Halimah Yacob
Singapore
“Thank you. I think that is certainly a very good idea and that is what we want to do and wish to do, to have the integration of the facilities. As the Member said, it is to encourage inter-generational bonding and support. In fact, we have already started one in Mr Seah Kian Peng's constituency.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification, and for his information, I have written twice to LTA. The answers have been negative. My question is, what is the alternative because the purpose of the overhead pedestrian bridge is for people to cross over but the elderly has difficulty crossing over?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really happy to hear about the immense investment in helping households cope with the rising cost of energy. There will continue to be households that, despite these assistance measures, will face difficulty in paying for their electricity bills.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister: if the problem in Japan is not resolved within the next few months, what measures will be in place to assist sectors that are affected, notably, sectors like electronics?”
“Madam, I have two concise clarifications. My first concise clarification is to ask the Minister about the very low unemployment rate. Given this very low unemployment rate, does MOM have strategies in place to help people who want to find jobs, not just those who are already displaced but those who are currently employed?”
“Madam, on behalf of the House, I would like to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive and detailed responses given. This year, the Ministry of Manpower did not have the highest number of cuts. That honour went to the Ministry of National Development.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,190 lines we hold for Halimah Yacob, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 24.
“With rapid improvements in medical science, the number will rise even further. Even a minor flaw in these devices can have disastrous consequences, and it is therefore absolutely essential that this is the first health product that should be regulated. Mdm Deputy Speaker, small businesses have aired their concerns on the need to guard against over regulation which will add to their costs as they do not have the same resources as bigger players. I think that this is a valid concern, which should be addressed. One way of doing so is to ensure that the licensing and registration requirements are kept simple and the fees are not excessive. In this way, the compliance costs will not be prohibitive for the small businesses. Much as we want to regulate the market to ensure public safety, we also do not want to kill initiative and keep out the small players from entering the market, as this will lead to the market being dominated by a few big players who could dictate the price and other terms which are also not in the long-term interest of the public. There is another reason why the Government should keep the licensing and registration regime simple and inexpensive. This is to ensure that we do not inadvertently push some of these businesses underground, which is worse for the public as dangerous health products can still flood the market. I would like to suggest that the HSA work closely with the medical technology industry to help them understand the requirements of the Act before it comes into effect. The HSA could also consider extending some financial assistance to the small businesses to help them set up the system to comply with the registration and licensing requirements.”
“Hence, this Bill is important to vest such powers in the Government to order that the manufacturing, retailing, importing or exporting of such products cease or to order a recall of such defective products. There are also other compelling reasons why this Bill is important. The Health Products Bill will bring our legislation in line with the legislation already found in many developed countries, such as Canada, Australia and the US. As we aim to position ourselves as the regional if not the global medical hub through Singapore Medicine, and as we try to expand and gain recognition for our life sciences activities, this legislation is important as it will send a strong signal that Singapore will take effective measures to ensure that health products manufactured, sold or used here are of the highest standards. This will give a tremendous boost to our efforts in promoting Singapore Medicine and the Life Sciences hub, and will go a long way in instilling confidence in the integrity of our health care system. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the approach taken under this Bill is to provide for a comprehensive framework that will cover many products but at the same time ensure sufficient flexibility for the authorities to decide when to extend coverage to specific products and to what extent, depending on the risk profile. I agree with this approach, as it is better to focus on the most important product that has the potential to cause the greatest harm if unregulated, rather than to try and cover all health products at the same time, thus putting a tremendous strain on finite resources but not achieving much. The first product to be regulated will be medical devices. Today there are hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans with some sort of medical devices implanted in them.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill is timely and necessary, considering the vast advancements that have been made in medical technology today and the proliferation of so many health products in the market. Consumers, not being trained medically nor very well informed, are often very much reliant on the advice of those who sell health products or use such products during medical procedures. They can become confused and are vulnerable to all kinds of representations and commercial practices that sometimes put profits above public health and safety. The dangers that an unregulated market presents are indeed real. In 2005, six heart patients in Singapore were affected by the American Food and Drug Administration’s worldwide recall of 50,000 Guidant-made defibrillators because of an electrical fault that caused it to short-circuit. At least one patient here had the pacemaker replaced. And in December last year, a major health products manufacturer, Boston Scientific, had to recall its guide catheters distributed in the United States. The company had discovered a batch that had excess resin, which could dislodge and obstruct a blood vessel, leading to serious complications, such as stroke, heart attack or kidney problems. In the US, the use of medical devices are regulated by the US Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which allows the US authorities to order a recall of such defective medical devices if the manufacturers themselves fail to do so. If the two cases were to occur in Singapore and we do not have equivalent legislation, then the Health Sciences Authority may not have the powers to order a recall or to take other action against the manufacturers or distributors of defective or harmful health products.”
