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 3 of 5.
“I would like to thank the Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions for him. First, I would like to ask him whether the Ministry informs the applicants who are rejected as relief teachers or teachers the reason as to why they do not meet the criteria and what criteria they do not meet. My second question is: what kind of a teaching force the Ministry is looking to build, what qualities a person might have to contribute to that, and what kind of liabilities will detract from that? RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: In response to the first supplementary question, we may give applicants a general idea of the areas in which they have fallen short of the criteria. This depends on a case-to-case basis. And, secondly, on the teaching force, our target is to have approximately 30,000 teachers in the teaching force by the end of 2010. We are on track to accomplish this target. The criteria that we look for in our teachers, as I had mentioned earlier, include not only their academic qualifications but also demonstrating a genuine passion for teaching, being able to engage people and children, as well as holding and espousing the right set of values.”
“Sir, I have a feedback. For one of the events in March which was held on top of the Market Street Carpark on a Saturday night, I was only given up to like 10.30 pm. What are the main considerations and would the Ministry actually consider extending this cut-off time for all events in non-residential areas or outdoor performances to at least, say, 2.00 am?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I would like to ask the Minister why there is a minimum PSLE qualification as a criterion for entering into the School in the first place and how a minimum PSLE qualification is in line with an arts education, and whether or not the Minister will consider lowering the overall PSLE aggregate score for the next intake of students.”
“If attracting good people to serve the country is the challenge, why did we not do the salary review two years ago when the PAP Government was looking for people to stand in elections and serve the country? Perhaps the Minister can help to clarify this. Madam, we should never downplay the capabilities of Singaporeans in their role in taking Singapore forward, in terms of the potential they have to lead the country with dedication and passion and in their contributions in tandem with the Government. They, as much as the Government, are the reason we have progressed to where we are now. Leadership that flies on the wings of passion and dedication can take the country higher than the engine of financial rewards. We will always reap what we sow. Column No : 338 Column No : 353 ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." - [Dr Ng Eng Hen].”
“If the policy is truly to ensure that public officers are paid commensurate with the private sector, and nothing more, then a better benchmark would be to peg salaries to the point at which the Ministers and senior civil servants are proportionately represented among the top jobs in the private sector. If there are 25 individuals in the MR4 grade or higher, then the benchmark should be at the 1,000th income-earner. Likewise, if the figure is 20 individuals, then the benchmark is at the 800th income-earner. It becomes a self-adjusting formula. The principle is such: 2.5% of the labour force, 2.5% of the top income earners. This upholds the principle of keeping pace with the market and not leading it. The current benchmark does not. Even the Government has not followed the benchmark more times than it has since 1994. Madam, this should also apply to the SR9 benchmark. Depending on how many Administrative Service officers are in this salary grade, the pay package should be pegged to the point at which they are commensurately represented among the top earners aged 32. Again, the number of officers in this grade has not been revealed. But whatever the number, pegging it to the 15th income earner is completely arbitrary and definitely leads the market rather than follow it. Madam, finally, there is one thing that puzzles me. I understand that the benchmark is meant to be reviewed every five years. The 1994 White Paper was implemented the following year and the next salary review came in 2000 and was implemented in 2001. So, given that resignation rates have been going up in the civil service since then, why did we not do the salary review in 2005? Why did we wait until now when the situation seems to be more dire?”
“You must have the passion, you must have the commitment, you must share the dreams of the people." So we must always try to nurture this sense of public service and find the right ways and the right balance in attracting our future leaders. Are we in danger of casting this aspect to the periphery? Madam, I am glad the Minister in charge of the civil service welcomes our views and ideas about the methodology for arriving at a suitable salary benchmark for Ministers, senior civil servants and directors in the Administrative Service, otherwise known as the MR4 and SR9 benchmarks. He said yesterday that there is "no perfect method" for doing these benchmarks. Madam, I humbly submit that not only is the current method less than perfect, it is flawed. Besides the possibility of abuse, it also goes against the principle that the Minister said that our public service subscribes to - the principle that "we do not seek to lead the market, but to keep pace with it". Here is how: Salaries at the current benchmark at the MR4 grade, would rank our 18 Cabinet Ministers within the top 438 income earners. The current number of senior Permanent Secretaries in the civil service has not been reviewed, but a Straits Times' article in 2004 reported that there were eight Permanent Secretaries, some of whom were stepping down to be replaced by others. Let us say that there are 25 Ministers and senior civil servants altogether. That would mean nearly 6% of the top income earners come from the public service. But, Madam, the Singapore Civil Service, with a size of 64,000 people, represents less than 2.5% of the Singapore labour force of 2.6 million workers.”
“Madam, it is not just about idealism, although it must still be the most important point. Sometimes, the implication of a policy or system cannot be foreseen, and there could be unforeseen dangers in the current system for Ministerial salaries. We hear continual warnings from this Government about the danger of being led by a rogue government. Madam, I agree. Precisely, when political power is coupled with immense financial power, these are the conditions that make it more likely to lead to the creation of such a government, especially if we attract people who are motivated by financial gain. We can dangle million-dollar salaries in the belief that it is the only way to get good people, but we may instead get people with ulterior motives, which are much harder to detect. As a small country, we cannot risk that. Moreover, with a system which pegs salaries at between the 24th and 25th highest earner of only six professions, I fear that it is easy for a government which chooses to do so, to enrich itself in subtle but deceitful ways, such as by providing preferential access to public resources, government contracts or favourable legislation. In the current system, it is easy for politicians to establish a close nexus of connections with just a few dozen income earners. While the current set of leaders is honest enough not to exploit this, can this be guaranteed for all future governments? Minister Teo has pointed out, and I thank him for his explanation, the stringent criteria in selecting good people. Madam, the reason why I am still concerned is because the question is whether we are willing to take such risks. At the LKY School of Public Policy event last year, when asked if it is possible to hire foreign talent to run the country, the Minister Mentor said: "No.”
