Eunice Elizabeth Olsen
Singapore
“But if we are finding it so hard to find them, despite a more educated and diverse population, perhaps we need to allow for more diversity in Parliament and in our political system. One of the biggest challenges for Singapore will be to nurture a new generation of leaders.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarifications. I have two supplementary questions. We are seeing more retrenchment cases involving PMETs. I would like to ask where can this group seek redress if their company is neither paying a severance nor paying them on a period of time stipulated, or if a company winds up.”
“I like to thank the Senior Minister of State. As he said, the Prime Minister previously said we have to treat the Rohingyas humanely, so if they are caught trying to seek refuge in Singapore, will they be treated as all other illegal immigrants, which means that they will be brought to court and face caning?”
“Finally, I would like to ask MOM how repatriation companies are regulated. There have been reports, not just online, but in the media about how these companies forcibly take in workers in order to send them home on their companies' behest. How is this not wrongful confinement?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I just want to clarify and ask whether he could address my question on whether or not the Ministry is adequately staffed, not only just to deal with but also to speed up the process to resolve the pending cases of the foreign workers because some of them have been known to stay in Singapore for…”
“I thank the Second Minister, and I understand that there have been 10 exceptions made in the past 10 years. I just want to ask the Minister whether he thinks with progress as a nation, for MINDEF to be more visible and flexible about deferments, and if the Minister thinks this can help affirm in the eyes of Singaporeans that administratio…”
The complete record
Every one of 236 lines we hold for Eunice Elizabeth Olsen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the motion. Sir, considering I am the last to speak, I feel my speech on the by-elections may end up by the way but, nonetheless, I will put forward my humble opinion on this issue. Sir, this topic could not have been more timely. The Prime Minister said in his National Day Rally speech that he wanted "to encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future" and that the Singapore system would "progressively open up" even more. Of course, he was referring to how the Government would keep up with the new media and how the rules at Speakers' Corner would be liberalised. Barely a week later, here is a chance to continue in this direction laid out by the PM, to demonstrate – although not at Hong Lim Park – that changes are being made to allow Singaporeans to play a more active role in the country. In fact, if this House were to support the motion, it would be a far more powerful and far more meaningful statement about the value this legislature and this Government affixes to the role that Singaporeans play in building our shared future. Here is why. While every country may be different, the most basic feature of every democracy is the electoral process. That should tell us the fundamental importance, first, of the ability to vote and, next, to be able to do so in a free and fair election. There can be no purer way to have people take ownership of their country, have a say in deciding their future and be involved in the political process. While governments are entrusted to represent their people and lead the country every four or five years or when the nature of that representation has changed, the public is entitled to reclaim their country at the ballot box.”
“Thank you, Minister. I just wanted an answer to my first question, whether or not the Minister sees this as a priority in the whole gamut of ageing issues.”
“Sir, I understand that Temasek has gained a record profit of $18 billion, but that was for the financial year ending 31st March 2008. However, the shareholder returns by market value fell to 7% from 27% a year ago. My question is: does MOF have as much confidence in our investments this year?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Can I just ask if these are long-term investments, does that mean that MOF only asks questions as a shareholder years after the investments are made?”
“In the case of a typical three-room flat with 70 years' lease remaining and, say, priced at $220,000, HDB will buy back the last 40 years of the lease for $95,700, plus $10,000 in subsidy. In other words, about $106,000 in all. Apart from a $5,000 which will be paid upfront as a bonus, the remainder of this amount will be used to purchase a CPF LIFE Plan to secure a lifelong income stream for the flat owner. A commonly-asked question on the LBS concerns the arrangement should the flat-owner outlive the 30-year LBS lease. I want to assure Mdm Phua that no elderly will be left homeless in this scenario. One option is lease extension. However, we do recognise that not all can afford the full price for such extension. HDB will have to assess the housing options available for each case on an individual basis, and be sensitive to the financial, health and family circumstances of the elderly concerned. On the other hand, if the lease needs to be terminated prematurely because the elderly has passed away, his estate will receive a pro-rated refund on the residual lease. Another commonly-asked question is when the scheme will be implemented. HDB and the CPF Board are working closely together to implement the scheme by early 2009.”
“Sir, actually my question is similar to Mdm Halimah's. I had wanted to ask whether the cut in headcount in the civil service four years ago by the Ministry of Finance had actually had an impact on the shortage of staff at MHA. HDB LEASE BUYBACK SCHEME 6. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the present status of the HDB Lease Buyback Scheme; (b) what is the profile of lessees whom HDB is targeting; (c) what is the target average years of lease that HDB intends to buy back and the intended average buy back price per lease year; (d) how is HDB going to address the concern of housing for lessees who outlive the remaining lease and those who live shorter than the remaining lease; (e) what are the common concerns of lessees who have enquired about the scheme; and (f) when is the scheme going to start. The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mdm Phua for her question. The Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) is targeted at elderly two-room and three-room flat owners. They are generally of lower income, and need more help to monetise their flats to meet retirement needs. As this scheme is subsidised, beneficiaries must not have enjoyed more than one housing subsidy. We project that 25,000 households would be eligible for LBS. This is 70% of elderly households owning two- and three-room flats. The LBS allows the elderly to receive a lifelong income stream while staying in the same flat. HDB will buy back the remaining flat lease less the first 30 years. Let me explain.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether ASEAN has a duty of care to the cyclone victims in Myanmar and, if so, why did they take two weeks to convene the Special ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting. If ASEAN has a duty of care to the cyclone victims, has ASEAN's credibility been put on the line because of the delay in getting full and proper access of aid workers to the cyclone victims?”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his Statement and I would like to ask from a big picture point of view, who would have been responsible for assessing if the surge from six detainees in the 1990s to 41 after the JI arrest was too big for the WRDC facility. Also, who decided to extend its lease which then required renovation works that altered the security eco system? Who would have approved the funding for such works? Is it fair to expect that someone should have asked if the works would have altered the WRDC security eco system? And, finally, might we be risking more complacency by drawing the line for responsibility just short of those who ought to come up with the important questions?”
