Gerald Giam Yean Song
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The focus of my supplementary question will be on the film classification guidelines, which currently state that, quote, "Chinese films meant for theatrical release should generally be in Mandarin, in line with the Speak Mandarin Campaign.”
“Mr Speaker, we cannot allow physical infrastructure expansion to blind us to the shifting digital geography of global trade nor should we allow frontier technology to reduce the economic agency of our transport workers.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. I understand the difficulty in getting the exact numbers. But is there an order of magnitude that the Government can provide as to how many such fees were collected and what is the total quantum? Just an order of magnitude, does not have to be an exact number.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging my OJT proposal. I am aware of the work of CTCs, but my proposal goes beyond what the CTCs currently provide. First is the depth of the wage support, and second is the structural design of OJT.”
“I thank the Minister for responding to my question just now. I am glad to hear that there will be more precise matching with the help of SWDA's the integrated intelligence function. But can I ask if this function will be provided to all jobseekers who approach SWDA or its agencies, like e2i, to seek for job assistance?”
“Sir, can the Minister elaborate a bit more about how SWDA will enhance the job search assistance programme? Specifically, will career counsellors move beyond basic resume editing and portal referrals to leverage real time vacancy data for proactive matching and advocate for candidates?”
The complete record
Every one of 984 lines we hold for Gerald Giam Yean Song, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 20.
“It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Government to ensure that Singaporeans do not become victims of discrimination in their own country. The world has changed and employment regulations and practices need to adapt to keep pace. The Government must commit to stamping out discrimination in the hiring and promotion process in companies, especially in firms where the competition for attractive and well-paying jobs is keener. As a society, we claim to have zero tolerance for corruption and racism. However, there are other forms of corruption, like cronyism and nepotism, which have reared their ugly heads in the corporate environment. Some companies have turned a blind eye to their foreign managers "hiring their own kind" instead of the best qualified candidates. This has sapped the morale of honest, talented and hardworking local employees who were hoping for advancement in their careers. Many Members of Parliament would have heard anecdotal reports from constituents about foreign managers hiring compatriots who were less qualified than locals. You, Mr Speaker, were one of the first Ministers to acknowledge this disturbing phenomenon in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2013, when I also raised this concern in one of my COS cuts. Minister Tan See Leng just acknowledged that he knows these things happen. These acts are difficult to prove and hard to catch because they can be very subtle. It is easy for the offending managers to justify that a particular candidate was the "right fit" without doing an objective, competency-based assessment against other candidates. In Singaporean culture, hiring a less qualified candidate on account of their cultural background is considered discrimination. It runs against the principles of meritocracy.”
“Of course, I am not advocating that everybody goes immediately into ICT, because that would be impractical. But if many high-growth, high-paying jobs are in the ICT sector, is it wrong to provide more educational opportunities for our fellow Singaporeans in this sector and encourage more of them to consider careers in ICT? We should place bigger bets on tech in order to seize the burgeoning opportunities ahead of us. Train ahead of demand, as my colleague, Mr Leon Perera proposed earlier. This way, more Singaporeans can benefit from the thousands of well-paying tech jobs that are going to be created in the years ahead. It will also attract more companies to set up research and development centres in Singapore because of the availability of talent. This virtuous cycle will benefit both our economy and our people. I would now like to address some of the imbalances that many local professionals face in the workplace. Sir, we are a small economy in a very big world. If we want to throw open our doors to global talent, our industries' demands for skilled labour can probably be met, but at what cost? As early as 1997, when I was interning at a large local tech firm, I was surprised to discover that almost all the programmers in the IT department were foreigners. More than 20 years on, the situation is even more extreme in many IT firms and banks, where many management positions, especially in technology departments, are occupied by foreigners. I am not asking the Government to mollycoddle our workers, nor are Singaporeans expecting to be "bubble wrapped" from all foreign competition. We should remain open to foreign talent, but only those who are suitably skilled and earn their positions based on merit. Singaporeans want to be self-reliant and succeed on their own merit.”
“Because there are now so few Computer Science degree places in our local Universities vis-à-vis the demand, we are seeing cut-throat competition for admission and many qualified applicants are being denied places. Take the School of Computing in the National University of Singapore, for example. The "A" level subject prerequisites for Computer Science (CS) courses are a H2 pass in Computing, Mathematics, further Mathematics or Physics, or a good pass in H1 Mathematics. This sounds quite achievable until we look at the indicative grade profiles of applicants offered places last year. Both the 90th and the 10th percentile of applicants offered places scored four As for their "A" levels – essentially, perfect scores. I doubt tech companies really need students who aced all four content subjects in Junior College. Setting such a high bar for admission could mean missing out on many students who were initially interested in pursuing a tech career but may have decided to switch their focus to other industries after failing in their bid to study CS in local Universities. Institutes of Higher Learning should move more quickly to increase their intake of CS majors and should admit more Singaporeans who can demonstrate a passion for technology and meet the prerequisite standards for the course. ITEs can also be a source of local tech talent. Tech, after all, is not the exclusive domain of University or Polytechnic graduates. To be sure, I am not calling for a lowering of standards just to admit more students, but an expansion of opportunities to study CS. Minister Lawrence Wong said in his speech earlier that relying on a local pipeline is not enough and that if we increase the intake of people in ICT too sharply, there will be complaints of shortage in other sectors.”
“Students who are interested in working with computers should be encouraged early to pursue IT as a course of study and an eventual career. Primary schools should introduce all students to computational thinking and basic coding as part of their core curriculum from Primary 1, although it should not be made an examination subject, as this may kill interest in it. This could spark their early interest in tech and will help them and their parents choose suitable Secondary schools to further their interests. We would not be alone in doing this. Estonia, which is recognised as one of the most advanced digital societies in the world, started teaching all first graders to code almost a decade ago. Currently, only 22 Secondary schools offer computing as an "O" level subject and this is available only from Secondary 3. Moving forward, all Secondary schools should offer computing as an "O" level subject, and it should be extended to the "N" levels. Computing, just like History, Geography and Literature, should be taught from Secondary 1, so that all students can try their hand at it and make an informed decision at the end of Secondary 2 if they want to pursue it further at the upper Secondary level. Schools should develop programmes and mentorships to widen students' exposure to careers in technology, particularly those from less privileged backgrounds and also girls, given the traditionally lower female participation in the industry. More scholarships and grants should be awarded to students who choose to study Computing. Tertiary institutions should connect with industries to showcase careers in tech and encourage students to pursue them.”