“I recently read a research paper by NUS political science lecturer, Jon Quah, that the PAP Government was only able to implement the second prong of its anti-corruption strategy, ie, the reduction of incentives for corruption by improving the salaries and working conditions in the Singapore Civil Service, in the 1980s, long after we had achieved economic growth. Although they lagged behind what would have been the commensurate market pay at that time, much more than the current gap, Singaporeans still enjoyed good governance. Although we do not want to return to that situation and we can afford to pay more now, the point is that good governance is not exponentially increased with increasing salaries. It may be helpful to bear in mind that the principle of diminishing marginal returns will set in. Beyond paying a certain amount, how much more are we improving good governance? On the other hand, we should be concerned about the message that we are sending, especially to our youth. We should be wary about suggesting that we can buy leadership, that we can buy dedication, compassion for people and the willingness to serve. Administrative culture both reflects and influences the norms of society at large. In a small country like Singapore, where the State plays a far bigger role than in other countries, it wields greater influence in the transmission of values. We should moderate the current financial-driven approach to public service. The Government may put off people who are willing to serve out of passion. In fact, the suggestion is that the Government is only looking for individuals from the top 438 income-earners to serve, since the emphasis is on the financial sacrifices said to be involved.”
“As the Minister in charge of civil service said yesterday, "financial rewards cannot and should not be the main motivation of those in the public service". But this latter aspect has only been on the periphery of this long-standing and widely debated issue, at least, in respect to service in the top leadership positions. As far back as 1989, the Prime Minister, then the Minister for Trade and Industry, said that the Government "will offer whatever salaries are necessary to attract and retain the talent that it needs". Madam, this has been the consistent message from the Government. If we have to go extreme financial lengths, I, like my colleague, Mr Siew, question whether we would be getting the right people to lead this country. Running a country is not the same as running a company. As a small and young nation, we may be able to ride on the buoyancy of a good economy, but we can only be anchored by firm ideals and values. Without the anchor, we would lose our bearings. Surely then, public service motivated by passion and dedication is one of those ideals and values. Surely then, we have to cultivate and nurture this. If we focus on the financial rewards, and we design a system which emphasises this aspect, are we acting in our nation's best long-term interest? With the latest revisions, we are told that a $1.2 million salary is not enough to build a good enough Government. $1.6 million is now needed. If Singapore's Government waxes and wanes by the dollar quantum, I think we are in trouble. Madam, we know we can get a good and honest Government without getting into a race for the highest salaries. We need not look at Finland, Denmark and Switzerland for examples.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Madam, when I spoke in this House on the Integrated Resorts, I thought that that was one hotly debated topic. Now, I realise that the debate on public service pay is much more highly charged. The strange coincidence is on that day, I was also one of the last speakers in the House and I was holding everyone up from dinner, so I asked the remaining Members in this House to please bear with me. Let me start by listing some basic premises everyone can all agree on. Firstly, civil servants and public service leaders must be compensated adequately, and wage adequacy depends on the relevant private compensation levels. I have many friends who are teachers, for example, and I know they toil very hard. They need to be given their dues. Next, we need to cultivate a strong public service ethos in our nation so that we can have the right people with the best interests of Singapore, and enough of them to take the nation forward. For a young nation, it is an imperative to build up dedication to the nation and its institutions, such as the civil service. Finally, Singaporeans want a good and honest Government. It is important for us to agree on all these premises, and I think we all do. This is how I think the issue on the civil service salary revisions should be framed. However, the way this issue has played out in our national discourse has been unfortunate. The problem is in the messaging to Singaporeans. Right now, the message from the Government is that the only way to get people to serve the country, especially at the top leadership positions in political office, is to lure them with money. It may not be the message the Government intends to send out.”
“With the VCA, employers who correct their unfair practices immediately may be let off. This is about educating employers and having the teeth to back it up. It is more effective than issuing guidelines on job recruitment. We can start with the VCA for hiring practices before deciding if it is suitable for complaints on training prospects, promotion benefits and retrenchment bias. Contract Workers”
“Sir, job discrimination is on the *Cols. 3443-3444. rise in Singapore. The number of pregnant workers complaining of unfair dismissal is twice the number three years ago. Older workers have it the worst. To-date, the Government has publicly said no to legislation as an anti-discrimination tool. Sir, I agree that there is no silver bullet, nor is it wise to take a blanket approach. But how wise is it to have a similar blanket aversion to legislation? We should, and we can be flexible, selective and creative. For example, we have laws like the Retirement Age Act so that workers who are let go due to age can seek redress. We should note that wrongful dismissal here is not legislated by how close to the age of 62 a worker is. This should apply to the Employment Act. Workers who are fired due to pregnancy at any stage should get full and due compensation and maternity benefits. Surely, we want our laws to be consistent. It is much harder, however, to prevent employers from asking female job applicants during interviews if they plan to start a family, and so on. If employers ask such questions or make hedges or racist comments, applicant can complain to the Manpower Ministry. The question is, what then? How far can cajoling go? Perhaps, we can take an additional approach, a voluntary compliance agreement (VCA), which the Consumers Association of Singapore uses when it receives a series of complaints about a company. If we can tackle unfair trading practices, we can change unfair hiring practices. This way, it is not just about seeking redress, and it is done without incurring frivolous legal claims as only MOM, after a fair assessment, can take legal action against employers who refuse to sign an agreement of breach.”
“I know that Today and the Straits Times have highlighted the issue before and should continue to do so. A second example is on energy use in homes and buildings. In Singapore, the air-conditioning in buildings seems to be designed for the polar bears, Inuka and Sheba, in the zoo. Can the Government regulate and require higher standards for energy efficiency in our buildings? Can it also ensure that consumers and home-owners get more information when buying electrical equipment, especially refrigerators and air-conditioners, which consume the bulk of energy in homes? The civil service should take the lead. Does MEWR have any say in the construction of Government offices or the retrofitting of old ones? For example, MOM is spending $18.3 million for the renovation of the MOM building and replacement of its air-conditioning system, and MCYS is spending $9.7 million for the upgrading works to MCYS' offices. Does MEWR ensure that the money is spent in an environmentally friendly way? A third example is hybrid and other green cars, as other Members have mentioned. While there have been increased rebates for hybrid cars, these cars still command a premium over normal cars of comparable size. Can the Government increase the rebate so that these greener cars are on par with others? Alternatively, can the Government consider a "carbon tax" to make gas guzzlers pay more for the cost they are imposing on our climate?”
