually drives parents, educators and even students to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy for a place at the desired end of the normal distribution. Because PSLE is such a high-stakes examination, parents, rich or poor, invest as much as they can to ensure a good PSLE score. Tuition agencies and tutors, with track records in turning out PSLE high-performers, thrive and profit from the insatiable demand for their expertise. Some mainstream schools use the majority of their Primary 5 and 6 years to focus on this high-stake examination. Focus on such high-stake examinations dilutes the efforts to give more attention to the values-based and character education that the Minister is known to advocate. Many of us also know – in the course of our lives – persons who do not perform well academically when they were young because they were late developers. Foregoing the PSLE does not mean the scrapping of all forms of assessments. In fact, assessments can now be used to identify gaps in learning for developmental purposes, and not for the purposes of getting high scores. Students can have flexibility now to take a mix of subjects according to their ability and interest.”
“Madam, I fully support MOE's vision of making every school a good school. I wish to seek Minister's positive consideration of two proposals to further this vision. One, on online learning platform, I urge MOE to form a Task Force to focus on and develop 21st century online learning resources that will avail the best of content, pedagogy and assessments across all local schools. Online learning has moved from the sidebar of education to becoming central to many progressive institutions of learning. It comes in the form of self-paced, competency-based programmes that can be taken anytime, anywhere. It can also come as a component of what is known as blended or hybrid learning which offers teaching and learning through a mix of online and face-to-face teaching. If done well, online learning not only avails excellent education resources across all schools, it boosts productivity of teachers and may also open up opportunities for Singapore to be a serious 21st century education provider on the global stage. Two, on through-train preschool, primary to secondary schools, I would ask the Minister to pilot full schools that offer through-train preschool, primary to secondary schools without the need for PSLE. This model can be used as an experiment of what good Singapore schools might look like, had we started on a cleaner slate without the sacred cows that have grown so big and intimidating that many hesitate to slay. The sacred cows that I am referring to are the current preschool governance model and the PSLE. Madam, on preschools, I find merit in hon Member Christopher de Souza's call for the nationalisation of preschool education.”
“Policies that can be implemented include: (a) ring-fence residential zones so that only residents and their visitors can enter; (b) convert the shops below public housing blocks which are selling this liquor or groceries to more wholesome community facilities that can benefit Page: 135 the residents; and (c) fund the building of sheltered facilities complete with lighting, toilets and grocery shopping at available land away from the residents for these foreign workers. Singaporeans need these foreign workers to help construct facilities for us locals. Let us be clear about that. These workers, like you and I, need leisure and recreation during their rest days. But the residents of the places where the foreign workers congregate too deserve rest in a quality, peaceful, living environment. Enhancing Capability, Enforcement and Image”
“As more foreign workers land in our country to support Singaporeans' demand for faster completion of housing and train network projects, a more rigorous system of managing this teething issue needs to be put in place. The issue of alcohol licences at shops directly within HDB blocks contributes to problems of social disamenities. Some grocery stores have openly stocked and sold not only beer but all forms of spirits. These are a couple of photos of what is on the ground floor of one of the shops in one of my HDB blocks. Shops, such as these, not only serve workers who naturally congregate in these areas, but they attract also even more to these blocks. With purchased alcohol in hand, the workers conveniently drink within the block area vicinity, causing even more problems. Sir, I have studied closely the open-bottle policies of several countries where only liquor stores are allowed to operate away from residential zones, and where alcohol drinking in public areas is an offence. I plead with MHA to seriously consider implementing policies of this same nature in Singapore. And whilst this consideration is underway, I urge MHA to withdraw or stop issuing alcohol sales licences to shops in residential blocks. MHA's previous promise to use soft approaches such as education and counselling did not work. Effective behavioural management needs time and many of these workers are not here on a long-term basis. I also urge the Government to form a high-level interagency task force to look to solving the issue of foreign worker congregation at residential areas once and for all. This should comprise the HDB, NEA, Police Force, MOM, the Town Councils and, of course, the MHA.”
“Sir, work permit holders in Singapore as at December 2012 numbered 952,000. Out of these, close to 300,000 are construction workers. Sir, I thank and appreciate these workers who left their homes, took on backbreaking work, constructing much desired homes and facilities for our citizens. I acknowledge that their needs in fair compensation, lodging, leisure should be respected and met. Sir, for years, many of these foreign workers who live elsewhere in Singapore, have been frequenting areas such as Little India, Beach Road, Jurong and other areas. During the weekends, lorries ferry these workers to their favourite meeting places – Indian and Bangladeshi workers mainly to Little India and Thai workers to the Golden Mile and Beach Road areas. Many tend to congregate in the void decks of HDB flats in the nearby residential zones. The crowds get much bigger when it rains and there are no other shelters for them. Whilst the majority of them do not commit crime, the sheer large size of the congregation is a big concern for my residents. The workers eat and drink, Page: 134 socialise, block the passageways of residents. Some purchase liquor from nearby stores, get drunk and urinate in the public areas. In the last three years, thanks to the constant advocacy of local Members of Parliament and agencies, such as MOM, the Police, NEA, Town Councils and grassroots volunteers, the situation had been much better controlled. Uniformed Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) have been deployed during peak hours to patrol very popular foreign worker congregation areas. However, the situation has not been fully resolved. Residents continue to lament the quality of their living environment.”
“But it would seem that the seven foreign chambers of commerce have become addicted to a very liberal foreign manpower policy and have become somewhat callous to the legitimate domestic sensitivities. For Singapore, immigration will remain an imperative for economic and existential reasons. But it must be a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Page: 118 Sir, every Budget must reinforce our social compact, and the business community is a key stakeholder, given the role that they play in our lives and our livelihoods. The Budget recognises that quality economic growth and a cohesive society are not and cannot be mutually exclusive if we are to prevent two Singapores from forming. I welcome the overall tenor of the Budget Statement. I hope we will continue to take a refreshing look at how the Budget can be a catalyst for the type of society we aspire to be. Sir, I support the Budget Statement. 5.47 pm”
“Sir, even as the Budget seeks to extend support to the bottom 30th percentile of Singaporeans, we need to be mindful of those in the so-called sandwiched middle class, which experience much middle class angst, anxiety, and − in recent months − anger. To reiterate a point I raised last year, we have paid much attention to the threat to jobs. However, increasingly, the threat to wages requires close watch as it affects the large group of sandwiched middle class Singaporeans, who have their jobs but their wages are stagnant relative to the rising costs of living. In their 31 January 2013 letter to the Acting Manpower Minister, seven foreign chambers of commerce in Singapore expressed their concern in no uncertain terms about the slowdown in the increase of foreign manpower as outlined in the Population White Paper and I emphasise again in this year's Budget. Their concerns, and I quote, "relate to the certainty in the ability to employ candidates with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience required and also to be able to tap into a larger labour workforce than is available in Singapore". But nowhere in the letter was there any recognition or sensitivity shown to the average Singaporean's real concerns over the immigration policy on PMETs and non-PMETs. Neither was there any mention of what they are doing, individually and collectively, to develop the core Singaporean workforce. Sir, businesses that operate in various jurisdictions engage in what I call "immigration regime arbitrage". Essentially, the idea is to seek a jurisdiction that provides the best immigration policy for them to employ workers and managers. Nothing wrong with that.”
