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 15 of 20.
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for explaining the details of the JGI as well as the importance of looking at not just one category of workers but all the workers. Having said that, I really want to understand whether the JGI has a target that it wants to achieve. This is related to my Parliamentary Question in which I asked about whether the 75% threshold would be considered because if there is no target that is set, how would the Ministry know whether or not it has achieved what it needs to achieve, and how would it know whether it needs to make adjustments, for example, increasing the salary support threshold?”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. According to MOM's Third Quarter Labour Market Report, unemployment rate among residents aged between 40 and 59 was higher and rose more steeply compared to all other age groups except those below 30, so I am hopeful that the JGI will help this group. My questions are: how many individuals aged 40 and above have secured jobs as a result of the JGI since the scheme was introduced in August; what is the Ministry's target figure for the number of secure jobs for mature workers under the JGI; and what will they count as a success for this scheme?”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to ask some supplementary questions on the earlier question because I was one of the original filers of the question.”
“I thank the Ministers for their Statements. I have clarifications on travel and vaccinations. I am concerned about the increase in the imported cases. Can the Minister clarify which categories of travellers are excluded from the Pre-Departure PCR Test. I believe he only mentioned Singapore Citizens, PRs and children under six and below? Did all the 12,000 travellers who entered Singapore without a Pre-Departure PCR Test, fall under these categories and, of the 100 imported cases who did not have a Pre-Departure PCR Test, were any of them supposed to have had the test but did not do so? On vaccinations, since our vaccine programme has already started with healthcare workers, to give the assurance to everybody, including healthcare workers, that the vaccine is safe, should not our senior public servants, including Ministers, already have been vaccinated by now? So, this is not a cheeky question but I believe it will give Singaporeans more assurance to take the vaccine. And, lastly, is HSA evaluating the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine which was already approved by the UK on 30 December?”
“Thank you. I was asking for residents without a recent photo on record, how will the Government be able to match by the recognition algorithm.”
“Mr Speaker, the Minister has said that the people who are not able to use Singpass right now because of the phasing out of the OneKey token are in the minority, which is true. But many in this minority are the elderly, the less educated and the disabled. So, although they are a minority, they must not find themselves excluded because of the phasing out of this OneKey token. For example, face verification can be done only if the user is physically present at these counters that the Minister has explained. However, residents who are physically disabled will find themselves having difficulty visiting the counters. I understand that there are other methods of logging in but none of these fully replace the OneKey token which allows users to log in independently without the mobile phone. So, will GovTech consider introducing other 2FA methods that do not require users to have a mobile phone or be physically present at counters? Secondly, I also note that several locations like the IRAS Service Centres will have the counters that provide the Singpass face verification. Can such counters also be extended to all Social Service Offices (SSOs) because many residents who visit the SSOs are not tech-savvy but they need to log into the Singpass to retrieve supporting documents like CPF statements and HDB statements? And, lastly, will residents without a recent photo on record at ICA be able to be matched by the face verification algorithm?”
“Sir, we all know that effective contact tracing is key to containing the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people use TraceTogether, the better. We should always be looking for ways to remove the impediments to voluntary adoption of the TraceTogether app. So, if people suspect that their TraceTogether data is being used for anything other than for contact tracing, would this not lead to a lower than expected adoption rate? And I am sure that the Minister of State is aware that users can prevent the app from being used, for example exchanging proximity information, even if they have it installed. So, my question is, now that the Government has said that they might actually use the TraceTogether data for Police investigations, does this not violate the TraceTogether privacy statement, which says that any data shared with MOH will only be used solely for contact tracing of persons possibly exposed to COVID-19?”
“It mentions several areas it was looking at, including: one, exploring how to help more foreign maids get compensation for the losses they incur after they stop working because of abuse; two, improving Court processes involving abused foreign workers; three, securing medical reports and witness statements more quickly; four, persuading the Courts to fix early hearing dates; and five, expanding the use of compensation orders to help more maids obtain compensation for losses resulting from a criminal offence committed against them. It has been six years since this announcement. What is the outcome of this working group? And what were their final proposals and which of them have been implemented? Mr Speaker, migrant workers are among the most disadvantaged members of our society. Even though they are foreigners, they are an integral part of our society – looking after our children and elderly and building our skyscrapers and roads. As a developed country, it is our duty to ensure that they have equal access to justice if they suffer abuse or are accused of wrongdoing. Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim.”
“With increasing IT savviness, migrant workers can even search for such positions from their home countries and apply directly. This move towards jobs transparency would cut out the middleman and reduce the need to pay exploitative fees to recruitment agents. Second, support services should be provided to all workers who choose to make complaints against employers and find themselves without a home and a job. It should not be left entirely to NGOs and their limited resources. This support should include the provision of basic needs like food and shelter, counselling services and help on understanding their rights. Third, every individual, local or foreign, should have access to legal representation. If they cannot afford a lawyer, legal aid should be made available to them. To prevent abuse, means testing could be done so that only those who are in genuine need will have their legal fees covered. I note that Minister said earlier that the public defender's office is under consideration. I welcome this and I hope that this will be pursued further. And fourth, once the Court orders a payment of compensation to the victim, the system must ensure that the victim receives that payment. Victims should not be left high and dry, just because the convicted person is unable to pay. If necessary, a fund could be set up to ensure that victims are guaranteed to receive the compensation amount ordered by the Court. In 2014, the AGC announced that it had formed an internal working group to focus on improving Court processes involving abused migrant workers.”