“Sir, opinion in the scientific community world-wide increasingly agrees that human activities are changing the global climate at an alarming rate with considerable dangers and uncertain consequences. Singapore is a country that has been proud of being clean, green and efficient. We can do even more to play our part in dealing with this problem. We must do so for Singapore to have a future and to keep future generations secure. We can do so in many ways that will not necessarily impact our economy negatively. Indeed, a lot more can be done by ordinary citizens if they can be encouraged to recognise their stake and ownership of the environment. While public education is needed, it does not mean that the Government should shy away from increasing regulations or offering more subsidies to improve energy efficiency and lessen contributions to climate change. Let me give three examples. The first is the use of plastic bags. The Government has been working with supermarkets on a voluntary basis. May I enquire how well these voluntary measures are working? When I was living in Seoul, the cashiers would stuff my plastic bag to the brim with my groceries. At other stores, I had to purchase a minimum amount before they gave me a bag. Otherwise, I had to pay 100 won, or about 15 cents, per bag. However, in supermarkets here, you would think a plastic bag costs less than a smile. It seems that while there is some improvement in Singapore, the habit of using plastic bags is ingrained. Will the Government consider regulating on the issue - to impose a cost on plastic bags or otherwise more strongly promote reusable bags? We must see plastic bags as a burden to the environment. The media also plays a role.”
“I would like to thank the Minister of State and her Ministry for the comprehensive set of measures to make Singapore barrier free. Can I just ask the Minister of State if it is possible to include the proposal to have the "best accessibility" seal for buildings as part of the Ministry's proposed set of measures so as to send a strong signal to developers?”
“It is not about accommodating the needs of the disabled, but it is about understanding the user's needs. Sustainable Built Environment”
“Just when I thought these obstacles were over, I decided to cross over to the community library which had great accessibility features, barring the fact that there were no clear directions as to where the ramps were situated. As I was about to wheel over, I realised that it was almost impossible because there were no ramps at the traffic light junction that I needed to use to get across. If not for a friend who knew where there was a small ramp right in the small corner that was used to transport goods and trolleys into the mall, I would not have made it across to the library without having to wheel myself all along the pavement looking for one. So, in this case, one building was accessible but there was no proper connection between the two buildings. Madam, even when I was trying to get across at another traffic light that had ramps, the ramps were too steep and I thought I was going to roll back onto the oncoming traffic. In view of my experiences, I would just like to ask the Ministry, firstly, whether it could provide for synergy and coordination between developers to better facilitate access between buildings. Secondly, I would like to ask for an honest and genuine consultation process to be put in place involving stakeholders like the disabled people in the entire planning and construction process from start to end. I would also like to ask the Ministry to look into implementing, if not already in place, the best in accessibility seal, just like how our environmentally-friendly buildings get a Green Mark, and set up an independent body to check accessibility of buildings and functionality of facilities. I believe as we want Singapore to be a barrier-free country, we need to go beyond the mentality that ramps and lifts equal accessibility.”
“Madam, I am very heartened to know that this Government recognises the needs of the disabled and elderly of this country. The Government has shown priority in making Singapore a barrier-free country and we are certainly making progress in certain areas. We have seen our public transport become disabled friendly. There are now wheelchair-accessible buses and more MRT stations have installed lifts at their stations. Madam, it is truly a commendable effort. Since we are going to invest a substantial amount of money in this area, I think we have to get it right for whom we are building these. There is no point building something that ends up being not completely suitable for the disabled. The reason why I say this is because I spent half a day on a wheelchair to better understand the needs of the disabled and elderly. Firstly, it is no easy task to wheel oneself around. Biceps are paramount, especially when it comes to ramps. One would think that it is sufficient to just have ramps for the disabled. But it is only when you are wheeling yourself up the ramp that you realise that the gradient and length of the ramp makes a huge difference, and I thought climbing stairs was bad enough. You would think that manoeuvring up a ramp is hard enough work, but the neighbourhood mall that I was at decided to place glass doors right at the top of the ramp that was leading into the mall. Had it not been for some kind-hearted Singaporeans who held the doors open for me, my next best option was to be an octopus, as I had to try and wheel myself up the ramp and open the glass door all at the same time.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his support and recognition of the fact that even though it is not easy, we should try to do more for the local music scene. I would like to ask if the Minister can look at the NAC playing the role of a matchmaker specifically between corporations and local musicians, like how MCYS does for sourcing for funding for sports.”
“If we want to make the Singapore image, why not use Singapore music as part of that remaking? Recently, two local bands, Electrico and the Great Spy Experiment, were two out of 400 international acts that were handpicked to perform at the South by Southwest Music Festival in Texas, where some of the world's great bands were discovered. We need to help local acts to aim for such opportunities. We are now talking about diverse paths of success and so, it is good to provide opportunities for musicians to strive for the heights of their passion. Festivals, like the one in Texas, require monetary support though. Besides organising events like this at the national level, the state should consider helping to fund local musicians and designers to participate in these internationally. The NAC helped the Great Spy Experiment with funding, but I think it was only one quarter of the funding needed. So perhaps a more dual process of funding could be shared between the corporate and the Government. The NAC can also play the role of matchmaker between corporations and local musicians and designers. MCYS, for example, plays the same role in sourcing for funding in sports. Sir, by taking a more active role than it does now, the Government will send a clear message - one that goes beyond just words - that local music is an important part of the arts scene and a valuable aspect of enriching our identity as a nation. It is better for our youths to grow up listening to their own song writers than Snoop Doggy Dog. Creative Intellectual Property”
“Sir, let me, first, declare my interest as a keyboardist of a local rock band. The arts scene is finally beginning to take root in Singapore and this is good because it gives Singapore a dimension it needs to be a global city. But that is at the first level. More importantly, the arts can give a nation a stronger identity. Local music, too, can play an integral part in nurturing the Singapore identity. The songs and music created can speak to the experiences and zeitgeist of Singaporeans. Local music can give us a shared experience. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the state, popular music is one of the poorer cousin in the nurturing of the arts scene, especially at an international level. While you have exceptions like Stefanie Sun, we should not just rely on one or two individuals who may not on their own reflect the rise of local music. We need to find a way to provide for the ground up growth of local music and local bands. While all this must start from the ground up, I believe the National Arts Council and other agencies must play a role. Not doing anything can also stifle the growth of local music. This also applies to local designers, although I think they have it just a little bit better than musicians. So what can be done? The NAC should open up more platforms on the national level first, and then on an international stage for local musicians to work towards and build upon. If we think big, we can project Singapore on a larger platform, for example, the Singapore Showcase in London and next in New York. This is a positive step even if the objective is marketing driven. However, if you think of exporting the Singapore brand, why not make Singapore music a part of that brand?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the MOF, despite the fact that Temasek is a private company, whether its decisions and investments should be debated in this House for accountability because it is wholly government-owned and is investing public funds. While the Government may not interfere in maybe individual investment decisions, does the MOF not agree that it cannot be out of the loop, like in the big picture, as in the overall strategic thinking of how our reserves are managed?”