“Can I just ask what protection does the law provide for these workers, especially those cheated by rogue agents, and whether or not the Government is working with VWOs to provide refuge for these workers while they are waiting for their cases to be assessed?”
“Sir, can I just ask the Acting Minister how is the Ministry working with the High Commissions to basically enforce this?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I seek two clarifications. First, it is with regard to the signs for errant taxi drivers. Instead of just saying they are for errant taxi drivers, perhaps we can also commend taxi drivers because we should not just focus on the negative. There are some taxi drivers who make your ride pleasant. Secondly, with regard to cross subsidising, should the public not have the information on how much more it will cost in order to judge whether they want their mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers to have full concessionary rates?”
“I am not sure if there is a warmer, fuzzier feeling that citizenship can give you than to know that after you have done all you can for your country, your country does all it can for you. If there is, please let me know. And I do not think you need to wait till you become a senior citizen to feel proud of a transport system that encourages the elderly to be active and mobile. We have heard so often how concessionary fares are cross-subsidised by other passengers without ever hearing how much it would cost for 24/7 concessions for the elderly. That is unacceptable. As for fare waivers, CPF runs out at 85, and it would be quite a while before CPF LIFE starts paying out after that age. Every little bit of help counts. Although the impact is more than just dollars and cents, yet, even if a Government fund is set up for this group of citizens, I doubt it would cost as much as what other countries spend to provide free health care, education, and so on. In a way, it is a self-filtering help scheme. The rich will have private modes of transport. So it can be made to work, if we want it to work. That has always been our approach, and I hope that the Minister agrees with me. Land Transport Review”
“Sir, bus and rail commuters would have welcomed the results of the Land Transport Review a few weeks ago. The changes give our land transport planners a bigger role in bus and rail operations and we all hope that it translates into a more people-centric public transport system where profitability is not mistaken for sustainability and the focus is kept on commuters. The importance of these services, essential services in any country, cannot be under-stated. In Singapore, while the private sector operates these services, the recent review reminds us that the ultimate responsibility of giving the public a system to be proud of belongs to the Government whose choice it would be to either fulfill that role or to abdicate that duty. Sir, that choice has been made, and it is reflected in the transport shake-up. The question now is: what sort of system can we be proud of? Sir, I am no transport expert. I can only speak as a citizen. And I see public transport as part of a bigger picture, a picture we want to paint to encapsulate what Singapore stands for. I would like our country to be a place where people feel valued and small yet powerful ways, where citizenship is strong because of symbolic yet emotional reasons, where we sometimes differ on cold, hard, rational logic because we want to make this place truly special, not just Singapore Inc. Notwithstanding all that the Government has done in various areas, I would like to appeal today for it to do more in transport, in particular, for senior citizens. I would like to suggest that concessionary rates apply 24/7 for all senior citizens above 65 – I echo the sentiments of Dr Lam – and for bus and rail fares to be waived for those 85 and above.”
“It appears that these complexes have accessibility on a level that merely complies with the code on barrier-free access but does not adhere to the spirit of what accessibility means. And, inconsistently, only some pools or sports complexes are accessible. There is much we can learn from England and Japan where public pools have ramps into the pool made of non-slip tiles and hand rails for the elderly, compared to our pools that only have steps-in. Wheelchairs that can enter the water should also be made available. Hydraulic lifts or ramps can be installed in stadiums to allow the disabled or the elderly access to other levels so that they can sit with their friends in the spectator seats. As Singapore has won the bid for the YOG, I would like to ask the Minister: how usable are the new facilities for the disabled and elderly that the Ministry intends to build? Are there plans to upgrade all sports facilities to make it not only accessible, but usable and allow for participation? Will the new facilities allow everyone to freely participate in all activities from being a spectator to an athlete with consideration for safety? Accessibility does not seem to be part of our city state's primary infrastructure. As my friend who is a wheelchair user says, "access seems to be an afterthought". My dream for Singapore is to be a country where the disabled and the elderly can join in with dignity and without apprehension about physical restrictions. It is only when we have achieved this that we can truly call ourselves an inclusive society.”
“Madam, we have noted that the Government is committed to making Singapore an inclusive society and MCYS' goal for sports includes a vision of international sporting excellence in sports participation. But if participation is the main objective, then it must include the disabled and the elderly as well. I recently visited some sports complexes to examine how disabled and elderly-friendly they are. At the Serangoon/Burghley Sports and Recreation Centre built in 1995, anyone wheelchair-bound is confined to the track or grass level at the stadium because anything beyond that is inaccessible. The ramp to the entrance of the swimming pool was too steep and my friend, a wheelchair user, experienced difficulty getting up. The entire pool area is surrounded by footbaths and the only way to the pool is via a narrow steel bridge. Shower facilities exist for the disabled but they are not well designed and the wash basins are also beyond reach. Most ironically, there is a huge high step that leads to the pavement of the bus-stop that offers Service 147 (a wheelchair-accessible bus). In summary, there is no connectivity. I thought something constructed more recently in 2000, like the Jurong East Sports Complex, would better cater to the disabled and the elderly, but I was mistaken. A lifeguard whom we spoke to noted that the only way for a disabled person to enjoy the lovely wave pool is to be carried in over a flight of stairs as there is no ramp available. Also, half of the disabled toilet cubicle is occupied by grab bars and does not permit a wheelchair to make a turn. Moreover, there are no disabled showering facilities.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I seek two clarifications. (1) Before it is possible to sustain a market for solar power, may I just ask whether MTI is doing enough to create that market? (2) We can see that tax credits and rebates are used in so many instances, eg, green cars, which will be quite expensive without rebates. This means that the use of tax credits and rebates is clearly a reflection of priorities. So may I ask why subsidising the use of renewable energy is not so important for MTI for now?”
