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 19 of 20.
“It will now include workers in the broadcasting, newspaper and postal services, and even bulk distribution of fuel and lubricants, from among a list of 28 essential services listed in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. What is the reason for including these new exemptions and in what way was the previous list of exemptions insufficient? More importantly, how will the Ministry ensure that essential services workers are not made to work excessive hours without breaks, rest days or overtime pay, over an extended period of Page: 83 time? The insertion of a new subsection (4A) in section 88, increases flexibility for employers to compensate employees who work on holidays by granting them time-off in-lieu or overtime pay. It also specifies the number of hours of time-off in-lieu, depending on whether the employee worked a full-day or a half-day during a holiday. Madam, holidays are very important for workers, as they provide them a day to spend with their families and recuperate from work. A disruption of a holiday due to work exigencies should be properly compensated by the employer. This Bill allows the employer to grant only part of a day off to replace a full day of a holiday work, "as may be agreed between the employee and his employer". Why is it necessary to give this additional option to employers? It could give employers a way to avoid fully compensating their employees for holiday work, as the employee will find it hard to refuse a lower compensation. Why not take away this option so that it will be mandatory for employers to either compensate their employees with extra pay or time-off in-lieu in proportion to the time spent working on the holiday?”
“While one could argue that the worker is free not to sign the contract, in reality, most low-wage workers are not in a strong bargaining position to refuse. This makes it more necessary for the law, and not just the contract, to protect the worker. Next, on penalties. This Bill specifies in section 34 the penalties for failure to pay salaries in accordance with the Act. A first-time offender will be liable to a fine of between $3,000 and $15,000 and/or a six-months' jail and a subsequent offence could double that. Madam, non-payment or late payment of salaries is a concern for many workers. Stiff punishment must be meted out to errant employers who fail to meet their obligations to their employees, in order to send a strong deterrent message. However, the penalties do not guarantee that the worker will actually get paid what is owed him. While section 134 stipulates that the court can order fines to be paid to the aggrieved worker, this is discretionary. Can the fines imposed be automatically paid to aggrieved workers, so that they receive all of their salary arrears? The amendments to section 40 allow workers in "essential services" industries to work for more than six consecutive hours without a break or more than 12 hours a day and without being paid for overtime work if it does not last for more than three weeks. Currently, this exemption is granted mostly for ad-hoc work exigencies, like accidents, unforeseeable interruptions and urgent work, or defence and security duties. This amendment could greatly increase the number of workers in Singapore who do not enjoy the work hour limit protections under section 38(1).”
“Mdm Speaker, I will focus on the amendments to the Employment Act in this Bill. I have several questions regarding the amendments to section 30 pertaining to deductions for accommodation, amenities and services provided by employers to their workers. First, how is the value of these deductible expenses determined? Has MOM conducted any inspections to determine if the prices charged by any employers are excessive? Second, is the value of the accommodation based on the actual cost or the market value? If it is based on the market value, these employers could potentially profit from providing accommodation to their workers, since private market rentals are very high. I note that section 27(1)(c) allows for deductions for only the actual cost of meals but section 27(1)(d) does not specify "actual cost of accommodation". Can the wording of the latter be changed so that employers are only allowed to deduct for the actual cost of accommodation? Third, what can "amenities" and "other services" include? Unscrupulous employers could potentially throw in anything as a service or amenity, in order to deduct their workers' salaries and reduce costs. I understand that some workers earning less than $800 per month still face deductions to their salaries. This could lead to financial hardship for them and their families, as their salaries may fall even further below subsistence levels. Would the Ministry consider Page: 82 prohibiting salary deductions for workers who earn below a subsistence threshold? And fourth, I note that the protections under section 30 are still subject to mutual agreement between the worker and his employer.”
“Madam, I have four supplementary questions. First, will the Minister consider extending concessions to the intellectually-disabled commuters as well, not just physically-disabled commuters? Second, regarding incorporation of service quality in the formula, since most commuters do associate service quality with their willingness to pay higher fares, the Minister has said that it is because the Government does not want to have differentiated fares between different operators but my question is "why not?" And how difficult is it to implement differentiated fares between the two operators? In fact, that will actually spur the operators to do better on the service quality standpoint. The third question is regarding the energy component in the index. While I accept that energy is a major cost component for the PTOs, there are many other cost components as well, like manpower. Are we trying to shield the PTOs from all these negative externalities in the fare formula? And my last question is, will this new fare formula – if you compare it with the previous fare formula and with the knowledge that we know as to how much the previous fare formula allowed for increases over the last few years – would this new fare formula lead to higher maximum fare increases?”
“Madam, I have three supplementary questions. First, my concern is that the increased coverage will also come with higher premiums. While I support the increased coverage, my concern is that these higher premiums will be a financial burden on some members, especially the elderly and the low income. So, my questions are: is the Government planning to subsidise MediShield Life premiums as part of its overall plan to increase the healthcare budget, because currently MediShield is completely self-funding and receives no Government subsidies? Secondly, can the Government provide more details about the Pioneer Generation Package that was announced during the National Day Rally? Would it be means tested and what is the cut-off age? Lastly, when will the full details of MediShield Life be announced?”