“The second point I would like to ask the Ministry of Finance is whether it believes Temasek can do better in its accountability to Singaporeans. Sir, since the Shin Corp deal, Temasek has been even more tight-lipped than usual. A lapse last year revealed Temasek's template on how to "spin" replies to media queries on a wide range of issues, not just on Shin Corp. I think it is not unreasonable for a company which manages our reserves and our hard-earned taxes to be more forthcoming in explaining its decisions and sharing its assessments. I note worryingly that our 2007 estimates for capital receipts are 54% less or $3.8 billion less than last year's revised estimates. How much of Shin Corp has a bearing on this? Vehicle Taxes”
“A point to consider is the importance of cheap manufacturing to Singapore. These are the considerations that colour people's perceptions of Temasek and its role. So what can we do to help Temasek and its investment to give us good returns? Some economists have suggested it before. Would Singapore be better served with companies in the hands of an array of private-sector shareholders rather than Temasek? Given how important the external economy is to a small and open country like Singapore, would it be better if Temasek were freed up to focus fully on external investments and growing Singapore's external economy? I know that Temasek is moving towards a portfolio mix of one-third domestic, one-third regional and one-third OECD. Perhaps, it should plan to eventually reduce its share of domestic investments even further. How could it help? For example, Temasek has identified banks as core to its investment strategies and has been fairly aggressive recently in pursuing this strategy. Last year, it acquired about $4 billion of Standard Chartered Bank, and there is speculation that Temasek could merge StanChart with DBS Bank. If it becomes harder for Temasek to add further bank holdings in the region, because governments are wary of its intentions, would it not help to alleviate the nationalistic factor by unpacking national companies like DBS from Temasek's baggage? While some might think that one approach is to invest less in the region to avoid being dragged into the pitfalls of domestic politics in the region, I think it is better to deepen our links with our neighbours. It is better for our interests to be tied strongly with the interests of our neighbours, and for our neighbours to believe that we are genuine. It is simply a question of how do we manage this best.”
“Sir, it has been about one year since the Temasek Holdings-Shin Corp deal was struck and, since then, the unfolding events have soured the deal somewhat. Perhaps, after one year, it is a good time to take stock of the lessons learnt and to consider Temasek's role in the management of our reserves and how it is carried out. The public refrain from the Government, whenever this topic comes up, is that Temasek is a commercial entity, which enters into transactions on a commercial basis, and that the Government neither approves individual investments by Temasek nor second guesses its risk assessment. The question is whether the perception of those whom Temasek would like to do business with, especially in the region, matches the situation as described by the Government. Perception is important in business decisions, especially in this region. It is important to Singapore that Temasek is not blocked from investments that have potential to bring us good returns. The Financial Times has reported that Temasek has encountered barriers in increasing banking investments in India and South Korea while its investments in three Chinese banks appear to have raised concerns among the authorities. The concern, it seems, is that Temasek is an arm of the Government. At the very least, it is possible to accept the Government's refrain on Temasek and yet wonder, not illogically, if Temasek, on its own accord, takes some cues from the Government's thinking on our national interests and strategies. For example, Temasek's 60% owned wafer business, Chartered Semiconductors, has had losses of more than $1 billion since 2001. Its fortunes have turned recently, but should an investor like Temasek and its shareholder, the Ministry of Finance, be all right with such losses?”
“Sometimes, it seems we have convinced ourselves that we are too small to risk failure, and this is seeped through various levels and ways of thinking. But the notion that we cannot afford to fail or take risks is a hurdle in the journey to bigger and better things. Failure is one of the best teachers. ERC Holdings, for example, one of the Economic Development Board's many partners, helps budding entrepreneurs with their start-ups. One of their mission objectives is to help struggling enterprises. They are turnaround specialists. This is a great initiative, and I think we should give failure more publicity - from those who have it around to those who are still trying. If next year's Budget could include these stories, and not just the straightforward runaway success stories, then it would have even more semangat. Finally, Sir, I would like to say this Budget places the focus back again on the value of the Singapore citizenship. The creation of the PSEA, support for lifelong learning, wages and savings supplements - these are good ways to enhance the value of the Singapore citizenship. I believe it is important to focus on the value, rather than the cost of the Singapore citizenship which unfortunately I thought was the case last year when the cut and subsidies for permanent residents and foreigners in education and healthcare were announced. It is not good for the semangat of this country when we start focusing on costs to evaluate if we are getting a fair deal as Singapore citizens. We should focus on how much of an enabler the Singapore citizenship is. Does it enable us to gain an advantage in education? Does it give us a cushion against the unrelentless market? Does it enable us to exercise our vote? Does it give us semangat? Sir, I support the Budget. 2.07 pm”
“The MCYS' key performance indicator for the estimated volunteer participation in 2007 is 15.5%. There is no change from last year, and only a slight increase from 2005. Of course, we should strive for quality and quantity, and Singaporeans should volunteer because they feel they want to and not because they think they need to. Secondly, we can find various ways to pay tribute to our elderly. Singapore's success is founded on the hard work of our parents and our grandparents. Our First World aspirations and achievements are built on their sacrifices. We stand on their shoulders. We should look to the elderly as gems in our society, as a valuable and priceless resource of our country, not just as workers but as citizens. We would need a rather qualitative KPI here. We would need to listen to the feedback from the elderly Singaporeans through the media and other official channels like REACH to gauge how we are faring in our policies and our personal interaction with them. Now, let me talk about semangat or spirit. Mr Speaker, Sir, the creation of Post-Secondary Education Accounts for young Singaporeans and the support for lifelong learning to all Singaporeans are examples of how to infuse some semangat in this year's Budget. In order for Singapore to fully imbibe in the "can do, will do, do well" attitude, however, I think it is important we allow room for failure. Speaking of globalisation, just think of the dot.com bust a few years ago, and then look at the world around us today. In Singapore, the tried and tested is so often the path of choice. I can see examples of how we are trying to foster alternative paths, such as in education, but are we ready to shake off the shackles of fear of failure in all aspects?”