“Sir, my question to the Minister of State is that, for all these reasons that are stated for compulsory labelling, when will the Ministry move towards compulsory labelling?”
“One more supplementary question, Sir. Would the Minister of State agree with me that compulsory labelling is also one way of empowering consumers to make informed choices and is one form of educating consumers as well? With compulsory labelling, at least the consumers know what they are consuming and that the items contain trans fat. They make an informed choice for their own health. Without compulsory labelling, a lot of the trans fat is hidden ---”
“Sir, if there is no labelling and people will be consuming products that contain trans fat without being aware of it, over time, there will be the accumulative effect, and the accumulative effect will result in exceeding the safe limits prescribed by WHO. So would that not therefore mean that it is better for the Ministry to consider compulsory labelling, rather than to wait for this accumulative effect to take place because people are not aware that they are consuming trans fat? The second question I would like to ask is that the Minister of State mentioned about the Healthier Choice Symbol. Healthier Choice Symbol is very selective. Whereas if you opt for compulsory labelling, it is compulsory for all food manufacturers to alert consumers that their food products contain trans fat. So it is quite different when you talk about proactive methods through Healthier Choice Symbol as against the compulsory labelling. My third question to the Minister of State is: when will the Ministry consider trans fat labelling and, if so, when will it be implemented after all the monitoring has been done?”
“Sir, may I just ask the SMOS, in assessing the effectiveness of our Community Engagement Programme, do we just measure by the number of activities and programmes, or are there any other indicators that we use to determine effectiveness? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it is not just the number of activities but the quality of the programme, the outreach of the programme and the objectives of the programmes achieved. For example, the programmes that I mentioned just now, some of these in fact surfaced from the ground. Just two or three days ago, a youth seminar was spearheaded by Taman Bacaan, a voluntary group out there. It was not initiated by the Government. Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed were there. Dr Muhd Faishal I think was also there. But they were not there to just tell their own stories. The students there shared their perceptions as students of what community engagement is all about and what building bonds amongst races is all about. We had students from the madrasahs and the JCs all taking part. This is only one example. Sir, if we recollect in our own experiences, the examples that are happening on the ground, plus the clusters that have been formed and the initiatives that are surfacing, we can see that, qualitatively, we are progressing. But, like I have said, it is never done. It is work-in-progress, because we can never take this area for granted. So, let us continue to do more. Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah): I am glad to have been part of the initiative which the Minister mentioned earlier. I would just like to make a slight comment based on the approach that has been taken for the CEP.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry is satisfied with only 14 companies and 41 workers benefiting from this Fund. If the Ministry is not satisfied, what else can be done to promote the use of this Fund? Is it a question of lack of awareness, because I do get feedback from HR practitioners and companies that they are not aware of this Fund. Is it a question of lack of awareness, or is it a question of inadequacy of the Fund being allocated, or is it too much restrictions? Could the Minister of State inform the House how it can make better use of this Fund so that we can really make it possible for people with disabilities to work?”
“I wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State what is the success rate of the rehabilitation programme because there have been newspaper reports that there have been drop outs of this Subutex rehabilitation programme. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think we can only go on the figures of the arrestees, the number of Subutex abusers who have been arrested, since we began the programme in August 2006. As I said in my main answer, only about 350 persons have been arrested for Subutex-related offences over the past four or five months. So that signals that when Subutex was legal, people went for it because it was legal and it was accessible. But when the message was sent that Subutex would be illegal and that you should kick whatever habit you may have, whether it is heroin or other related drugs, in a way we have always said should be done, which is zero tolerance, I think the message went to the ground. So that is the current situation.”