“I have got three supplementary questions. I would also like to extend my condolences to the family of Dinesh Raman. My reason for asking my original question was because I am concerned that even the approved C&R techniques risk fatal or permanent injuries to inmates. So, my first question is: was the restraining technique that caused the death of inmate Dinesh Raman on 27 September 2010 an approved technique? Secondly, has Prisons factored in the possibility that a combination of C&R techniques, even though they may be individually approved, could cause fatalities? Lastly, will the review of the C&R doctrine in Prisons apply to the Police and other security services so as to ensure that there Page: 35 is no repetition of such a tragedy, Government-wide?”
“Madam, I have three supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. Firstly, of the many procurement lapses discovered by the Auditor-General in this year's report, were there indications of gratification being paid, given or received by public servants in any of them? Secondly, does the AGO presume that any procurement lapses may involve gratification and, therefore, conducts specific investigations to discover that? Thirdly, if gratification is found to be involved, does the AGO presume that there may be corruption involved, unless the contrary is proven, in accordance with section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?”
“Page: 80 The 24-hour take-down order was really because of the nature of online news. If it goes viral and it creates havoc and panic, we need to be able to take it down within 24 hours. Even then, as I mentioned in my reply to the media when I met them after the announcement, MDA will be flexible, we will seek to understand your circumstances. You may need to take some time. We are not going to ramp this down their throat and say "You must take it down, whatever the case may be!" There may be other constraints that they are facing. And we will work with them to understand their circumstances. The fact that there is a notice, they know that they have to behave responsibly. I think is an important point for all of us, so that we can sleep better that these sites are doing their work responsibly because they are reporting news. And news – we must all agree – is an important part of our lives and we make decisions based on the news. We have to make sure they report accurately and responsibly.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for revealing that there have been 24 take-down orders since 1996 and that all of these take-down orders have been complied with. May I just ask: were these take-down orders complied with within the time frame that MDA gave? If not, which are the sites that did not comply? Second question is since the Class Licence Scheme is working fine, why does the Government see a need to introduce this new scheme so urgently? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: For the 24 sites that I mentioned earlier, they were subject to the Class Licence rules. Under the Class Licence rules, there is no time frame for the take-down. It is defined as "the best effort". We worked with the website owners, discussed with them, and in most cases, the take-down was almost immediate. Out of the 24 cases, I was told by my staff, 23 cases were public complaints. People saw something on the sites which they did not agree with – it had to do with sex or gambling. The site that was featuring the video on "The Innocence of Muslims" took us some time to work through because it was hosted by a different entity altogether. On the change, I mentioned earlier that the Class Licence Scheme has worked and – you are right. But the environment has changed; the landscape has changed. There is now a growing number of online news sites, reporting. I mentioned the example of Yahoo, but The Global Mail from Australia has been operating as an online news site. Let us anticipate that this will grow, and put a framework in place. The framework is not so onerous. Yes, you may argue that the $50,000 bond is a challenge. As I mentioned in my reply, we will work with the companies. If they really cannot meet that, then there are other ways in which we can overcome that.”
“Mdm Speaker, I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's explanation of the regulations in place. My question was: during this period of the haze, were there any extra steps to enforce or monitor building owners to ensure that they actually do what they are supposed to do.”
“Madam, now that the haze seems to be behind us at least for this year, will the scheme offering subsidised treatments for haze-related illnesses continue or will it be revived when the haze comes back again? Is there a certain threshold PSI that will trigger off the scheme and will the GPs who have signed up this year continue to be on the scheme next year?”
“A question for the Minister. On the subject of engaging all levels of government in Indonesia, since the Minister said that the ratification of the ASEAN Haze Agreement is being held up not by Indonesians' central government, but by the Indonesian House of Representatives, the DPR, are there any plans to engage the Indonesian legislators directly to persuade them to ratify the agreement expeditiously, for example, by engaging them at the upcoming ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly?”
“Madam, I have two questions for the Minister of Defence. First, one of the big causes of anxiety among Singaporeans was the unavailability of N95 masks at the height of the haze. How will the Government ensure in the future that its stockpile of face masks gets to the distribution points faster? Secondly, are there any laws in place that require retailers to ration the sale of essential products the moment such emergencies break out, rather than a few days after the fact, so as to mitigate the effects of hoarding, and to ensure that the genuinely vulnerable people get the necessary protection that they need?”