“But that unfairly penalises consumers located close to the power plants who end up sharing costs for all the transmission lines installed for faraway consumers. These cross-subsidies are small and have no significant impact. Are we not creative enough to come up with similar solutions for PV adoption to augment measures such as the Green Mark programme? For example, why not go for feed-in-tariffs? And here I quote the sentiment of hon. Member Mr Edwin Khew, especially since it will take several years before PV contributes more than a few percent of Singapore's total electricity production, which means, for all practical purposes, the main electricity market would face no distortions at all. If MTI says that FITs will result in higher electricity prices, it should say how much. Otherwise, talk of higher prices is a smoke screen. According to solar energy experts I spoke to, a typical four-room HDB flat would face a surcharge of less than 60 cents per month, which is a small price to contribute to greenhouse gas reductions. Cost and market distortions are clearly not major barriers. On the other hand, by making it attractive enough for PV system contractors, competition among them will drive down costs and improve practical solutions. So what if it was sparked artificially by subsidies? More jobs will be created and the accumulated know-how would give Singapore an edge. Our experience could be an example for the region. Our priorities will show in what we choose to do or not to do. Sir, should we not do more?”
“Sir, Singapore will be home to a $6 billion solar manufacturing complex, we are committing funds for R&D and clean energy and, two weeks ago, we saw the launch of the Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore. These make for a good start to a solar future for our sunny island. But since we are never ones to rest on our laurels, and also because Singapore is a Johnny-come-lately among developed countries when it comes to solar solutions, my question for MTI is: what next, and can we do more? I have read about the Ministry's stand on market distortion and subsidies to incentivise the use of renewable energy in Singapore and I wonder if we are being too conservative. Can we claim to be a leader in the field of solar energy if we are content to let market forces dictate how we deploy its use? We know that the main obstacle to photovoltaic adoption is cost. It will take years for research to lower these costs. Meanwhile, it is clear from examples elsewhere that the growth of grid connected markets depends on incentive programmes. Why do we condone minor distortions and cross-subsidies in an existing retail electricity market but baulk at doing the same for renewables – the best long-term solution to reduce global warming? For example, by paying a flat rate for electricity, instead of a tariff that varies according to supply and demand, as is the case in Singapore, night-time electricity purchasers are cross-subsidising day-time consumption. Likewise, grid charges should reflect the cost of transmission and distribution infrastructure. These are currently allocated as a flat surcharge according to kilowatt hour consumed.”
“I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to help all partner, young groups who are interested in the environment and leverage on the ingenuity of these projects to better educate Singaporeans about saving our environment. For example, the NEA could provide a link on their website to these initiatives so as to help these groups share their ideas and help to educate other Singaporeans. Sir, households account for close to a fifth of their electricity consumed in Singapore because households consume a considerable amount of energy used. We should look to ways in which they can become more energy-efficient. And, here, I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member Dr Faishal Ibrahim. From switching off water heaters when not in use, choosing the economy mode for washing machines when doing laundry, taking showers instead of baths, to switching off lights and appliances when not needed - all simple ways in which Singaporeans can be encouraged to be more energy-efficient. I would like to ask what programmes the Ministry has in place to reach out to these households and whether the Ministry intends to go door-to-door to drive home this message. Sir, it is imperative that we engage and encourage Singaporeans to believe in the concept of energy efficiency because it will take the effort of each and every Singaporean, no matter how small, to make Singapore become more energy-efficient. To Adopt Plant-wide Portfolio Approach on CO2 Emissions”
“Sir, the issue of climate change has shot to the top of the global agenda and many countries around the world are stepping up efforts to combat the effect of climate change. Singapore is doing its part as well. Some examples of the Green Mark scheme are Bring Your Own Bag Day, the EASE scheme and the Energy Labelling scheme. Apart from Government's policy, there have also been many efforts by Singaporeans themselves. This year alone, I attended two initiatives by young Singaporeans to promote environmental awareness. The first one was by a group of three girls from the Nanyang Technological University. They launched a website - www.minusplastic.use.sg - as part of their final year project. It contains information about reducing the use of plastic, packaged in a very unique way for different groups of people whether you are an everyday chap, a professional star or an earth warrior, it has something for everyone. The second project was by a group of National University of Singapore students known as SAVE - Students Against Violation of the Earth. They launched a programme known as Rebate to Earth where plastic bags will cost 10 cents from 4th of February onwards at the NUS Co-op. I believe that young people have in them that daring attitude and the ingeniousness to do something good, not only for themselves, but also for their communities and for our planet. The youths of today have become more and more compelled to engage in new forms of action and activism that can generate effective responses to the ecological challenges that face us both today and in the future.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and I seek one clarification. I would like to ask if the Minister would consider amending the Schedule under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act to change the definition of "public entertainment" so as to narrow the application of the Act.”
