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 17 of 20.
“Mdm Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has laid out the key thrusts for the Government in his Budget Statement. My speech will focus on retirement adequacy and the CPF scheme, in particular. The CPF scheme has a long history in Singapore that pre-dates our Independence. The Central Provident Fund Bill was introduced by the Singapore Progressive Party in the Legislative Council in 1951, while Singapore was still a British colony. The CPF scheme provides a mandatory retirement savings plan for local workers. It is a "defined contribution" Page: 53 scheme, whereby every member takes out only what he has contributed. This has helped the Government avoid the heavy burden of Budget-financed pension liabilities that many other countries face. While CPF provides a basic payout for retirees, it does not assure full retirement adequacy, particularly for those in the lowest income groups, including home-makers and people with disabilities. The Minimum Sum requirement, which has been renamed to "Retirement Sum" by the CPF Advisory Panel, was introduced in 1987. It prevents CPF members from withdrawing their entire CPF savings in one lump sum when they retire. They are only allowed to withdraw amounts in excess of the Minimum Sum, plus another $5,000, at age 55. This has been deeply unpopular among many Singaporeans. Many feel that since the money in our CPF accounts belongs to us, why should the Government control when and how much we can withdraw? "We're not children after all," some would say. A recent poll by Channel NewsAsia found that the majority of respondents would like a choice to withdraw all of their CPF money at age 55. I empathise and identify with these sentiments. I, too, would like to withdraw all my CPF when I turn 55.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I just wanted to ask the Minister of State what are the current schemes that the Government is putting in place in order to achieve this target of 1,000 companies and are there any benchmarks on these schemes to achieve those targets?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have several supplementary questions. Firstly, I heard the Senior Minister of State say that there are 1,500 companies that have taken up WorkPro so far. So, given that there are over 180,000 businesses in Singapore, are the Senior Minister of State and the Government satisfied with the take-up rate of WorkPro so far? Secondly, does the Ministry have a yearly target for the number of companies that will take up WorkPro and what is this target? Thirdly, can I clarify with the Senior Minister of State that she said that, last year, 27% of the budget for WorkPro was used up? If that is the case, why is that percentage so low?”
“I am not referring to the destitute, who can be helped by Premium Subsidies, but those who may not qualify for Premium Subsidies but still cannot pay, for example, individuals who have lost their jobs or cannot work due to illness. Can the Government allow for premium deferment for such individuals who may have temporarily run into hard times financially? And lastly, if an individual continues to default on premium payments, will he ever lose his MediShield Life cover? I hope this will not be the case because it will call into question the universal nature of MediShield Life. In conclusion, Madam, I support this Bill but have expressed a number of concerns about the disclosure of health and financial information, and the enforcement of the measures to recover outstanding premiums. I hope the Minister will address my queries in his round-up speech. 2.20 pm Page: 58”
“Can the Minister assure us that authorised persons will be given access only on a strictly "need-to-know" basis, regardless of their seniority, and that the data in their possession is removed as soon as it is no longer needed? I note that a new Cyber Security Agency (CSA) has been set up under the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Will the security of confidential information covered under this Bill Page: 57 come under the purview of the CSA? I now move on to Part 3 of the Bill: the recovery of outstanding premiums. Under the Bill, those who do not pay their premiums could also be slapped with penalties of up to 17% of outstanding premiums and interest on late payments. Can the Minister elaborate on how the penalties will be computed and how soon after a default they will take effect? The Bill empowers a "recovery body" to use methods of recovery of outstanding premiums similar to that used by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) to recover outstanding taxes. These include declaring any person or entity to be a "defaulter's agent", who could be one's employer, bank or tenant. The defaulter's agent will then be obliged to pay the premiums due from any salary, pensions or rent that he owes to the defaulter. Defaulters could also be sued. I agree with the Minister that those who have the means to pay their premiums but fail to do so should be firmly compelled to do so. This is only fair to other policyholders who are contributing their fair share to ensure that the Scheme is sustainable and viable in the long term. However, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will not aggressively pursue individuals who default due to their genuine inability to pay?”
“For individuals who are concerned about privacy, can the Government allow them to opt out from giving access to their health information, and then make a statutory declaration about their health status? If they declare that they have no relevant medical conditions, they would not be required to pay higher premiums. If they are untruthful in their declarations, then there are already penalties in this Bill and other laws that can be used to punish them and deter such behaviour. I believe this would strike a fair balance between individuals' desire for privacy and the need to ascertain their health status for premium calculations. Next, on safeguards. This Bill greatly increases the potential number of persons who will be authorised to access confidential information of individuals. We have seen examples in other countries where public officers who were given wide-ranging access to confidential information misused that information and even disclosed it publicly. We have also seen large organisations have their computer systems breached by hackers and suffer massive losses of confidential information, including health information of their employees or credit card numbers of their customers. I note that there are penalties in the Bill for unauthorised disclosure. But it is not always easy to track down the source of a leak, and in any case, once confidential information is leaked, the damage would have already been done. With the introduction in this Bill of such extensive authorisation to access confidential information, do the relevant agencies plan to significantly beef up the security of their computer systems to prevent unauthorised data access, either by external hackers or by disgruntled insiders?”
“This gives very broad powers to the Minister and could potentially negate the protections spelt out in other parts of the Bill. Can the Minister give some examples of what grounds he may consider to be appropriate for granting access or disclosure of confidential information that is not already covered in this Bill? Can these not be spelt out in the Bill instead of giving the Minister so much discretion? Next, on opting out. For those who do not consent to sharing their confidential information, how will they opt out? Will the process be made simple and explained clearly to all persons, including those who have not yet expressed a desire to opt out? The Bill does not explain the procedure for opting out, but simply that it should be in "the manner determined by the Minister". If individuals opt out, will they automatically have the full 30% premium load for 10 years imposed on them? It is easy to assume that people all fall into one of only two groups: the first group being those who are willing to allow the Government to access their health and means information; Page: 56 and the second group, those who have medical conditions that they are trying to hide so as not to attract higher premiums. But there is a third group of individuals, those who have no medical conditions that warrant higher premiums, but still do not wish to give the state such wide-ranging access to their personal information. People in this group should not be penalised for wishing to maintain their privacy, neither should they be forced to make a Hobson's choice: either permit access to your data or pay higher premiums.”