“Do we believe that all children are born equal and that every child is legitimate, no matter how he or she was conceived? If we do, I urge the Government to accord to single unwed mothers the same parenthood benefits as all other Singaporean mothers. Page: 99 6.07 pm”
“However, breaking with this norm should not result in a mother and her child being denied the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave. After all, we do not encourage divorce but we still give divorcees the same Baby Bonus and maternity leave as married mothers. While some may fear that providing equal benefits to unwed mothers may encourage the emergence of "welfare moms" where single women get pregnant just to collect welfare cheques, I think this fear is unfounded in Singapore's context. First, the quantum of benefits is hardly enough to make up for the high cost of raising children in Singapore. No rational woman will choose to conceive a child just to collect the Baby Bonus. Second, I am not asking the Government to provide additional benefits to single mothers as they do in some countries – just equal benefits. Madam, unwed mothers face huge challenges raising their child on their own. I can only imagine how tough it must be whenever I have to look after my own kids on my own when my wife is away. Unwed mothers have to single-handedly care for their child, take on the role of both father and mother, and hold onto a job to pay the bills. They also have to face the social stigma of being single and unmarried. On top of all that, they are denied many of the parenthood benefits that married, divorced and widowed mothers receive. This could add to their feeling of marginalisation from society. Single mothers need more of society's support. As the Acting Minister said, many of them are from vulnerable families. They are mothers first and singles second; not the other way around. The welfare of their children should be our top priority. Do we, as a society, believe in second chances?”
“I note that a single unwed mother can become eligible for the Baby Bonus if she marries the biological father of her child before her child turns 12. However, some single mothers may not end up marrying the man for various reasons and this should not prevent them from receiving the same benefits. Providing these benefits will help reduce their financial burden which, for some unmarried women expecting a child, could tip the scales in favour of keeping the child instead of choosing to undergo an abortion. It is certainly not a silver bullet to reduce our high abortion rates but, if just one more life is saved, I think it is worth providing the benefits. During the COS debate on 14 March, I pointed out that the issue of out-of-wedlock births is a complex, moral and social one that needs to be tackled in ways other than through selective social benefits. In response, the Acting Minister assured me that the Government does not judge people by their status. I was glad to hear this because I took it to mean that the Government is not trying to shape moral behaviour using parenthood benefits. The Acting Minister also told me that there will always be some help that we give to married couples Page: 98 and there will be another package of help that we give to singles. That being the case, what alternative package of help is the Government giving to unwed mothers? I do not think there is any universal package available, apart from means-tested social assistance. I believe that it is important that, as a society, we continue to uphold the centrality of a two-parent household within the institution of marriage. This norm should continue to be promoted by the Government, for example, through schools.”
“There are also several tax benefits that are not available to mothers of what IRAS calls "an illegitimate Page: 97 child", including the Parenthood Tax Rebate, Qualifying Child Relief, Handicapped Child Relief, Working Mother Child Relief and Grandparent Caregiver Relief. Unwed mothers also do not qualify for public rental flats from the HDB, a point raised by Mr Png Eng Huat during the COS debate for MND. Madam, I would like to ask for unwed mothers to receive the same 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, including the last eight weeks paid for by the Government. The Baby Bonus cash gift and the Government's co-matching contribution to the CDA should also be extended to them. The Baby Bonus scheme, as stated on MSF's website, is to "support parents' decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial costs of raising children". It is, therefore, not a reward for having children but a financial assistance scheme. I note for the other new measures in the Marriage and Parenthood package like Extended Childcare Leave, the Medisave grant for newborns and MediShield coverage for congenital and neonatal conditions, the same benefits are extended to unwed mothers or their children. Why not take the next logical step of equalising the remaining parenthood benefits? Equalising benefits for unwed mothers helps not just the mother but her child as well. The Ministry should take a child-centric view of the family and not make the child pay the price for the past actions of his or her parents. Unwed mothers have made a choice to keep and raise their child despite their difficult circumstances and the options for abortion or adoption. We should give them the due recognition for making this difficult choice.”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to amend the existing Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCS) to implement some of the measures in the Marriage and Parenthood package that were announced this year. I welcome the amendments and I am glad to see the introduction of paternity leave. This was something I appealed for during last year's Committee of Supply debate. I urge all new fathers to fully utilise the one week of paternity leave to bond with their newborn babies and help their wives during their confinement period. I am glad I was able to take paternity leave when my two babies were born a few years ago and I am grateful to my company for providing it even before the Government mandated it. I think the Government is moving in the right direction by extending paid childcare leave to all single mothers. However, the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave, which are two of the biggest and most helpful parenthood benefits, are still being denied to single unwed mothers. My colleague, Ms Lee Li Lian, advocated on behalf of single mothers and for the equalisation of maternity leave during the COS debate for MSF this year. Now, I would like to add to her calls. Currently, unwed mothers get eight weeks of employer-paid maternity leave and their companies are required to give them an additional four weeks of unpaid leave. Essentially, the Government bears no cost for the maternity leave of unwed mothers. This is unlike married, widowed or divorced mothers who enjoy eight weeks of employer-paid leave followed by eight weeks of Government-paid leave. Unwed mothers also do not receive the Baby Bonus cash gift of $6,000 and the Government's co-matching contribution of up to $6,000 in the Child Development Account (CDA).”