“Sir, I commend the Government for recognising that there are limits to what a meritocracy can do vis-a-vis social levelling and that there is a necessity to leaven the extreme workings of meritocracy, especially in light of persistent income inequality in our society. As such, I welcome the expanded coverage of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme from $1,700 to $1,900, which will benefit three in 10 of our citizen workforce. The increase in maximum WIS payouts and cash payments and the tightening of the WIS criteria are timely indeed. Collectively, they help to make the case for the importance of a living wage, even as we operate in a meritocracy and continue to underline the virtue and dignity of work. The Budget's tangible support for the strengthening of social safety nets is necessary and I hope the Government will continue to ensure that our social safety nets are robust and resilient enough and be integrated with the requirements of individual responsibility and family support. In this regard, I look forward to the outcome of the review of healthcare financing in the Budget for FY2014-2015. The Government should not be afraid to revolutionise our Page: 117 approach to healthcare financing. The absence of significant social risk-pooling arrangements in our insurance coverage must be critically examined. Sir, my final point is about the need for businesses to see themselves as an integral part of our society. Singapore Inc is a subset of Singapore. They are a part of Singapore but I despair that they sometimes appear to prefer to be apart from the larger community and the real concerns faced by Singaporeans.”
“This is because the societal drive in our people to develop and nurture a deep-seated culture of broad-based entrepreneurship, productivity and technological advancements will be severely stifled, if not extinguished. The well-being and prosperity of our society will, consequently, be fundamentally affected. Page: 116 Sir, I therefore welcome the budgetary impetus to education. Education is an essential means of ensuring social mobility and this is where I hope future Budgets' emphasis would lie as well. The decision to more than double pre-school sector spending in excess of $3 billion over the next five years, and the establishment of the Early Childhood Development Agency are steps in the right direction. They should ensure that children from less well-off families are not disadvantaged simply because of their home backgrounds. Again, no amount of state spending will remove the "opportunity gap" between children from different home backgrounds. Rather, the drive to expand the pre-school sector's capacity and competency as well as to ensure high quality and affordable pre-schools will go a long way to ensuring that the "have-nots" have as best an access to opportunities as the "haves". More crucially, as a society, we must jealously guard the need to ensure that Singaporeans, regardless of their socio-economic standing, are able to take full advantage of the access to opportunities. Much as we speak of equal opportunities, not equal outcomes, we must endeavour to ensure equal access to equal opportunities. Children from lower income homes must not be disadvantaged by the fates and fortunes of their parents.”
“In my view, the correct question ought to be: "How do we incentivise employers to internalise productivity and innovation in their operations, and encourage them to share productivity gains with their employees?" And the answer will almost certainly not include the blank cheque of wage increases that are not supported by productivity gains derived from deep restructuring. If this is the case, is the WCS inherently about re-distribution but masked in the cloak of restructuring and productivity gains? I go on to my second point. Sir, whether it is redistribution or social mobility, we must ultimately be concerned with the basic need to improve access to opportunity in our society. Here, a key policy and societal objective is to secure as best as possible equality of opportunity, rather than an equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity requires social mobility to be as optimal as possible, while equality of outcomes tends to emphasise redistribution. Sir, studies have shown that inequality and social immobility are positively related. Singapore must guard against the double whammy of increasing inequality within a stagnating or low social mobility environment. We must double our efforts to increase declining inter-generational social mobility. Otherwise, faith, trust and confidence will undermine the meritocratic basis of our society. Here, it is not that merit is not central but rather that merit will tend to be the preserve of a privileged class. Less social mobility also leads to a hardening of class distinctions, compromising social cohesion. The knock-on effects of social immobility will result in the failure to restructure our economy.”
“Have the expenditures on the PIC scheme resulted in appropriate attitudinal change towards productivity and innovation, or is this an expensive way towards trying to cajole businesses to engineer a different but short-lived way towards doing their business? If so, economic restructuring will be a mere facade, with grave implications for our already flagging competitiveness. Could the Government enlighten us on the effectiveness and efficacy of the PIC scheme? Similarly, while I appreciate the Wage Credit Scheme's (WCS) initiative to incentivise employers to share productivity gains with employees, I am not entirely persuaded that the Government's co-funding of 40% of the wage increases for Singaporean employees earning up to a gross monthly salary of $4,000 is going to radically promote restructuring and productivity. At a $3.6 billion price tag for the WCS over the next three years and without the need for the employer to show restructuring or productivity gains, the WCS strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to redistribute income, independent of whether there is quality growth in the first place. Are we subsidising businesses to remain unproductive and lacking in innovation? Page: 115 Sir, if we ask the wrong questions in policy matters, then we do not even have to worry about the answers at all. The WCS seems to flow from the wrong question of "how do we show that productivity is intrinsically good?" The answer in the Budget appears to be: "Through increased wages that the Government co-funds through the WCS." Are we putting the cart before the horse? Sure, the employer will still be responsible for 60% of the total wage increase. But there may not be productivity gains in the first place or a mindset change.”
“But let us also be cautious about our goal of an inclusive society becoming a slippery slope or a back door to a welfare regime that takes away the dignity of work and the centrality of self-reliance. Sir, the abiding imperative to improve our productivity and to spur innovation must not become fixated with key performance indicators. In short, while targets are important, we must not privilege form over substance if we want to engender real and sustainable change. The Budget has a slew of Page: 114 measures to promote restructuring for quality growth. My concern is whether the measures will successfully result in our becoming less addicted to the infusion of cheap, foreign labour. Will it engender appropriate behavioural change such that productivity and innovation become hallmarks of our restructured economy and economic activity in Singapore? Are we getting value for the expenditures that seek to increase productivity and innovation? Or will the productivity and innovation improvements be transient, merely a function of the infusion of funds? Will the addiction to cheap labour be now replaced by an addiction to generous Government funding to give temporary boosts to productivity and innovation? Under the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, a gamut of IT and automation equipment qualify for enhanced deduction or allowances. The list includes what many would regard as basic or essential equipment in today's workplaces, such as computers, mobile phones, PDAs. Is this not a simplistic understanding of productivity, and are we promoting a simplistic understanding of productivity? Equipment does not necessarily change behaviour; it is practice, mindset and leadership that change this behaviour.”