“But I wonder if the Home Affairs Ministry can appreciate that there is a wide scope of issues for which more space to public expression can be given. It is not space for space sake. We strive to make Singapore a magnet for talent, a top economy, as we should. But let us not forget what the State does can leave an indelible intangible mark on an educated citizenry. We are losing about 800 to 1,000 Singaporeans a year. Would a better balance between law and order and a demonstrable regard for the importance of social expression have made a difference for them, not for all definitely, but for some? I am sure if every Singaporean counts, it should be enough to warrant relooking how we approach public expression. We need to learn how to cultivate the value of social expression, in particular by Singaporeans on Singaporean issues, to the benefit of the country. I would like to quote from Media Academic Georgian George who wrote on his blog. He was referring to how Singaporeans have resorted to socially irresponsible expressions on the Internet, and he said, "By failing to enshrine free speech as a fundamental social good, young Singaporeans are growing up seizing that freedom on their own terms impervious to being lectured about their social obligations." I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider reviewing the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act in Singapore's best interest. Loansharks”
“Sir, Singapore has come a long way from the time when we were known only for caning vandals and banning chewing gum. Yes, we are being featured more positively as a city that swings and winning the bid for the Youth Olympic Games will be good for us. If Singapore wants to be a global city, it must behave like a global city and strive to make it more conducive for a spontaneous and expressive society, not because we want to read more positive stories in the foreign media about Singapore's image, so that Singaporeans can meaningfully identify beyond monetary terms with the notion of belonging to a First World nation. We can do this by actively nurturing our arts and culture. We should do this by expanding the space for public expression and activity. Sir, this House heard last year about how the Workers' Party's cycling event was banned and the debate that ensued on political events. As Nominated MP, I do not propose to join that fray. I want to take this issue beyond party politics because there is such a wide scope for public expression. Last year, for example, a group of Singaporeans turned up with anime figurines at a public park to protest against the clamp down on online downloading by Singapore animation distributor, Odex. The Police sent four anti-riot vans to the scene, took down the anime fans' particulars and filmed them. It is not an issue of whether we should disapprove of copyright infringement or not. If the Government wants to rebuke criticisms that Singapore is not a police state, actions like these do not help. We can all appreciate concerns about law and order. Race and religion are still sensitive subjects.”
“The Straits Times has also reported that there is a shortage with the number of places in international schools as a result of the increase in expatriate population. I would like to ask the Minister if we are moving at too fast a pace. And are we giving our services and infrastructure enough lead time to cope with population increase from immigration? Apart from infrastructure, another area of concern is our social and community integration. Social integration does not only include economic integration but also cultural integration. It requires an open society where there is acceptance of differences. In the same 2006 National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister also commented that there are Singaporeans who may have reservations about immigrants and that they are worried about the competition that comes with them. I would like to ask the Minister how the Government intends to cultivate integration and an inclusive environment with the expected number of immigrants. Will Singaporeans be able to identify with them and vice versa? Sir, while we are focused on luring and recruiting foreign talent, we may lose our own at the same time if we are not balanced and prepared in our approach. With the rising cost of living and the widening income gap, Singaporeans will feel the pressure squeeze and be tempted to flee abroad as already evident with the rate of approximately 1,000 people leaving per year. Sir, Singapore needs foreigners, but Singapore will always need Singaporeans. I hope the Government will be able to allay our concerns with regard to our immigration policies. Social Integration”
“Sir, our Prime Minister announced in his 2006 National Day Rally speech about promoting our immigration programme overseas and further attracting foreign talent to our shores. While we welcome foreigners who can contribute to our society, we also need transparency in our immigration policies. According to the Department of Statistics, foreign population has crossed the one million mark and has seen a 14.9% increase from a year ago, compared to 9.7% increase in the previous year. This represents the highest jump in at least seven years. Singapore is the fourth most densely populated country in the world with over 6,000 people per square kilometre. With the swift growth of the urban population, there could be an augmented strain on our city's resources, facilities and services. Demands on our physical and social infrastructure such as public transportation and housing will intensify. As it stands, the Circle Line will not be ready till 2012. The City of Toronto, Canada, with a population of 2.48 million people is fairly similar to Singapore in terms of area mass at 630 square kilometres. It is already beginning to show signs of growing pains, such as traffic congestions and an inaccessible public healthcare system. I would like to ask the Minister: will the rate of foreigners coming to Singapore continue to increase? And, if so, what are some of the necessary steps we have to take to ensure our services – infrastructure, health, education and transport –can cope? Housing prices have escalated due to market forces. And according to today's Today article, foreign students are already starting to feel the effects of the rising prices.”
“Perhaps, another way to strengthen bonds and belonging, and to build a resilient community is to set up a national fund-raising committee (or NFRC) which can help VWOs which are independent of the Community Chest to do a better job of raising funds. Too much time and efforts, with not so much resources, are spent occasionally by some VWOs to raise funds. An NFRC can help to streamline the fund-raising process, advise and assist on best practices, provide contacts for event companies and other parties needed for a fund-raiser. Our community organisations certainly need as much support and help as possible in order to grow and develop and fully achieve their potential to help Singaporeans.”
“There is no alternative, no stronger glue, none that money or a sterling economy can buy because, strip away the growth and the good life, in times of crisis, a sense of belonging and the bonds between people will be what keeps the country from fraying. How can the Budget Statement, a reckoning of the Government's revenue and expenditure, chock-a-block with numbers, help to achieve this intangible? In simple ways, perhaps. How about bond-free Singapore scholarships, awarded by the State, for our youths to pursue their university studies anywhere they wish to, and in any field they choose? Interest, aptitude and household income can be the criteria. As it is, the Budget already recognises the importance of providing opportunities "to develop every skill and talent and where every one does his utmost to do better and surprise with his abilities". The new education incentives reflect this. But can we do more? Top universities around the world, and now our local universities increasingly, judging by a Today report this weekend, are offering bond-free scholarships. One consequence is stronger alumni ties arising from a sense of attachment, a natural indebtedness, although nothing is expected from the awardees. Why can the State not do this? We subsidise and educate many foreign students through grants and scholarships in the hope some stay for the long-term and contribute and, hopefully, sink roots here. Not all do, but we persist nonetheless. We should give our youths wings to fly wherever they want and hope that most of them come back because this is the country that helped them fulfill their dreams.”