“Sir, I am glad to know that MOM is taking steps to address discrimination against Singaporeans. I just have four quick questions: One is, when did MOM start curtailing Work Pass privileges for this type of violations? Secondly, how many companies have had their Work Pass privileges curtailed because of unfair employment practices? Third, what is the range of privileges that can be curtailed? And, fourthly, how will MOM rectify situations where there are already enclaves that have been formed in some companies as a result of these unfair hiring practices?”
“I call on the Government to take more robust steps to address these concerns and ensure that Singaporeans do not lose out unfairly to foreigners, and we can Page: 82 build a stronger Singaporean Core at all our companies. Wage Levies – Effective or Inflationary?”
“Madam, when Singapore ramped up its industrialisation in the 1960s, one key reason for attracting MNCs, in addition to driving growth and creating jobs, was for these companies to transfer managerial and technical skills to Singaporeans. Subsequent decades saw many companies transitioned from expatriate to local leadership and many Singaporeans rose up the ranks. However, with the influx of foreign skilled workers in the past decade, we have seen a reversal of progress in this area. Many private sector companies now have their professional and managerial ranks filled with foreigners, although many of them would be classified as locals because they had obtained Singapore PR or citizenship. Even the junior professional positions are often staffed by foreigners when our local graduates should have no problem meeting the job requirements. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) has said that half of the employment-related complaints they received last year were to do with alleged discrimination against locals. Many Singaporeans have also expressed frustration at the enclaves of employees of the same country found in some companies. The cause of the problem may not lie with human resource managers and recruiters, but with the hiring managers who are often foreign middle managers. They will only prefer recruiting fellow countrymen to work under them. If TAFEP is to be effective in tackling this problem, it will need to reach out beyond the HR department and educate these middle managers to hire based on merit, rather than nationality. A mindset change is needed in the way many of our companies recruit and promote talent. Foreign talent is not automatically better than local talent.”
“Madam, I have three clarifications for the Acting Minister. Firstly, I am very glad to hear that the paid childcare leave will be extended to unmarried single mothers. This is something I called for during the PMO COS. Notwithstanding that, I would like to ask the Minister what is the rationale for not providing the same package of parenthood benefits, including the same duration of paid maternity leave, to unmarried single parents as their married counterparts. Is it because we want to send a signal that we frown on out-of-wedlock births? If so, I do not think this is the right way to send a signal because this is a complex moral and social issue that needs to be tackled in other ways. The second clarification is, has the Minister considered the possibility that this shortfall in parenthood benefits for singles could have an inverse causal relationship with abortion rates, as it adds to the feeling of a lack of support for single mothers if they choose to keep their babies? And, thirdly, on ECDA, since the Government sees student care as an extension of childcare, can student care be brought under the purview of ECDA so as to better regulate and promote the industry?”
“Mdm Chair, childcare is one of the biggest concerns of parents with young children. Many still face long waiting lists when registering their children and may end up having to settle for more expensive centres situated further from their homes. For this reason, I am looking forward to the 200 new childcare centres that are in the pipeline over the next five years. While a lot of focus is on childcare – and rightly so – the Government also needs to invest more resources into improving the supply, accessibility, affordability and quality of student care. Childcare needs do not suddenly change when a child enters Primary 1. Parents still need to work as a child is still unable to care for himself. Student care should be seen as a natural extension of childcare. This will help both parents to remain in the workforce and reduce the demand on foreign maids, while providing a safe and nurturing Page: 32 environment for the children. I would like to suggest that student care be brought under purview of the Early Childhood Development Agency so that the Government can better regulate and promote the sector. I welcome the Government's move to increase the number of school-based student care centres. However, student care centres (SCCs) should not only be set up within schools as parents with children attending different schools would have to rush to multiple locations to pick up their kids after work, before the 7.00 pm closing time. Some of the new SCCs should be located in housing estates and near MRT stations to make them more accessible. The Government should also provide subsidies for student care, in addition to the ComCare's fee assistance for the low-income, just like it does for childcare, as this will ease the financial burdens on many middle-income Singaporeans.”
“Madam, I have three clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, are the new feeder and city direct bus services that are being contracted out to these private bus operators part of the $1.1 billion BSEP or are they extra? If they are extra, how much more will it cost the Government? The second clarification is will these private operators be subject to the same quality of service standards and penalties as the current PTOs? Page: 74 And thirdly, is this contracting model, where the operators are paid a fixed contract price and the fares go to the Government, a new model that MOT is thinking of extending to all the PTOs for the bus services after 2016 when their contracts expire?”