“I raised the matter of means-tested Premium Subsidies in both my Adjournment Motion on healthcare affordability in November 2013 and during the MediShield Life White Paper Page: 55 debate last July. I had asked for Premium Subsidies to be provided automatically to households that have already undergone means-testing for other Government assistance schemes like the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). I also asked for the appropriate level of Premium Subsidies to be automatically extended to all vulnerable groups of Singaporeans, without requiring them to apply separately. This is so that all individuals who are eligible for Premium Subsidies will receive them with minimal paperwork. Can the Minister confirm if the provisions in this Bill will enable means-testing to be automated, such that individuals do not have to submit any additional forms to receive the Premium Subsidies? If not, what would be the procedure for individuals to apply for Premium Subsidies, and how will MOH ensure that the process is simple and convenient, especially for the elderly, people with disabilities and those with lower levels of literacy? Given the very tough premium recovery measures in Part 3 of this Bill, it is even more critical that no one misses out on their Premium Subsidies, if they are eligible. Next, on the use of confidential information. Will the Government be allowed to use any of the confidential information authorised under this Bill for purposes other than means-testing, premium calculations and benefit claims assessments? I note there are provisions under the Bill, including in clause 30, for the Minister to approve the access or disclosure of such information as he "considers appropriate".”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill gives effect to the MediShield Life Scheme, which was debated in this House in July 2014. It spells out the framework for the disclosure of an individual's confidential health and financial information, recovering outstanding premiums, and the offences and penalties for false declarations and claims. I have several concerns to raise regarding the disclosure of information and the recovery of outstanding premiums: First, on the disclosure of information described in Part 5 of the Bill. The Bill authorises certain "authorised persons", including public servants from the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF), the Ministry of Health (MOH) and public hospitals to tap into various Government databases to extract an individual's confidential health information for two purposes: One, to assess whether a person has pre-existing medical conditions for which premium loading may apply; and two, to assess the person's benefit claims under MediShield Life. The Bill also permits these authorised persons to request for access, use or to disclose to other authorised persons the "means information" of an individual, which could include monthly income, information on assets, residential address and household composition. My queries and concerns on this Part of the Bill fall into four categories: (1) the means testing process; (2) the extent of access, disclosure and use of confidential data; (3) the process and consequences of opting out; and (4) safeguards to prevent illegal disclosure. First, on means testing. I understand the rationale for authorising the disclosure of health and means information is to facilitate the smoother and more seamless execution of the MediShield Life Scheme.”
“Madam, I have five supplementary questions for the Minister. First, there were concerns from experts that if the natural grass is laid just a week to 10 days before an event, its roots may not have enough time to have the necessary penetration into the sub-base to provide a firm and solid pitch. This may cause the grass to slip and athletes could get hurt. How will these concerns be addressed? Question two: artificial turf technology has improved significantly in recent years and there are now 459 artificial turf pitches around the world that have FIFA's two-star recommended mark for fields that ensure the highest playing performance for professional level football, including four in Singapore. Was serious consideration given for artificial turf to be used after the hybrid's turf solution failed and what were the reasons why it was rejected? Was it due to the public outcry against it when the idea was first reported in November last year? Question three, were there any warranty clauses in the contracts with the original hybrid turf contractor to ensure that they pay for any remedies if they fail to ensure that the grass will grow properly? Question four, moving forward, does the contract with the new natural turf contractor include warranty clauses, in case this, too, fails? And lastly, while I know that SHPL is responsible for the service recovery, one can reasonably expect that it will need to find some ways to recover the cost of these failed solutions, which at latest count seems to be in excess of $2.3 million. Beyond assurances, are there any contractual prohibitions against SHPL recovering cost either directly or indirectly from tenants and customers, either now or in the future?”
“The first question was regarding why the Government agencies would go to the Courts instead of going to IPOS to apply to revoke patents, since IPOS has its own patent revocation process. Why do they go to the Courts? The second question was—”
“Mdm Speaker, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I understand IPOS has its own established process for parties to apply to revoke a patent. What are the considerations for Government agencies in deciding to go to the Courts instead of to IPOS to apply for revocation of patents? Page: 25 Second, does IPOS grant patents for inventions which are not patentable, meaning they are not new, they do not have an inventive step or do not have industrial applications? The third question: the patent search and examination process is a highly technical and complex process to determine if an invention is patentable. It has taken years for IPOS to build up its patent search and examination capabilities. So, how much technical expertise do our Courts have to subsequently decide which patents that IPOS has granted are now invalid? Lastly, I am sure the Senior Minister of State agrees that patents are very important to the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Singapore because they encourage inventors to invest time and money to develop their ideas and have the assurance that others will be prevented from using and profiting from their inventions. Have the recent cases of patent battles, including these two cases which the Senior Minister of State has mentioned, between entrepreneurs and Government agencies, affected in any way the confidence among businesses, both local and foreign, that Singapore is a good place to develop and launch their intellectual property?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, to-date, how many individuals have been denied entry Page: 24 at our checkpoints because they were on terrorism watch-lists or no-fly lists?”