“The Minister for Manpower said in July that 6,000 jobs remained unfilled in the infocomm sector and there are not enough locals to fill the available jobs. In an interview last year, the Minister in charge of the Smart Nation Initiative said that the infocomm space will require 60,000 more professionals over the next three years. An Amazon Web Services (AWS) report earlier this year highlighted that Singapore would need an additional 1.2 million digital workers by 2025 to remain competitive. Yet, the supply of local tech talent is not keeping up. Replying to my Parliamentary Question on 26 July, the Minister for Education said that the number of places in information and digital technologies undergraduate degree courses in local Universities increased from 800 in 2010 to 3,100 last year. This is still not going to solve the manpower crunch in this industry. With 3,100 graduates and 20,000 new tech jobs created a year, our local graduates would not be able to fill a fifth of these roles. This will lead to a greater demand for foreigners to make up for the shortfall. The pattern of overdependence on foreign professionals will continue. While it is laudable that so many tech jobs are being created, how much does this benefit Singaporean workers if our people are not equipped with the skills to fill them? It will lead to disappointment by both the companies investing in Singapore and our own people. We should have started a bigger push to encourage and enable more students to study IT two decades ago. Be that as it may, there is now an urgent need to reorientate our schools to prepare Singaporean students for career opportunities in technology, so as to create a stronger pipeline of local talent.”
“On the other hand, some Singaporean IT professionals have shared with me how they have been passed over for promotions or employment despite their best efforts to attend training and improve themselves. Singapore is an attractive work destination and often a stepping stone for foreigners. Many are willing to work longer hours at lower wages to pick up skills and experience, before moving on to countries like the US, Canada and Australia. When I was a senior consultant at a multinational technology consulting firm, I saw many resumes of experienced foreigners seeking junior positions just to get hired. The admission of so many entry-level foreign ICT professionals over the past 20 years and the commoditisation of core skills, such as computer programming, has put downward pressures on wages in this industry. Any Singaporean starting out as a software developer would be competing with many similarly skilled foreigners for jobs and promotions. This, coupled with the perception of crony hiring and discrimination against locals, prompted many Singaporeans over the past two decades to veer away from the ICT industry in favour of other sectors, leading to an even greater dearth of talent in this industry. In the past few years, with the growth in data science, robotics and artificial intelligence, the demand for deep tech skills has increased dramatically. Companies are now willing to pay top dollar for data scientists and cybersecurity specialists. The NUS Graduate Employment Survey found that fresh graduates from the School of Computing have the highest gross monthly salary among all graduates, with the 75th percentile earning $6,316, higher than doctors, lawyers and business graduates. This reflects both the high demand and the short supply of such graduates.”
“Mr Speaker, we are debating today about how to create an environment that can provide better jobs and improve livelihoods for our fellow Singaporeans. The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector has grown more than three-fold over the last two decades and employs well over 150,000 people. It has one of the highest proportions of PMET vacancies that employers say they are unable to fill with locals. Consequently, the industry also employs among the highest proportion of foreign professionals. Before continuing, I would like to declare my interest as a founder and director of a local IT solutions and consulting company. My conversations with people in the industry and my observations as an IT practitioner over the past 20 years inform the policy proposals that I am advancing today. Sir, the tech industry plays a critical role in Singapore’s economy and our relevance to the world. My speech will focus on skills and employment issues surrounding this industry, although some of these issues will be similar to those faced in other industries. I will analyse the reasons for the skills gaps and manpower shortage in the ICT sector; suggest ways in which the education system can be re-orientated to play a greater part in narrowing this gap; and propose ways the Government can address some of the imbalances that Singaporean professionals encounter in the workplace vis-à-vis foreign professionals. We constantly hear employers complain that while there are many job opportunities in the industry, there are not enough suitable professionals, both local and foreign, who have the skills to fill those positions.”
“Madam, I have one supplementary question. The LQS was not meant to be a minimum wage quantum. It exists to ensure firms do not hire phantom local workers to meet the DRC for the purpose of hiring foreign workers. So, it is merely a coincidence that the LQS of $1,400 is similar to the average household expenditure on basic needs (AHEBN) for the bottom 20% of income earners. As such, would it not be better to peg the minimum wage to the AHEBN instead of the LQS? This will allow the minimum wage to rise in tandem with cost increases so that the low-wage workers will not lose out over time.”
“In summary, Madam, I call for the streamlining of immigration procedures for foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens to strengthen the Singapore Core; for more support to be extended to single unmarried parents; and for policies to promote flexible work arrangements, all of which will benefit both women and men. Madam, I support the Motion.”
“One silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic is that it has forced many companies to digitalise and make work-from-home arrangements. This has been helpful for many caregivers who need to look after their young children or elderly parents. However, once Singapore starts to reopen, many companies may start summoning their workers back to the office. I hope companies will not forgo their digital gains this way. Companies should assess which jobs can be performed as productively at home as in the office and give employees a choice of working remotely. The labour force participation rate of women trails 14% behind men. The gap starts to form for women starting from their mid-20s– the age when they start having children – and continues to increase throughout their childbearing years, with a peak of some 25% behind men of the same age. This could point to what is known as the "child penalty", which could have a negative impact on a woman’s earning power and retirement adequacy. Even with work-from-home arrangements, SMU sociologist Aliya Rao found that women bear a greater burden of handling both paid work as well as unpaid work of managing the household. This is a point that Ms He Ting Ru also made earlier. The key point here is flexibility. We need to promote a work environment that is more understanding of the various roles that mothers and fathers desire to play and avoid forcing them to choose one role over the other. This will enable many more parents to continue pursuing their careers while providing for themselves and caring for their families.”
“However, this is only possible if he is incapacitated and, therefore, unable to work. This high bar should be removed. A man should be allowed to apply for maintenance from his ex-wife if he has custody of their children and has a much lower earning power than her. The final point I wish to raise relates to work arrangements. I call for companies to redouble their efforts to make flexible work arrangements available to employees who can and wish to work from home. The Government can do its part to nudge enterprises in this direction through tax incentives and by leading the way through Civil Service human resource policies. I recently met an elderly constituent at the wake of her deceased husband. As was my usual practice, I asked if she was in need of any assistance. I was glad to hear that she was doing fine as she was able to continue working from home because of the arrangements made by her enlightened employer. Her employer couriers her work to her flat daily and picks it up from her the next morning after she has completed it. This way, despite her inability to walk very far unassisted, she can still apply her skills and earn some income to support herself. I believe that more businesses should explore such flexible work arrangements to meet their manpower needs while providing employment to those who can only work from home. This will empower many women with caregiving responsibilities, not to mention older workers and those with mobility issues. There are many women as well as some men who make the difficult choice to stop work temporarily to care for their young children or elderly parents. Very often, this dilemma could have been avoided if more companies allowed their employees to work from home.”