“Mdm Chair, MOT recently said that it was exploring private bus operators' interest in new, shorter services that feed to MRT stations, and that these new feeder services could be outside of the current Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) During last year's Budget, it was announced that of the $1.1 billion budgeted for the BSEP, $280 million had been budgeted for the purchase of 550 buses over the next five years, and $820 million was budgeted to cover the net operating costs of these buses for 10 years. My understanding then was that the BSEP budget was to supply additional buses and drivers to the current two public transport operators (PTOs). How do these new bus services, contracted out to private bus operators, fit into this budget? Can the Minister share what is the estimated cost of this latest initiative? Is this latest move being undertaken because the two current PTOs are unable or unwilling to ramp up bus service coverage? While I welcome additional buses and bus routes to ease congestion and reduce waiting and travelling time for commuters, do these new bus service contracts amount to a further Government subsidy of the two PTOs? And could the Minister share more details about how these new contracts are structured? I understand that the private bus operators would be paid a fixed contract price, and the fares collected will go to the Government. Hence, the operators will not bear any revenue risk. Will there be any penalties for not meeting quality of service standards, or bonus payments for exceeding the standards? If so, what will these penalties and bonuses be like, and how will the Ministry ensure that service standards will meet the expectations of commuters? Bus Service Enhancement Programme”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for his responses. I have two lots of clarifications. One is on means-testing and the other is on the NEHR. Regarding means-testing, I am glad to hear that the intermediate and long-term care institutions now do not require patients in the families to submit their income documents to receive the Government's subsidies. Can I clarify that this applies not just to the basic hospital subsidies but also to the applications for MediFund and the other hospital endowment funds? Page: 129 The other thing is that, my understanding is that acute care hospitals still require the submission of income documents for these additional subsidy schemes. So, when will this convenient processing be extended to the acute hospitals? On my clarification on the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR), the Minister said in his speech just now that only some GPs are on the NEHR. Exactly how many private GPs are actually on-board right now? Is cost preventing a higher take-up rate? Can MOH consider reducing the usage fees in view of the wider benefits that will be brought about if GPs are all on this NEHR?”
“Can the same be done for all hospital and nursing home means-testing? Healthcare Infrastructural Development”
“Madam, currently all hospitals and nursing homes conduct means-testing to determine a patient's eligibility for Government's subsidies. Patients have to submit documentation to prove their income and that of their family members. These include up to three months of payslips, CPF contribution statements, or income tax returns. Obtaining salary documentation is onerous for some patients, including those who are not IT literate, who do not have a SingPass to retrieve their CPF statements, or are odd-job workers who are not issued payslips. Some need to contact their employers to request for letters to prove their income. Others may have difficulty obtaining documentation from family members, who may not want to reveal their income or may be estranged from the patient themselves. All these present administrative and emotional burdens to patients at a time when they are already with saddled with worry and pain from their illnesses. As a result, many of them do not complete their applications and lose out on receiving subsidies that could ease the cost of their treatment. I hope MOH would review its means-testing process to ensure that it does not burden patients or their family members, so that patients receive all the subsidies that they are eligible for. To reduce the hassle for patients, can means-testing be conducted without the need for the patient or his family to submit their income documentation? The process should be automated such that the patient and his family only need Page: 61 to give their consent for the hospital to assess their income records with CPF Board or IRAS. This is much more convenient for the patient, and it better preserves their confidentiality. I know that this is already being done for the CHAS applications.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister of State for her response to my questions. I understand the challenge in collecting all this tax information. But the thrust of my question is asking MOF if it thinks it is important to plug this gap in information, regarding the total incomes of all Singaporeans, so that it can better plan its redistributive policy? Or does the Government think that it is not important to know such information?”
“Mdm Chair, it is common for high-income earners to earn much more from their capital gains and other investments than from their wages and salaries. In the United States, where income inequality is almost as high as Singapore's, economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out that salaries and wages account for only about 9% of the income of the top 400 income earners; interest and dividends account for 16% and capital gains account for a sizeable 57% of their total income. 4.45 pm According to a reply from the Minister for Finance to my Parliamentary Question on 14 November 2012, capital gains do not need to be reported in Singapore since they are not taxable. This being the case, is there any official data on the total income of individuals in Singapore, including their salaries, wages, interest, dividends and capital gains from the sale of properties, shares and financial instruments? If not, how does the Government determine the total income of individuals in Singapore for the purpose of measuring the true income and Page: 124 wealth distribution among the population? In the absence of mandatory reporting of capital gains, could the Government explore ways to require simple but accurate ways to report and collect this data? I think these are important matrices to measure. They could help policymakers plan more effective and progressive redistributive policies for future budgets. These can, in turn, help to improve the well-being of Singaporeans, while balancing the need for Singapore to remain an attractive destination to work and invest. Singapore 50 Fund”
“I hope the Government will seriously consider this proposal because I believe it can help SMEs attract more Singaporeans and reduce reliance on foreign workers. Page: 99 Facilitating Business Opportunities”
“Madam, many of the Government's productivity assistance schemes focus on helping SMEs improve productivity within their companies. But in order to raise productivity on a larger scale within industries, the Government should look into funding and building more common infrastructure and systems that SMEs can tap. These large scale systems are often beyond the ability of individual SMEs to develop on their own. An example of such a system is the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) developed by MOH. This is not only used by hospitals, but in the pipeline, also many private GP clinics, to share patient information and increase the efficiency and accuracy of diagnoses. Next, the Government is one of the biggest buyers of goods and services from SMEs. It can better support companies as they strive to increase productivity, through the way tender requirement specifications are structured. For example, Government tender requirements for the development and maintenance of enterprise IT systems sometimes specify that vendors' personnel must work on-site, when some roles can be run from offsite using secure remote access, saving travelling time. Providing more flexibility in tender specifications for companies to innovate can result in not only improved productivity but can also reduce costs for the Government. And lastly, the Government should provide more incentives to help SMEs recruit local staff and talent. This is at the top of many SMEs' wish list for Budget 2013, according to an ASME survey. I had earlier proposed a New Hire Wage Credit that will pay for a quarter of the salaries of new Singaporean hires for half a year, provided they have been unemployed or out of the workforce for at least four months.”