“Third, the Government should reveal how it plans to measure the success of anti-trafficking efforts following the passing of this Bill. The Government should conduct benchmarking studies every few years to measure the scale of the problem and how effectively we are rooting out trafficking. The methods, data and findings should be made available to the public. Lastly, the fourth "P" in the anti-trafficking framework – partnership – is not mentioned at all in this Bill. Partnership with civil society and cross-border cooperation are a key tenet of a broader anti-trafficking strategy. Human trafficking is a problem that has to be tackled simultaneously on different fronts. There has to be effective collaboration between different organisations and governments for this to succeed. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a step forward in tackling the serious and extensive problem of human trafficking in the world. However, in order for the Bill to achieve its intended objective, the 4-P framework of prevention, protection, prosecution and partnership needs to work hand-in-hand. We cannot over-rely on prevention and prosecution. Greater protection and assistance to victims of human trafficking are both a moral obligation and a practical imperative to securing more convictions. The key success indicator of this legislation is if it enables the authorities to identify more victims, to prosecute and convict more culprits of human trafficking and lower the incidence of this heinous crime. Once this Bill is passed, I urge the Government to expeditiously sign and ratify the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Page: 94 Persons, Especially Women and Children. Sir, I support the Bill. 6.01 pm”
“Some may argue that providing strong victim assistance and protection could incentivise false reporting. I think this fear is overstated. As a matter of principle, we should not compromise the interests of the vast majority of genuine victims in our attempt to prevent a small minority of false reporters. A clear definition and guideline on what constitutes trafficking will help prosecutors and investigators correctly classify trafficking cases based on their circumstances. Genuine trafficking victims should be spared from prosecution. To provide the necessary deterrence, those who engage in wilful false reporting should be prosecuted. This is already provided for Page: 93 under clause 20 of this Bill. Apart from victim assistance and protection, I have several more suggestions on how the Bill and its subsequent implementation could be enhanced to better meet its objectives. First, after this law is enacted, there needs to be sufficient public education provided to foreign workers, employers and members of the public who may come into contact with trafficked victims. This is so that they will all be more aware of their rights and responsibilities under this law and report violations when they occur. Second, the penalties for human trafficking under clause 4 of this Bill should be enhanced further, given the terrible nature of the crime and the fact that human traffickers often make a tidy profit off their victims. Clause 4 specifies a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment, a $100,000 fine and caning for the first offence. In comparison, under Proposition 35 which was passed in the state of California in the US to enhance penalties for human trafficking, the maximum fine is US$1.5 million and prison sentences of 15 years to life.”
“One of the initiatives proposed in the 2011 National Plan of Action (NPA) by the Inter-Agency Taskforce was to "facilitate the re-entry and return of victims to their home countries" after conducting a review of provisions to allow this. This review was due to be completed in 2013, but this provision is nowhere to be found in the Bill. May I ask if the review has been completed and what its conclusions are? Fourth, victims should also be given access to legal aid and representation. They should be provided with information on the criminal and administrative proceedings related to their cases, including advice on pursuing civil action against their traffickers to obtain compensation. Fifth, the Courts should study if it is possible to allow victims of human trafficking to attach civil claims to the criminal case, as many will not have the means to take out separate civil lawsuits. As brought up by Ms Sylvia Lim in this House earlier this year, traditional criminal proceedings are aimed at punishing the offender, while the victim usually receives no compensation for injuries or losses from the crime. I would like to suggest that Singapore could consider a scheme practised in the Netherlands, which allows trafficking victims to attach a civil claim to a criminal case, so that the criminal Court can decide on claims at the sentencing stage. Sixth, with respect to victim protection, the Bill should clarify that trafficking victims will not be prosecuted for offences committed by them, if such offences are a direct consequence of their situation as trafficked persons. Without an assurance that they will not suffer repercussions for speaking out, many may opt not to report their abuse.”
“As human trafficking is a clandestine activity, there is often no paper trail and the prosecution relies heavily on the cooperation of victims to report and testify against suspects. In the absence of a strong victim protection and assistance framework, trafficked victims may decide that they are better off suffering in silence or may be reluctant to cooperate fully with the authorities. This will make it harder for the authorities to hunt down the traffickers and for the prosecutors to secure convictions. Traffickers will then be able to brazenly continue their evil deeds and harm even more innocent victims. There are several ways the victim assistance and protection framework can be improved. First, in addition to shelter and counselling, clause 19(1) should also mention that victims should be provided with food and healthcare. Second, victims should be allowed to work during the time their case is on-going. Most foreign workers, who leave their home countries and come to Singapore, do so to seek better work opportunities. The fear of not being able to carry on working while they undergo a lengthy Court case, which may last up to three years, could discourage victims from coming forward, as most have families back home relying on their remittances and many would have incurred hefty debts to come to Singapore. While temporary employment is currently Page: 92 permitted where merited, this is done on a case-by-case basis. There is no public mention of the criteria and merits used to determine this. This may result in a degree of uncertainty for victims who are deciding whether or not to report trafficking. Third, genuine victims should be assisted to safely return to their home country without unreasonable delay after the conclusion of the trial.”
“The Taskforce came up with the National Plan of Action in 2011 which aims to combat human trafficking through the "4Ps" framework of prevention, prosecution, protection and partnership. In this Bill, of the 4Ps, prevention and prosecution feature strongly; protection of trafficked victims is provided for but is lacking in some areas; while partnership is largely Page: 91 absent. My speech will focus on the victim protection and assistance measures in the Bill. The Bill has some provisions for protection and assistance to victims. Clause 18 protects victims of sexual exploitation by providing for in-camera Court proceedings and a publication gag order to prevent the identification of victims. Clause 19 empowers the Director of Social Welfare to provide victims with assistance, including temporary shelter and counselling services, as he or she considers "practicable and necessary" in the circumstances of the case. However, these are provided administratively at the discretion of the Director. Sir, the provisions for victim protection and assistance in the Bill need to be strengthened further. There are two key reasons why this is necessary. First, it is the right thing to do for victims of human trafficking. Many victims would have suffered horribly in the hands of their traffickers and may be in a state of shock, misery and disorientation in a foreign land. As a developed country, Singapore should do all it can to lessen their physical, mental, emotional and financial burdens while they assist in investigations and await the trial of their victimisers. Second, strengthening the protection and assistance framework would encourage more trafficked victims to come forward to report their plight to the authorities.”