“If the Government is willing to help 438,000 Singaporeans through Workfare, it should be more generous to the fraction of Singaporeans who need help from the Public Assistance Scheme. The monthly aid should definitely be increased in view of the GST hike. Sir, I am under no illusion that the Government can provide all the solutions to our social issues and concerns. In the economic aspect, Singapore has done well compared to the rest of the region. But if we want to climb to the top half of the First World league table, it is time to measure our successes differently. It is time to give equal weight to our nation's social progress, and be seen to do so. We need to be as ambitious about forging our very own Singapore national culture and strengthening the relationships among all Singaporeans as we are about growing our GDP and signing Free Trade Agreements, and be seen to do so. In this, Singaporeans have as much a role to play as the Government. Concepts, such as national identity, social cohesion, empathising with the less fortunate - these are goals we should aim for with renewed vigour. As a Malay Singaporean friend of mine aptly put it, we need to add more perasaan and semangat into our nation. In order for us to be a more inclusive society, we need more feeling and spirit. First, let me address the issue of perasaan or feeling. There are two things we can do. Firstly, we can find ways to celebrate volunteerism so that Singapore becomes a conducive place for volunteering to be a way of life. Otherwise, how can the "many helping hands" approach be a successful and sustainable sacred cow? Without volunteers, it would be more of a red herring. So we should aim for a higher volunteer participation rate this year.”
“However, the WIS scheme is not a silver bullet that can alleviate all the pressing social needs of the lower income, especially in their retirement. How likely is it that the bottom 20% to 30% of income earners would reach a self-sufficient level to last throughout their retirement, even on the wings of Workfare? If any sense of complacency creeps in, I worry more that it will strike our policy planners than our Workfare recipients. Even with Workfare, I think we should look to have a multi-tier pension and healthcare system with an important role for social risk pooling. While this may take some time, one thing that can really help the lower income groups is to improve the interest rates of their CPF funds. The current baseline of 2.5% for the Ordinary Account is too low, especially if GST is going up this year and in the future. Should we not rethink how we peg CPF interest rates? Even Malaysia's Employee Provident Fund pays a higher interest of 5.5%. With the way Workfare here is calibrated, it is quite clear that the Government's priority is to build up the CPF accounts of the lower income. If this is so important, then should not higher interest rates be set for CPF funds, including Medisave and Special Accounts? On a final note on Workfare, what of those "aunties" and "uncles" who scour the streets and our estates to collect drink cans, old newspapers and cardboard boxes to sell for recycling just to earn a few dollars to put food in their tummies for the day? It hardly seems that the WIS scheme is within their reach, even to contribute to Medisave. Yet, they are making an effort to find a means of income, however paltry, no different than how workers who qualify for Workfare strive to stay employed. The former, in fact, need more help. What can be done for them?”
“Given how unabashedly capitalistic the Singapore system is, I hope that Workfare is a sign that we not let the market be a substitute for democracy and democratic principles, one of which is to ensure that no one gets left behind. The politics of class and social inequality caused by an accelerating income divide could not be more detrimental to our national interests. There will always be income disparity, but it is how we manage it, so it does not become an income divide that is entrenched and cannot be bridged, that counts. Workfare is a crucial step to demonstrate and nurture the sense of social integration that the nation of Singapore needs. Looking to the future, and some possible scenarios, for example, if Singapore’s Gini coefficient continues to increase, and the income gap continues to widen, can the Second Minister for Finance say if the WIS amounts or the qualifying income criteria, as the case may be, would be suitably increased? Likewise, as our population increases from 4.5 million and, therefore, when our GST revenue rises above $1.5 billion a year, or the GST rate is increased again, would the Workfare amounts or the criteria be adjusted accordingly? While some Members in this House might in time like to see less people on Workfare, I think it is logical that self-sufficiency, especially in a globalised economy with a regressive consumption tax, follows a bell curve. We should always extend the helping hand of Workfare to the bottom 20% of income earners to remain true to the objectives of the scheme and to the interests of lower income Singaporeans and the nation as a whole. We cannot call ourselves an inclusive society, otherwise.”
“How do we know the income is not enough to preclude the need for a 7% GST or even a 6% GST? Sir, if the GST hike truly cannot be prevented, then our focus should be on whether the funds it generates are used for social spending and whether they go the distance, especially for those who need it the most: lower income Singaporeans. In the words of our Senior Minister, the benefits must outweigh the increase in prices. As the GST increase will be a permanent one, I would like to ask the Second Minister for Finance what happens to the additional subsidies for healthcare, education and conservancy charges in five years’ time. Will they be discontinued? It seems that the offset package to deal with the GST increase is not too dissimilar with past packages such as the Economic Restructuring Shares or Progress Package. However, I think there is a much clearer recognition this time that although we may benefit from globalisation, there always will be a group of Singaporeans who need help from their country to keep up. It is, first and foremost, the responsibility of this Government to ensure there is a safety net for this group. I do not see this as planting the seeds for an entitlement mentality to take root, but rather as a note of encouragement to those who are willing to help themselves. With that in mind, the WIS scheme is the most positive feature of this year’s Budget. Singapore now has a means to rebalance the playing field for lower income Singaporeans living in a changed world. The implementation of Workfare as the fourth pillar in Singapore’s social safety net is a recognition of market realities - that globalisation will exacerbate the income disparity between the rich and the poor.”