“In the context of today's political climate, does the increasing progressivity of our tax system also signal the rise of redistribution as a means of managing the inequalities in our society? On the other hand, income transfers have become larger over the last few years. It may well reflect that the Government did not do enough in the past. But I worry that the frequency and size of the income transfers could unintentionally give rise to a "crutch mentality", a dependency on the state that can, in some cases, sap the will to be responsible, self-reliant and resilient. Given the severe limitations of what income transfers can do, I hope we can make a serious effort to establish non-income support as a central feature of our eco-system of care and caring. This would include a system of holistic care, early intervention and attendance to psycho-social needs, counselling, and so on. Sir, I am fully aware that economic globalisation and our economic policies have not resulted in every Singaporean being able to benefit from them. Indeed, a considerable number feel hard done by it and find the economic restructuring disconcerting. Their sense of displacement is understandable as they see the nation's prosperity seeming to pass them by. Hence, I hope we can take bolder measures to help them help themselves, and renew their trust and confidence in our system and in the country. Yes, we must continue to strengthen our social safety nets. Yes, we must pay special attention to children from less privileged homes. Yes, we must not be overly tight-fisted in social welfare provisions and delivery such that people in genuine need of help are driven to desperation and denied their dignity.”
“In my remarks, I will address three broad areas: one, the effectiveness of the Productivity Innovation Credit and the Wage Credit Schemes; two, the imperative of Shared Economic Growth with the focus on improving social mobility; and three, dealing with middle-class anxieties and the woes of the business sector. In last year's Budget debate, I spoke of the need for Singapore to make an assertive return to the fundamental of shared and inclusive economic growth as the cornerstone of a revitalised social compact. Equitable, rather than equal, sharing must be the theme of our Budgets, and this is manifested in that those whose needs are greater will receive more while those who pay the most taxes do not get as much. Having Singaporeans buy into and support this is a crucial challenge. This fundamental governance philosophy is even more important in light of the persistent income disparities, notwithstanding the slight moderation through income transfers from the Government's coffers. There is a need for both redistribution and social mobility in our society, although I believe that our efforts should be primarily targeted at enhancing social mobility. While inequality is inevitable in any society and the income gap an abiding concern, I hope that we will keep redistributionist tendencies to a minimum. Redistribution tends to harden class distinctions. A class war between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is debilitating. To be sure, the Government is expected to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and to avoid Page: 113 situations where the system creates undeserved sources of inequality. Sir, the Budget strikes me as having "appeasement" tendencies. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can elaborate on the development of an even more progressive tax system.”
“They need to be crafted with the inputs of Singaporeans, with as many of us understanding the nature of the hard truths that we face, and opt for the best possible, and sometimes, painful solution, such as economic restructuring. But as one of our national songs goes: we are Singapore, we will stand together and stand up for Singapore. We are after all Singapore; we made it when people said we could not. Madam, I encourage fellow Singaporeans to join phase two of our on-going Singapore Conversations – to seek first to understand the issues, and then to be understood, so that their aspirations and ideas will continue to be considered and reflected in future Budgets. Madam, I support the Budget. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair] 5.30 pm Page: 112 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, economic growth is an imperative for Singapore. At the same time, how this growth is achieved is central to who we are and what we are as a sovereign nation-state. The quantum of growth is important but equally, if not more, important is the quality of growth. Economic growth ultimately must achieve the bottomline of an inclusive society. An inclusive society is a non-negotiable. This coming financial year's Budget seeks to continue the restructuring of our economy. There will be Singaporeans who are unable to take advantage of the restructuring and economic globalisation. This is where the Budget has to operate not merely as the Government's fiscal statement but as much as a social policy as well.”
“Madam, at this point, I seek your permission to distribute a handout from the OSG Conversation. This OSG Conversation handout presents the latest summary table of the perspectives that emerged from more than 16,000 Singaporeans, more than 130 volunteers and more, who participated in Phase One of OSG. There are 12 emerging common aspirations arising from the largest national conversation ever held in our country. What Singaporeans would like to see are: A society with diverse definitions of success; A Singapore with a more fulfilling pace of life; A Singapore with a strong and vibrant economy; A society with strong families; A Singapore that is affordable to live in; Page: 111 A society where everyone can age with dignity; A society that takes care of the disadvantaged; A society with a greater sense of togetherness; A Singapore for Singaporeans; A society where Government and people have a more collaborative relationship; A society anchored on values; and A Singapore with a trustworthy government. These are the voices of the people. They represent the hope of many of us. But these aspirations will not just self-execute. My fellow Members and I can advocate for many free things for Singaporeans. But the truth of the matter is there are finite resources and infinite needs and wants – sometimes conflicting ones. The hard truths remain – our ageing population, our declining birth rates, our shrinking local workforce, and income inequality in a global economy that values different skill sets and pace for them. Solutions to these complex issues cannot be thought of and mandated by the Government alone.”
“OCBC, in fact, recently reported that looking into 2013, the sector offers the highest yield spreads compared to other major markets, with very positive outlook and financial position. But it is a known fact that many SMEs and even private food court stallholders have been suffering from the seemingly uncontrolled spiral increases in rental. Rental hikes that run way ahead of GDP have been the bane of businesses. If allowed to continue, rental Page: 110 increases will put out not only current small businesses but also extinguish the flames of small businesses of the future. Even good online business models need warehousing real estate. MAS should install cooling measures and place a cap on the REITs' rental income rates. The increase should be a function of not only supply and demand, but also GDP and inflation indices. My third suggestion: commission an independent study of the effectiveness of current productivity measures. Madam, many had lamented the slow progress of the productivity movement – which is the lynchpin of a continually strong and vibrant Singapore economy. Unless the numerous productivity incentives, grants, and support packages yield tangible results, many SMEs, including those with potential, will exit, leaving a major negative impact on jobs and workers. Madam, I do not believe we have solved these issues at the root cause level. I believe we have not yet found the key to the productivity problem. I propose that before we do more and more, we commission a qualified independent task force with actual corporate turnaround experiences to study this important issue. In conclusion, Madam, a Budget is only the means to an end – a resource allocation. The end of resource allocation must be to create a Singapore that we all aspire to be.”
“In this regard, I would like to focus on our SMEs – which form the backbone supporting our dream of an economically strong Singapore to foot the bills of the society we want. Madam, like recent Budgets, the Government has provided a slew of measures for the business sector – most visibly this year, the three-year Transition Support Package comprising the Wage Credit Scheme, PIC bonus, corporate income tax, road tax rebates, and others. I am glad that the Government has considered my suggestion to nurture high-potential SMEs, such as Mr Bean and others. I have heard from many SMEs who are appreciative of this year's measures. But many also continue to be concerned over the restriction of foreign labour inflow and restructuring for productivity gains remains a dream for some. The cost of doing business remains a key challenge. I have three suggestions for the Government's consideration in this regard. First, higher to lower levels of WCS Support. Since the Wage Credit Scheme is not directly linked to productivity gains, I can only deduce that it is a measure to plainly help SMEs contain business cost. One of the key worries facing SMEs is the million-dollar question of "what happens after three years?" It would therefore make sense to reduce the level of WCS support to enable their weaning from such a subsidy. I propose a higher to lower scale of support, example 50% in Year 1, 40% in Year 2, and 30% in Year 3. My second suggestion: install cooling measures to reduce business rental. It is not a surprise that Singapore real estate investment trusts (REITs), including retail REITs, remain a darling amongst the financial analysts. 2012 was a bumper year for them.”