“The Government has responded to this report, saying that it remains of the view that the US needs to adopt a more objective methodology in future reports. Last year, there were 53 reported cases of sex trafficking and 49 reported cases of labour trafficking in Singapore. Of these, only seven have been prosecuted, while investigations for most of the other cases are on-going. Human trafficking is covered under the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. The Protocol came into force in 2003. Singapore is neither a signatory nor party to this Protocol, although it has ratified the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which is the parent Convention to this Protocol. Singapore currently does not have a dedicated anti-trafficking law; this Bill will be the first. Currently, human trafficking is covered by several different pieces of legislation, such as the Women’s Charter and the Children and Young Persons Act. This Bill represents progress in acknowledging the problem of human trafficking in Singapore, instead of conflating human trafficking with other crimes, such as human smuggling or illegal migration, as used to be the case. It also makes an attempt to move beyond the perception that the bulk of human trafficking offences are related to sex trafficking and sexual exploitation and acknowledges that labour trafficking is also a problem. The main focus of this Bill is to criminalise trafficking by imposing penalties and stepping up enforcement efforts to weed out traffickers. There are also some provisions for victim protection and assistance. The Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking in Persons was set up in 2010 and is co-chaired by MHA and MOM.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, human trafficking is a gross human rights violation and a moral atrocity. According to International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates, there are at least 2.4 million trafficked persons around the world at any given time, with 56% of these in the Asia Pacific region. Yet, there are only a few thousand convictions of traffickers every year. Most victims are not identified and, consequently, never receive justice for the damage and hurt inflicted on them. Disturbingly, human trafficking remains a low-risk enterprise with high returns for traffickers. The ILO estimates that profits generated from human trafficking are as high as US$32 billion every year. The United Nations (UN) points out that every country in the world is affected by human trafficking, whether as a country of origin, transit or destination for victims. The US State Department said in its 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report that Singapore is a destination country for women and girls from China, India and parts of Southeast Asia who are victims of sex trafficking and a transit country for Cambodian and Filipino men subjected to forced labour on fishing vessels that stop at Singapore ports. Page: 90 The report stated that many foreign workers here have assumed large debts to recruitment agencies in both Singapore and their home countries, making them vulnerable to forced labour, including debt bondage. The report further said that some foreign workers reported confiscation of their passports, restrictions on their movement, illegal withholding of their pay, threats of forced repatriation without pay, and physical and sexual abuse, which are all potential indicators of trafficking.”
“I just want to expand upon the question from Mr Zainal just now. What safeguards would be in place to ensure that the privacy of the drivers is not compromised and that the data is not misused? I understand that this system would not be subject to the Personal Data Protection Act. Would it be made clear to the public what information would be collected and what it will be used for?”
“Thank you, Madam. One area of risk is the transmission that could take place onboard the planes that are bound for Singapore. My question is: do the authorities work with airports and public health authorities in other countries to ensure that passengers who board Singapore-bound planes are screened for infectious diseases, including Ebola? I understand that the US Department of Transportation has a rule which permits airlines to deny boarding to air travellers with contagious diseases, and this rule also applies to flights by foreign airlines into the US. Does Singapore have such a regulation? At the minimum, does Singapore Airlines screen its passengers before its flights to Singapore?”
“Madam, I understand the point about the privileges. My question is: are we granting them all the privileges that they are entitled to under CECA, or are they saying that we are not granting them enough? If it is the latter, would that mean that, effectively, the Indians are asking for more work passes for themselves?”
“I have two supplementary questions, Madam. I understand that India is claiming that our work pass framework, which has been tightened in recent years, somehow violates CECA, or they are saying that they are entitled to allow more workers to come in here. So, can the Minister share with us his interpretation of what India's claims are? Page: 28 Secondly, can the Minister also share the Ministry of Trade and Industry's position on this, and also give us an assurance that the Government will stand up to pressure from the Indians to allow more of their nationals to work here?”
“A few supplementary questions. I think the Minister basically has said that different hospitals have different practices right now. Can the Minister clarify which are the hospitals that do charge for the temporary beds and which are those that do not? For the hospitals that charge for the temporary beds, do they charge at the same rate as for beds inside the wards or do they have a discounted rate? The patients on temporary beds are already putting up with a fair degree of discomfort and inconvenience. Would the Minister agree that as long as the bed is not inside the ward, and inside a room, that they should be eligible for a lower rate and should be allowed to use their Medisave and MediShield where eligible, as well as receive all the C Class ward subsidies? Thank you.”
“Can I ask who these stakeholders are and do they include drivers and pedestrians who do not employ foreign drivers? Would it not be more prudent, and in the interest of public safety, for all foreigners to take and pass the theory and practical driving tests in Singapore before being allowed to drive? I understand there are other categories of foreigners besides Work Pass holders who may need to drive. These include visiting forces and tourists. But can we be more selective Page: 62 about the countries from which we recognise foreign driving licences, just like we do for foreign university degrees in certain professions? Many countries do operate clean bureaucracies that ensure that only drivers who have legitimately passed driving tests are issued licences. Mdm Speaker, with thousands of fatal and injury accidents on our roads each year, closing every gap in our legislation that allows less-than-competent drivers to ply our roads could save lives and limbs. I urge the Government to consider these suggestions to further enhance road safety and I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's responses.”
“Equally worrying is that 62% were deemed not competent enough to drive after taking an independent test organised by the researchers just after they obtained their licences. The study found that the average licence applicant paid about 2.5 times the official fee to obtain a licence. Most of these extra-legal payments are not outright bribes to officials but fees to "agents" who "assist" individuals in the process of obtaining their driving licences without taking a test. This is corroborated by a report in Bloomberg Businessweek, which gave an account of how dozens of men stand outside the front gate of the Road Transport Office of a certain Indian city, swarming around prospective licence applicants, offering "shortcuts through the red tape for just 3,000 rupees", or US$65. Madam, it is not my intention to single out any country, as many other countries have similar corruption problems in their bureaucracies. But I am very concerned that many of these unqualified drivers may be on our roads right now as we debate this Bill. They could be driving through our school zones or housing estates, posing a danger to pedestrians, other drivers, their passengers and even themselves. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Police satisfy itself that a foreign driving licence is legitimately obtained when allowing a foreigner to use it to drive in Singapore without a valid Singapore driving licence? Why is there a need to give a six- to 12-month window for foreigners to drive in Singapore without a valid Singapore driving licence? I note that the Senior Minister of State said in his speech earlier that this is based on the practices of other jurisdictions and the views of industry stakeholders.”
“I would now like to raise some concerns about the recognition of foreign driving licences and driving permits. Clause 8 seeks to tighten section 38 to require that Work Pass holders, who need to drive as part of their job, must now obtain a local driving licence within a "prescribed period" from the date of issuance of their Work Passes. From MHA's press release on 4 August 2014, I understand this prescribed period is six months. This is shorter than the 12 months that are currently allowed for all holders of valid foreign driving licences who are not citizens or permanent residents of Singapore. However, I believe that the regulations may not be tight enough. Six months are a long time for someone who does not have a valid Singapore driving licence to be driving around on our streets. In fact, it only takes a few minutes for a serious accident to happen – and, indeed, such accidents are more likely to happen within the first few days for a driver who is new to our roads, than several months later when he is more familiar with driving in Singapore. A foreign driver who is new to Singapore will tend to be unfamiliar with our roads – our street signs, our road markings and our driving culture. In many cases, they may be used to Page: 61 driving on the opposite side of the road that we drive on. In addition, there is a risk that even "valid" foreign driving licences may not mean that the person is sufficiently trained and competent to drive. In some countries, corruption plays a big part in the issuance of driving licences. A research study which appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, which is published by Harvard and MIT, found that 71% of people who obtained a driving licence in New Delhi did not even take the licensing examination.”