“To what extent does this suggest that the dual concerns over Singapore's competitiveness and social needs can be addressed in a better way than combining a corporate tax cut with a GST hike? For one thing, many MNCs have relocated their investments from Singapore to China which ranks lower in competitiveness, but not to Ireland whose corporate tax rate is 12.5%. Why are businesses and talent not flowing to tax-free countries, like Brunei and the United Emirates, if low corporate taxes are the main factor? Is it not because their economies and geographies are different from Singapore's? So, what makes us think that the kind of foreign direct investment and talent we want are the same as those that would flow to the Eastern European economies - those that the Second Minister for Finance said have become serious competitors - or for that matter Hong Kong, which is not looking for manufacturing investment as much as we are. Logically, a reduction of corporate tax which, firstly, benefits shareholders who belong mostly to the wealthier segment of society, combined with an increase in a regressive consumption tax like the GST, serves to widen the income gap. Therefore, I think, a stronger case is needed to increase the GST. Is there a cost-benefit analysis of the reduction in corporate tax rates? The GST increase will be permanent, and Singaporeans ought to know how much more investments and jobs the corporate tax cut can be projected to bring in vis-a-vis the increase in GST they will be paying. Would it not make better sense to wait until we get a clearer idea of the range of income we can expect to draw from the reserves as a result o the proposed revisions to the Net Investment Income formula before we go ahead to raise the GST?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, I am not sure whether my bad cough is due to eating too much bak kwa and pineapple tarts during this Chinese New Year or an allergic reaction to the GST increase. Considering this is the second time I have fallen ill in three Budget debates, maybe it is the latter reason. This year, the Goods and Services Tax increase is one of what I would consider the two most important elements in the Budget, and the other is the Workfare Income Supplement scheme, which I will touch on later. In a way, both are linked, as the Government kept saying in the run-up to the Budget announcement how the GST is being increased to help the poor. Of course, this reason cannot be the sole consideration for, or consequence of, increasing the GST. Without a GST hike, how possible would it have been to cut corporate taxes to 18%? This tax cut will cost the Government $800 million a year at a time when it is clear that we need to spend more on an ageing Singapore population. And so the Government has turned to GST to increase its expenditure, including social spending. The big question is: have we done enough till now to avert the need for an increase in the GST? I am sure it was a decision the Government did not take lightly. Can the Second Minister for Finance elaborate on what alternatives were explored to keep up both the Government expenditure and our economic competitiveness at the same time? In the World Competitiveness Landscape report last year by IMD, the Swiss business school, Singapore ranked in the middle tier, behind the likes of Hong Kong, Ireland and Finland, in the measure of government contribution to country competitiveness vis-a-vis the contribution of economic performance.”
“Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister how much inter-agency communication is there between the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of National Development with regard to this, and whether or not the CPF Board's concerns are reflected to the HDB.”
“Sir, if only 40% of people are managing to meet the Minimum Sum, can the Minister suggest how our elderly are going to be able to cope with their retirement needs, considering the fact that we have an ageing population, and whether or not the CPF system is adequate to meet our population's retirement needs?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. I understand the complexity of the issues when it comes to juvenile homes. In this regard, since we are always seeking out best practices, I would like to ask whether the Ministry can also learn from the best practices of juvenile homes in other countries to further enhance the juvenile rehabilitation programme and find other ways to tackle the bullying problem.”
“However, as we are dealing with youngsters, I feel it is imperative that juvenile homes have a better success rate. Do they? I would like to ask how the rehabilitation programmes are assessed, what improvements have been made in recent years, and what initiatives might be in the pipeline. For starters, I would like to see ways to further limit the amount of bullying which takes place. While there may be recourse for bullied teens to report such incidents to the staff at the homes, I think many are too scared to do so, scared of the repercussions even if they are allowed to give information anonymously. I would like to see creative ways to encourage whistle-blowing that truly protect the whistle-blowers and, ultimately, the teens who are bullied. I also hope MCYS can look into staff training specific to this problem. Juvenile homes are the last resort for wayward teens. Even so, it must be a last resort that works. If it does not, we need to think of alternatives to these homes. Personally, I think there is a place for these homes. There are teens beyond parental control and who need to sort themselves out at such homes. These teens have not yet turned to crime and we need to make sure juvenile homes do not play the role of the unwitting entry point. Community Development”
“Sir, youth arrests in the first half of last year were the highest in five years. Since 2001, the number of youngsters caught for rioting has also been rising. Now, the Police are considering 11.00 pm checks. In this context, I think we should turn our attention to juvenile homes. Their jobs have just got more important. Why do we have juvenile homes? To rehabilitate youngsters who go astray, to reintegrate them back into society so that their past can stay in the past. The real question is: how successfully do our juvenile homes meet these objectives? I would like to ask the Minister what long-term studies there are to examine this. Information on how many residents from juvenile homes are sent back again or how many of them are sent to jail later in life are crucial for us to make that assessment. I do not recall ever seeing such data. Fundamentally, we need to know the overall long-term impact that juvenile homes have on the youngsters in their care. I say this with some concern. A report in the The New Paper (TNP) in January highlighted the culture of bullying that exists in these homes, especially for the boys. There are things that happen that these youngsters should not have to endure. Instead of reforming a young offender, the psychological fall-out could be detrimental to the individual ” both the bullied and the bully ” and society at large. Some offenders spend up to 30 months in these homes. How much of that time was for the best for these youngsters? The answer might only be found when they leave, which is why tracking studies are important. In the prisons, many if not most of the prisoners are repeat offenders. The situation in juvenile homes might not be dissimilar.”