“The Minister did not answer my last question. I asked whether he would consider raising the upper limit as currently imposed on Medisave account, instead of allowing it to roll over because there is now more need for funds on the part of the individual.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after the review, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that MediShield and ElderShield will continue to remain affordable to Singaporeans, in particular, since the Minister has announced that premiums will be reviewed. My second question is what will be done to assist older and lower-income Singaporeans who do not have enough Medisave savings to take care of their healthcare needs and also to pay for their MediShield premiums. My third question is to ask the Minister whether he will review the upper limit imposed on Medisave funds because once it reaches a certain amount it will roll over into the Ordinary Account. Will the Ministry be reviewing the upper limit imposed on the Medisave account?”
“I think the dream and the hope for Singaporeans must be that, as we globalise and get plugged into this global economy, our Government will continue to provide that hope, will continue to help us to fulfil those dreams of our people. I think that is very important. On this note, Sir, I wish to thank all the speakers who have contributed to this debate, in particular the new MPs who are making their maiden speeches. I would, in particular, also like to thank the Prime Minister for his speech which, I am sure, has filled Singaporeans with a great deal of confidence in our future and in our efforts to build an inclusive society. And I would also like to thank the President for his excellent, inclusive and very important speech. [Applause.] Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.". COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Appointment of Members) 6.05 pm”
“He said, “You are the MP Halimah.” I said, “Yes.” His name is Mr Lee, but I cannot remember his full name. He then gave me a piece of paper and said, “Can you just autograph? My daughter is a teacher. I want to say that you took my taxi.” So I did that. I thought he recognised me, so he expressed a lot of optimism. Then, over the Hari Raya holiday, I met a relative of mine who also drives a taxi, and I asked him the same question and he gave me the same answer. He said, “Well, if you work hard, you are able to earn $2,000.” So that is the caveat, you have to work hard. But whether you are a taxi driver, a manager, a CEO, or a production worker, everyone has to work hard, not only in Singapore, but in other parts of the world as well. The only difference is that when we work hard, at least in Singapore, we can see the rewards. So, that is the second taxi driver. But I remember most poignantly and significantly the third taxi driver whom I met some time ago. I took his taxi and, because it was a long journey from my office to home, we had a long nice conversation, and when I asked him about his family and so on, without prompting, he told me proudly that he has three children who are graduates, two of whom are scholars - one is doing a PhD overseas, one is doing his Masters and another is doing a local degree. He was very proud about it. To me, this is a very clear example of social mobility in Singapore that, if we put in our efforts, we do our best, there are rewards which the system provides. These rewards do not apply only to those who are at the very top, but those who are at the lower end also have the chance to move up.”
“I welcome the Government's announcement that more workfare schemes will be implemented. I am sure that the other MPs in this House welcome it too. I am glad that the Government has come up with a comprehensive plan to help our low-income and needy, in recognition of the vastly changed situation, particularly after 1997, and I wish to applaud the Government for its efforts. We also agree with the Government that we should not blindly follow the system in other countries, particularly when they are also facing difficulties. We should shape our own model based on our own needs and context, ensuring that people are self-reliant and want to help themselves, key tenets which should not be undermined. Sir, helping the low-income, the poor, the needy and disabled is not the responsibility of the Government alone. The labour movement, together with our social partners and working under the umbrella of a small strong tripartite relationship, will do our part to help the low-income workers. I would also like to take this opportunity to call upon all Singaporeans to also do their part to contribute towards building a more inclusive society. Let me end by telling Members the story of three taxi drivers. Why taxi drivers? Because I take taxis a lot to move about and also because I always find taxi drivers a very interesting group of people because they provide a thermometer of the temperatures on the ground. So I spoke to one as I was taking a taxi to move from a meeting place to the office, and I asked him how were things, and he said, “Not bad. If you work hard, as I do, you can earn $2,000 a month. Not too bad. All my colleagues complain a lot, but that is okay for me.” I was a little bit sceptical about what he said because he recognised me.”