“With a very fast-changing technology landscape, the scope of "communicative functions" of mobile devices could render this definition obsolete soon. There is a new breed of emerging technologies called "wearables", like smart-watches, which, essentially, function like portable computers, but do not need to be held in the hand. Page: 60 Were these considered when drafting this legislation? Members may know about Google Glass, which is a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display developed by the Internet giant Google. It is worn like a pair of spectacles with a small LCD screen attached, which can display maps, text or videos within a user's field of vision. It can also snap pictures and record videos. The device is voice activated, so there is no need to "hold" the device to operate it. Some regulators and lawmakers around the world have raised safety concerns about Google Glass, which was introduced last year. The UK's Department of Transport has indicated that it is "not acceptable" under existing regulations for motorists in the UK to wear it. In West Virginia in the US, a state legislator introduced an amendment to ban the use of Google Glass while driving. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State two questions. One, what is the Government's position on the use of the communicative functions of a mobile phone while the vehicle is in motion if the device is mounted and not held in the hand? This includes using normal phone functions or GPS navigation software, whether installed on the phone or on a third-party device. Second, could the Senior Minister of Sate clarify whether using "wearables", including Google Glass or smart-watches, are prohibited while the vehicle is in motion?”
“While there are many studies with varying conclusions, one thing is clear: driving a car requires high levels of attention and concentration, and the use of mobile devices is a distraction which could result in serious accidents and even deaths. Ideally, no one should be allowed to use their mobile devices while driving. However, we do not all live in Road Safety Park. Our people lead busy lives, and multi-tasking is the order of the day, sometimes even when driving. At a minimum, we should have a regulatory regime where the most risky and distracting activities are clearly banned, while, at the same time, the authorities constantly remind drivers through public education of the dangers of using their mobile phones while on the roads. Our message to the drivers should be clear: realise that all use of mobile devices will distract you from driving safely. If you choose to use your mobile device while driving, be aware that certain particularly risky activities will attract heavy penalties. Clause 14 of the Bill replaces section 65B and attempts to clarify the law by changing "mobile telephone" to "mobile communication device", so as to encompass not just phones, but also tablet computers. It prohibits using any of the device's functions while the vehicle is in motion. However, there are some situations in which it appears that this Bill does not cover. For example, if the device is mounted on a holder, the driver could be checking emails, watching videos or playing games, while the vehicle is in motion. Introducing a definition of "communicative function" in the Bill could unintentionally limit the scope of prohibited devices.”
“Mdm Speaker, there were 6,426 fatal and injury accidents on our roads last year. While this is down from a high of 8,625 in 2010, every serious accident is one too many, because they each impact the lives of not just the victims, but also their families. Statistically speaking, our daily commute on the roads is often our most dangerous activity each day. Because of this, road safety is a matter that warrants serious attention by both policy-makers and citizens, drivers and pedestrians. I, therefore, support any measures to enhance safety on our roads. This Bill enhances regulations on several road safety and licensing issues, but there are some which I feel could be tightened further. I will focus on two aspects of this Bill today: the use of mobile communication devices while driving, and the recognition of foreign driving licences and driving permits. First, on mobile communication devices. I was recently rear-ended by another car while I was stuck in traffic. While the driver claimed that she was not texting while driving, there Page: 59 must have been something that distracted her to cause her to crash into my stationary vehicle. According to a study published in the British Medical Journal, a driver is 4.9 times more likely to get into an accident when holding and using a mobile phone while driving. Even using a hands-free accessory is not much safer. It has been found to increase the risk by about 3.8 times. The UK's Department of Transport said that reaction times for drivers using a phone are about 50% slower. Even careful drivers can be distracted by a call or text, and a split-second lapse in concentration could result in a crash.”
“Thank you, Madam. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the answers. I have three supplementary questions. GIC has reported that over the 20-year period ended 31 March 2014, the GIC portfolio has generated an average annual real return of 4.1%. Does this figure take into account the interest payable to CPF for the SSGS? Second question: can the Deputy Prime Minister explain what is the mechanism by which the investment returns from GIC are transferred back to the Government and then to CPF? Does the GIC only return the NIRC to the budget and then leave it to the Government to disburse the SSGS principal plus interest to CPF using net assets? And third question: specifically, on the eight years in the past 20 years, where GIC's investment returns were below what the Government pays on SSGS, were these shortfalls funded from the Government's net assets or from the GIC's assets?”
“This is especially so for older policyholders, who now have to top up anywhere between $100 and $3,500 a year in cash to pay for their B1 plan premiums. This is frustrating for many of them, especially retirees who are short on cash but have sufficient Medisave balances. I hope the development of a Standard B1 Plan will raise the Medisave Withdrawal Limit to better meet the cost of Integrated Shield Plan premiums, especially for older policyholders. Mdm Speaker, MediShield Life is a welcome shift in policy towards stronger social safety nets. In its 1993 Healthcare White Paper, the Government sounded a warning against an over-reliance on medical insurance and the risk of moral hazard. Now, 21 years later, the Government has responded to a louder voice of the people with a universal scheme that has better benefits, lower co-payments and subsidised premiums. This is a step in the right direction towards a more caring society. 5.10 pm”
“Worse still, many consumers get their information about the Integrated Shield Plans from insurance agents representing individual insurers. Naturally, we cannot expect these insurance agents to give completely unbiased advice, since it is their job to market their own company's products. The net result is that consumers end up either choosing a plan that is not the best for them and their families, or they end up confused and unsure of which plan to choose. Page: 78 I note that MOH has a section on its website that provides a comparison of MediShield and different Integrated Shield Plans. This is a good initiative that should be better publicised, so as to reduce confusion and encourage more consumer self-service. It could also spur more competition and lower prices, as insurance companies will compete more on features and price, and less on their marketing ability. I would like to seek more clarification on how the Standard B1 plan will be implemented: First, will the Government tender out the Standard Plan to only one insurance company or will all insurers be expected to offer this plan? If it is tendered to one insurer, how will it ensure sufficient competition such that the premiums and benefits are to the advantage of consumers? Second, if existing Integrated Shield Plan policyholders decide to switch to the Standard Plan, will they be subject to underwriting, where their pre-existing conditions will get excluded or risk-loaded? If so, it would probably not make sense to switch, especially for older policyholders who are likely to have developed pre-existing conditions. For many Singaporeans, the main issue they have with Integrated Shield Plans is that the Medisave Withdrawal Limits are too low, forcing them to cough out cash to pay their premiums.”