“But the takeaway for some people, judging by reactions online, is that Hong Kong managed to rake in a record surplus even though it was forced to scrap a proposed sales tax after public objections. Was the Singapore Government too hasty in raising GST, a regressive tax, at a time when the income gap was the hot topic? Now, inflation is the topic du jour. There are worrying voices on the ground that say it would be hard to believe the Government the next time it says more revenue is needed for spending. Such ground sentiments are often accompanied by references to the billions of dollars that the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek Holdings are spending to buy stakes in foreign banks. To the average Singaporean, it is unfathomable that GIC and Temasek could shell out some $30-odd billion and, just a year ago, the Government said it needed more money for social spending. Perhaps, the Minister for Finance could clarify this matter to address these concerns. One question that I have is on the Medisave top-ups, a regular feature of the Budget each year. Will this year's top- ups of between $150 and $450 be able to match rising healthcare inflation - 6.2% as of last year? Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Budget has clearly spelt out the extensive fiscal measures for Singapore to be a "top quality economy", and I commend the Minister for Finance for the measures to help SMEs in particular, seeing as the latter are only becoming more important for the Singapore economy. I am also taken with the notion of building a "resilient community". But, in this regard, I think we can do more. The key to resilience, I believe, is in having a strong identity as a nation of Singaporeans.”
“In all seriousness, these prices might be affordable for one segment of the population, like everyone in this House, but another might baulk at the cost. Many Singaporeans would have calculated by now how much they are getting in the Budget handouts. Some of them are also wondering why the Government had to raise the GST last year after the Finance Minister, 10 days ago, announced a $6.4 billion surplus. While the economy grew more than expected, 7.7% compared to the initial forecast of between 4.5% and 6.5% - that alone was not the reason for the complete turnaround from the deficit of $0.7 billion originally projected. The property market which had been on the uptick, was "exceptionally buoyant". Out of the ordinary it may have been, but the question remains, and I would like to ask the Finance Minister why the Government did not anticipate revenue figures more accurately, especially when it is in control of various factors, such as immigration numbers. One of the KPIs of the Ministry of Finance is Budget Marksmanship. The projected figure for Government Operating Revenue as a percentage of budgeted revenue, excluding Net Investment Income contribution for FY2007, was between 97% and 103%, the figure has most recently been revised to 119.1%. For FY2006, when the economy surged 7.9% from the initial forecast of between 4% and 6%, the actual operating revenue was 108.1% of the budgeted revenue. So, Budget Marksmanship has declined. Of course, Singapore is not alone in this regard. Hong Kong is expected to report on Wednesday a surplus of four times the amount it forecast in its Budget last year, or HK$100 billion, which is S$18 billion. So, 2007 was a special year.”
“With the proposed means-testing in public hospitals, tentatively allocating full subsidy to the bottom 50% of wage earners, there seems to be an acknowledgement that this group will need help to cope with the harsh realities of global cost pressures currently as well as moving forward. I would like to ask the Finance Minister if the median wage would increasingly become a reference point to decide on the allocation of State support. Mdm Deputy Speaker, rising inflation at a 25-year high is the hot topic of recent months. And I appreciate that the Government is, among others, allowing the Singapore dollar to appreciate modestly and is stepping up the diversification of food sources to help mitigate inflation. I am also glad the Finance Minister did not preach to Singaporeans to buy non-branded, house brands so as to cope with inflation. The supermarkets already saw a spike in the sale of house-brand products - 18% last year at Giant Hypermarket, according to a Today report on 5th February, between 10% and 20% at Cold Storage and Shop N Save, and "double-digit growth" at NTUC FairPrice. So, this is a strategy already being employed by those in need; it is not a solution. Earlier this month, I joined my committee members from the Kebun Baru Youth Executive Committee to check out grocery prices at FairPrice at Ang Mo Kio Hub. We looked for the cheapest brands around and were taken aback by what we thought were high prices. For instance, the cheapest bag of rice that we found for 10 kg of rice was $12.80, although I have since learnt that a 10 kg of rice at Giant costs about $11. A tin of cooking oil was $4.30. And I did not know that a large tin of Milo would cost $11.65 - I guess I am not going to be having a lot of Milo Dinosaur from now on!”
“These initiatives are in keeping with the importance Singapore has always placed on education, in anticipation of the rising costs of education and an acknowledgement that more must be done to level the playing field. At a time when globalisation is exacerbating the income gap, non-graduate workers especially, are most in need of Government subvention. In Singapore's case, the education gap is felt even more keenly because our economy has developed and restructured so rapidly in our short history. With the 40% subsidy for this group of learners, we can truly believe that lifelong learning is, indeed, a national priority. Meanwhile, the inclusion of the arts institutions, to me, is a very positive development, one that indicates that there is a place for diversity in Singapore: diversity of passions, diversity of avenues of success. The funding extension is a much-needed boost for the arts community and goes some way to underline the importance of the arts in Singapore. I hope that funding for arts education will continue to grow - here, I would like say hooray for the Arts School - and this Budget initiative would be more effective and have more of an impact if it is a springboard for new or enhanced schemes to assist Singaporeans who can make it on the world stage. The Government could give this group of Singaporeans a leg up by helping to fund their participation in international events, so as to propel the Singapore arts scene to an international level. As for the latest bursaries, it is significant that the middle-income group up to the 50th percentile will get more under the MOE scheme, which will also be extended to those in this group who are going to the polytechnics.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I am happy to say that I will not subject the House to the sniffles and sore throat that usually accompany my Budget speech. This year, I am only hung over. I must confess - I am drunk with joy from Singapore's successful bid for the inaugural Youth Olympic Games. I am glad I went to the Padang last week, and I wish the organising committee with the very best in making history in style - for Singapore and the rest of the world in 2010. I am also pleased about how the Budget has included several significant firsts, particularly in education. Each year, many of the Budget announcements tend to have a familiar ring, a similar look, perhaps, different tags. For instance, this year, cue Growth Dividends in place of surplus sharing predecessors, such as the Progress Package of 2006, both a result of a good showing by Singapore's economy. No doubt, with cost of living spiralling, there were expectations the Government would help the people in this year's Budget. While the Government has responded in this regard, it is in education and the incentives in this area that truly catch the eye. Some of the firsts to be applauded: Those in the middle income group, that is, those with per capita monthly household income of $1,700 can get help from the MOE Bursary Scheme. The scheme will also now be available to polytechnic students who come from the bottom 50% of households. The MOE and CDC bursaries are extended to students in MOE-funded diploma programmes at La-Salle and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. Most important of all, in my opinion, there will be State relief for part-time and adult students who have not previously benefited from a Government subsidised university education.”