“Even if they know that they are innocent, bizarrely, it is actually expedient for the migrant worker to plead guilty even if they did no wrong. But is justice served this way? Should they claim trial, they may not find a lawyer and will certainly not be able to afford one. The Minister for Law has mentioned that Ms Liyani's fees would have come up to $150,000. Criminal legal aid is available but not by default as they need to pass means and merits test. Even if they do, they may still not be able to find a lawyer willing to take up their case pro bono. My Liyani was very fortunate to have a Singaporean lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani, representing her pro bono at the trial and the appeal. Justice Chan commended Mr Anil for showing much skill and dedication in his work for this case. I would now like to share some proposals on how we can make the justice system fairer for migrant workers who have to go through it, either as victims or accused persons. First, we have to tackle the upstream problems, which severely hamper their bargaining power vis-a-vis their employers and contribute to their unwillingness to report abuse. We must find ways to reduce the high recruitment fees that migrant workers need to pay agents to find a job in Singapore. If workers do not feel such a sense of obligation to their employer because of a need to pay back exorbitant fees to recruiters, they will be more likely to report abuse when it happens. I shared one solution to this during September's debate on the President's Address – to create a jobs portal that advertises all open positions for migrant workers. The positions should be open to only Singaporeans for a period of, say, two weeks before being extended to foreigners.”
“Her recorded statements were read back to her in English and translated into Bahasa Melayu by the Investigation Officer or IO. No Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was present for the recording of four of her statements. During cross-examination in Court, the IO conceded that there was a difference between Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia, and admitted that he could have understood Ms Liyani's statements in Bahasa Indonesia differently from what she had meant. Justice Chan Seng Onn, in his judgment, also said that the likelihood similarly existed that Ms Liyani could have misunderstood the IO's questions during the interview and recorded statements read back to her differently from what the IO had meant. He was thus satisfied that there was a reasonable doubt in relation to the accuracy of the translation for two of the statements. Accused workers also need to remain in Singapore to assist with investigations. Ms Liyani was arrested on 2 December 2016 and spent almost four years in a shelter managed by the NGO, HOME. While waiting for her case to be concluded, she was fortunate that HOME was able to find someone to post bail of $15,000 for her. Most migrant workers accused of crimes may not be able to secure such a bailar. They faced a similar dilemma as victims when deciding whether to plead guilty or claim trial. Should they plead guilty, the time it takes for them to serve their sentence may be shorter than the time it takes to go through the Court process if they claim trial. Ms Liyani was sentenced by the State Court to 26 months in prison, which was less than the four years she spent waiting for the outcome of the case. This presents an invidious choice for them.”
“Second, the employers may sometimes make or threaten to make counter-accusations against them, for example, accusing them of theft or damaging company property. Third, in cases where there is no physical abuse, but strong elements of coercion or psychological abuse, the investigation might end with a warning but no punishment for the employers. In all of these cases, the end result for the worker would likely be termination of their current employment and repatriation to their home countries. The cost of premature repatriation is tremendous for these workers to find work in Singapore. They would have incurred thousands of dollars of debts owed to recruitment agents in their home countries. They would have to spend months, sometimes years, paying off these debts on the back up low salaries in Singapore. Being terminated and terminated and sent home will saddle them with huge debts, not to mention a loss of income and embarrassment for their families. At the end of the whole trial, even if the perpetrator is convicted, the victim may not be financially compensated for the full extent of what they had suffered. While it is good that there is now a compensation framework for victims, this is not guaranteed as the perpetrator can escape payment of compensation by serving a jail term in lieu or claiming bankruptcy. I will now move on to the challenges faced by migrant workers accused of crimes while in Singapore. The same language hurdles encountered by victims are also faced by those accused of crimes. This was the case for Ms Parti Liyani who, according to the High Court judgment, was interviewed for some of her statements by investigators in a mix of English and Bahasa Melayu while she spoke Bahasa Indonesia.”
“If they choose to report the offence and their case is taken up by the authorities, they will have to remain in Singapore to assist in the investigations and cannot immediately return to their loved ones at home. The legal process takes time. For maid abuse cases that go to Court, the investigation alone can take at least a year while the trial could take another year, not to mention appeals. By the time the final sentence is passed, the entire process may have taken two years or more. In the meantime, the worker may not be able to work to earn a living. This can be financially ruinous as they are often the sole breadwinners of a large family back home. While victims for assisting in investigations are issued with a special pass to remain in Singapore, this does not grant them an automatic right to work. They are still required to seek permission from the investigating authorities before working. Fortunately, in most cases, permission is granted for victims. However, this work may not come easily. Many employers may be hesitant to employ migrant domestic workers who are assisting in Police investigations. Some victims may be so traumatised by the abuse that they do not wish to risk being in such a dangerous situation again. They also have to look for a place to stay. The burden of sheltering them currently falls mainly on non-government organisations or NGOs. Taking a step back, there are other factors which may give migrant workers great pause before they make a brave move to report their abuse. First, many come from countries where corruption and abuse of authority is rife. This could make them inherently distrustful of authorities. Some may even need to be assured that Police officers in Singapore will not demand a bribe to take up their case.”