“And, lastly, will PPS be a permanent scheme or will it only be in place until the current backlog of flat applicants is cleared?”
“Under this scheme, 30% of BTO (Built-to-Order) flats and 50% of SBF (Sale of Balance Flats) flats will be set aside for this group. Page: 125 I agree that Singaporean couples with children should get priority in flat allocation, because they not only have to house themselves, but also their children. However, the proportion of flats set aside for all first-timers remains unchanged at 85% for BTO flats in non-mature estates. This means that other first timers, including married couples who do not have children yet, will effectively have a lower proportion of the flats set aside for them. 5.30 pm If the goal of the PPS is to raise birth rates, then it might be necessary to also include married couples without children, because many of these couples may be waiting to get their own home before having kids. The Minister has said that once the HDB clears the backlog of first-timer married couples with children, the HDB can then extend the PPS to married couples without children. Will this mean that all first-timer married couples — with or without children — will be allocated 30% of BTO flats and 50% of SBF flats, or will married couples without children have a separate allocation? More clarity on this will help prospective home buyers better plan their flat applications. To get a sense of the size of the backlog, for the BTO launch in January 2013 during which PPS was first offered, what proportion of PPS applicants had unsuccessful applications for previous BTO launches? Can the Minister provide an estimate of when this backlog of married couples with children is expected to be cleared, and when married couples without children can start to benefit from PPS?”
“Mdm Chair, the Minister said in February this year that the prices of new HDB flats have been "delinked" from resale flat prices by varying the quantum of discounts applied to the selling price. He said that HDB will continue with this pricing policy for as long as "property remains hot". What are the criteria he will use to determine if the housing market is cool enough, resulting in the prices of new and resale flats being "linked" once again? Would HDB consider permanently delinking the price of new and resale flats so that new flat buyers are not at the mercy of resale flat prices, which the Minister has said he is not able to control? I understand from the Minister's earlier replies to this House that the factors used to determine the selling price of new flats include the typical household income of the families who buy them, the market price of similar resale flats in the vicinity and the attributes of the flats including their size and location. He said that HDB applies a discount to this price and gives housing grants to eligible buyers. Could the Minister share with us what is the exact pricing formula used to string all these factors together to determine the selling price for new flats? More specifically, what is the formula used to calculate the discount or "market subsidy"? For future launches, could HDB publish the price of the new flat before and after the discount, so that home buyers will have a clearer picture of the market price of the new flats, and the discounts that they are receiving from HDB? Parenthood Priority Scheme Now on to my next cut on the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS). In January 2013, HDB introduced the PPS to give priority allocation for new flats to "first-timer" married couples with children.”
“Thank you, Madam. In my cut, I asked if the Government could consider giving unmarried single parents the same childcare leave benefits as married parents, because they probably need it more. May I know if the Government will consider this request?”
“Of course, the number of minors approved for such status will also contribute to this effect. From 2008 to 2012, an average of 4,100 new PRs and another 4,100 new citizenships were granted annually. Approximately 82% and 92% of new PRs and new citizens were females respectively. Does the Government track the number of children born to these groups of people annually, and are we within the range of our projected target, if we had actually indeed set that target? 3.45 pm”
“Mdm Chair, currently, parents of Singaporean children under the age of seven are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave. Younger children tend to fall ill more frequently than older children, particularly when they first start attending childcare. One bout of HFMD, which requires a child to stay at home for at least a week, can wipe out the entire childcare leave entitlement for the year. While the law provides for six days of unpaid infant care leave for children under two, the fact that it is unpaid renders it of little value to most employees. Furthermore, whether a parent has one or three children under age seven, his or her paid childcare leave entitlement is the same. Would the Government, therefore, consider granting parents about two additional days of Government-paid childcare leave for each child under the age of three? This will not only help parents of younger children, but also give greater benefits to parents who choose to have more children. Next, unmarried single parents are entitled to only two days of childcare leave, and employers are not reimbursed for this. It is ironic that single parents Page: 81 have fewer childcare leave benefits, even though they probably need them more than married couples because they have no spouse to share the childcare load with. In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits? Fertility Rate Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, in the last decade, we have approved and granted many new citizenships and Permanent Residents (PRs) to eligible foreigners. One of the many objectives of this is to enhance our fertility rate and improve our elderly dependency ratio.”