“I would like to thank the Minister, and I have two supplementary questions for him. Sir, when the income ceiling of $8,000 was carefully thought through and set by HDB, it was based on HDB's built flats in mind and there was no DBSS and there were no DBSS prices. I would like to ask the Minister: should the increase in income ceiling not commensurate with the increase in prices? In the event of a downturn in the economy, these home buyers may not be able to afford their mortgage payments, and this is supposed to be public housing and not private housing where the Government does not insulate them from housing market fluctuations. My second question is: does this change how we view public housing?”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister: since there is a greater cost recovery under means testing, how will the money from this greater cost recovery be used? Secondly, what yardstick will the Government use to measure the success of means testing, and how will the public know that means testing is working?”
“In an article in Today on 27th April 2005, it was reported that Singaporean sex tourists make up the largest number of sex tourists visiting Indonesia's Riau Islands where many of those they sexually exploit are under the age of 18. Knowing this and with the law in place, without the arrests being made soon, one would think that the Ministry will need to do something to convince the public that they are serious about making a change for the better in the region. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister the following: Firstly, what capabilities is the Government developing in order to enforce the new laws on the prohibition of sex with minors overseas? Secondly, what role can the public play to help society to weed out paedophiles? Thirdly, how will MHA go about enforcing this law? And, fourthly, I would also like to ask the Minister how did the Ministry decide on what should be the appropriate sentence. How do the penalties compare to other developed countries, like the United States? Sir, we are walking the right direction by introducing a law that condemns sex with minors overseas. How we act on this law is imperative and will determine the sincerity that we have towards protecting the lives of children in other countries. Singapore has always been known to punch above its weight on the international stage and now we have a law that allows us to do so in the issue of child sex tourism. I urge the Ministry to do it justice. 5.45 pm”
“I urge the Ministry not to let such isolated cases stand in the way of protecting vulnerable women. Of course, the law is not a panacea, or a silver bullet, that will put an end to all marital rapes. But abolition of immunity is one form of deterrence. It sends a signal that will surely also be reinforced by education, and it is a more accurate reflection of the principles in our society and what we stand for. Of course, it would be far better if, in this debate, a few good men in this House were to speak up against marital immunity. Marital rape was made a crime in all 50 states in the United States in 1993, while the United Kingdom removed the marital exemption in 1994. Is it too radical a step for Singapore to protect the group of vulnerable women in its society? Sir, on another note, I would like to commend the Government for finally introducing a law to prohibit sex with minors overseas and finally befitting Singapore's status as a developed and advanced nation. I hope that this is not just a token move to vault Singapore back into tier 1 in the trafficking in persons report issued by the US government after we were demoted to tier 2 this year. In an ABC news article in July, according to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' 2006 trafficking report, there have been 55 child sex tourism cases and 36 convictions brought under the Protect Act, despite difficulties in making arrests. I understand that there are difficulties in apprehending these paedophiles. But recent cases like the arrest of Christopher Paul Neil in Thailand show that it is not a lost cause and it is a worthy law and not just one that is in the Statutes symbolically but it is one that can be put to use to catch these despicable fiends.”
“Sir, do we really think that a tidal wave of wives are waiting for nothing more than a law to be put in place so they can gleefully have a headache for a month, thus turning the Ministry's worst fears about changing the complexion of marriage into reality? Since we are a realistic people, and if it is true that the vast majority will not be affected by the abolition of marital immunity, then for whom is the change needed? It is for the small group of vulnerable, likely lowly-educated or possibly foreign wives who are dependent on their husbands and trapped in the marriage. Sir, these are women who are most likely not in a position to divorce or leave their husbands. The abolition of marital immunity is not going to solve the problem of loveless marriages. But in such marriages, what is crucially needed is to stop husbands from legally raping their wives. The Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister Prof. S Jayakumar said last week that there is a core set of fundamental principles undergirding the rule of law that should exist in every society, one of which is the right to personal safety and security. Wherefore is the personal safety and security of these women? I urge the Ministry not to see the abolition of marital immunity as a quasi battle of the sexes. This is not about women asserting their sexual rights, and I hope the women see it that way too. I urge the Ministry not to give in to fears, stemming understandably from our patriarchal society, that women will use this as a weapon against men. It is misplaced unless there is no love in the vast majority of marriages. For the isolated vindictive cases that may arise, surely they can be ably dealt with in our criminal justice system.”