“These employers could be encouraged to take the first steps by helping their employees pay for their MediShield Life premiums, as this will make them more attractive organisations to work for. To make portable benefits more attractive and comprehensive, employers could not only contribute towards their employees' MediShield Life premiums, but also consider purchasing riders to cover some of the co-payments, so that the out-of-pocket payments by their employees will be reduced. The Government should take up the Committee's suggestion for an adoption grant to be made available to companies to assist them in making a move to portable medical benefits that ride atop MediShield Life. MOH should also increase its efforts to better educate companies of the continuing tax incentives available and the benefits of providing portable insurance to their employees. Next, I would like to touch on Integrated Shield Plans. The Committee has suggested that the Government should work with the insurance industry to develop key features for a Standard Plan that will provide coverage at the B1 class level in public hospitals. This Standard Plan appears to serve two main purposes: first, to provide a benchmark for consumers to compare against the plans offered by private insurers; and, second, to set the Medisave Withdrawal Limit for Integrated Shield Plans. On the first point, I share the frustration of many consumers in choosing the best Shield Plan. The Plans are currently offered by five insurance companies, with each trying to differentiate itself by offering a different set of benefits. Sometimes, comparing them is like comparing apples with oranges.”
“Finally, as MediShield Life will be front-loading premiums, its annual reports should distinguish how much is being collected for pre-funding and how much is being collected to fund current claims. Next, I would like to discuss the issue of portable medical insurance. It is good that the Committee has brought this up in its report. The report noted that less than 5% of employers offer portable medical benefits, and most companies that provide inpatient benefits do so through Group Hospitalisation and Surgery insurance plans (GHS) that are separate from MediShield. It acknowledged that GHS plans are "usually more attractive" than those provided by MediShield, MediShield Life and Integrated Shield Plans, and tend to offer "higher perceived value" to employees at relatively lower costs for employers. This presents a steep challenge to adoption. We are essentially asking many employers and employees to shift to an inferior plan that may cost more. Because of this, I think we need to approach the messaging from a different angle to encourage adoption. First, we need to explain to employees that there are clear benefits to portable insurance. When they change jobs, they can retain their cover. Second, the universal mandate for MediShield Life means employees will already be paying premiums, whether or not their employers offer portable plans. So, portable benefits provided by Page: 77 employers could help lower the premium burden on employees. Third, having a single comprehensive insurance cover instead of a patchwork of duplicate covers means the employee should be able to claim a larger share of his hospital bill. And fourth, not all employers currently offer inpatient medical benefits to their employees.”
“The fund can still maintain a comfortable buffer above MAS requirements, but I do not see the justification for exceeding the requirements by 80% when the regulator's requirements are already quite conservative. Another result of parking aside too much in the reserves is that the Medical Loss Ratio of the MediShield scheme becomes very low. In 2013, the Medical Loss Ratio of MediShield was 44%, which means that out of every dollar that was collected in premiums last year, only 44 cents was paid out in claims. This is the lowest loss ratio since 2001. Page: 76 As I pointed out during the last Parliament Sitting, under the Affordable Care Act in the United States, commercial insurance companies are required to issue premium rebates to policyholders if their loss ratio falls below 80%-85%. Can MediShield Life, which is a not-for-profit scheme, do something similar, so as to reduce the premium burden on Singaporeans? Healthcare expert Dr Jeremy Lim has commented on the lack of actuarial data on MediShield Life being made available to the public. I agree that more detailed data will enable the public and independent experts to validate the conclusions put out by the Government, especially with respect to the premiums that need to be collected to keep the Fund solvent. It would be helpful if the Government could make known its targets for the medical loss ratio, capital adequacy ratio and reserves for MediShield Life. Since the Government says it needs to keep a large amount in reserves for "adverse scenarios", it should explain what kind of adverse scenarios it is expecting and how much it expects them to cost.”
“However, there is a big difference between setting aside enough reserves and setting aside too much reserves. Setting aside enough ensures that MediShield Life Fund remains solvent even when claims in a particular year are higher than expected. Setting aside too much could mean collecting excessive premiums to cater to an extremely unlikely, but catastrophic event. So, how much is "enough" and how much is "too much"? The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has in place a Risk Based Capital Framework which regulates all insurance funds, including MediShield. The framework defines, among other things, how much the fund needs to set aside to ensure capital adequacy and solvency. This is measured using the Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR), which is the ratio of a fund's net assets to its total risk requirements. The MAS expects insurance funds to meet a CAR of 120%. According to an answer to my Parliamentary Question last October, the CAR of the MediShield Fund was 165% as at the end of 2012, which is 45% higher than MAS requirements. At the end of 2013, the MediShield Fund had net assets of $613.3 million, which is more than 1.8 times the total claims paid out in the past year. The Health Minister said, in response to the same Parliamentary Question, that the MediShield Fund has set a target CAR of 200%, which is 80% higher than MAS requirements. Madam, is there really a need to set aside so much in reserves? While this manages the risk for the fund, it could be placing an unnecessary premium burden on policyholders. If the pace of reserves accumulation can be adjusted to be more in line with MAS requirements, premiums can then be made more affordable.”