“I note that HDB has said that it will exercise flexibility in allowing unmarried parents to buy a 3-room or smaller flat in a non-mature estate from HDB, or a resale flat, and that those who cannot afford to buy a flat may be considered for public rental flats. I would like to see this made the default for all single parents so that they are not denied a roof over their heads, and their children have a safe and homely environment to grow up in. Single parents awaiting the construction of their BTO flats should also be allowed to rent a flat under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), which is currently available only to married couples, divorcees or the widowed. All single parents and their children are a family in every sense of the word and should be considered a family nucleus by HDB for the purpose of purchasing or renting flats. Some single parents who are divorcees also continue to face difficulties getting their monthly maintenance from their former spouses. The Government introduced the Maintenance Record Office (MRO) scheme in 2016 to assist the Courts in identifying those who refuse to pay even though they have the means to do so, so that the Courts can impose penalties on them. Mr Leon Perera previously asked in 2017 if MSF could provide a mechanism for spouses to request an investigation of the MRO without having to go through the Court process. I hope the Ministry will give consideration to this proposal as it reviews the MRO programme. I should also mention that we should give single fathers the same benefits as single mothers, as they face very similar challenges as single mothers in raising their children alone. The Women’s Charter was changed in 2016 to allow men to apply for alimony.”
“To be clear, we should not encourage single parenthood or having children outside of marriage, any more than we encourage divorce. It is hard enough raising children with both parents, let alone by oneself. However, once a woman has made the brave choice to carry her child to term despite not having the support of a spouse and likely family disapproval, we, as a society, must do all we can to support her. We should not make things more difficult for her by denying her benefits available to other parents. We must also be mindful that unequal benefits inadvertently penalise the innocent children of single unmarried parents, who are often in need of greater support. According to a reply to a PQ by Mr Louis Ng, the median monthly income from work of single, unmarried mothers below the age of 35 was just $600 in 2017, which was 86% less than the national median income that year. Currently, many single parents are not eligible to buy or rent a subsidised HDB flat to live with their children. What this means in practice – and I have seen this among my constituents – is that they and their children have to squeeze into a flat with their parents, close relatives or friends. However, this is an inherently unstable arrangement. If they fall out with their family members or are estranged from their families – as some are – they risk having nowhere to stay. Renting a flat in the open market is seldom a realistic option as it is prohibitively expensive. Singles below the age of 35 do not qualify to purchase HDB flats or rent flats under the Public Rental Scheme.”
“One constituent told me of his desire to have children with his wife but he has shelved those plans because he is worried that his wife may be forced to leave Singapore if her pass is not extended, leading to a separation from any children they might have. Madam, our citizens and their foreign spouses deserve a better assurance of their place in Singapore. Next, I would like to appeal for the Government to raise the level of support currently given to single parents, so that they and their children are not disadvantaged in our society. In a speech in 2013, I outlined the burdens faced by single parents who have to take on the role of both father and mother and perform caregiving duties while also holding on to a job to pay the bills. Compounding their challenges, they are denied some of the parenthood benefits that married, divorced and widowed parents receive. This could add to their feeling of marginalisation from society. Since single mothers make up the bulk of single parents, changes to policies to support single parents will disproportionately benefit women. My former Parliamentary colleagues, in particular, Ms Lee Li Lian, as well as Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mr Png Eng Huat, and current Members Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Leon Perera and others, have repeatedly advocated for greater support for single parents over the past eight years. Government benefits and housing options for single unmarried parents and their children should be the same as for any other family unit. The distinction that the Government often makes between single unmarried parents and divorced parents, in terms of the benefits provided, should be removed.”
“Applications for STVP extensions cost $40 for every three months of stay. While it might not seem much, this adds up over time. More importantly, their spouses’ immigration worries often add to their daily stresses of life. To reduce the immigration-related stressors faced by Singapore Citizens and their foreign spouses, I propose the creation of a more streamlined path towards obtaining LTVP, LTVP+ and PR status and, eventually, citizenship for such spouses. There are strong reasons for such a policy. For example, given that a quarter of marriages here are between a Singaporean and a non-resident, transnational marriages will continue to be an important contributor to family formation in Singapore. As such, fast-tracking parents and potential parents of Singaporean children for citizenship would facilitate the formation of stable family units with a full stake in Singapore. Towards this end, the primary consideration for PR applications by LTVP holders who have a Singaporean spouse or child, should be their family ties and rootedness in Singapore and not just their income or occupation. Their close family relationship with Singaporeans makes them part of the Singapore Core and we should facilitate, not inhibit, their integration into our society. I am aware that not all foreign spouses may immediately qualify for PR status. However, foreigners who have entered into a bona fide marriage with a Singapore citizen should be granted LTVP status by default. I have constituents who have been married to foreigners for over a year and are still unable to obtain an LTVP for them. They need to continually renew their spouse’s STVPs, with no certainty of approval each time.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I strongly support the Motion moved by Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Leon Perera that this House affirms that gender equality requires a whole-of-society effort to remove all barriers in order to empower every woman to freely realise her full potential and participation in society. I would like to focus on three areas that I believe will bring us closer towards achieving gender equality in Singapore: residency and benefits for foreign spouses, support for single parents and flexible work arrangements. According to an answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I asked last September, in the six months from February to July 2020, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) received 8,395 applications for extensions of Short-Term Visit Passes (STVPs) from foreign spouses of Singaporeans. This was an increase of almost 2,000 applications from the year before. These extensions are typically for one to three months, but some are reportedly as short as one or two weeks. While the vast majority of applications are approved, over 250 were rejected during the six-month period last year. A number of my constituents have sought assistance regarding renewals of STVPs and applications for Long-Term Visit Passes (LTVPs) for their foreign spouses. I am sure many Members would have also submitted such appeals to ICA. In the majority of cases that I have come across, the foreign spouse is a woman. They face the uncertainty and anxiety of being separated from their Singaporean husbands and, in some cases, their children as well, if their passes are not renewed. I have also noticed that almost all of the residents who have approached me for assistance with their spouses’ visas are from lower-income households.”