“I am not quite sure I agree completely with Mr Cedric Foo's view about globalisation the way Wal-Mart has done it. As we know, that is not a very good example of globalisation or a global company of corporate social responsibility. But I subscribe to the vision and framework that our Government has put forward in our efforts to adapt to globalisation because I think in that agenda, the way the Government has outlined its framework, as defined by the Prime Minister yesterday, it at least gives us a clear idea that both economic and social development will be in tandem. There will be displacement, there will be difficulties, but people will not be left behind, and everyone will be given a helping hand and not just a promise on the part of the Government. Because listening to many debates in many conferences that I attended, governments are always long on promises but short on delivery. But I am quite confident that our Government, judging by our past records, will deliver its promises. What we are clear too is that it will cause our income gap to widen, as not all Singaporeans can run at the same speed. We also recognise that our population is ageing very rapidly, bringing about new needs and demands from our elderly which have to be addressed. Although we have many schemes and have spent billions of dollars to help needy Singaporeans, as Minister Vivian mentioned, over a period of between 2001 and 2005, our expenditure has gone up by 300%, which is an extremely significant amount. The Prime Minister himself mentioned yesterday that what we needed was a sustainable and holistic approach in providing assistance, a new social model to help our needy, and he had outlined some elements of this model.”
“So, increasing the GST would appear to be an option that is difficult to avoid, painful though it may be. At the same time, I am glad to hear the Prime Minister saying yesterday that a comprehensive offset package will be put in place to help Singaporeans and that it will be tilted in favour of the low income. We do not know the details yet, but I certainly welcome the Prime Minister's reassurance and I would like to urge the Government to be generous towards the low income earners so that their cost of living will not increase because of the increased GST. Sir, I also welcome the Government's decision to redefine the net investment income to take into account the realised capital gains. This means that there will be more resources available for the Government to mobilise to help our low income and needy Singaporeans as we navigate the very choppy waters of globalisation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this has indeed been a very important debate in a sense it is a debate about globalisation, how it has impacted us and what we need to do to move ahead. I am really glad that it has taken place in his august Chamber, as it should be. As their elected representatives, we owe a duty to Singaporeans to guide and lead them effectively in facing the challenges brought about by globalisation. We can do so only if we ourselves are clear of the issues and challenges that we face and the strategies that we will employ to progress forward. If we are unclear and confused, we will create greater confusion and alarm on the ground to the detriment of everyone. What we are clear about is that globalisation is beneficial to us for the reasons clearly explained by the Prime Minister yesterday.”
“On engaging the people, Ms Jessica Tan felt that people must be made comfortable that differing views are heard. Mr Zaqy Mohamad felt that there is a need for the Government to listen more. Mr Baey Yam Keng wants to harness the power of both new and old media to communicate more effectively. Both Mr Baey and Ms Irene Ng also spoke passionately about promotion of the arts, and, in the case of Mr Teo Ser Luck, it is sports, as a means to develop a greater sense of belonging and rootedness among Singaporeans. Many MPs, such as Dr Ong Seh Hong and Ms Penny Low, talked about building greater resilience among Singaporeans. Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed and Mr Hawazi Daipi also reminded us that the constant nurturing of strong multi-racial ties is important and should never be taken for granted. Sir, the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the GST will be increased to 7% in order to finance the increased cost of running more programmes for our low income workers and the needy. As a trade unionist, I have seen workers displaced due to restructuring, such as the 5,000 Maxtor workers who were retrenched throughout this year, and I was there at the factory where the workers were retrenched to catch them in the morning shift and to talk to them. So I am acutely aware that such workers need all the support that they can get to be retrained, as well as other assistance where necessary. I am certain that even with good economic and job growth, people will continue to be displaced as companies restructure, relocate or outsource. However, these additional programmes will obviously cost money and if we tax companies too much, then more may pack up and leave, which is detrimental to all the other workers.”
“It also shows that roles are changing in our society and men too want a bigger say in parenting and shaping family values. I note that there are many initiatives in place to promote work life balance under the MOM’s tripartite committee as well as under the MCYS’ National Family Council, but certainly much more can be done to get employers to support work life balance initiatives. I hope that the MPs in this House, who are employers or corporate leaders, will set a good example by being more family-friendly to their employees. Of course, that applies to the Government as well as all the Frontbenchers, the Ministers, as well. I hope that they will also be family-friendly to their staff as well, ie, civil servants. I do not know the prognosis of the current state of our family, but judging from the rising divorce rate and declining birth rate, our families could do with a dose of vitamins. Maybe the Government could consider giving tax incentives to companies that are truly family-friendly, as we all know that the carrot and stick approach can work quite effectively in Singapore. Strengthening values and engaging the people Sir, a number of MPs spoke on the importance of strengthening our values. RAdm Lui Tuck Yew felt that our education system should not only focus on examinations but should be more value-based. But I think that can only happen if that is the basis upon which we also assess people, and that is not likely to change for a long time. Mrs Josephine Teo and also Mr Chan Soo Sen encouraged Singaporeans to be more positive in their outlook and to celebrate our achievements more. Dr Fatimah Lateef supports a greater role for volunteerism and community involvement to ensure greater rootedness among Singaporeans.”