“I agree and I would like to reiterate my earlier calls for premium subsidies to be provided automatically to households that have already undergone means-testing for other Government assistance schemes. For example, all households with Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) Blue and Orange cards should receive MediShield Life premium subsidies without having to apply separately. The same should apply to recipients of Medifund, Public Assistance and ComCare. Polyclinics, hospitals and private clinics should step up efforts to assist all their patients to apply for CHAS, so that they can receive both outpatient subsidies under CHAS and MediShield Life premium subsidies. The Government should reach out to all lower and middle income Singaporeans before the start of MediShield Life, so that they do not miss out on the premium subsidies that they are entitled to. I would also like to suggest that the income criteria for premium subsidies be pegged to healthcare inflation so that the value of the subsidies is not eroded with rising healthcare costs and premiums. On the issue of financial sustainability, the Committee has reiterated the Government's conservative approach of setting aside substantial reserves in the MediShield Life Fund to meet current and future liabilities. It did not suggest any changes to the reserves framework. This is an area that begs further examination. It is not just an academic exercise. The reserves framework impacts the premiums that people are required to pay. Page: 75 Let me state for the record that I believe that MediShield Life should be financially sustainable in the long term, and that enough reserves must be set aside for temporary spikes in claims and long-term liabilities.”
“Mdm Speaker, anxiety about healthcare affordability weighs heavily on the minds of Singaporeans – not only the elderly, but also their adult children and those who will become old and face the risk of falling seriously ill. It is, therefore, important for us to work together as a nation to find solutions to the challenging problems regarding healthcare affordability, quality and accessibility in Singapore. I would like to thank the MediShield Life Review Committee for widely consulting Singaporeans on their concerns and taking so many of these into account when crafting their recommendations to the Government. I also commend the Committee for taking the Page: 74 initiative to address some key issues that went beyond the terms of reference given to them by the Government. I support the Motion endorsing the Committee's report as the basis for designing MediShield Life. However, I have a number of concerns about some details of the scheme, which I will focus on in my speech today. At the heart of the report lies the recommendation to provide Singaporeans with better lifetime protection against large medical bills and to strengthen our social safety net. Pulling these recommendations in both directions are the competing priorities of, on one hand, the need to make MediShield Life affordable to all Singaporeans and, on the other hand, the need to ensure that the scheme is financially sustainable. This is the key challenge before this House today. On the issue of affordability, I am glad that the Government will be providing permanent premium subsidies for low- and middle-income earners. The Committee has suggested that the process for applying for subsidies should be as simple and convenient as possible.”
“Thank you, Madam. I have four supplementary questions, three of which are related to each other. First is how does the Government ensure that there is genuine contestability and competition among the operators so that they will be kept on their toes to constantly improve service quality and efficiency? How will it ensure that the new model will not see the same few players dominating the market? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that it is easy for new players to enter the market and also easy for non-performing operators to exit? Thirdly, how many new players does the Government plan to allow into this market? Fourthly, does the Government have plans to set up a corporatised, not-for-profit entity like a National Transport Corporation or Transport for London, that manages the assets in the day-to-day operations of the bus network, while leaving LTA to play the regulatory and planning role, as this could lead to greater efficiency and accountability and minimise the risk of regulatory capture?”
“Madam, I am glad he made that clarification. In fact, I cited ObamaCare precisely because of the US health system and the trouble that it is in today and the fact that it is a commercial insurance scheme rather than a social insurance scheme. In fact, a social insurance scheme should have a much higher loss ratio than a commercial insurance scheme because commercial insurance wants to make money, whereas the Government is not in the business of making money. In fact, MediShield is supposed to be a Page: 52 not-for-profit insurance scheme. Secondly, he asked about the grave scenario if payouts become more than the premiums collected. Now, in the case of medical insurance, it is relatively easy to be able to project what are the likely payouts to be and compared to, let us, say, earthquake insurance or something that has a much lower frequency compared to health insurance, where you are able to see the trend and the cost of medical expenses over the years and be able to project what the payouts should be. So, the question is: if it comes to the point where, because of the miscalculations, we aim for a 90% or 80% medical loss ratio but, for some reason, there is SARS that year or something like that happens, then we have a situation where the Government would have to step in to subsidise a bit more of the cost and the premiums can rise behind the increase in cost, not before you know that the costs are going to increase, then you raise the premiums.”
“Thank you, Madam. I just want to clarify a point that Dr Janil said in his speech earlier on. I never said or suggested that health insurance payouts should be more than the premiums collected. But for a social health insurance scheme which is what MediShield Life should be, the premiums collected do not need to be so much more. Page: 51 As a point of comparison, the US Affordable Care Act, the new ObamaCare, mandates a minimum loss ratio of between 80% and 85%. Ours is, on average, 63% over the last 11 years, and it was 75% in 2012. So, the US Affordable Care Act mandates that the minimum loss ratio should be between 80% and 85% and that insurers who do not spend 80%-85% of their premiums in healthcare costs must now issue rebates to consumers. And these are all commercial insurers. These are not social health insurers.”
“Robust debates which focus on the issues and the problems at hand and where alternative solutions are proposed and properly considered can help shape better policies which will benefit Singaporeans. But when debates start getting personal and descend into unnecessary political attacks, they risk losing focus on the bread-and-butter issues that citizens are concerned about. This sort of politics can cause our people to become cynical about the political process and erode their respect for politicians of all parties. We must not let our politics descend to this level because that weakens Singapore. Having said that, we must not presume that vigorous and passionate debates will lead to gridlock and paralysis. We should not sacrifice quality for efficiency. As the wise adage goes, "Legislate in haste, repent at leisure." It is unproductive to rush through new policies only to have it cause pain and unhappiness for the people and have to reverse it later. It would be much better to have a proper and informed debate, both inside and outside this House, make adjustments and respond to feedback from Members and the public, then roll out better schemes for Singaporeans. I will continue to join my Workers' Party colleagues to contribute constructively to debates on issues that matter to Singaporeans. If we assess that a policy will go against Singaporeans' interests, we will oppose it and, where possible, propose alternatives. If the policy is good for our country, we will support the Government for the benefit of the people. This is how we play the role of a constructive opposition. Madam, I support the Motion to thank the President. 2.49 pm”
“We should be on higher guard against the risk of rent-seeking in these sectors. Madam, as social spending increases, the Government has said that it will need to develop other revenue streams to make up for future Budget shortfalls. We should continue to keep taxes low for income derived from engaging in value-adding activities which bring technological advancement and create good jobs for Singaporeans. This rewards hard work and incentivises productive activity and entrepreneurship. However, if there is a need to raise more revenue to make up for future Budget shortfalls, the Government should look first to increasing the Net Investment Return contributions or taxes on profits derived from economically non-productive activities. This should be done before considering raising GST or personal income taxes for middle-income earners. Madam, on my last point, I want to respond to what the President said in his Address about constructive politics. He said that "it is crucial to maintain constructive politics that puts our nation and our people first". He acknowledged that politics lives off robust debate and passionate argument and that we should continue to have vigorous debates on the challenges facing our nation and this is important so as to have the best ideas and the best leadership for Singapore. I agree with the President on these points. My reason for entering politics was to contribute towards shaping better public policies that benefit my fellow Page: 33 citizens and help Singapore progress. I trust that this was also what motivated all Members of this House to enter the political arena.”