“Thank you, Madam. I know quite a number of people, including some of my residents, are eagerly awaiting the approval of the Novavax vaccine which is a protein-based non-mNRA vaccine, while people who have had allergic reactions to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine are unable to take the second dose. If they get the Novavax vaccine, similar to the Sinovac vaccine, would they be able to be considered fully vaccinated? Secondly, some seniors are genuinely concerned about the safety of vaccines, possibly because of the many private messages they might have received about people suffering adverse effects after getting the jabs. Can I ask if MOH can strive to provide more detailed information and updates in response to widely-circulated reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines so that these incidents do not get imprinted in people's minds as this may lead to further hesitancy? Lastly, just a quick question. Will international students, including those studying in private schools in Singapore, be allowed to get vaccinated and are there plans to open up the vaccines to other non-residents once there is sufficient supply, possibly at a fee?”
“The public needs a more easily understood COVID-19 Risk Index and we should make a strong push to overcome vaccine hesitancy in order to reduce the risks of serious COVID-19 infections.”
“I have some questions about the latest COVID-19 support measures which I hope the Finance Minister can address. First, I am glad the Minister has introduced a new Market and Hawker Centre Relief Fund, which provides a one-off cash assistance of $500 per stallholder. However, I note this is provided only to stallholders in Government hawker centres and markets. Can similar relief be extended to stallholders in neighbourhood food centres which are run by private food service management companies like Koufu and Kopitiam? Second, I also note that the Minister has extended the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (Temporary) scheme's income-loss coverage period to end-August. However, I would like to point out some implementation anomalies from the previous rounds of the grant. Is the Minister aware of instances where companies place their Singaporean workers on no-pay leave during Heightened Alert periods while continuing to employ foreign workers at full pay? I have a resident who works as a dishwasher and was asked to go on no-pay leave while his foreign worker colleagues were not. Apparently, his employer assumed that Singaporeans could benefit from the COVID-19 Recovery Grant, while the foreigners could not. Unfortunately, this Singaporean applied for but was denied the COVID-19 Recovery Grant and, so, he ended up worse off than his foreign colleagues. I will be making an appeal on his behalf directly to MSF but I hope MOF can consider ways to prevent companies from employing this form of arbitrage to reap the best of both worlds and, in the process, disadvantage Singaporean workers. In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to see greater detail in the Government's roadmap for reopening.”
“I shall now move on to a related factor in our roadmap for reopening, which is vaccinations. During my estate visits and house visits, I make it a point to ask residents, especially the elderly, if they have gotten their vaccinations and encourage those who have not to do so soon for their own protection. Thankfully, most residents assure me that they have gotten their jabs. However, I find vaccine hesitancy among a small minority of the population rather worrying. Based on the reasons they articulate, it appears that a lot of their misunderstanding about vaccinations is fuelled by confusing information they receive from friends through private messaging platforms. I myself receive a daily stream of such messages from friends and residents. The situation is more complicated than just scientific arguments for or against vaccinations. I have heard accusations of vaccine manufacturers colluding with governments to promote their vaccines; that the vaccines have not been fully approved and, therefore, are merely experimental; or that Singapore is biased against or towards vaccines from some countries. These have been circulating since the end of last year and have steadily increased in virulence and virality in the last few months. Instead of politicians fronting the public education campaign for vaccinations, more can be done to amplify the voice of independent medical experts to explain the facts and allay the public's fears. Other experts in business, international relations and culture also have a role to play in addressing misinformation about vaccines. This must be done soon, before the window of opportunity to change minds closes. Once news about large COVID-19 clusters fades from the headlines, the impetus to get vaccinated will decrease.”
“Yet, most laymen are not capable of synthesising so much information at one go. Earlier this month, I asked if MOH could publish a risk index in its daily virus update that can give the public a more holistic view of the risk we face. This index could weigh various factors including the vaccination rate, hospitalisation rate, positivity rate of testing, contact tracing efficiency, new infections per 100,000 people and the infection risk of other countries, among others. This will require some calculations and intelligent assumptions by experts to produce a single daily number that the public can more easily digest. It should be a leading indicator, not a lagging one. I am not suggesting that the MTF should be bound by this risk index when deciding on policies. However, the index can serve as a guide to both policymakers and the public to understand the current risk levels and adapt accordingly. An objective, science-based COVID-19 Risk Index will help assure the public that SMMs imposed by the Government are appropriate for the given risk levels. This would secure more buy-in from the public and result in greater voluntary compliance with SMMs. Voluntary compliance is key in our battle against the virus, as demonstrated by the KTV cluster outbreak, which was most likely caused by a wilful disregard for social distancing regulations. No amount of rules and fines will stop people from engaging in risky activities behind closed doors if they are not convinced of the risks. There are not many countries around the world that have come up with a COVID-19 Risk Index which is both accurate and widely understood by the public. Singapore has an opportunity to lead the way in this respect. I hope the Government can give consideration to this proposal.”
“Not only was there differentiation between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, children and adults, same family or different household, but there was also differentiation between the types of vaccines received, whether Sinovac or mRNA, and the number of doses that counts as fully vaccinated. Restaurant staff would find it challenging to enforce these rules with their patrons, some of whom may not have the TraceTogether app installed. Some fast food outlets initially decided to simply adopt the strictest interpretation of all the rules for all patrons. This benefits neither the industry nor its customers. No one would disagree with a calibrated approach to SMMs. However, the practicality of such measures was not evident in the recent attempt. I hope the MTF will take on board lessons learned from the experience when formulating the rules as we look forward to some re-opening on 19 August and beyond. Next, I would like to speak on how information on our battle with COVID-19 is presented. The daily infection numbers have become a key focus for many people. MOH highlights these numbers in their daily updates and the media splashes it on the headlines. Singaporeans too mention these numbers in our conversations with one another. Because of this, many wondered why our new infection count of 56 locally transmitted cases on 14 July did not require a lockdown when previously a much lower count of 24 infections on 14 May triggered a state of heightened alert for one month. Experts will tell us that new case counts alone are not an accurate gauge of whether things are going well in our fight against COVID-19. There are many other factors that need to be taken into account when deciding the level of risk we are facing.”