“If productivity continues to languish below 1% or 2% for a further two quarters this year, will the Government consider more drastic measures before the end of this year to boost productivity? In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget has the right focus on economic restructuring, reducing our reliance on foreign manpower and raising the incomes of Singaporeans. I have outlined in my speech some suggestions on how we can better help SMEs through their restructuring journey, while at the same time helping economically inactive and unemployed Singaporeans to find jobs. I hope that with a more distributive Budget, we will start to narrow the income gap and improve the well-being of all Singaporeans.”
“Topping this list is the construction industry, which benefits from a $250 million Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) to boost productivity growth. In his Budget speech, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that raising productivity is our "most important economic priority". But what has our productivity drive achieved so far? In 2010, productivity growth was 11.1%, which was a rebound after two years of negative growth of -7.3% and -3.6% in 2008 and 2009 respectively. In 2011, productivity growth dropped to 1.3%. Last year, it dropped further to -2.5% on the back of five consecutive quarters of decline. This latest drop was broad-based, with the manufacturing, construction and services sectors all experiencing declines. In the construction sector, annual productivity growth fell to -0.2% in 2012 despite all the focus of the NPCEC. Based on current trends, it is hard to see how we are going to achieve the target of 2% to 3% per annum average productivity growth over 10 years. The Government itself does not seem very optimistic. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that this target is "ambitious but we must make every effort to achieve it". The recent Population White Paper qualified at least twice that it is "an ambitious stretch target". Page: 150 I can understand that some productivity initiatives have a long gestation period, but how long will it be before we can start seeing results? Each year that passes with low productivity is one more year that our companies are getting less competitive, and one more year in which our workers will experience slow growth in their incomes. This year's Budget seems to be focused on enhancing the existing PIC scheme. Is the Government satisfied that the PIC is effective in producing the desired outcomes?”
“The New Hire Wage Credit would be available to workers earning less than $4,000 per month or the equivalent in part-time pay and only SMEs should benefit from it. Companies would only be able to claim the New Hire Wage Credit for a particular position once, and for new hires who have not benefited from the scheme in previous jobs. This would encourage the SME to put in place good HR practices to help retain the staff, and the new hire to stay on the job longer. In addition, to prevent workers from changing jobs just to take advantage of this scheme, companies would only be eligible to claim under this scheme if they hire someone who has been unemployed for at least the last Page: 149 four months. With this scheme, SMEs will, firstly, be able to attract more Singaporeans by offering a higher starting pay. This will help to meet SMEs' current manpower needs without having to increase the overall foreign worker headcount. Secondly, it will help increase the resident labour force participation rate by increasing the opportunity costs of not working. And, thirdly, it will help unemployed Singaporeans to secure jobs. I estimate that this scheme will cost about $396 million over the next three years, an amount which can be covered under this year's Budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would now like to speak briefly about productivity. Since 2010, the Government has set itself a goal of raising productivity by 2% to 3% per annum on average over 10 years. It has committed $5.5 billion from 2010 to 2014 to help achieve this. The Government set up the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) in April 2010 to galvanise the nation to achieve this national productivity target. The Council has identified 16 priority sectors to improve productivity in.”
“Perhaps, the Government expects that the productivity initiatives, like the PIC, will see a high uptake and, as these companies benefit from productivity Page: 148 increases, the WCS will encourage them to raise wages. But productivity investments made now will only bear fruit some time down the road, by which time the WCS might be about to expire. The WCS will certainly help firms which already plan to raise wages now. But these are likely to be companies which are already profitable, and will include a disproportionate number of MNCs and GLCs, rather than SMEs. Those which are experiencing a squeeze in profits are unlikely to raise wages even with the WCS, since they will still have to foot 60% of the wage increases for the next three years, and 100% thereafter. The WCS also does not help firms to hire new local workers in the wake of a tightened foreign worker inflow, since it only subsidises salary increases for existing workers. This is a need which has not been adequately addressed in this Budget. Many SMEs lament that they cannot find locals to fill their vacancies; they say many Singaporeans prefer to work for MNCs. However, SMEs often have difficulty matching the pay scales of MNCs. To help SMEs hire more Singaporeans, I would like to propose that the Government provide a temporary wage subsidy for SMEs to hire economically inactive and out-of-work Singaporeans. These include homemakers, the unemployed, and some senior citizens and persons with disabilities. This subsidy should be in addition to the existing Special Employment Credit for persons with disabilities and older workers. I will call this the "New Hire Wage Credit" scheme. It could pay for one-quarter of the first six months' salary of each new hire and should be available for the next three years.”