“5 million Singaporeans aged 45 years and above; higher personal income tax rebate of 50% for those aged 60 years and above, subject to $1,500; a further discount in the foreign domestic worker levy, down to $120 per month, for families with elderly members; a restoration of CPF contribution rates for older workers; and extension of the Senior's Mobility Fund to allow claims for a much wider range of assistive devices, like hearing aids, shower chairs and motorised wheelchairs. Madam, one of the top anxieties voiced by our elderly at many platforms – the OSG Conversations and house visits – is the rising cost of living. The fear of these seniors who are either not receiving incomes anymore or on the verge of retiring, or receiving not sufficient CPF income, for example, is the out-of-pocket cash expenses, such as outpatient clinic visits, medication for chronic illnesses and transportation costs. Hence, I urge the Government to consider two more visible measures to honour the seniors. One, the healthcare Vouchers for Seniors. Instead of topping up their MediSave Account, which is not visible and likely not appreciated, issue holder-specific healthcare vouchers, similar to utility vouchers, that will allow seniors to purchase medical supplies, visit the clinics and procure outpatient medical or dental services; and Page: 109 Two, provide free public transport for seniors. For all Singaporeans above 65, grant them free public transport during off-peak hours, instead of the more complex discounted fares that many seniors may not easily understand or appreciate. Next, a Singapore with a strong and vibrant economy. Madam, one of the key aspirations that OSG Conversation participants want is a Singapore with a strong and vibrant economy.”
“In this respect, I urge the Government to re-consider the recommendation I made in last year's Budget speech to render the personal income tax structure of Singapore even more progressive. I am happy that the Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, for example, supports this, and I am mindful of Mr David Ong's and Dr Amy Khor's views to implement this with caution. Page: 108 The highest income tax rate for a person earning a taxable income of over $320,000 today is still 20%. This is way below that paid by the highest-income earners in many countries, such as the Nordic countries, Australia, New Zealand, China and the United States. I propose the introduction of a "do-good tax" that will compel the most wealthy and successful to contribute more to the tax chest. Specifically, I propose a 1% increase in income tax payable for every half a million dollars of taxable income above S$500,000. Persons earning above $500,000 to $1 million taxable income to contribute 1%, and an additional 1% for every $500,000 additional income bracket up to a maximum of 25%. This is still lower than that in many other countries. I propose also that the Government study how the principle of "do-well and do-good" be applied to the public sector, starting with those which are Government-linked. Next, a society where everyone can age with dignity. Madam, Singaporeans who joined the OSG Conversations also said that they want a society in which everyone can age with dignity. Indeed, this Budget has provided a slew of measures that honours the seniors in our midst. These measures include: a $200 MediSave top-up for some 1.”
“I am happy that low-income workers now receive a higher salary top-up through a more generous Workfare scheme. More people now benefit from the scheme, with the qualifying monthly income raised from $1,700 to $1,900. Payout of Workfare is also increased by 50%, with a larger portion paid out in cash. I am happy that low- and middle income families remain in the radar, with additional GST vouchers and personal income tax rebates of up to 50%. Madam, I believe that this Government has crossed the chasm of the fear of welfarism. But taking care of the disadvantaged cannot be done through Government alone. The perspective emerging from the OSG Conversations is, "A society that takes care of the disadvantaged" not just "a government that takes care of the disadvantaged". Singapore cannot be considered successful and will be much less significant if only a few people do very well, whilst the lowest segment struggles or the average-income cannot catch up. Singaporeans at the top of the socio-economic pyramid, either by way of inheritance or meritocracy, must be persuaded that no one reaches the pinnacle without help. That is why I want to talk about a "do-good tax". I am heartened that the Government has carefully introduced more progressive tax systems on wealth. This is done carefully this year through what the Deputy Prime Minister calls the wealth tax – higher taxes on luxury cars and non-owner–occupied properties. Madam, we can see taxes of this nature as penalising the wealthy or, worse, discouraging hard work. But I urge those who are affected to see it in a different light. The value that those of us who do well must also do good – is worth anchoring and applying throughout Singapore.”
“Madam, this morning, I was elated to hear of my young special-needs staff, Wong, who happily showed his colleagues the $915 Workfare notification he had just received. Wong, who hardly speaks, was previously folding envelopes at a job centre with a monthly pay of about $220. My team and I offered him a job and pay that match his ability and potential. He is now an administrative assistant earning $1,020 a month. Wong is not the only one happy with his Workfare cheque. His employer also receives a Special Employment Incentive of 16% of his payroll, about $160 per month. Madam, this is the kind of good news that arises from good and thoughtful Budgets. As a committee member of Our Singapore (OSG) Conversation, I thank Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, Minister of State Josephine and their team for yet another Budget with a Heart. In particular, I wish to touch on three of the 12 aspirations that were raised by thousands of Singaporeans in the OSG National Conversation. The three are: A Society that Takes Care of the Disadvantaged; A Society Where Everyone Can Age with Dignity; and A Singapore with a Strong and Vibrant Economy. A Society that Takes Care of the Disadvantaged. Madam, this year's Budget continues the provision of a stronger safety net for the disadvantaged. It testifies to the coming of age of a Government that used to be wary of measures that smack of welfarism. This Budget is now more aggressive in its efforts to Page: 107 provide help directly to the more vulnerable in our country. I am grateful that Public Assistance recipients now not only receive an increased quantum, but also additional tiers of assistance in the cost of consumables, such as milk feed, adult diapers and so forth.”
“Be it left or right, what matters most is that we choose the same path and walk it together. Let us choose the option that properly provides for our poor, our old, our young and our families in Singapore so that we can all build a better home together. Mdm Speaker, on that note, I urge Members of the House to support this Motion and the amendment, so that the planners can go forth and get the work done, while we do our best to manage our economy, take care of our people and provide the best future that we can for the next generation. 3.05 pm”
“We have come to be proud of our unique heritage because of what we have achieved over time − defining our identity through our common values, common experiences and shared future. This is a more positive and uplifting way to define nationality than the division by place of birth, race, language or religion. If we believe that the Singaporean Dream of multi-racialism, meritocracy, incorruptibility, rule of law, society before self, are all values that we want to hold dear to, then we have the ingredients to build our nation. Economic success can never be the glue that bonds us together. Economic success buys us time to forge a common bond, develop a set of common values, form a system of governance and define a common future together. If economic success is the only glue, then will our people stay when times are tough, or when we have many years of recession? Or will our people, like Page: 62 the 1965 generation, stay and build a nation that we are proud of, in spite of our inadequacies, in spite of our imperfections and all our inability to promise them anything except blood, sweat and tears? The 1965 generation taught me an important lesson. Nationhood is not defined by what this country can give us. It is defined by what we can give, and what we can contribute and how we can overcome our challenges together. We are now similarly at a crossroad where our challenges are no less daunting. We need to make tough decisions on how we care for our old, our young, our weak, our children and our families. I urge Members of this House to rise to the occasion and seize this chance to bond as a nation. Let us speak not to divide. Let us not focus just on the numbers. Let us focus on our shared values and identity.”