“I feel that we need to pay more attention and allocate more resources in order to stop the leakages in our education system as there is a real danger that many of those who dropped out will end up as the future wave of low wage workers, thus perpetuating poverty and low income among segments of our population. Even if only 5% drop out every year, every dropout is one too many, particularly as people are our only asset. But I would also like to echo Mr Masagos’ sentiment when he said that community involvement and support are crucial in this effort to reduce the attrition rate and, if I may add, parents particularly have an important role to play in this effort. Many MPs, such as Mr Wee Siew Kim, Mr Arthur Fong and Mdm Cynthia Phua , also called for greater support for our elderly, as well as cheaper housing options for our needy. Addressing Parliament, Minister Mah announced last Friday that more rental flats would be made available to needy families. The Prime Minister had also explained that the Government is looking into measures to help our elderly monetise their flat and unlock the value of their asset so that they have enough cash to take care of their needs after retirement. Strengthening the role of families A couple of other issues were also raised by MPs. On strengthening the role of families, MPs Mr Seah Kian Peng and Dr Lim Wee Kiak called for more support for families. Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked for more part-time and flexible work options to be made available. I note that all those who spoke about the need for stronger families are our male MPs, and this is a refreshing change. It used to be the women in this House who were always calling for strengthening of the role of families.”
“Some initiatives that MCYS would be rolling out to improve service are the ComCare Local Network and ComCare Database System. A number of MPs also touched on the importance of keeping our healthcare costs affordable and accessible. Dr Lily Neo and Mr Hri Kumar asked for better communication of the 3M scheme. Dr Fatimah Lateef wanted more help for persons with mental illness. Our healthcare system has undergone tremendous changes beneficial to Singaporeans, particularly the changes to the MediShield to help pay for a bigger portion of large bills and Medisave to help to allow outpatient use for four chronic illnesses. In the Addendum to the President’s Address, the MOH has also sketched areas that it would be looking at to keep costs affordable. Minister Khaw has also earlier on today given a more detailed outline of the measures that the MOH will be taking over the course of his term. I also welcome MOH’s announcement that expenditure on healthcare will be increased, although I accept the point that it is not a question of only expenditure increasing but cost effectiveness is also an important consideration. Sir, education is one of the issues raised by a few MPs (Mr Masagos, Dr Lily Neo, Mr Michael Palmer and Ms Indranee Rajah) in order to reduce the income gap and help poor families break out of the poverty cycle. Mr Masagos stressed on the importance of reducing the number of school dropouts and ensuring that all children go through pre-school education. Dr Lily Neo and Mr Michael Palmer called for common standards and improvements in the quality of pre-school education.”
“I note from MOM's Addendum that it recognises the importance of having a good adult training infrastructure to help workers upgrade their skills and build careers or switch industries and change careers to adapt to economic restructuring. In fact, schemes like the ESF and WSQ are some of the schemes that are already in place to effect this. In my view, Sir, ensuring that there is greater mobility between low-paying to better-paying jobs is important if we want to have a flexible workforce. If job security is no longer possible, as we cannot stop economic restructuring and retrenchments, then we must help every worker to remain employable and move easily between occupations and sectors. Without this mobility, workers will resist change and we will have a rigid workforce. This can only happen if, as the President said, everyone changes their mindsets. Workers must see re-skilling and re-training as an investment and be prepared to change and learn new things all the time. Employers must be prepared to train their workers *Cols. 911-912. and the Government should continue to invest heavily in education and skills upgrading. As Mdm Ho Geok Choo had said, mindset change is an important factor in ensuring employability. MPs Ms Denise Phua, Dr Maliki Osman, Ms Ellen Lee and Dr Lam Pin Min stressed on the need to identify and plug the service gaps that currently exist in the delivery of social services to the poor, needy and disabled. MP Ms Denise Phua felt that the role of the State, VWOs and volunteers need to be redefined. Minister Vivian stressed the importance of preserving and strengthening the many helping hands approach while acknowledging that the existing system could be improved.”