“Some struggling families need to be given financial assistance on a longer term basis until their circumstances change, for example, when their siblings graduate or their children graduate from school and start Page: 32 working. We must always incentivise hard work and productive activity, productive contributions to our economy and society. However, these incentives should not only be focused on welfare recipients. We must be on guard against rent-seeking behaviour in our society, especially in major industries that have an impact on our economy. The Economist magazine defines rent-seeking as cutting oneself a bigger slice of the cake rather than working to make the cake bigger. In other words, trying to make more money without producing more for customers. Rent-seeking may or may not be illegal. Some examples of rent-seeking include forming cartels or lobbying for changes in regulations that benefit one's own company at the expense of customers. Rent-seeking can impose large costs on our economy without creating any value. It insults our sense of what is fair and goes against the values of meritocracy and hard work that we expect our people to put in before getting rewarded. The Economist has developed what it calls a "crony capitalism index", which ranks countries according to billionaire wealth earned as a proportion of the overall economy in sectors that are vulnerable to monopoly. All that involves licensing or heavy stake involvement. Singapore ranks poorly in this index. We are ranked fifth among 23 countries that are surveyed in 2007 and 2014. The Economist identified several industrial sectors that are prone to rent-seeking behaviour, including casinos, real estate and construction.”
“Will the Government take on some of the risks by subsidising premiums and removing claim limits, as I proposed in my Adjournment Motion on healthcare financing last November? I look forward to some good news in this respect when the MediShield Life Committee announces its recommendations. There are other related issues, like the increasing cost of living, the adequacy of CPF for retirement, healthcare affordability and job security, that continue to cause Singaporeans a great deal of worry. The Government will do well to pay closer attention to these issues this remaining term. Next, on incentivising hard work and productive activity. In Singapore, almost all Government assistance is strictly means-tested and time-bound. Most Members would have seen cases at their Meet-the-People Sessions where a struggling resident with a family to support is given a small amount in financial assistance, sometimes as little as $50 a month by the Community Development Council and has to repeatedly appeal through the Member of Parliament for it to be renewed every few months. I presume the purpose of this is to motivate such residents to work harder and reduce their reliance on Government handouts. However, in many of these cases, the resident is already working as hard as she can but her income is simply not enough to maintain her children and elderly parents while paying off utility bills, service and conservancy charges and medical expenses, just to name a few. The Government cannot expect that by making them jump through hoops to receive financial assistance, they will suddenly be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, especially when incomes at the lower end are not rising at a fast enough rate.”
“If Singaporeans face very high uncertainties in their lives, they will be less willing to start a business or volunteer their time to serve others. Their minds will be so preoccupied with survival that they find it hard to engage in innovative, creative or compassionate thinking. Instead, they will be under tremendous stress, worrying about how to cope with the rising cost of living and the increasing responsibilities of work and family. Page: 31 In my maiden speech at the Opening of the First Session of Parliament in October 2011, I criticised the regressive transfer of risks from Government to citizens over the previous decade. I am glad that in the last two-and-a-half years, there has been a shift in mindset and policy and the Government is starting to bear a larger share of the risks. The HDB says that it has delinked BTO flat prices from resale market valuations. The LTA has just announced that public bus services will undergo a nationalisation of their infrastructure and operating assets, with operations contracted out to private operators under stricter service standards. Changes are underway in healthcare to distribute more risks through universal insurance. These are moves in the right direction. However, it is not time to declare victory yet. While flat prices have moderated, they come from a very high base and the prices are still high relative to the incomes of young home buyers. We have yet to see whether service quality will improve under the new bus contracting model and whether fares will continue to rise at the same rate as now. While everyone will soon have health insurance, is the risk simply being distributed among all Singaporeans?”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to focus on three areas in my response to the President's Address – managing risks, incentivising hard work and constructive politics. First, on managing risks. We face numerous risks in the course of our lives, or what the President called "the vicissitudes of life". We could lose our job, suffer a drastic drop in income; we could fall seriously ill or get into an accident and have difficulty affording the medical treatment. Or we may retire but find we do not have enough to live our golden years with peace of mind. This Government has been an excellent risk manager. It has been very good at managing its own risks but less so the risks faced by our citizens. It pegs the CPF Minimum Sum amount to inflation but does not do the same for CPF Life Annuity payouts to the elderly. It raises the CPF drawdown age which helps preserve the value of CPF balances but leaves many retirees struggling to make ends meet despite decades of contributions to CPF. Even a risk-sharing scheme like MediShield, which is supposed to be a form of social health insurance, is run more on commercial and social principles. The MediShield Fund had a capital adequacy ratio of 161% in 2012, which is more than 40% higher than what the MAS expects commercial insurance funds to hold. The loss ratio of MediShield averaged just 63% from 2001 to 2012. This means that it is collecting a lot more in premiums than it is paying out in claims. In the last two decades, this Government has marketised many public services like transport and healthcare, transferring risks from the Government to service providers, which can easily pass them on to customers because of their near monopoly positions. There are negative consequences for transferring too much risk to citizens.”
“Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to clarify: what is the Government's philosophy behind the GST Voucher Scheme? Is it meant to offset the taxes that are paid by the lower income through GST? Or is it meant to just partially offset it? I understand the Senior Minister of State's point that there are other vouchers and other subsidy schemes that would help to offset the cost of living, but specifically for the GST, does the Government see it necessary to fully offset the GST paid by the lower income, in recognition of the fact that it is a regressive tax? Because that was the understanding and the impression that I had when the GST Voucher Scheme was launched.”