“They fight because their buddies fight alongside them. They will defend this place because this is home – where they share common experiences, common values and, most importantly, a common vision for a better tomorrow. Our job is to do our best to support our NSmen in their duties to our country. Our job is not to constantly talk down their motivation, deflate their morale and Page: 61 question their sacrifice. Will Members of this House fight for Singaporeans and Singapore if there are X or Y million foreigners living here amongst us? If our answer is yes, then the answer from my NSmen will be an unequivocal yes as well. But if our answer is no, then I do not need to ask my NSmen any further. This is not politics. This is leadership. It is not easy. Our NSmen sacrifice time and effort to uphold our defence. Often, our NSmen feel the competition from the foreigners here and they wonder if they will be disadvantaged. It is a heavy price to pay for our independence. But I am confident that they understand this price that we pay, because this country belongs to us. Let us not start drawing lines to divide who is a true Singaporean and who is not. Is someone born a Singaporean, having lived 15 years overseas, speaks with a foreign twang, comes back to Singapore to serve his NS, any less a Singaporean? Or is a foreign child who came here at the age of 10, embraces our values and systems, speaks Singlish and goes on to serve NS any less Singaporean? We have always been an open society. We draw strength from this. Unlike others who define their nationality by their tribal lineage, or those who define their nationhood through many years of history and, perhaps, persecution, we are a young country with 50 years of history.”
“For the majority who are transient workers, our aim is to share with them our social norms so that we can live alongside each other with less friction. Hopefully, they leave us having positive memories of their times with us and become a supporter of our cause in their own countries. For those who intend to sink their roots here, we have higher expectations. We want them to have shared memories, shared values and, most importantly, a shared vision with us. We want true engagement for both old and new citizens and citizens-to-be. We want quality and not just quantity engagements. We want to provide multiple platforms to nudge people to contribute to the community and, in the process, identify and bond with the community. We also know that we cannot force the issue or make it overly transactional. The White Paper proposes to slow down the intake of foreign labour and new citizens, not just bringing in fewer immigrants each year, but allowing more time for adjustment. This will help strengthen our integration efforts. We acknowledge that some of these people in the queue are foreigners who have married locals, and it would not be fair for families to face the constant uncertainty in staying together. Any inflow of foreigners will need to consider the capacity of our infrastructure. We need to achieve a balance, we need to try harder and that is what we are going to do. But what is our identity? When I was in the army, I had a unit where there were only eight out of 32 soldiers whom some in the House would call "true-blue Singaporeans". The rest were either not born here or raised here. I asked why they would fight together. None of them gave me a high-brow answer like how many per cent of Singaporeans are there in Singapore.”
“Our perspectives and expectations have also changed. But we must keep trying. On another Saturday morning, I visited a family when everyone was around. I was pleasantly surprised. I asked if the children did not have CCAs or other lessons. The mother shot back at me with a reply: weekends are family time; protected time; time to bond as a family; time to do things together as a family. No overtime for parents; no extra lessons for kids. This family has made another choice. I hope we have more families like this. Clearly, having a family goes beyond monetary and housing considerations. Having a spouse and children cannot be evaluated like a financial balance sheet. It is a commitment to care for each other. Neither marriage nor parenthood necessarily has a linear or positive correlation with one's material well-being. Ultimately, personal choices reflect our priorities and sense of values. We will continue to do what we can to help our families to grow from strength to strength. Yet, the summation of all our personal choices will have an impact on the future of our country, Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I used to chair the National Integration Council. We are keenly aware of the challenges in schools, National Service, at the workplace and in the community. Integration is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It is also not Page: 60 true that only the People's Association is making efforts to promote integration. The schools, the workplaces and the community are all doing their part. All our schools, polytechnics and universities have programmes and systems to encourage integration. All our community partners are chipping in. They all want to play an active part to integrate the newcomers amongst us. They all have plans to do even more and better.”
“We will push out even more programmes to support teachers' training, curriculum development and operator management. At the same time, we want to educate parents that the most expensive course may not be the most suitable one. We need to ensure that there is age-appropriate learning according to each child's needs and not add unnecessary pressures and stress to the family or children. Many Members in this Chamber and people outside have also pointed out that having families and children go way beyond money. The most important Page: 59 and difficult piece has to do with our values and perspectives. Recently, I visited an old couple in a 3-room flat. They used to stay in a 1-room flat and brought up their six children there. The children used to share one mattress and some of them often slept underneath the altar in the house. I saw a family photo. At least four of them have made it to University. All of their children have their flats now: 3-, 4-, 5-room flats, like the typical Singaporean family. The elderly couple was very proud that they have all made it without any Government help all these years. As we talked, they told me that they have only three grandchildren. When I asked if they would want more grandchildren, they asked me back, "How to have more?" Their children feel that their houses are not big enough to give their grandchildren their personal spaces. They worry about the high cost of living. Their children worry if they can afford tuition and enrichment classes for the grandchildren; their children worry if they have to make adjustments or give up their careers. They acknowledge that the Government and society have been doing much more to provide help nowadays than ever before. But they still have many worries. This is not easy. Our society has changed.”
“Many in this Chamber have also given their valuable inputs and suggestions on how to raise our TFR. We will certainly follow up on all these suggestions made by Members. We agree that families lie at the heart of our solutioning. Even though none of the major East Asian cities have achieved our TFR, we, nevertheless, still study them to see what good ideas they have. Similarly, we look at the Scandinavian models even though their culture and social norms are different from ours. We find good practices in their models: having fathers play an equal and active role in parenting; having shared parental leave; providing affordable and accessible childcare support; providing family-friendly work environment and practices; having child-friendly practices in restaurants; strengthening family education from young. There are many things that we can learn from them. The recent M&P Package reflects many of these but we are still learning. We will need a whole-of-society approach to embrace this family-first philosophy. We hope Members of this House will support us when we roll out more pro-family measures. We hope businesses and employers will support us even though it requires them to make difficult and sometimes painful adjustments. Most importantly, we want to focus on early childhood development. We want to ensure that the next generation will have the best possibility to move up. I have always said even if this generation is poor, we must make sure that the next generation has the best opportunity to move on, that the children from our less privileged backgrounds will not start too far behind their peers in school. We will do more. We will build more centres, make them more accessible, help them provide higher quality for the mass market.”