“And looking back at how we had managed to overcome the last few economic crises, much better than our neighbours, be it the Asian financial crisis or SARS, we have good reasons to be optimistic about our future. Next, Sir, is building an inclusive society and strengthening our social safety nets. Many MPs supported the President's call to build a more inclusive society and to strengthen our social safety nets to assist the low-income, elderly and needy. Many expressed concerns over the widening income gap and its impact on our equity and social cohesion. MPs like Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Ang Mong Seng, Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim and even our Opposition MPs, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong, made various suggestions and asked for more to be done to help the needy and poor, although, of course, our Opposition MPs have suggested a different path as to how to help our needy and poor. At the same time, MPs also recognise that the critical factor contributing to the widening income gap is globalisation, as there is a global demand for talented and skilled workers but a global over supply of unskilled workers, causing incomes at the bottom to decline. MPs acknowledge that the Government has done a lot, but stressed that more could be done. MPs Mr Seng Han Thong, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Sam Tan, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Lee Yi Shyan and Mr Hawazi Daipi asked for more to be done to upgrade workers' skills, particularly our older workers and low-income workers and to tackle structural unemployment.”
“In addition, according to Prof Norbert, the quality of the labour supply could decline, as it is usually the young workers who are likely to generate technical expertise and they are also usually the most active in many countries in setting up their own businesses and start-ups. Nevertheless, Sir, the concerns of Singaporeans are not completely without basis. As a trade unionist, I have to say that as well, as there are fears that some employers may take the easy way out and employ foreigners when there are locals available to do the jobs. Hence, I would like to urge the Ministry of Manpower to continue to monitor the situation carefully to maintain a proper balance. We also have to make sure that Singaporeans are able to take on the better paying jobs that are created by our economy, which is the real challenge confronting us. It is not that the jobs are not available but that Singaporeans must be able to take on these jobs that are created by our economy. Sir, judging by the sentiments expressed in this House, I feel that Singapore also suffers from a paradox. In order to ensure that our people do not become complacent and understand the harsh realities that we face as a small country with no natural resources, we constantly remind Singaporeans of how vulnerable we are and the threats that we face in our economic survival. While this has helped Singaporeans to remain vigilant, nimble and prepared for change, it has also caused a certain amount of anxiety and insecurity over our future. Looking at how other small countries have succeeded, such as Finland and Denmark, I think the Prime Minister is right in that we too can have a secure future so long as we continue to have the right fundamentals.”
“However, as Mr Ong Ah Heng had said yesterday, we know that the reality is that even if we stop the influx of foreign workers, Singaporeans will continue to face competition for jobs with foreigners, because we are competing in a global marketplace. This year alone, Sir, we have seen two big manufacturing companies - Maxtor Peripherals and National Semiconductor - retrench thousands of workers because of relocations. Even the services sector is not spared. I was speaking to our Singapore Banks' Employees Union last week and they were telling me that in the banking sector, billings in many banks today are now done overseas. We also know of cases where it is difficult to get local workers to fill up the vacancies, such as jobs in the wafer fabrication plants which are not popular with Singaporeans for various reasons - long hours, 12-hour shifts, bunny suits. I have tried some of these bunny suits, it is actually not that bad. I think we need to do a much more intensive campaign to get our workers to understand that it is not difficult to put on the clean suits. For jobs which are not popular with Singaporeans, stopping the inflow of foreign workers may even be detrimental to our interests. In one article, one Prof Norbert Walter, who is the Chief Economist of the Deutsche Bank Group, estimated that the working-age population of Singapore is likely to decline by 16% by 2050, reducing the share of 15-64 year olds from 72% to 56%. All things being equal, according to him, this would lower Singapore's growth potential by half a percentage point.”