“Mr Speaker, migrant workers face a unique set of challenges when navigating the justice system due largely to their low socio-economic status in our society. Many of the problems they face will be in addition to those faced by low-income Singaporeans, which my Workers' Party's colleagues in this House have highlighted. First, I would like to discuss the challenges faced by migrant workers who are victims of abuse, salary non-payment or other offences. Migrant workers face steep power imbalances when dealing with employers and Government authorities. They are in a foreign land and may not speak our local languages well. They are far from their families and their friends back home. Some migrant domestic workers do not even have a local support network because they have limited interaction with peers outside of their employers' homes. They are unfamiliar with our local laws and customs and often do not know their rights. When faced with a situation where they are mistreated or denied their salaries, they may hesitate to make reports to the authorities. This was the case for Miss Khalifa, a maid from Indonesia who endured six months of horrific abuse at the hands of her employers in 2012. She was sent back to Indonesia just as she was due for a medical check-up and chose not to tell the immigration officers of the abuse as she was happy to finally escape it. It was only when she returned to her village in Indonesia that her family discovered her injuries and made a report. Migrant workers in these situations are often caught between a rock and a hard place. If they choose not to report the wrongdoing, it may continue or their perpetrators may get away scot-free.”
“I have two supplementary questions. Can MOE consider distributing the TraceTogether tokens to students in their schools before the end of the school term, so that parents do not need to queue at CCs to collect them? This is a much more efficient way of distributing the tokens to students because the token is effectively mandatory for students as they are not allowed to use their phones during the school hours. And therefore, they cannot use the TraceTogether app. However, most parents of school-going children have smartphones so they can use that the TraceTogether app and they do not need to collect the tokens. Secondly, many people seem to be rushing to collect the tokens, even though the app performs the same function. Given that 82% of people in Singapore use smartphones, the queues at the CCS can be greatly eased, if more public education can be conducted on this. The Government also needs to address the concerns that the app drains the phone batteries because this seems to be impacting the take-up rate. So, these two measures taken together can make the token collection faster and safer for those who actually need it and it can also help us to reach the 70% of TraceTogether penetration that is needed to enter into Phase Three.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Not all sectors were hard-hit by the COVID-19 crisis. Based on MTI's Economics Survey of Singapore, there were some sectors that actually did grow. It means that these companies in these sectors would have received large JSS payouts despite not needing them or asking for them. On the other hand, many of the residents who have come to me to appeal for CSG and SIRS have received rejections because of their income or the annual value of their homes exceeding by a few hundreds or thousands of dollars. The Government is so exacting about setting the criteria for individual citizens. Can it apply the same level of rigour to means testing companies before it gives out such large amounts of support? Can we redirect some of these grants that are given to companies, to individuals now who are really in need of support? This especially so because many of these grants come from draws from our past reserves.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to clarify with the Senior Minister of State that I did not say that the standards for Government should not be higher. In fact, I agree with the Senior Minister of State that the Government standards should be the same or higher than what it expects of the private sector. In fact, I support the No Wrong Door policy. With regard to data sharing between agencies, I think that is a good thing and it is important for the convenience for our residents. But this provision can also be made within the PDPA, so that Government agencies are allowed to share data between each other. So, why can the myriad of legislation not be brought under the PDPA, so that Singaporeans, public sector officers, will be able to know that there is this harmonised set of data privacy standards that they should all comply with and that they are held to the same standard? Now, let me first clarify again that I am not saying that currently the Government is operating at a lower standard. Like I said in my speech, in my experience as a civil servant and my experience working as a government vendor in the past, the standards are very high. So, why can these all not be harmonised under one law, just like how they do it in the GDPR for Europe?”
“This can be achieved without causing undue inefficiencies in the functioning of businesses or the Government. We need to continue to update the PDPA to keep up with the realities on the ground. The Government should hold itself to the same level of data privacy standards, procedures and accountability it expects of private sector companies. Sir, I support the Bill. 4.27 pm”
“In fact, the IM8 is not even a public document that ordinary citizens can access. The Government's exemption from the PDPA could lead to concerns among citizens about how their sensitive data is being used by the Government. For example, many are now worried about how the information collected by SafeEntry and Trace Together will be processed. Others continue to worry about how our security services may be collecting and sharing sensitive information about citizens with little independent oversight. Third, the Government regulations cover mainly internal checks on the Government Ministries and agencies, and criminal and disciplinary consequences for individual officers. A citizen who has incurred damages as a result of a data breach by a Government agency has little recourse to pursue civil remedies against that agency. The PDPA, on the other hand, grant such recourse against offending organisations. This could be seen as a lower threshold of accountability on the part of the Government should data beaches occur. Why should public data controllers be treated differently from private data controllers. I believe there is merit in having a universal standard of personal data protection that applies to both private as well as public data controllers. If there is a need to maintain discretion because of national security reasons, these exemptions can be explicitly written into the PDPA. I hope the Government can eventually harmonise the data protection clauses in the separate legislations and bring them under the umbrella of the PDPA and make the PDPA apply to Government agencies as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, the overarching goal of data protection legislation is to ensure that personal data is not misused in a way that causes harm to individual.”