“But please also do not do a disservice to our stay-at-home moms and assume that they are not doing anything useful and can easily join the workforce if we just increase their salaries. Many of them are already taking care of our old and young. So, please have a care when we say no more foreigners to help care for our old and weak. If there is no more increase, I will have to take the quota from other sectors – SMEs, construction, retail, shipyards and others. If I take from these sectors, what will happen to them? The numbers I need in the health, eldercare and disability sector are not small. Neither are the skill sets required the same as those in the F&B, retail or construction sectors. I need to start more community healthcare schemes; build 100 senior activity centres, 50 senior care centres; extend the Wellness Programme to every constituency; fund more innovative approaches like tele-medicine; encourage more senior befriender services; build more senior homes; build more studio apartments with integrated care services; and, as a last resort, build more institutional homes. Productivity improvements alone cannot fund this manpower that we need. Other big cities do not have this problem. Their old, their weak retire outside the city. We are both a city and a state. Whether we stay in Hougang, Jurong or Woodlands, we are all fellow Singaporeans. We have to take care of our old, our weak and our disabled. They are our people. We have to care for them. So, again, please be mindful about what we say about foreign manpower and slower growth. These choices affect our poor much, much more than it affects the rest of us. Page: 58 Mdm Speaker, over the last week, many have raised concerns about whether we have done all that we can to promote families.”
“But for the poorer ones amongst us, the difference could be 1% or minus 2%. How do we care for our increasing number of elderly and disadvantaged? This is not an academic debate about the theoretical possibility to improve resident workforce growth. I have the privilege to serve in Tanjong Pagar and MSF. I frequent the areas of Bukit Merah, Tanglin Halt and Commonwealth. If anyone wants to see the future population profile of Singapore in 2030, I have already seen it there today. I regularly visit the old folks' homes and disability homes across our island. I see for myself the increasing number of elderly without caregivers. I see more and more adult disabled outliving their caregivers and parents. I always bid them farewell with a heavy heart. Besides the management level, almost all of our care staff in these homes are foreigners. They stay in these homes 24/7 to care for our elderly and disabled. What will we do without them? Where can I find more in the coming years to care for them? Yes, every one extra Singaporean that I can get is one less foreigner I need. But I cannot assume that increasing the labour force participation rate will solve the problem. Our male labour force participation rate has already reached the Page: 57 OECD level. It is likely to fall in the coming years as we have more old people and less young ones. From the OECD experience, our women labour force participation rate has, at most, another 6% to grow. So, it is not that we are not trying to get more locals to join the workforce. As Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said yesterday, we will continue to try all ideas from both sides of the House. But we have to be realistic of what we can achieve.”
“The question is how to achieve this? We know and we accept that not all can progress evenly in a society. We cannot ensure equal outcomes but we can maximise opportunities for our people to fulfil their potentials and diverse aspirations. We should not hold back those amongst us who can progress faster or further, just to pretend that we can thus achieve equality. Instead, we should let the stronger ones flourish and bring back a bigger harvest for all of us to share. We must imbue in our more successful ones the sense of responsibility and care to help those who are weaker amongst us. We must agree as a society, Page: 56 that those who have the least must be given more help. Growth will give us a better chance to help our people to improve their lives over time. Growing slower does not mean that we will have a more equal society. In fact, if we grow below a certain rate, the low-income in our society actually suffers negative income growth in real terms. We saw this first hand in the first five years of 2000. During Monday's Parliamentary Question time, I shared with this House that while the average real income for Singaporeans has increased by more than 2% per annum for the last 10 years, it only increased by 0.1% for the lowest income group. For this group, the more rapid growth in the last five years did not and failed to make up for the negative growth or low growth in the preceding five years. We closed the gap with various assistance schemes. We could only afford to do that with overall net growth for our country. So, when we call for a slowdown or no-growth, please have a care for those who are in the lower income groups. It matters very little for a rich person whether his income is growing at 4% or 5%.”
“When some of us say "Aye" later, we are supporting a Motion that: one, acknowledges Page: 55 that 6.9 million is not a population target of the Government; two, a Motion that supports a Singapore Core with top priority in encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, with a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent our citizen population from further shrinking; we support an amended Motion that recognises and places priority on resolving the infrastructure problems of today; we support an amended Motion that will improve the current White Paper by carrying out medium term reviews of the population policies and the assumptions. Let us do all of the above; engage not only our heads but our hearts and our hands and work towards a dynamic population for a dynamic Singapore! On this note, I support the amended Motion. 2.43 pm The Acting Minister for Social and Family Development and Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, the White Paper before us is not just about population numbers nor is it just about infrastructural plans. It is, fundamentally, about the lives of our families and the values we hold dear. It is about how we relate to each other and to the rest of the world. How we respond to this challenge will reflect our values and shape our identity. The roots of our challenges lie in our ageing population and our families. How do we care for our growing numbers of elderly? How do we care for our lower income families? How do we care for our young? Many have spoken on the growing income gap. It is an issue of concern. It is something close to our hearts. We want a more equal society. In the many Our Singapore Conversation sessions that I have attended, this has been consistently highlighted.”
“As part of the Singapore family, do not withhold your participation; do not withhold your ideas to use them as fodder for government-bashing. In fact, stop the government-bashing; enough of it already. Stop repeating the narrative that the PAP government is a heartless common enemy of the people that has brought Singaporeans nothing but misery. The narrative has continued from political rallies to this House. Oftentimes, both its tone and content are not constructive. It discourages good people, whether they are public servants or volunteers, who have contributed to try to make Singapore better, imperfect though they are. The narrative has divided and polarised our country, pitting one against the other and prevented the healing that some of us were hoping for after each political election – so that we can come back and focus on nation building. As Members of the incumbent ruling party linked to Government, we promise to try harder and work harder for the people. The only thing that we cannot promise, the only promise we cannot make, is to turn our cheek every time we are slapped. In conclusion, Madam, the people have spoken through their Members and through their direct valuable feedback. Unless the Government acknowledges and acts on it, we may win the battle in this House but lose the war for the hearts of our people outside this House. I am heartened that the Prime Minister has listened – loud and clear. And yes, the Government is not gunning for the 6.9 million and will do all it can to address the top concerns of Singaporeans, I hear. The original Motion has been amended. Had the Motion not been amended, a number of us PAP Members would find it very difficult to support it.”