“Minister Ong explained in yesterday's Ministerial Statement that the KTV cluster alone would not have necessitated the roll-back to Phase Two (Heightened Alert). But when the JFP cluster started to grow, the MTF felt that it was necessary to take firmer measures to protect the elderly and the unvaccinated. I understand the MTF's desire to err on the side of caution in this case. However, beyond this round of Phase Two (Heightened Alert), Singaporeans and businesses need more clarity on how the roadmap for reopening is going to be implemented. After 18 August, if more large clusters break out, will we need to brace ourselves for more rolling lockdowns? Many businesses, especially in the F&B, arts and sports sectors, are suffering not only because of the safe management measures (SMMs) but also because of the frequent changes in policies, which can actually hurt them even more. The lack of certainty makes it difficult for business owners to decide if they should stay the course or pivot to a more pandemic-resilient line of business. Individual workers, too, need to decide whether or not to continue hoping for more COVID-19 support grants or pivot their careers to a more stable line of work, if such options are available. Not only are the policies sometimes changing overnight, but some of them are painfully complicated. When the restrictions on the now-defunct Phase Three (Heightened Alert) from 19 July to 8 August were announced, some remarked that one needed a PhD to understand the dining-in rules.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on 24 June, the Co-Chairs of the COVID-19 Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF) wrote an op-ed in The Straits Times to explain how the Government was drawing up a roadmap to transit to a new normal. The Minister said that, in the near future, COVID-19 cases could be dealt with very differently from now. For example, an infected person who is vaccinated could be allowed to recover from home. Subsequently, on 7 July, Minister Lawrence Wong revealed that gatherings in groups of eight might be allowed by the end of July when at least half the population would be fully vaccinated. Unfortunately, less than a week later, the KTV cluster emerged with eight locally transmitted cases, which swelled rapidly to 248 cases just five days later. The KTV cluster and the Jurong Fishery Port (JFP) outbreaks were the first major setback in our roadmap for reopening since its announcement. When the KTV cluster first swelled to 120 cases on 16 July, Minister Gan Kim Yong said that instead of rolling back COVID-19 measures like before, MOH will continue to take a targeted approach to protect the unvaccinated. The vaccinated will be allowed to continue gathering in groups of five in mask-off settings while the unvaccinated could only gather in groups of two. Yet, just a few days later, the MTF decided to step back into Phase Two (Heightened Alert) from 22 July to 18 August following spikes in locally transmitted cases, including among the elderly. The targeted approach was abandoned, and F&B and gym operators had to face the same restrictions they had just only exited. Essentially, just a year after we completed our circuit breaker in 2020, Singapore has snapped back twice into states of quasi-lockdown on almost all social and non-essential activities.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to express, as a parent of young children, including a 13-year-old, my deepest sympathies to the family of the 13-year-old student and the River Valley High School community. Sir, it is important that mental health services are easily accessible to students. Can I ask if the school counsellor is a dedicated resource or also an educator with teaching responsibilities? Second, can schools schedule all students to have a short meeting with the school counsellor at least once? This will dispel the mystery and stigma of seeing a counsellor and will be similar to how all students are scheduled to see the school dentist regularly. And, lastly, regarding school security. Can the Minister confirm that all classrooms can be locked from the inside and students, including very young Primary school students, are taught how to do so? This is so that attackers will not be able to easily enter classrooms where students are hiding.”
“Sir, according to the MTF, the infections in the Jurong Fishery Port cluster were likely introduced via the sea from Indonesian or other fishing boats that brought fish into the port. The exact mechanism for transmission is unclear up to now. Were these foreign fishermen required to take any COVID-19 tests or be vaccinated before entering the fishery port? If not, can this be introduced immediately to prevent further import of the virus where the countries where the pandemic is raging? Next, regarding the Sinovac vaccine, is the relatively lower efficacy rate of the Sinovac vaccine, compared to the mRNA vaccines, the reason why those who got the Sinovac vaccine are not considered fully vaccinated in Singapore? This lower efficacy rate has been known for some time. Why did MOH not make this known clearer that they will not be giving the same recognition to the Sinovac vaccine as the mRNA vaccines yet, for the purpose of differentiated measures? Because this could have blunted the demand for the vaccine, which was mentioned earlier, and convinced more people to get the mRNA vaccines. Third, as we reopen our borders, many more foreigners will be entering Singapore. Are there plans to require vaccinations for both short- and long-term visitors so that they do not inadvertently reduce our overall vaccination rate? Lastly, a recent British study found that a longer period of eight weeks between vaccinations produces a higher immune response than a spacing of three weeks. In our haste to get people fully vaccinated, where we are encouraging people to book their second dose three weeks after the first dose, will we be compromising on maximising durable immunity to COVID-19 in the longer term?”
“Sir, has productivity in the cleaning sector increased at the same rate as wage increases since the PWM for this sector has started and how is this measured?”
“Sir, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister. I understand that there are private charter buses. But since the start of this year, have there been any incoming passengers who do not take these private charter buses but instead take taxis or private hire cars to their homes or SHN facilities? My second question is: have any taxi drivers or private hire drivers caught COVID-19 while ferrying incoming passengers from the airport to the SHN facilities or homes?”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the reply. Since state aircraft are not required to file flight plans when entering our FIR, how does Singapore ensure that these aircraft do not have hostile intent? I understand that there is no requirement for them to file these flight plans, but do other countries, by convention, file their flight plans for their state aircraft and is this incident the only time that no flight plans were filed when entering the FIR?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister Gan for his reply to my Parliamentary Question and that those who have experienced allergic reactions to the first vaccine would not be able to take the second dose. I just want to confirm that that is correct. Can I confirm that this applies to all allergic reactions or is it only to anaphylaxis? And what kind of adverse events will rule out patients from taking the second vaccine? I am concerned that if we set the threshold too low, many people will be ruled out from their second dose after reporting allergic reactions and this will impact the overall immunity rate of our country. Secondly, I understand that all hospitals have started mass swapping all their staff and patients. When COVID-19 cases were discovered in Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), the hospital completely stopped accepting new admissions and many patients were diverted to other hospitals. Should cases be uncovered in other hospitals after the mass testing, will they, too, stop accepting new admissions? If so, the remaining hospitals may get overwhelmed. I am not saying that we should not conduct mass testing, but do all hospitals have a business continuity plan to avoid a complete lockdown if new cases are discovered?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have got two clarification questions. First, regarding the issue of the Fee Benchmarks, not containing all the TOSP procedures, for the remaining TOSP procedures which are not in the Fee Benchmarks, can the Senior Minister of State explain how are insurers who are not medical professionals expected to determine what is a reasonable fee if it is not found in the Benchmarks? My concern is that if they cannot find it in the Fee Benchmarks, they might either just reject the claim, or they might just take some other Fee Benchmark which may not be accurate. I can understand that doctors may be able to find some equivalent Fee Benchmark, but I am not sure if insurers can. Secondly, he mentioned that and tied in with that earlier point, that is why I feel that it is important to ensure that there is sufficient information inside the Fee Benchmarks, so that insurers would not be left hanging and will be just making educated guesses. On the second point of the number of specialists on the panels, yes, I noted that he said up to 70% of specialists are already on at least one panel. But, if you take it from the patients' perspective, they only care about what percentage of specialists are on their own insurers' panels. So, can the Senior Minister of State share, for the different insurers, does he have the data on what percentage of all the specialists are on each insurance panel?”