“Based on my analysis of the PDPA, I am glad to note that this currently appears to be the case. I hope that this approach will continue through future amendments to the PDPA. My last point concerns the personal data protection obligations of the Government. Unlike the GDPR, the PDPA specifically exempts the Government from having to comply with it. The Government has explained that this is because it has its own set of data privacy standards, which are set out in the Public Sector Governance Act or PSGA, the Official Secrets Act or OSA, the Banking Act, the Income Tax Act or ITA, the Statistics Act and the Instruction Manual 8 or IM8, among others. I have worked with the Government both as a civil servant and a government contractor, and I am well aware of the robust rules and practices in place to safeguard personal data. However, complying with a different set of data protection rules from the private sector is problematic for several reasons. First, the data protection provisions in the various Acts differ in their standard of protection. For example, the maximum fines for violations of the different statutes range from $1,000 to $250,000. This is not surprising since these laws were enacted long before the PDPA and without the specific purpose of general data protection in mind. Having public data controllers governed by a hodge podge of separate legislation is likely to lead to differing standards and gaps in coverage. Second, the lack of a single set of rules governing privacy leaves individual data owners unclear as to what level of personal data protection they are entitled to. Most individuals concerned about privacy would be more familiar with the protections provided under the PDPA than what is provided for under the PSGA, OSA, ITA, IM8 and others.”
“The general data protection regulation is a wide-ranging personal data protection legislation from the EU which has extraterritorial effect. The GDPR applies not only to European companies but also to Singapore companies that offer goods and services to individuals in the EU, even if those companies do not have an EU presence. The PDPA covers much of the GDPR but there are many requirements in the GDPR that are more stringent than that of the PDPA. For example, the GDPR provides extra protection for special categories of data, which include data about an individual's race, religion, political opinions and health information. The PDPA does not specifically define what constitutes sensitive personal data although guidance from PDPC suggests that personal data of a sensitive nature should be accorded a higher level of protection as a matter of good practice. The GDPR also sets a more stringent standard for consent, which must be obtained in a clear, open, specific and transparent manner. Despite its less prescriptive approach compared to the GDPR, the PDPA's model may be preferred by countries whose approach towards privacy is closer to Singapore's than the EU's. However, we should guard against the PDPA acquiring a reputation of providing a GDPR-minus standard of personal data protection. It would be much better if the PDPA were known internationally as a law that strikes the right balance between data protection and business efficiency. While the PDPA may not be identical to the GDPR, it should not have provisions or interpretations which are in conflict with the GDPR. This way, Singapore businesses, which need to comply with the GDPR will be able to rest easy, knowing that they also comply with the PDPA.”
“They certainly do not want scammers using their NRIC address or credit card numbers to take up unauthorised loans, buy stolen goods or, worst of all, sell their personal data on the dark web. We had made good progress in personal data protection since the introduction of the PDPA in 2012. However, some things are still slipping through. For example, despite being on the Do Not Call Registry since 2013, I still get phone calls or text messages from individuals offering cheap loans, access to illegal gambling sites or asking me to pick up packages which I never ordered. More than 46,000 complaints on unsolicited calls and text messages had been made to the Personal Data Protection Commission or PDPC since 2017. I have met residents who were scammed of tens of thousands of dollars by swindlers who persuaded them over the phone to reveal their Internet banking passwords or one-time PINs. Still others had loans in their names taken up with loan sharks because their NRICs were misused. For most Singaporeans, these are the biggest concerns with regard to personal data privacy. On the other hand, fewer people are concerned about what kind of cookies a website is using to track them and many find cookie notices on websites nowadays more of an irritant than a privacy protecting measure. There is a debate going on about how to stop big tech companies from hoovering our personal data in order to serve us tailored advertisements. This is a valid concern but not something that keeps the average citizen awake at night. Privacy regulations should therefore give greater focus to the areas of data privacy that matter most to Singaporeans. I will now move on to discussing the PDPA and GDPR.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak, I would like to declare my interest as a director and shareholder of a technology company which manages and safeguards customers' personal data. The protection of personal data is a concern of all Singaporeans, particularly when they learn about mass data breaches suffered by public agencies and private companies, both here and abroad. There is now greater public awareness among members of the public and organisations of the need to safeguard personal data. The public has a right to demand strong protection of their personal data. At the same time, policy-makers have to be aware of the business costs of complying with stringent regulations. It is thus necessary to make periodic amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act or PDPA and the Spam Control Act to bring our data privacy regulations more in line with current realities and global norms. I will focus on three areas in my speech. First, ensuring that personal data is protected where it matters to citizens, yet without unnecessarily burdening business with regulations. Second, aligning the PDPA with the GDPR, the European Union's general data protection regulation to avoid conflating rules. Third, harmonising the Government's data protection rules with the PDPA to ensure that Government agencies safeguard personal data the same way as it expects private sector companies to do. Everyone wants their personal data protected from prying eyes and unwanted marketers. No one likes being interrupted by unsolicited phone calls from people they do not know, trying to sell things that they do not want or tricking them into sharing confidential information.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not think the Senior Minister of State has answered my question about whether the full MediShield Life actuarial report can be made available. I asked for the actuarial report because it is key to accurately compute the premiums and benefits. It contains mathematical and statistical models designed to evaluate risk and probabilities, which are a bit complex to explain in a reply to a Parliamentary Question. Has the Government studied how other countries release the actuarial reports for the national insurance schemes? For example, Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration is required by law to release an actuarial report every five years, and their latest report is available on their website. It covers calculations for potential and current and future claims and a detailed sensitivity analysis to model how claims will vary in various economic scenarios. So, can I urge the Government to release a report like this, so that independent actuaries can analyse it. This will go a long way to improve transparency and help Singaporeans understand the calculations behind the MediShield premiums and benefits instead of being asked to take the Government's word for it.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers. I have some supplementary questions. First, will the distance-based charging – when it is rolled out eventually – be revenue neutral for the Government, compared to the current ERP system? And if so, will we expect a reduction in road tax once the distance-based charging is rolled out? I am also concerned about how distance-based charging may impact individuals who drive or ride to work like taxi drivers or private hire drivers or delivery riders. So, will there be concessionary distance charging rates for these groups? And lastly, will coupon-less charging for roadside parking, be rolled out in the first phase of this new system?”