“Sir, I cannot seek a clarification from the Minister because I have no point to clarify at this point in time. I know he is constrained by time. So I would like him to comment on what I said about promoting a culture of student consultation because I do feel that the opinions of the students are a very integral part of our institution.”
“It circulates to student societies its proposals to increase tuition fees; holds open forums for students, who are invited via email; and offers access to an interactive website. It projects how much will be raised by fee increases and how these will be allocated by category, such as classroom and laboratory support or teaching assistantships, as well as by department or faculty. As funding allocations sometimes change, it even provides reports on the tuition increase allocation for the previous year. CalState University, Sacramento, goes so far as to mandate a student referendum for fees that affect the whole student body. How do our universities compare? It should not matter if NUS and NTU have yet to become autonomous. Whether we engage our youth should not depend on certain conditions. On the other hand, whether our universities can become truly world-class institutions may well depend on how they engage their students, not just in tuition fees but even hostel fees. Students will only buy in to a decision when they feel there is accountability. Our universities would do well to remember that students who kick up the most fuss are going to be the ones who want to be involved and who want to serve. So, I would like to ask the Minister if he could give all our tertiary institutions an encouraging nudge - since I doubt he would give a directive - to foster a spirit of consultation in all matters. Medical Students' Fees”
“Sir, I think Singaporean youths must be very confused. Two years ago, the Prime Minister called on them to play a part in shaping decisions made in this country. But last month, many youths realised their roles were often marginalised. I am referring to the university fee hikes. Without disregarding efforts by MCYS to engage the youths, eg, by seeking ideas for *scape, I believe the litmus test to determine if youths are being taken seriously is in matters like tuition fee hikes - matters which affect them directly, in which they have equal stake - matters in daily life and institutional matters. My point is not to argue that the fee hikes are too much. One cannot make such a judgment without detailed information. But that is why students were similarly in the dark - going by their reactions last month - about the rationale for the increase. At the very least, they were unconvinced of the rationale. Some speculated on reasons other than the ones offered. And should we be surprised when they were informed only after the hike was a fait accompli? The issue is whether the process for adjusting university fees should always include student consultation. In considering this, we should not forget how best we want our youths to feel ownership in issues, decisions and institutions that matter to this country. I have read how, in a meeting with the students' union, the NUS President regretted that management was unable to engage students this year because of the looming corporatisation. Personally, I think that, with a more established culture of consultation, students would not have been excluded from what is a very important decision. Take, for example, the University of British Columbia.”
“I would like to thank the SPS for his comprehensive reply. I like to seek a clarification from him. When I said previously about premising our sexuality education on the importance of family as a basic unit in society, what I was trying to say was that basically we need a more specific and targeted approach because for some of the organisations, when they go and promote Aids, they will preach abstinence, be faithful to your partner and the use of condoms. So I am saying that for sexuality, we should have a very targeted approach because we always have that group of teens who do need the extra counselling and extra help, and whether the teachers can identify them. I agree with him that we need to work closely with the parents and I am wondering whether this is something that is being looked into or implemented.”
“It is the best way to connect with him or her. It is the best way to create an environment where a pupil can feel more comfortable confiding in an adult. In other words, it is the best way to help our children to exercise responsibilities and make informed decisions with which they can live. But we should not fool ourselves to think we can make this decision on behalf of our children, which means sexuality education should not come with a moralistic-laden approach. Recently, a sexuality workshop at a junior college triggered a furore precisely because of this. It is a pity because external organisations and individuals can play a useful role. They can complement teachers by providing an objective third party perspective. However, I would like to ask if MOE has an accreditation scheme for groups which teach sexuality education. In this way, MOE is responsible to ensure that sexuality education is kept objective and schools need not fret about hidden agenda should they outsource such programmes. Apart from helping teens to protect themselves from sexual abuse, our educators should ask if they have been successful in staying on top of the trend and real-life dilemmas of our teens. I would like to ask for the Minister's assessment on this issue. Student Well-being”
“Sir, there is a pop song from the 90s that talks about sex. While I will not attempt to elaborate on the song, I think we should talk about this in a tone, it is not a tune our youths might listen to. The truth is, many of our teenagers are having sex. We do not need technology like mobile phones to highlight this. The starting point would be the 2,000-plus teenage pregnancies a year. But, nowadays, it would seem youths are having sex at an earlier age. I believe the call to improve our sexuality education has been made before. But has anything changed? I can cut and paste the reply that was given in Parliament two years ago from MOE's current webpage on sexuality education. Why is that? After all, this Government tries very hard to be pragmatic. It does not ban prostitution. It legalises it. Does anyone say, therefore, that the Government is anti-marriage? Sir, I think the key message in MOE's sexuality education should be adjusted. I agree we should teach our children to love and respect others as they love and respect themselves. However, to premise our sexuality education on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society is not going to help teens who have had and who are having sex, because it is not relevant to them. This is the premise that presents and promotes abstinence until marriage and, therefore, a premise that excludes those who need help, knowledge and good counsel the most. Above all else, sexuality education must deal with the realities. I can recognise why pupils are taught to understand and respect the attitudes, values and beliefs regarding sexuality propagated by other communities, but do our communities recognise why sexuality education must be approached, most importantly, from the point of view of the adolescents?”
“A point of clarification, Sir. I thank the Minister for taking my feedback seriously on this matter and I commend the Police Coast Guard for their efforts. Sir, I understand that there are transponders that are going to be installed on the boats so as to detect the location and that the Police Coast Guard does selective checks. But I feel that in this area, if we can do more, we should do more. I would like to ask if the Minister can look into the implementation of thorough procedural checks at all marinas so that every vessel that comes into berth at the marina would be subjected to the security checks. This would not only serve to reinforce the Police Coast Guard's efforts but it would also make sure that nobody skips past us, so as to enhance our national security. I would like to ask the Minister if these thorough checks are conducted, whether they fall on the responsibility of the ICA or the marina, and if they do fall on the responsibility of the marina, whether or not the ICA and the Police Coast Guard can work closely with the marina.”