“But right now, the Ministry is effectively saying a woman has a right to protect her purse but not her body, or at least not when it comes to rape. So, the question must be asked: why the exception for marital rape? If it is about preserving and respecting intimacy in a marriage, why is it that one of the amendments in the Bill is to repeal section 498, which makes it an offence to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her, which according to the Ministry is an archaic offence and no longer relevant in today's context? Why is one law archaic and another not? Why is one law which was meant to symbolise the State's respect for marriages repealed while another purporting to do the same is kept? So, marital rape immunity cannot truly be about preserving and respecting intimacy in a marriage. Those who object to the abolition of marital rape immunity have invariably cited conjugal rights and, with that, the associated arguments about implied consent or the marriage contract, the unity of persons theory, which is based on Judeo-Christian doctrine, and the property theory. Sir, Singapore is known for its pragmatic, practical approach to problems, based on a realistic view of the world. There is no better issue than marital rape immunity where such an approach is needed. Do we honestly believe that in modern Singapore, where women are as educated as men, the vast majority of husbands are forcing themselves on their wives, insisting on conjugal rights, and disregarding the wishes of their wives? Do we not think the realistic view is that in the vast majority of cases, there is give-and-take in various aspects of marriage, including intercourse?”
“First of all, before we can approach the issue of marital rape per se, we have to start with the basics, with first principles, and we have to ask: what is society's view on rape, in general? Under the very same Penal Code, a man who is guilty of rape shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning. Contrast this to the act of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, an offence under section 325, for which a person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, which is 13 years less, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning. Acts such as permanent disfiguration of the face, permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, would constitute such an offence, for example. These are serious crimes, but the laws reflect that the State and, by extension, society still adjudges rape to be a worse crime. With this in mind, only then should we consider that the issue of whether rape is no longer a crime if it occurs within a marriage. The logical question that must be asked is: does the union of marriage eliminate the criminal nature of violent behavior such as rape or, therefore, behaviour that would be ordinarily considered criminal? Let us see. If a husband were to assault his wife and disfigure her permanently - a far less heinous crime ordinarily according to the law - does the Ministry give marital immunity? The answer is no. A husband can even be charged with stealing from his wife, and vice versa, I am sure. So, marriage does not grant the husband or wife immunity from the rule of law.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill. Ever since the Bill was introduced to the House, I have been concerned about two things; first, whether I could plough through the entire 181-page document; and, second, whether I would accidentally mispronounce the word "penal". I have to admit that I have not done so for the former. So I hope that the odds of the latter happening are slim too. To begin, I find that the key changes to the Penal Code broadly come under three categories, namely, laws on terror, laws on racial harmony and laws on sexual crimes. I would like to focus on the latter in my speech. In that regard, I have both credit and criticism for the amendments. Criticism because for all the modernising the updated Code is meant to reflect, there are some laws that need to be abolished entirely, in particular, marital immunity for rapists. With the latest revisions, husbands can no longer plead immunity for raping their wives under some circumstances, such as when the couple is waiting for their divorce to be finalised. According to the Ministry, total abolition of marital immunity would be too radical a step, as there is a general concern about conjugal rights and intimacy in a marriage. Total abolition would change the whole complexion of marriage in our society, according to media reports of the Ministry's stand. Sir, I can understand how and why the Ministry might arrive at such a conclusion. But it is a conclusion for which the underlying assumptions are flawed, and the key considerations need to be re-based. Let us go through the issue step-by-step.”
“Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) including the current transport fare revision, how much has the public transport fare increased over the last five years; (b) on which socio-economic group relative to real wage increase over the last five years does this increase have the greatest impact; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to mitigate the impact.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I would like to ask whether it serves Singapore's interests as a nation to subject its youths and their spontaneous display of solidarity with their neighbours in Myanmar to such monitoring by the Ministry's officers and whether such actions by his Ministry send a detrimental signal to our youths and damage the values that we are trying to inculcate in our youths and impair their interests in the world, the region and the country. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think it is in order for Singaporeans to express their concerns in legal ways, as many have done over that period. But, again, like I have said, the context is important, ie, the situation prevailing in Singapore then. So Police officers went to the spot, videotaped the event, and the reason I have explained why, ie, not to intimidate the students but should there be subsequent offences, then we can discern the wrongdoer from those who are not. Indeed, Sir, police forces all over the world now use video recorders. Some are static, some are mobile. In fact, in London, we hear of the Bobbies now having video-recorders on their helmets. So it is not something extraordinary. No ill intentions are meant. This is just to aid Police in investigations and, basically, in fact, to help innocent parties. The basic message, therefore, is that if you are innocent and are not out to break the law, there should be no fear. Column No : 2142 PUBLIC TRANSPORT FARE REVISION 13.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I just like to ask if she could clarify one of the questions that I have asked, and that is whether there is a requirement for older existing buildings to meet the current accessibility standards under the building regulations and how does BCA intend to implement it?”
“Madam, I feel that the fines set out in the Bill seem to be token fines and amounts to a slap on the wrist for errant occupants. Is it an appropriate amount to show that the Government means business? Lastly, is there a requirement for older existing buildings to meet current accessibility standards under the building regulations? Madam, all these are issues that need to be clarified for both the public, building owners and occupiers to be aware of. I think that we are making progress here and look forward to more legislation that is inclusive and will slowly carve out the enlightened society we aspire to be. Mdm Deputy Speaker, this is definitely one Bill that I rise in support of.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill. It is not often that I speak on Bills but I cannot help but do so in this instance. This is not a prelude to sharp criticism on the Bill and I shall save that for another day. But rather, I am heartened that this legislation has not forgotten to include all members of society, in this instance, the disabled. Madam, I am referring to the new Part IIIA that is to be inserted, which refers to the disability and other performance requirements for buildings. It may just be one part of the Bill but it is as significant as any of the amendments being proposed, the reason being that it signifies the importance of legislation to bring about socially desirable outcomes. The efforts to change mindsets can only be strengthened by the muscle of legislation. The three new sections in Part IIIA ensure continued compliance with disability and other certain performance requirements for buildings. In good old Singaporean style, we never rest on our laurels and are constantly striving to improve on our achievements. So, adhering to this spirit of constantly wanting to be better, I would like to get greater clarity on the processes by which the Act is implemented. Firstly, how will the Commissioner of Building Control ensure that the owner or occupier of a building does not alter, remove or obstruct any physical feature of the building that is in compliance with the building performance requirements, as stated in clause 22(e)? How often will these checks be carried out, and will there be an annual report to capture the state of compliance? And how will the Building and Control Authority educate the occupants about adhering to this Act?”