“I hope that the MHIC, MOH, MAS, insurers, doctors, hospitals and other stakeholders will consider these suggestions with due gravity. Ultimately, we should all share the same desire to place the interest of patients ahead of ourselves and contain the growth of healthcare costs in Singapore.”
“The arbitrators could be empowered to call upon specialists in the same field as the doctor in question to give their professional opinions on the case. They can then decide whether to allow the charge or require it to be reversed. Reputation is very important to doctors. No doctor wishes to be known among their peers or patients as someone who overcharges. The mere presence of this process will make doctors think twice before performing unnecessary procedures or overcharging. This could make this an effective mechanism against overcharging and over-servicing, while ensuring that the quality of care provided to patients is not compromised. Mr Speaker, healthcare costs have increased at an unsustainable rate over the past decade. Almost 70% of Singaporeans possess an Integrated Shield Plan and most premiums funded by their MediSave. Because market failure is inherent in much of healthcare, a laissez-faire approach will not drive efficiency in the healthcare system. The Government must step in and take a stronger regulatory role over the health insurance market to ensure optimal outcomes for the benefit of patients. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), as a regulator of insurers, should also take a more proactive role in this process. It is notable that MAS had two committee members on the Health Insurance Task Force in 2016, but has only observer status on the Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee (MHIC) that was just set up last month. Why not make them full committee members so that their inputs in the committee's deliberations will carry greater weight? While I understand that there are often competing interests between doctors and insurers, I believe that these proposals can help to bridge the gulf between the two for the benefit of patients.”
“It is important that we do not tar all doctors with the same brush when we accuse them of overcharging. Nevertheless, overcharging and over-servicing are issues that must be addressed because they contribute to increasing healthcare costs. In doing so, we must not inadvertently create an administrative hassle for patients, insurers and doctors. This could lead to increased costs for all parties without improvement in health outcomes for patients. We can address concerns about overcharging and over-servicing by instituting greater price transparency in billing. Doctors and hospitals should be required to provide detailed itemisation of charges on their bills by default. For example, surgeon’s fees could state the TOSP code and fee benchmark range for that procedure. Hospitals should list their base costs and mark-ups on drugs and consumables. This itemisation should be made consistent across all hospitals, based on a transparent, prescriptive template set by MOH. This added level of transparency will give payers and patients more confidence in the accuracy and reasonableness of bills and ensure a higher level of accountability by healthcare providers. However, insurers should not unilaterally reject claims just because they deem a procedure medically unnecessary. Doing so risks saddling patients with higher bills that they are ill-equipped to contest. Instead, patients and insurers should be provided with a mechanism to register their concerns about overcharging or over-servicing. I was glad to hear during Question Time earlier this morning that MOH is setting up an independent arbitration unit. This unit must be accessible by doctors, patients and insurers to resolve disputes about fees and the necessity of medical procedures.”
“Even a doctor from a different specialty acting on behalf of insurers may not be sufficiently well-placed to determine if a particular treatment is appropriate for the patient. The risk of overcharging and over-servicing should be dealt with through a different mechanism, which I will talk about next. Every doctor is under an ethical obligation to charge fair and reasonable fees for services rendered to their patient. The Court of Appeal, in its June 2013 verdict on Dr Susan Lim vs Singapore Medical Council, said that "overcharging would constitute an abuse of trust and confidence placed by a patient in his or her doctor and this would (in turn) constitute conduct that is dishonourable to the doctor as a person as well as in his or her profession, ie, it would constitute professional misconduct." The SMC's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines or ECEG states that "profit motives must be subservient to treating patients in their best interests". The vast majority of doctors are committed to patients' best interests. They do not view their practice of medicine simply as a trade but a labour of care and responsibility to their patients. For every doctor that overcharges, there are many more who routinely waive charges for patients who cannot afford their fees. Often, what constitutes overcharging is not clear-cut. A doctor may order more investigations out of an abundance of caution, in line with their training. Certain patients may present a higher risk of complications and therefore require further tests before arriving at a diagnosis. In some cases, the doctor may fear being sued by their patient if they do not order sufficient tests, leading to a deterioration in their condition.”
“To provide patients with a wider choice of doctors, panels should be expanded to admit all doctors who wish to be on the panel, so that patients will not feel pressured to switch away from their preferred doctor just because that doctor is not on the panel. Doctors with an adverse track record with the Singapore Medical Council can still be excluded from the panels. In order to give greater assurance to patients that fees charged by their doctors will be covered by insurance, all insurers should use the Fee Benchmarks to determine their payouts. They should not use their own panel doctors' fee schedules, which may tend towards the lower end of the Fee Benchmarks. If a doctor charges more than the upper end of the Fee Benchmarks for a procedure, he or she will need to provide written justification or inform their patient beforehand of potential out-of-pocket expenses. The Government has to take the lead in introducing these changes across the board for all doctors and insurers. No insurer will be willing to be the first mover on this because of competitive pressures. Insurers also cannot coordinate these changes among themselves, lest it be deemed anti-competitive. Greater certainty of fees may lessen the need for pre-authorisation by insurers. The main reason why insurers require pre-authorisation is to mitigate the risk of over-servicing and overcharging by non-panel doctors. However, insurance companies are not in a position to decide on the medical necessity of a treatment, since they would not have personally examined the patient or understood their case history. These are professional decisions best made by the doctor.”