“We are very heartened that Singaporeans have come on board and are making sure that Singapore, regardless of the situation that we are in, with the various Safe Management Measures (SMMs) in place, will continue to look at and ensure fire safety.”
“I appreciate the answer. I am sure the Minister would appreciate that, during an emergency, time is of the essence and there is often a great deal of panic and confusion. So, while it may be that the emergency exits remain open, the fact that they are out of bounds in normal circumstances might condition people to rush to the one exit that they know remains open and that could become a choke point. So, has SCDF considered this risk and how does it intend to mitigate that, beyond what the Minister of State mentioned just now about having signage to ensure that people are aware that the exit can actually be opened. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the Supplementary Question. We recognise that it is important for us to let the public know and be socialised about how the exits and entrances work during an emergency. As such, it is important that we work very closely with the malls and building owners. SCDF has been doing that and has been encouraging malls and building owners to inform their customers and those who go to the buildings about some of the safety aspects and, at the same time, place clear signage. In fact, we are heartened that Singaporeans are also very concerned about fire safety. If you follow the media, quite a number have written to the media to share their concerns. As such, we have also been engaging building owners regularly. I would like to urge members of the public, that if they have concerns about fire hazards, they can call us at 1800-280-0000 use SCDF's "myResponder" app or email us. This is something that we believe in and want to work with the public on, and while we will continue to manage and enhance our system, as well as engage the public and building owners.”
“Sir, to clarify my first question, what I meant is that, currently, MediShield Life covers a certain amount. Now, the proposal is to increase the coverage or MediShield Life. Would that eat into some of the Integrated Shield Plan coverage such that the premiums of Integrated Shield Plans can be lowered? With regard to the second question which the Senior Minister of State answered, he mentioned that B1 plans are the icing on the cake. But I understand that the B1 plans are actually quite popular among Singaporeans, to the extent that the Government has gone to the extent of standardising the benefits of all the B1 plans so that there is not so much need for comparison for premium holders. So, the question is: can that, therefore, be brought under the CPF fold so that we can possibly benefit from risk-pooling and, possibly, lower premiums for premium holders?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, with the proposed increased coverage of MediShield Life, does this reduce the burden on the lower tier Integrated Shield Plans and, hence, translate to lower premiums for the IPs? Second, according a comparison of standard IPs for Class B1 coverage on the MOH website, the benefits of standard IPs are identical across all IP insurers. This being the case, has the Government considered having CPF take over the running of standard IPs for Class B1 coverage so that the costs and premiums can be kept lower? By having CPF take over the standard IP, risks can be further pooled rather than split across different insurers and the premiums can be possibly lowered.”
“He only said that it would depend on Singapore's economy emerging stronger so that we would be in a better position to build our resources. Sir, a timeline of two years, 20 years or 30 years will make a huge difference in the provision required in the Budgets of current and future governments. This will translate to vastly different levels of tax hikes and spending cuts required to meet these provisions. For example, a restoration timeline of two years will require the provision of $26 billion a year. This is clearly impossible even in the best of times, as the Government's highest ever Budget surplus was $10.9 billion in FY2017, which was an exceptional year. Even a timeline of 30 years will still require a provision of $1.7 billion a year on average. This is more than the combined FY2020 Budget for the Prime Minister's Office and MFA. During this 30-year period, we could also face multiple economic crises where more deficit funding may be necessary. There might be even a need for a further drawn past reserves in order to battle another crisis, which would set the timeline back even further. Given the Budget impact of potential provisions to restore this extraordinarily large amount to the reserves, I feel it is important for the Government to provide more clarity about its broad timelines to do so. The $52 billion draw on past reserves during this crisis was necessary to prevent excessive job losses, make up for a decline in investments, boost consumer spending and stabilise aggregate demand. The reserves have served their purpose in this crisis. As we plan beyond this current crisis, let us consider carefully how much we want to burden the next generation of Singaporeans with the committed repayment of this draw on past reserves. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“Mr Speaker, the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented in scale and depth. This crisis also marked the second and third times in history that the Government drew on its past reserves to fund a recovery package. At $52 billion, these were the largest ever draws on past reserves – 13 times what was drawn in 2009 during the Global Financial Crisis. During the debate on his Ministerial Statement in June, the Deputy Prime Minister clarified that there is no legal or constitutional obligation for the Government to restore the draw from past reserves. Nevertheless, he said that the Government is committed to rebuilding the reserves, although he said that the Government cannot be definitive about how long that would take. Can the Deputy Prime Minister now clarify if the Government intends to return all of the $52 billion drawn and if it will include interest? I am concerned that a commitment to restore $52 billion within a short time frame may subject our people to unnecessarily high levels of austerity and constrain the Government's fiscal space. Austerity can have a contractionary effect on the economy. It could slow economic growth and cause some painful cuts to public services, which might impact the poor. Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure Singaporeans that they will not have to go through a period of austerity after the economic crisis is over, in order to restore the reserves? If the Government's commitment remains to restore the full amount of the reserves, then will the Deputy Prime Minister share the broad timelines for this restoration? I am aware that he responded to similar questions from Members back in June, but he did not give any indication as to how long it will take.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres are focused mainly at helping PMETs or does it include non PMETs as well. I have quite a number of non PMET residents who are seeking jobs but find that most of the jobs matched by SGUnited's Jobs Programmes, including the traineeships, seem to be targeted more at PMETs. Is there another channel that non PMETs, and specifically unskilled jobseekers, should approach instead?”