“Some have to do with an individual's socio-economic background, and others are institutional, like our high stakes examination system, which often depends so much on expensive tuition to excel in. I welcome the moves towards making our tax system more progressive. This is an important step towards a fairer society. Comments by some analysts that this is a "Robin Hood budget" are misplaced. Singapore still trails behind many other developed countries in the progressivity of its tax system. The first step towards building a truly "democratic society based on justice and equality" is to acknowledge that we are all in this together. The wealthy in Singapore − and we have the highest percentage of millionaires and the second-highest percentage of ultra high net-worth households – the wealthy must be prepared to contribute their fair share of taxes. The rich do not exist in a vacuum. They need employees who are engaged and working productively to increase their companies' output and profits. They also need good public infrastructure from the transport networks to the National Broadband Network, all of which are financed largely by tax dollars, to lubricate the gears of our economy. Sir, I support the idea of providing temporary wage subsidies to firms to help them to employ Singaporeans and to improve the pay of local employees. The Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) is a generous scheme aimed at encouraging companies to share their productivity gains with their employees. While I believe the WCS will help to raise wages of some workers, I am not sure how effective it will be at raising productivity, which the Deputy Prime Minister said is our "most important economic priority".”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, despite what was described as an "inclusive" Budget last year aimed at creating more opportunities for lower- and middle-income Singaporeans, Singapore's income gap widened in 2012. According to the Department of Statistics, after adjusting for Government transfers and taxes, Singapore's Gini coefficient rose from 0.448 in 2011 to 0.459 last year, indicating increased income inequality. It was much higher than the average of 0.311 in the OECD, after adjustments for taxes and transfers. In his Budget speech, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister correctly pointed out that income inequality poses a risk to social cohesion. However, it is not just social cohesion that is threatened by inequality. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out that inequality could stifle economic growth, and could result in lower economic efficiency and productivity. A high level of inequality can also lead to lower levels of trust in government and business, an effect that we are clearly witnessing in Singapore. High inequality contributes to slowing social mobility. Page: 147 This, in turn, devalues the concept of meritocracy that we hold so dear to in Singapore. A study by several World Bank economists found that an increase in income inequality has a "significant and robust effect on raising crime rates". I am glad to note the Deputy Prime Minister's view that meritocracy alone will not guarantee social mobility. For too long, we have been told that we can attain the "Singapore Dream" as long as we work hard and have the talent. This is not necessarily so. There are many other factors that hold an individual back, many of which are beyond his or her control.”
“Sir, the Member is actually proposing a growth model that depends on foreign labour inputs and not on productivity. It is productivity that will help the companies to be able to do more with less. That means, instead of adding a foreign worker or a worker, you automate or use technology in order to be able to do more and be more productive with less labour inputs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to address two points made by both Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Vikram Nair. First, is this thing about us shutting the tap to foreigners. We are not shutting the tap to foreigners. We are still keeping the 1.4 million foreign workers here who will be able to continue to add to the workforce and continue to keep our economy vibrant. By no means are we saying "shut the tap to foreign workers". Secondly, on Ms Jessica Tan's point that we are going to cause the companies to shut down. I am very aware of the sentiments and concerns of our companies. I was a small business owner before and I know the concerns of what small business owners go through. But we have to decide now to embark on this economic restructuring, and not to postpone it to later because it is going to get worse and worse later on, when we have more and more foreigners that we have to Page: 141 depend on.”
“Sir, if the Government really cares about the SMEs, they will help the SMEs go through the restructuring and bear the costs of that because that is where the long-term benefits will come to the SMEs, when they can benefit from a more productive environment and rely less on foreign labour.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to address one point that was made by the Member that gave the impression that the Workers' Party does not care about companies' folding up because of lack of manpower. I share the Member's concern for the well-being of our companies. But the question is not if companies should go through economic restructuring, but when. So, I would say that there is no better time than now to go through this economic restructuring when our budgets are healthy. Economic restructuring will not come without costs. The Government must be prepared to bear significant part of this burden.”
“The answer to the question on what is our assumption for TFR: 1.3. That is the assumption that we use for our calculation. It is not our target but we have taken a conservative approach because we do not want to assume that we can increase TFR to 2.1 tomorrow. As far as TFR's contribution to the workforce is concerned, it does not factor in to our numbers over here; it factors into the final population number but it does not factor into the workforce participation rate and the workforce numbers. Because even if tomorrow the TFR is increased to 1.3, you would not see these babies working until about 2033. 5.57 pm Page: 112”
“Our target is as much as possible; and if it can hit 2.1, it is great. We are not chasing TFR targets. We are chasing the measures that will allow Singaporean parents to want to have more children.”