“To do this, the FBAC could use data from several more years of MediSave and MediShield claims from private hospitals. For procedures with insufficient transacted data, MOH could consult specialists, insurers and patients, before independently deciding on a reasonable range of fees. Currently, the lower and upper bound of the fee range is set at around the 25th and 75th percentile respectively of the fees for that surgical procedure. Based on feedback I gathered from doctors and insurers, this might be too wide a range to take effective reference from. It may be more useful to set the Fee Benchmarks to a narrower 40th to 60th percentile of each fee range. While coming up with the fee benchmarks for all surgical procedures will be a resource-intensive undertaking for the FBAC and its secretariat, it would be well worth the time and effort as it will reduce ambiguity in fees and claims for all stakeholders. It will also cut down administrative costs in the long run and reduce the need to have exclusive panels of doctors and pre-authorisation of medical procedures by insurers, which I will speak about next. IP insurers currently have panels of doctors that their policyholders have to choose from in order to benefit from greater coverage and lower co-payments for procedures. One of my constituents likened panels to an umbrella she carries to prepare for a rainy day, but when it pours, she still gets wet because of the holes in the umbrella. SMA has argued that panels should be expanded, while the Life Insurance Association has warned that if the number of doctors on panels is "recklessly" increased, premiums will "rise significantly".”
“Had the Fee Benchmarks been introduced soon after the revocation of the GOF, we might not have seen such a steep healthcare cost inflation over that decade. Nevertheless, I am glad we now have the Fee Benchmarks to work with. According to the FBAC, the Fee Benchmarks are intended as a common reference for all stakeholders. Doctors can use them to set fair and appropriate fees. Insurers can use them to manage and assess claims. And patients can use the benchmarks to discuss with their doctors about their condition, available treatment options and fees. Fee Benchmarks, therefore, have an outsize influence on the fees doctors charge, and the premiums, payouts and coverage of health insurance. By providing more transparency on doctors' fees, they can help narrow the perennial problem in healthcare: information asymmetry between patients, doctors and insurers. However, to be effective in helping stakeholders manage costs better, the Fee Benchmarks need to be more comprehensive. The Fee Benchmarks were developed based on actual fee data derived from cases of Singaporean patients submitted by private healthcare providers in a single year – the year 2017. The benchmarks align with the Table of Surgical Procedures or TOSP, a comprehensive list of over 2,300 procedures categorised by their complexity. However, it is notable that only about 220 procedures or 9% of these procedures are listed in the Fee Benchmarks. The remaining 2,000-plus procedures do not yet have fee benchmarks. In comparison, GOF contained over 1,500 surgical fee recommendations. To make the Fee Benchmarks a more effective and authoritative reference for patients, doctors and insurers, MOH should provide Fee Benchmarks for all the procedures in the Table of Surgical Procedures.”
“The GOF was issued in response to complaints of overcharging made by members of the public against doctors. SMA's stated objective was to provide greater transparency of medical fees and safeguard the interests of patients. Unfortunately, the GOF was withdrawn in 2007 after being flagged as being potentially anti-competitive. In its 2010 decision on the matter, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) advised SMA that the GOF would contravene the section 34 prohibition of the Competition Act. While acknowledging that the GOF was an attempt to address information asymmetry in the medical sector, CCS at that time said that there were "other more effective measures'' in place. However, with nothing to immediately supersede the GOF, the longer term impact of its revocation on medical costs may have been even worse than the initial problem the CCS was trying to correct. To be clear, there were other factors beyond the removal of the GOF that led to rising healthcare costs. The removal of the GOF coincided with the expansion of zero payment "full riders" for MediShield Integrated Shield Plans or IPs and a rapid increase in rents in private hospitals. This trio of changes could have created a perfect storm which accounts for much of the rapid growth in healthcare costs in the private sector. But it was not until January 2018 that the Fee Benchmarks Advisory Committee or FBAC was appointed by MOH to set reasonable Fee Benchmarks for surgical procedures and services. The FBAC came out with its first set of benchmarks in November 2018. Why did it take MOH more than 10 years to replace the GOF with its own Fee Benchmarks?”
“Mr Speaker, I have tabled this Adjournment Motion to contribute to the on-going discussion about healthcare and health insurance, and to give voice to the concerns of patients. I would, first and foremost, like to salute our healthcare workers for their immense contribution to our nation and for all the sacrifices they have made to help our country overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. We owe them a debt of gratitude for putting themselves out in the frontlines, and I hope that we, as a nation, will continue to appreciate their service. Our healthcare system has delivered good outcomes overall to date. However, there is still further room for improvement. We owe it to our nation, our constituents, our families and indeed ourselves to continually seek ways to improve Singapore's healthcare system, because all of us may become patients at one time or another in our life. The central theme of my speech today is to ensure that patients' interests are protected within our healthcare system. In preparing for this speech, my colleagues and I in the Workers' Party consulted insurers, hospital administrators, insurance agents, doctors in both private and public practice, and constituents to better understand their concerns and hear their perspectives on the issues. I recognise that the cost of healthcare is an enormous topic, of which I will only be able to scratch the surface in the time I have today for my speech. I will, therefore, focus on just three areas: medical fee benchmarks, health insurance coverage and over-servicing of healthcare. In each of these areas, I will suggest policy changes which I believe will benefit patients over the long term. Let me begin with fee benchmarks. In 1987, the Singapore Medical Association or SMA first issued their Guidelines on Fees or GOF.”
“Sir, private hospitals house less than 17% of hospital beds in Singapore and the Senior Minister of State just replied to my question and said that 40% of Singaporeans hold an Integrated Shield Plan for private hospital coverage. This points to a rather high proportion of voluntary downgrading by patients, meaning that they are eligible to seek treatment in private hospitals but end up going to public hospitals. Does the Senior Minister of State think that Singaporeans are over insured for private insurance, which they do not use? And secondly, other plans to better educate Singaporeans about their options of different Integrated Shield Plans, so they do not get all the information from insurance agents who are trying to sell them private hospital plans?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Semior Minister of State for the comprehensive answers to my questions. I just have one clarification. In the long term, will Pick be profit-oriented, or will it be subsidised by IMDA? Or will it be eventually spun off like SingPost was?”
“The creation of the Network should ultimately drive the industry forward and serve the public interest, given that public funds have already been used towards this creation. ROI must come in the form of more convenient and affordable parcel pick up for consumers; not just profits for a select few players, whether publicly or privately owned.”