“I understand that many incoming arrivals are currently placed on SHN up to 12 to 14 days before their first PCR test. So, why are they not all tested on arrival and is testing capacity a reason for this?”
“Sir, I appreciate the work that the Minister and his Ministry are doing to safely open our airport. I have a few clarification questions. First, why has Changi Airport's passenger rank dropped from seventh place to 58th place when the crisis is global and has affected other air hubs in US and Europe far more than in Singapore? So, how did these 51 cities overtake Singapore and what lessons are we drawing from them? Secondly, I understand many incoming arrivals are currently placed on SHN for up to 12 to 14 days before their first PCR test. Why are they not all tested on arrival and is testing capacity a factor? And lastly, regarding green lanes and pre-departure tests conducted in originating countries, how can we be sure that the test results are reliable, especially for countries where corruption is rife and cheating is commonplace?”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, defects are sometimes reported before the end of the Defects Liability Period or DLP, but are not fully acted on by HDB or the developers, or not satisfactorily resolved by the end of the DLP. So, will HDB continue to act on these defects until they are fully resolved? My second question – several residents in DBSS development in my constituency have reported a large number of similar defects soon after the DLP. What options are available to lessees who encounter defects after the DLP and will HDB consider co-payment arrangements, so that lessees do not have to bear the full cost of rectifications on their own?”
“Sir, I thank Minister Tan for making that clarification and I really appreciate the attention that is being paid to this issue. One of the points I was trying to make was that it is important to be able to cut out this intermediary that workers have to go through. I understand that there are jurisdictional problems and being able to reach out to them when they are not in the country. But within the country itself, very often, when their contract ends and they need to find another job – I have heard what the Minister said about helping them to be able to find the next job – what I am arguing for is more transparency, not on the part of the Government but more transparency such that the workers will be able to find a job possibly on their own without seeing a need to pay somebody to find them another job. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of these workers who are here; they do not understand the language here and they do not have the means to just hop on to MyCareersFuture and find a job. So, if there is a way that we can make it more transparent what jobs are available, then they can skip through this intermediary and they do not need to feel a need to pay this kick-back to the intermediary.”
“Furthermore, workers risk losing their jobs if they are being sent home when their employers find out they have filed a complaint. Hence, many violations go unreported. I urge MOM to step up enforcement and intelligence-gathering, so that errant parties can be taken to task and made an example of. We could also set up a jobs portal for employers to list available jobs so that workers do not have to go through intermediaries to find new companies to work for once their contracts end. This will reduce the opportunities for collecting kick-backs and correct some of the power imbalance that currently exists. Mr Speaker, it has been said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. The President alluded to this in her Address to. We have come so far as a country, uplifting the standard of living of generations of our people. Let us take this progress to the next level as we further improve how we care for the vulnerable members of our society. 2.31 pm”
“In view of this, I would like to suggest that MOH include all chronic diseases in the list of allowed MediSave withdrawals, and remove the annual withdrawal limits for people over the age of 60. I believe this arrangement will reduce the mental stress on elderly persons caused by medical expenses and allow them to seek medical treatment with greater peace of mind. (In English): Sir, my fourth area of concern is the welfare of migrant workers. These are some of the most disadvantaged yet invisible members of our society. They are neither voters nor Singaporeans, but they are part of the Singapore community and their interests must be protected too as is befitting a developed country like ours. At the heart of the many issues that migrant workers in Singapore face is their lack of bargaining power vis-a-vis other parties like employers, the Government and employment agencies. This makes them susceptible to being taken advantage of. NGOs have reported that migrant workers often pay as much as $10,000 to secure jobs in Singapore. The costs include agent fees, course fees and sometimes kick-backs. When their contracts end, some are asked to make cash payments of up to $4,000 to third-party agents to renew their contracts or find subsequent jobs. For both these fees, they take up huge loans and spend many months servicing them on the back of their salaries of about to $500 to $800 a month. This makes them almost like indentured labour for much of their time in Singapore. A few unscrupulous employers are in on the act, working with illegal agents to profit off the workers they employ. Because such payments are usually made in cash, there is often no paper trail to prove the offences if they file a complaint with MOM.”
“However, I remain concerned about the limitations of the scheme. Patients whose condition is not one of the 20 chronic conditions specified under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) or whose treatment costs exceed $700 a year still have to fork out cash for their treatment. I have two suggestions for MOH to consider. First, that MediSave withdrawals be allowed for the treatment of all chronic conditions, not just those on the CDMP list. This will ensure that no one is excluded just because they suffer from a less common chronic condition. Second, the annual withdrawal limits for MediSave should be removed for patients with sufficient MediSave balances and are over the age of 60. To reduce the risk of a buffet syndrome, these two changes can be rolled out first at polyclinics and restructured hospitals, where tight procedures are already in place to ensure that only medically necessary treatment is prescribed. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, healthcare costs are a heavy burden for many Singaporeans, especially those who have been battling chronic diseases for a long time. Therefore, I hope the Government will further reduce the restrictions on the use of MediSave and help the elderly to reduce the medical expenses that have to be paid in cash. Many residents have complained to us about the high medical costs. Some even forgo follow-up treatment because they cannot afford it. In the long run, if a patient's condition deteriorates to the point where he has to be hospitalised, the burden will increase, both for the patient and for our healthcare system.”