“Stay far away from the South Korean system which is a worse pressure cooker than Singapore in education. Next, on putting the horse before the cart. Madam, the amended Motion now provides for medium term reviews of the population policies and assumptions. The White Paper on population needs to be updated. I propose doing that after the next phase of the National Conversations. So far, more than 16,000 Singaporeans have given their views on the kind of society and the kind of people they would want to become in 20 years' time. More than 130 unpaid volunteers helped out in these conversations. The scope of the National Conversations covers more than just population and infrastructure. It is bigger than the scope of the Population White Paper. Participants in the National Conversations dream of a home of hope and heart – of shared values, of strong families, of other ways to define success, of giving a leg-up to those who are disadvantaged, of active and dignified ageing. There Page: 54 are some common and shared aspirations; but there is extreme difference in some areas too, for example, between the conservatives and those of us who are more liberal. But these aspirations must be the horse that comes before the cart. They must form the foundations of the White Papers of the future. Phase Two of the National Conversations will look at a consolidation of the key inputs that Singaporeans have for 2030. The data consolidated in this Population White Paper would serve as excellent contextual information for meaningful discussions and better idea-generation. I urge the Opposition Members, and especially the Workers' Party, to join in crafting a shared vision together.”
“(5) For National Servicemen, tap on them to take on assignments in projects in education, healthcare and social service sectors as well – projects that will not only improve their resilience physically and emotionally but also give them exposure to know what they are defending. Bring Total Defence to the next level! Page: 53 (6) Seriously consider closing one casino to divert manpower from the IRs to the SMEs. I fully agree with Nominated Member Mr Teo Siong Seng's observation that the IRs have now become contributors to the manpower crunch in the service industry. (7) For couples who cannot conceive, aggressively help to facilitate child adoptions. Provide family education trainings to help them become better parents, in addition to the good adoption leave incentive that was announced under the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package. (8) For Singaporeans with foreign spouses and Singaporean children, relax the criteria for approval, especially the criteria relating to academic qualifications. Comb through and approve past rejection cases where the foreign spouses with Singaporean children were rejected even if they have lived in Singapore for many years. And please, especially look out for my past appeals which were rejected! (9) For SMEs, rank them and assign productivity coaches to those with higher potential of scalability and increased national, regional or even global footprints. Do not only write cheques; groom them, help them. (10) In education, seriously study the Finnish system and adapt it for Singapore. There is serious merit in piloting models that take away the high-stake examinations, such as the PSLE, to allow students a through-train to Secondary 4 or Secondary 5 within the same school.”
“Madam, the issues of Singapore today cannot be solved with the mindsets and solutions of the past. We need to seriously engage other Singaporeans to inject more innovative and more lateral thinking in addressing the hard truths surfaced by the White Paper. I suggest 10 ways to enhance workforce participation, TFR and productivity, for Government's consideration. (1) For the senior Singaporeans, remove ageism practices, such as CPF cuts from the age of 50 and annual employment extensions from 62. (2) Start a jobs creation and clearing house for seniors to innovatively design or redesign jobs that will match the skills, physical wellness and preferred hours of the seniors. Include Stay-Home-Parents if they so wish to take on some flexible job postings. (3) For persons with disabilities, put up added incentives to have corporations collaborate with disability groups to start Social Enterprises to train, employ and coach those who are able to work. Do not give up on those who cannot work at full productivity. Many of the people with special needs can still contribute in the workforce and welcomed by employers if they are paid by employers based on their productivity level. Do not let what the world calls "Minimum Wage" or "Progressive Wage" deprive them of a chance to work. Make the Special Employment Incentive already launched in Budget 2012 for the disabled a permanent feature. (4) For foreign domestic helpers already here, increase their productivity whilst ensuring they will not be exploited. Some small families or those with grown children do not need full-time helpers. Let employers share on the condition that these helpers are compensated better and the working hours transparent and conditions favourable.”
“Madam, the thinking model applied in the White Paper and subsequently also adopted by the Workers' Party in the alternate proposal is way too rigid and simplistic for the 21st century. I would suggest developing a more robust forecasting tool that computes a few population scenarios starting from the current 5.3 million and a desired Singapore Core; a more robust and sensitive tool that will inform strategies as a result of regular data input updates on variables, such as the number of citizen babies, the number of new citizens, local workforce strengths, and how firms are doing at the productivity front. One young man, a high-functioning young man with Asperger's Syndrome, suggested to me that perhaps, Ms Phua, the population can be managed like the systolis and diastolis – the heart muscles that relax and contract when they take in blood and release it to the arteries. Do not be rigid, he said. Depending on the performance of both external and internal factors, pull back when it gets higher than expected, and push forth when it is lower. By all means, play safe and ring fence the land and resources that need to be reserved so that we will not be caught under-providing one day. But let us not be over-zealous in our planning because no one really knows it all. Think three to five years! One of the reasons why Singaporeans could not emotionally move beyond the media headlines of 6.9 million is their concerns with the hot-button issues of the day. Some of these issues are deep-rooted and quite difficult to solve. But address them, we must. As the parable goes, one would be made ruler over many when one can be entrusted to look after the few. So, let us apply what today's amended Motion says: settle the current Page: 52 strains on the infrastructure. Next, 10 suggestions.”
“The White Paper itself is repeatedly punctuated by qualifiers, claiming that the roadmap is subject to many factors, such as the external environment, productivity, workforce growth, creativity and how citizens will respond to the incentives in the last Marriage and Parenthood Package. Even the Workers' Party's attempt at crystal-ball gazing is unconvincing. It has hastily put together an alternate proposal to target a sexy 5.3-million to 5.9-million number, below the 6-million psychological threshold for most Singaporeans. This alternative proposal is also premised on a planning assumption that it would be able to slap and whip the Government to work harder to increase the TFR (Total Fertility Rates) of couples; to get more elderly folks and women to join the workforce; to force SMEs to re-structure their business models now; and to turn off the tap of foreign workers with immediate Page: 51 effect for the next seven years. Madam, there are foreign workers and foreign workers. Some we do not welcome. But some we need. What does the immediate turn off of the tap of foreign workers mean to people like me who serve in the social service sector? Those of us who run nursing homes and, for me personally, day activity centres for the more severely disabled? What if local Singaporeans continue to shun these jobs not because of pay but because it is just plain hard, unpleasant work? Madam, I believe there are too many unknowns for everyone, for anyone to be truly confident about the population trajectories – whether they are Workers' Party's 5.9 million, Nominated Member Laurence Lien's preferred 6 million or the Government's "worst-case-scenario" of 6.9 million.”