“There were a few instances when I was on board a vessel at one of the marinas which provided for on-site checkpoint clearance. On one occasion, the immigration officer came down to the vessel to check our passports and, on another, we left the vessel to go down to the marina office to meet the officers. Sir, I am also told that there are instances where the skipper just takes all the passports down to be stamped and his crew does not necessarily follow him. In this case, the immigration officer would not be able to find out if the passports matched the passengers on board. On both occasions, our passports were cleared, but the vessel was not subjected to any security checks. I would like to ask whose job is it then to run thorough security checks on all the vessels that enter and leave our marinas. Sir, the following are two suggestions to address this security concern. Firstly, develop a more detailed system of security checks and procedures to thoroughly inspect every vessel entering and leaving Singapore's marinas. We have in place proper checks at the airport, ferry terminals and at the Causeway. Why not the marinas as well? Secondly, to install more on-site checkpoints at marinas so as to adequately provide for effective security and immigration clearance to minimise unnecessary commute. Sir, in the interest of safeguarding Singapore's national security, this is an area that should be dealt with more seriously, lest it be a loophole for abuse. This is especially so with the opening of Marina at Keppel Bay, which is situated near the heart of the city and juxtaposed with the integrated resorts, and this is an area where compromise is not an option. Crime”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, there are now eight private marinas in Singapore. One of the eight is currently undergoing rebuilding to be the first public marina in Singapore and will be ready next year. Most of the marinas provide facilities not just to their members, they also house restaurants that cater to the public. Recently, at Sentosa Cove, One Degree 15 played host to the round-the-world clipper fleet, a competing group of sailing vessels which included our very own Singaporean team. Not only do marinas provide recreational sea sports and club facilities, let us not forget they also serve as key entry points onto our shores. Sir, with the step-up to increase security measures at all the various entry points into Singapore, this is a call for the tightening up of checkpoints security for all pleasure crafts entering into and leaving Singapore. Currently, there does not seem to be an adequate system of security checks for vessels berthing at marinas. This leaves us open and exposed to possible security threats. Sir, this observation is based on consultation with persons in the marina industry. In addition, I have also personally experienced the lack of security measures on board a pleasure craft at one of the marinas and I will elaborate later on. A pleasure craft or sailing vessel entering into Singapore waters has two different ways of obtaining immigration clearance. Pleasure crafts berthing at the Republic of Singapore Yacht Club and Raffles Marina have access to on-site checkpoints, while vessels that berth at other marinas are cleared at offshore checkpoints. In both situations, it seems that the vessels are not subjected to any security checks whatsoever. Both checkpoints seem to operate for the sole purpose of immigration clearance only.”
“What will happen to them and to lower income Singaporeans who seem to suffer the most each time the economy dips? While this year's Budget maybe impressive, we should not forget that a number of the schemes are one-off payments under the Progress Package. It is highly likely that many under-privileged Singaporeans will be using the money to pay their arrears in conservancy charges, utility bills and/or mortgage payments. But how sustainable will such one-off payments be in the years ahead? More important, it is the implication that we can only help the lower income groups when there is a healthy budget surplus. If this is really the case, then I would think this group would feel as if they belong on the peripherals of this country. Although some might say that assuring this group of continued assistance from the Government might create an entitlement mentality, some say the signs are already creeping up. I feel that some of this might be due to resentment about how they are always struggling even as they see others race streets ahead, come rain or shine, budget surplus or otherwise. We must strike a balance between guarding against entitlement and providing targeted support for those who need it. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget has the potential to be a significant turning point in our nation's progress. Since we have taken the necessary steps and have focused on strengthening our bonds, as the Prime Minister has said, we should not let up on what we have set out to do. Sir, with that, I support the Budget.”
“For example, although MOE will not dictate how the money will be disbursed by each school, will it provide any clarity to the schools about how to achieve the objectives of the Funds? Will there be a limit to how much each student can tap from the Funds? As these are Funds whose uses are open-ended but target group specific, how do we ensure that they do not become an Edusave-type fund? Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many laudable initiatives in the Budget that many of the hon. Members in this House have touched on, so I shall focus on the message that whilst subtle seems to stick to this Budget, in the lead up to the Budget announcement I could not help but note, with concern, the cautionary overtones shrouding the extent to which the Government could help vulnerable groups in Singapore. Not so much for this year, but for the future. Without a budget surplus, we were told, it becomes difficult, if not impossible to look after the less well off. That is a chilling message for the less fortunate in Singapore. Chilling, because the world has become more volatile economically and in other ways, and it is this volatile world to which Singapore is linked and on which it depends on greatly. In the event that Singapore's budget surplus is weakened, maybe even considerably as a result of a slower or even a negative economic growth, are we going to cut the lower income loose? Remarks that it is impossible to look after this group seem to suggest that this will be the case. Yet, there will always be Singaporeans who cannot even look after themselves and I am not talking about the ones who will be losing their money in the casinos. More seriously, I am referring to those whose conditions do not enable them to work, those with no children on whom to depend.”
“Equal opportunities can only be considered almost equal and real opportunities when we, as the Prime Minister said, level up. This is what the Opportunity Funds hope to do and that is why the Funds are striking. I see it as a recognition of the new realities and the way to put meritocracy into true practice. I believe the Funds can exemplify the types of values we want to have as a nation. Our long term goal has to adequately equip the children from the bottom rung of income earners to climb out of the poverty trap. The Funds can help to establish what we want to build as the foundation of our society. We can look to it to set the tone of how we choose to progress as a nation. The Prime Minister has said consistently that no one should be left behind. The Funds are one way to live up to this. The subtext is that perhaps we no longer need to be afraid of the label "affirmative action". I know that questions have been raised as to whether needy pupils from independent and autonomous schools should not receive the same level of assistance under the Funds. I believe these schools are better placed to help their needy pupils than it is for neighbourhood schools to do likewise. In fact, many of these schools have made a success out of helping pupils from modest backgrounds to soar high. They can tap on an alumni base that neighbourhood schools can only dream of having for now. Furthermore, IP schools have already been given an extra grant by the Ministry of Education to kick-off their programmes successfully. Perhaps it is time for neighbourhood schools to say, now is their time. However, I do have some questions of my own.”