“For PWDs, the Government could create a centralised system that keeps track of each individual's disability, which can be tapped into by various agencies to assess if they are qualified for disability benefits. I am glad to learn from the Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation initiative in his Addendum to the President's Address that all Government services will be digital from end-to-end by 2023. I hope our means testing process will be one of the first to go paperless and presence-less. By doing so, deserving citizens can receive the help they need more quickly and conveniently, and will not fall through the cracks just because they have difficulty gathering and submitting the necessary documents. My third area of concern is helping Singaporeans cope with the burden of healthcare expenses. Chronic diseases are imposing an increasing burden on our ageing population. MOH has said in its Addendum to the President's Address that it will look into identifying best practices that can help us in our fight to better manage diabetes and other chronic diseases. A key challenge in chronic disease management is ensuring that patients follow their treatment regimens and show up for their regular appointments with their family doctors. I have met residents who have lamented about the high cost of treatment for their chronic conditions. Some have shared about missing appointments because of cost concerns. In the long run, missed or delayed treatments will cost both the patients and the healthcare system more if their conditions worsen and they need to be hospitalised. I welcome the introduction of the MediSave700 scheme, which allows patients with multiple conditions to draw up to $700 a year from their MediSave accounts. This is up from $500 a year currently.”
“Another area that needs to move forward faster with the times is our approach to means testing for social assistance schemes. The process often requires too much paperwork and imposes an undue burden on the very people we are trying to help. Mr Leon Perera also raised this issue in a speech on Tuesday. The application for public assistance, for example, requires applicants to submit at least 10 documents to prove their neediness. Some of these documents require applicants to log into Government websites with their SingPass and print out documents such as CPF statements, both of which can be an obstacle for those with no computers and printers at home. When they apply for assistance schemes with other Government agencies or need to renew their assistance, the same exercise has to be repeated. The process for PWDs applying for disability support is not a walk in the park either. They need to get a doctor certification of their disability and pay the clinic for this service. Then, they need to repeat this process for every agency they are applying for support from. All this is a painfully low-tech way of means testing. In fact, we already have the capability to integrate and automate such systems. For example, My Tax Portal from IRAS pulls data from multiple sources to fill in a taxpayer's income deductions and reliefs, and computes their taxable income after just a few clicks. The Government has also been building its capabilities and data analytics. We clearly have the technical capabilities to collect taxes efficiently and seamlessly. Can we now develop the same capabilities for dispersing social assistance to deserving individuals and families?”
“For example, most junctions with traffic lights still do not have audible pedestrian signals or APS and for those that do have them, the chirping sound is turned off at 9 pm or 10 pm to avoid disturbing nearby residents. This could pose a safety risk for visually impaired pedestrians who are out at night. I hope MOT will reconsider my proposal back then to add vibro-tactile walk indications at the crossings. These are special buttons positioned at the traffic signals which vibrate when it is safe to walk. These complement the APS and can continue to operate even late at night without disturbing the peace. In my conversations with PWDs, the number one issue on their minds is jobs – not unlike many other Singaporeans. They are not asking for handouts but more equal opportunities in employment. However, PWDs face much higher hurdles and not just because of their disabilities. One such hurdle is that it is common for employers to assume PWDs will not be able to perform on the job as well just because of their limitations. PWDs have shared with me their unpleasant job search experiences where they met all the job requirements, only to be rejected when the employer learned that they had a disability. In fact, with modern assistive technologies, PWDs can be as productive at work as their able-bodied colleagues. The Government has done well to provide schemes like the Enabling Employment Credit and the Assistive Technology Fund. This needs to be complemented with better public education for both employers and the general public in order to clear misconceptions about PWDs in the workplace. We also need to ensure that employers do not discriminate on the basis of disability by introducing anti-discrimination legislation.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address. I would first like to express my gratitude to the voters of Aljunied GRC for giving me the opportunity to contribute in this House again. I cherish the trust that you have placed in my teammates and I, and we will do our very best to represent your concerns and work towards a better future for Singapore. While we may be called the Opposition for historical reasons, we stand here not necessarily to oppose but to work with Parliamentary colleagues along and across the aisle to refine existing policies and propose new approaches to the challenges we face as a nation. Singapore's economic, social and security challenges have grown more complex over the years. The policy responses must rise to the challenge. To do so, we need earnest and robust discussions on substantive policy matters both in and out of Parliament. Today, I would like to discuss ways in which we can improve how we care for some of the more vulnerable members of our society. I will touch on the concerns of people with disabilities, means testing, healthcare expenses and welfare of migrant workers. First, on people with disabilities. People with disabilities, or PWDs, are not a homogeneous group but a diverse community. They include individuals with physical, sensory, intellectual and developmental challenges of varying degrees. I raised disability issues seven years ago, during my previous term in Parliament, specifically about improving public transport and pedestrian infrastructure accessibility for the visually impaired. I am glad to see some progress has been made since then, although some gaps still remain.”