“We want a country where Singaporeans can grow old, knowing that this country will take care of them, especially if they have no means to take care of themselves or have no one to depend on. Many of them have given so much to Singapore and when they reach a certain age, it is time that this country gave back to them. I hope that the Government will keep its promise of not leaving anyone behind. 2.23 pm”
“I know that having age discrimination law is not a panacea to changing the mindset of employers with regard to older workers but, nevertheless, it is still important to put safeguards in place to protect the interests of older Singaporeans who can and want to continue working and to give them the confidence that the system is doing its best to make a place for them in the workforce. Having said all this, we also need to consider the situation of our older Singaporeans who are physically or mentally unable or are constrained by certain family circumstances to continue to be gainfully employed once they reach 62 or even before the retirement age. Sir, my question is: what plans or initiatives does the Government have in store for this disadvantaged group of Singaporeans? And, as the Minister has pointed out, there are only eight working Singaporeans today to take care of one elderly person and just four by 2030. Sir, when it comes to retirement security, there is no such thing as exaggerating the importance of the confidence factor. I hope that the good intentions of the CPF reforms are not dimmed by public perception that the Government is unable to pay out CPF to Singaporeans because of the perception that these funds are tied up in investments by Temasek and GIC, and was a factor in deferring the draw-down age and the longevity insurance scheme. This unfortunate perception has to be addressed so that Singaporeans can be confident about the measures being instituted. Mr Speaker, Sir, the world is changing, populations are ageing and adjustments have to be made. But just as self-reliance is a virtue and a strong quality in this country, it is important not to forget that there are social compacts between the people and the State that should remain unshaken.”
“The amendment should also look into doing away with mandatory retirement ages of below 62, unless businesses can prove these are legitimate. And people who are made redundant or unfairly dismissed when aged over 62 should have greater rights as well. While age discrimination does not always receive the attention it deserves, particularly during periods of economic growth, it is a problem that all of us will inevitably face in our careers, even professionals. We need a mechanism whereby employees will gain the right to request working beyond retirement age - 62 or higher - and employers will be obliged to consider their request. We do recognise that it is up to the individuals to make sure that they sustain continuous learning and keep themselves relevant to the job market through constant re-training, but it may not be enough. At the end of the day, any Singaporean who is willing, able and healthy enough to contribute to our economy should be granted the right to do so. Having such an amendment will not only facilitate but, just as importantly, encourage older workers to rejoin the workforce after they reach the retirement age. And in addition to this, provisions need to be set aside to grant workers who have hit the retirement age to continue working as long as they are mentally and physically fit to do so. My point of proposing an anti-discrimination Act is not to increase the number of legal challenges against employers, but to encourage employers to take a fairer stance on older workers. On top of that, it is also to debunk the myth that older people are not dynamic, physically weak, sickly or have difficulty learning and re-training.”
“Within the European Union, Ireland has an Employment Equality Act that was enacted in 1998 which covers against age discrimination. In Belgium, there is no age set on recruiting personnel. And many countries in the EU, like the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Portugal and Spain have anti-age discrimination provisions in their Constitutions. And outside of the EU, there is specific age discrimination legislation in the USA. As recently as 1st October 2006, the employment equality (age) regulations came into force in the UK which provided protection against discrimination, in terms of employment and education for people of all ages. So what exactly is age discrimination? It is any decision taken against an employee based purely on their age. Simply put, no employer should be able to prevent someone from being employed or promoted simply because they are too old, or fail to offer training opportunities for individuals when they reach a certain age. Why is it important for Singapore to have such an Act in the future? Singapore cannot afford its citizens to suffer from ageism in employment because it can affect a range of our citizens, from people on low incomes who may struggle to find work after they hit 62 to high earners such as senior managers who may face mandatory retirement ages. Under the current legislation, anyone who experiences age discrimination has absolutely no legal grounds for redress. Therefore, the Singapore Government, to protect and safeguard the interests of its older workers, needs to amend the Employment Act to make it illegal for employers not to recruit, promote or train individuals because of their age. This will, in essence, give our older workers the right to take legal action if they are discriminated against at work because of their age.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, worldwide, the population aged 60 and over is growing faster than any other age group. The 60-plus population, at 605 million today, would almost double by 2025 to 1.2 billion. By 2050, it will reach two billion - marking the first time in history when people aged 60 and over outnumber children aged 14 and under. We have recognised that everyone has to, and may want to, work longer well beyond the stipulated retirement age. In this regard, Singapore is following a trend, seen in industralised countries around the world of citizens having to work longer because people are living longer. In Singapore, as the Minister mentioned in his speech, of those aged 62 in 2006, one in two will live beyond 85. In preparing Singaporeans for a longer lifespan, the Government is introducing a slew of measures to help Singaporeans work longer so that they can save more to prepare for their retirement needs if they ever retire at all. One of the measures is to include a later draw-down age to 65 by 2018 and eventually to 67. As the Government is increasing the DDA to 65, we have to make sure that older Singaporeans are able to continue working without being discriminated against and that their right to continue working is protected from errant employers who simply may want to get rid of and force workers out of the door. I know that from 1st January 2012, employers will be required to offer re-employment to workers when they reach 62. Complementing this legislation, I feel that an amendment to make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of age in the Employment Act is necessary to protect workers' rights to work, especially our older workers.”