“Will parcel lockers be set up in condominiums or in public spaces near condominiums? Given that 16% of resident households live in condominiums, we should strive to ensure coverage of this segment. Another five percent of residents live in landed housing. Will they be served by public parcel lockers? Next, I understand that Pick will be in charge of the maintenance of these lockers. Given the COVID-19 situation, Pick should arrange for their own disinfection and cleaning of the high touch surfaces of these lockers regularly. Also, I hope that Pick clearly indicates that customer support contacts on their lockers and makes it convenient for customers to get in touch with them. This is so, that Town Councils or Members of Parliament do not get calls from members of the public to fix malfunctioning lockers. There may also be certain individuals who are heavy users of delivery services – for example, people who run small redistribution businesses from their homes. What measures are in place to prevent overuse by these individuals who could end up monopolising the limited slots? Mr Deputy Speaker, the public parcel locker network should fill in gaps, which the private sector is unable to fill, rather than duplicate their coverage. It should seek to drive innovation in the sector, for example, perhaps in future we could see the creation of cold lockers to facilitate the delivery of groceries and foodstuffs from supermarkets, or heated lockers for food deliveries. Locker operators could also consider providing dual functions for their lockers, for example, as receptacles for return items or even depositing electronic waste, given that existing e-waste bins are even less accessible then private parcel lockers.”
“What was the reason why IMDA did not contract these private sector players to provide more public parcel lockers near housing estates? They already have the experience of running parcel lockers and could take on the investment risk and bear the cost of expanding the network. Is Pick's mandate to fulfil a need that is distinct and complementary to the services already provided by the private parcel locker providers, or will it be competing with them? If competition is part of this mandate, will it be contravening the Yellow Pages rule? This rule dictates that Government agencies should exit from market segments, which already have active private sector players. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair] I note that Senior Minister of State said that it is not the Bill's intent for Pick to compete with delivery service partners, but does this non-competition extend to providers of parcel lockers? Going back to first principles, I would like to find out more information about the process by which Pick was created and contracted to run the network. Was there a public tender for the deployment and operation of a public locker network, which Pick eventually won? How long was the initial contract before? Are there plans for a subsequent tender, in which another public postal licensee or licensees can participate in? Is Pick expected to be profitable in future? If not, how much has IMDA spend and how much will it be budgeting every year to subsidise their operations of Pick? Next, I have some questions for the Senior Minister of State about the location and coverage of the network lockers. While residents living in HDB estates will be served by the Network, how will the Network be implemented in condominiums and landed estates if at all?”
“Mr Speaker, I can see the need for more parcel lockers to be set up near housing estates. Sometimes, deliveries get delayed because residents are not at home to receive the parcel, or they do not hear the courier at the door. This will require rescheduling to another delivery date. I also remember occasions when I would receive a delivery note in my mailbox to pick up a package from a POPStation, which is a 30-minute round trip by bus and foot from my home, when I had made it a point to be home when the original delivery was made. The pandemic, ironically, seems to have ease this problem, because couriers, now simply leave the package outside the door in the name of contactless delivery to prevent the spread of the virus. However, I worry that these delivery issues may return once safe management measures ease. In any case, especially in public housing estates, leaving packages unattended at the door risks parcel theft. I therefore support the plan to situate more parcel lockers near housing estates. However, I have several queries which I hope that Senior Minister of State will address. These cover the effect of the creation of public parcel locker network on market competition and innovation and the coverage of parcel lockers in all housing estates. First, on market competition. While I welcome the creation of the Network, I would like to more clarity on the role of Pick Network Pte Ltd, in the existing ecosystem. Pick is a wholly owned subsidiary of IMDA, a which is a Government Statutory board. SingPost currently has POPStations, and Blu World Pte Ltd has a network of blue lockers. They are part of an existing parcel local network, the Locker Alliance, which has already set up parcel lockers in various locations across Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. Our national songs were written by various composers, both local and foreign, some of whom were working for advertising agencies contracted by the Government. Can I confirm that the Government holds the exclusive copyright to the music and lyrics for all our national songs, such that none of these composers or advertising agencies can claim ownership whether now or in the future? Secondly, if the Government holds this exclusive copyright, do groups and individuals need to seek permission from the Government to perform the copyrighted work publicly, whether in Singapore or overseas?”
“I thank the Minister of State for her response. I understand that she said that doctors are now required during the six-monthly medical examination to check for signs of abuse. My question is that, are there right now any professional or legal consequences for doctors who fail to report suspected abuse in their patients? If there are not, are there plans to increase the penalties for non reporting? Because I understand right now the Singapore Medical Council, or SMC's ethical code only obliges doctors to report suspected abuse if their patient has diminished mental capacity or is a minor. Secondly, does MOM have any plans to – or does MOM currently screen prospective employers of at foreign domestic workers for potential red flags? For example, past incidents of violent behaviour, police reports made against them and so on. Lastly, for an abused domestic worker who has no phone or day off, how would they be able to report abuse?”
“Sir, I have some clarifications for Senior Minister of State Koh. First, can I confirm the Ministry's definition of PCHI is based on family members living under the same roof? Second, what is the Ministry's main concern about allowing greater use of MediSave in polyclinics, SOCs and restructured hospitals? I know MOH is worried about premature depletion of the MediSave accounts. However, MediSave can only be used for medically necessary treatments, and the risk of doctors in these public institutions over-treating is minimal. And patients there also have little discretion to demand unnecessary treatment. On the flip side, patients do retain their discretion to skip treatment to reduce out-of-pocket payments. This will impact the success of their treatment that may cause both the patient and the Government more in the long term. Can MOH reconsider how prudent it still is to restrict the use of MediSave in these public healthcare institutions?”
“Between 2016 and 2019, $7.5 billion in premiums for MediShield Life were collected and $3.5 billion in claims were paid out, while a further $3 billion was set aside for future premium rebates. Many Singaporeans are concerned about the impending premium hikes of up to 35% to MediShield Life. More transparency on the data and assumptions used will help to better to explain these premium hikes. Last November, in response to my request for the release of the full MediShield Life actuarial report, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, said that MOH may engage different consultants to challenge the assumptions and do another calculation and publish some of this data in an academic way. Will the full MediShield Life actuarial report be provided to these consultants and academics for further analysis? And if so, when will this be done? Lastly, I note that the new MediShield Life premiums have kicked in on 1 of March. Can MOH consider postponing the increased premiums until our economy recovers? Portable Health Insurance”