“However, if a current CEO of a public bus operator is incompetent or unable to provide effective leadership to ensure the smooth operation of the bus services under the contract, does LTA have any power to remove that CEO before the expiry of his or her contract? Madam, the bus contracting model is now in its second year of implementation. Only two contracts have been awarded so far. It is too early to gauge whether this model will, indeed, drive greater cost efficiency and service quality for commuters, while keeping fares affordable. All stakeholders, including the Government, should monitor this model closely over the next few years to assess its results. If it turns out that cost efficiency and service quality have not improved as a result of this model, the Government should be prepared to explore different models, including having a Government-owned National Transport Corporation take over the running of bus services on a not-for-profit and cost-recovery basis, to ensure that service quality for commuters is not compromised. Finally, Madam, I would like to record my thanks to the Minister for patiently answering all my Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and responding to my speeches over the past four years, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavours. Thank you, Madam. I support the Bill. Page: 67”
“The broader question on this issue is: how will MOT manage any possible conflicts between LTA and the operators to ensure that there is proper accountability, so that disagreements between the two entities do not result in delays or failure to conduct proper Page: 66 maintenance and renewal of essential operating assets? Next, on buses and crisis response. Currently, most public bus operators are also MRT train operators and they can re-allocate resources internally to respond to incidents like MRT breakdowns. This is likely to change in the future, with the bus routes eventually tendered out to different operators. How will LTA marshal bus resources from different operators to respond to crises, like the massive MRT disruption we saw last July? Is there any provision in the bus operator contracts that state that operators must make their bus resources available to the Government to respond to crises? Third, I would like to ask about the transition between bus operators. The bus contracting model is likely to see more frequent transitions between bus operators. How will LTA ensure that the incumbents maintain high service levels as they transition out of areas where they are no longer providing bus services? I am particularly concerned about manpower transitions that may affect service levels to the commuter. Fourth, on the removal of the CEO of bus operators. Clause 19 requires bus operators holding a Class 1 bus service licence to obtain LTA's approval before appointing, re-appointing or removing its CEO or board chairman, failing which LTA can issue a direction to reverse that decision.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Bus Services Industry Bill seeks to regulate the provision of bus services and the operation of bus depots and bus interchanges in Singapore. It also gives effect to the recently introduced bus contracting model via a bus services procurement framework. The Workers' Party welcomes the Government's shift towards taking over the ownership of bus assets, the planning of bus routes and the setting of fares, while contracting out bus operations to the private sector. This will, hopefully, give the Government greater control over the service quality and affordability of public transport, which is an essential public service. I have a few queries on this Bill and the bus contracting model in general, which I hope the Minister can address. First, on the maintenance and renewal of bus assets. Under this Bill, bus operators will be responsible for the maintenance of bus assets, which will be owned by the Government but leased to operators. LTA's lack of direct involvement in bus operations could result in information asymmetry between the regulator and the operators. Essentially, LTA may not have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of the bus operators and, hence, may not be able to take the necessary regulatory and enforcement action should maintenance be lacking. How will LTA ensure that bus operators conduct proper maintenance of these buses? How will LTA mitigate the risk that the buses may be poorly maintained or abused because the operators do not own them, resulting in shorter lifespan and more frequent breakdowns? Which entity will be responsible for the renewal and replacement of essential operating assets when they approach their end of serviceable life?”
“Thank you, Madam. I appreciate the Minister's point that because there are so many replacement works that need to be done, there is a need to prioritise them. Would the Minister agree that a lot of these replacement works should actually have been started earlier on, pre-2012, in order to be able to complete the replacement works in time before the end-of-life of the system?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I did some research on the SMRT website and, according to the frequently asked questions (FAQ) section, the timber sleepers are supposed to last between 15 and 25 years. Can the Minister verify that this is the case? Does the operator replace the sleepers only when it reaches its end-of-life or does it replace when it sees signs of wear and tear? Because if we count 15 to 25 years from 1987, the sleeper replacement ought to have been completed by 2002 or 2012. But according to SMRT, the sleeper replacement only started in November 2012 – this is the press statement that they issued – and it will not be completed until 2016. So, why was there such a long delay and who is responsible for this delay? And did the delay in sleeper replacements pose any risk to commuters' safety at any point? Regarding the signalling system, again according to the SMRT website, the replacement of the signalling system started only recently and this is more than 28 years after the line operation started. My last question is: have there been any problems or conflicts between LTA and SMRT that resulted in delays in the renewals of these critical rail assets? And how has the Ministry of Transport (MOT) stepped in to resolve these differences so that there is no delay in the renewal process?”
“Thank you, Madam. I have four supplementary questions for the Minister. First, given that NSEWL started operations in 1987, when did its rail assets, specifically the sleepers, signalling system and third rail reach their end of service life? Second, when did the renewal and replacement works for the sleepers, signalling system and third rail commence? Third, is it LTA or SMRT that is responsible for the renewal of these assets? In other words, who owns these assets? And who is supposed to initiate the process of renewal and who is supposed to bear the cost? And lastly, what was the cost of the renewal and replacement of these assets and how much of this cost has been borne by the Government so far?”
“Madam, I have three supplementary questions. First, what is the Government's position regarding property speculation in eating houses in HDB estates? Does it take a laissez-faire approach that these are free market transactions between buyer and seller or is it willing to step in to prevent speculation altogether in HDB eating houses? Second, to-date, what concrete ways has HDB intervened to prevent speculation and excessive price increases in the sale and purchases of HDB eating houses? Third, would the Government consider requiring that HDB eating houses be sold back only to HDB when they are put up for sale so that HDB will have more control over rents and Page: 38 food prices at these eating houses?”