“It should have taken reference from the pace and more updated methods of Page: 50 citizen engagement currently used in the ongoing National Conversations initiated by the Prime Minister and led by Minister Heng Swee Keat. Madam, many Members have fed back to the Prime Minister on the responses of the ground to the White Paper. As Members, we are the proxies of the people we serve, and represent their voices we must. Madam, although our constituents' voices do not often come in one united tune, in this case, many people in the Singapore of 2012 have spoken. An overwhelming majority said "no" to a 6.9 million Singapore in 2030. The moral of the story that the Government must learn, in exercises of this nature, is that: one, more haste, less speed; and two, unless people know how much we care, they do not care how much we know. They do not even want to hear that 6.9 million is not a target. On a more robust planning tool, Madam, when I was a young Product Manager in the fast IT industry, products then took one to two years to develop. Today, some products are obsoleted within months. Many of the planning assumptions one holds for product or service development, whether in the private or public sector, can quickly become obsolete. Such is the pace of change and the level of unknowns we are dealing with in this 21st Century. I, therefore, find it hard to fathom the confidence in which the future is being predicted – both in the White Paper by Government and the alternate proposal put together by the Workers' Party. The ability to gaze into the crystal ball and generate firm strategies for even three-year windows is very rare these days, not to mention an 18-year forecast into 2030.”
“Madam, emotions of many Singaporeans ranged from surprise, despair to anger, when they read the media headlines of "6.9 million in Singapore in 2030". Many could not go beyond the emotion and decided the entire paper is not worth reading, and depended very much on commentaries as the source of information. To me, the Population White Paper is a paper that exposes the awkwardness of the Government in engaging Singaporeans in the new normal. In its eagerness to meet some self-imposed deadline for land use and infrastructure planning and in its anxiety to offer a framework to curb Singapore's ever-growing foreign labour workforce, the White Paper was launched in a hurry. It was not circulated in its draft form for public consultation when this important step was what Government would typically do when tabling bills in Parliament. Good intent; bad execution. The Government missed the precious opportunity to engage the public and garner the views and suggestions of Singaporeans to address the hard truths the White Paper surfaced. Hard truths, such as: One, the alarming rates at which the foreign workforce is growing; two, the alarming rate at which Singaporeans are ageing; and, three, the alarming rate at which birth rates are declining. The tone of the White Paper comes across as prescriptive, without offering the different planning scenarios and how they impact the lives of Singaporeans. It gives the perception of offering a shared vision of Singapore when it does not. It offers little other lifestyle choice to Singaporeans, except that of an urbanised setting. It is the outcome of forms of engagement, such as town halls and traditional meetings, that do not cover deeper sparring of ideas and options.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. The ever-escalating COE is a bug bear among Singaporeans, and there is also talk that potentially, the COE can go up to more than $100,000. I was just wondering if the Ministry could consider at least studying what are the models available around the world and get Singaporeans to maybe come up with our own model, and address this bug bear. We could use the Singapore Conversation series as a platform to do that. I think we need to engage Singaporeans to look into this. Let them have the information about the fact that you already have studied this model or other models, and engage them, so that we can perhaps draw some wisdom from them as well.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I am heartened to hear that LTA is open to this. I just want to register that LTA has been very responsive in my area whenever we make requests. As you know, there are some areas in Singapore which have predominantly elderly people, such as where I serve, Kampong Glam; or where Dr Lily Neo serves, Kreta Ayer; and even Mr Sam Tan's Redhill area. I hope that some priority will be given to these areas so that the old people would not have to wait until it is too late to enjoy some of these elderly-proof facilities. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, again, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. We share her concerns. That is the reason why I mentioned that we give road safety our top priority, not only for the elderly but also for all road users. We will be very happy to work Page: 18 with the Member, looking at specific locations in her area, as well as in other areas, to see how we can enhance the road safety aspect. After all, these are our fellow human beings. We want to ensure they are always safe on the road.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his openness. I would like to know how long that on-going journey will be, because I am advocating not just for those below 18, but there are many, for example, adults with Down Syndrome where it is not transparent if they are covered or not under the current scheme. I understand they are not covered in many instances. Many insurers are not interested in covering them, but I think the State should look into this and see how we can come up with some solutions on this. For some families, it may be co-sharing. For others who are from the lower income families, the State might want to take over the insurance. I would just like to ask for some timeline on this. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I am also happy to share with the Member that we have increased the portion for Medifund for those who are above 18. We have increased it from $80 million to $100 million. Like I said earlier, essentially, we will look into the needs of Singaporeans, regardless of their conditions. We want to ensure that no Singaporeans are deprived of medical services. Again, I thank the Member for her views. We will certainly look at all the views and further improve our healthcare system. Page: 17”
“And also, to look urgently into situations under which Page: 16 they need to go beyond the usual MediShield coverage ceiling; to see if there are best practices in other countries and other societies that we can look into so that they can be safe from that kind of hardship that they will experience if they do not have money to treat their congenital or pre-existing illnesses. So, I look forward to MOH's help in this. It is not easy. I thank you very much for the M&P Package. I really think that we might as well complete it and include this group that is not included. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions, and also for her concerns for the children. That is the precise intention of what we are doing. In fact, we are going to roll out the Medifund Junior, which is for children aged below 18. Essentially, with Medifund Junior, we would cover our children. No Singaporean children will be deprived of medical attention and treatment, even if they do not have the financial resources. But we will look into the Member's views. To me, it is an on-going journey that we are looking at to see how we can further enhance our healthcare system.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Basic healthcare insurance for every person, not just for children, regardless of ability or health condition, is an essential good that is needed, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said, in times of hospitalisation, or even for treatment such as chemotherapy, and so forth. I am really grateful to MOH and the Government for responding to the public's cry for – especially in the special needs community – covering children who are born on or after 1 March 2013 with congenital or pre-existing conditions. So, thank you for that, I want to register that. However, there is still this group who are in the transition who happened to be missed out and excluded from this wonderful package. Say what we want, they are still excluded, and they are not provided with what is basic healthcare insurance. We have always heard that if we include them, then a higher premium will be incurred. But I think this is something that is more than economics. It is a basic good or essential good that should be provided to every citizen, I ask the Ministry to look at this again. It is not an easy topic. I feel that the Medifund Junior that is set up will help some but not cover every child, and does not include every Singaporean that needs to be covered. This is only a transitional period. I ask for a special look into this. I also ask the Ministry to make public what is Medifund Junior. What is the definition of "children"? Does it mean that if they are older than 12, they are not covered? What is really covered? What kind of criteria are we looking at? And what happens to the rest of the Singaporean children, youths and adults who are not covered currently?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for the comprehensive reply. I wanted to ask if the Acting Minister would be able to, either now or later, provide a forecast of the requirements of this particular target group, which comprises mainly people who have more severe disabilities and who need special handling. There are three main needs in terms of setting up facilities: one is physical facilities; the second is funding, especially for the more severe cases; and the third – which is the largest bottleneck – is the manpower. Many local people do not want this kind of jobs because it is difficult and they have other choices, in terms of careers. I would like to ask the Acting Minister to provide, firstly, the forecast. Secondly, some segmented needs profile so that those who really need help but help is not easily gotten – like for this group with very severe disabilities – that we can use together to formulate some solutions. The VWOs are willing to work on them. We just need to be able to work with the Ministry on this.”