“Mr Inderjit Singh also stressed on the importance of instilling greater confidence in Singapore's future among Singaporeans. The Prime Minister, who addressed Parliament yesterday, dwelt extensively on measures taken to invest in the future, and described the Government's plans to invest in education, R&D, development of infrastructure and building of a first-class public service, leaving no doubt at all that this is a Government that knows where it is heading and what it is doing, and Singaporeans should have no doubt about our future prospects. Sir, a number of MPs touched on immigration and the influx of foreign talents into Singapore. With an ageing population and low fertility, MPs like Mr Inderjit Singh, Ms Grace Fu, Mr Alvin Yeo, Mr Christopher De Souza and Ms Jessica Tan supported the need to attract foreign talents to grow the economy and create jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Christopher De Souza and Mr Alvin Yeo also called for more to be done to integrate them into our society. Dr Amy Khor stressed that even as we attract foreign talents, we should make more efforts to develop, grow and retain our own talents. Ms Irene Ng suggested dual citizenship as one way of retaining talents. Ms Sylvia Lim, NCMP, asked for greater clarity in our population and immigration policy. Addressing the issue, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan explained that despite huge amounts expended to encourage procreation, we continue to face severe shortfalls in meeting our population targets, which have to be made up through immigration. Sir, some Singaporeans have expressed concerns that foreign workers will take away their jobs and depress their wages.”
“Sir, I hope our Malay community has been following this discussion carefully because we also need to understand the problems of globalisation, what are the implications, what are the strategies that the Government has set out in facing challenges, such as the income gap, and how we, as a community, family and individuals, can play our part for a better future for ourselves and our children. I am confident that our community will also enjoy better benefits with changes in the Government policy to build a more inclusive society. (In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the last five days, many Members had taken part in the debate on the President's Address. The debate had been lively and engaging. Many spoke with great passion and conviction on many of the policies outlined in the Address of the President. A total of 53 MPs and three Ministers spoke. We also heard the Prime Minister's response yesterday to some of the points raised by Members. Now, Sir, I have the privilege to sum up the debate. The focus of Members' speeches over the last five days was largely on the two challenges raised by the President, which is the building of a competitive economy and an inclusive society. I know Members of this House will appreciate that it is extremely difficult to sum up after the Prime Minister had spoken and given such a comprehensive and substantial speech yesterday but, nevertheless, I will try to do so. First, building a competitive economy. MPs Mr Inderjit Singh, Ms Grace Fu, Mr Iswaran and Mr Liang Eng Hwa touched on the economic pressures facing Singapore as a result of globalisation and stressed on the need for Singaporeans to adapt quickly in order to remain employed and take advantage of new opportunities.”
“(In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have been speaking for five days on Government policies presented in the President Speech. Fifty-one Members of Parliament, three Ministers and the Prime Minister himself have taken part in this debate. The President has touched on our economic growth and the need for a stronger network for the lower-income group and the less capable. Yesterday, the Prime Minister has given a comprehensive response to a number of issues raised by Members. On the whole, the debate has been appropriate and very important. We can say that we unanimously agree that globalisation benefits the economy and the people of Singapore. We also agree and are concerned that not all of us can enjoy the same level of success and that we need assistance. Members are concerned about the widening income gap and has asked the Government to review whether it needs to change how the assistance is currently being given out so that no one is left behind, just because they do not have the ability or the resources. The Prime Minister himself yesterday admitted that we need to consider a more holistic and continuous form of assistance. However, whatever assistance is given, it must be intended to strengthen our spirit and determination to be self-reliant. One example is the Workfare scheme which will be set up by the Government, according to the Prime Minister yesterday. If someone is working and is resourceful, he will be given assistance. Attention will also be focused on education to ensure that every family can seize the available opportunities and is not left behind.”
“My question, Sir, to Minister Khaw is in the review of the MediShield, please keep the premiums low and not too high so that it becomes unaffordable. My second question is there are people who are caught in between - they are not too poor, but they are not too rich either - so we need to address their concerns and this has become quite a big area of people and there is currently a gap . The third area I would like to ask the Minister is mental illness. I think there are not enough attention and resources allocated. I do not know what is the hierarchy in terms of priority for the Ministry, but I think this is a growing problem. So I hope that the Ministry would give it enough priority as well.”
“Sir, I want to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive and detailed explanation as to what his Ministry intends to do over this current term. In the Ministry of Health, there has also been a lot of buzz over the last few years. There is a lot of buzz and activity, and I think there have been a lot of changes that are very useful to Singaporeans as a whole. I can see that he is making great efforts to try and improve in so many other areas. I am really happy with the Minister's announcement that his Ministry's budget will increase because I really think 4% is too little, considering the rapidity with which our population is ageing. But in doing so, in the reviews that he is doing, which I think are important reviews, in my view, particularly Eldershield which is right now not as effective as it should be, in terms of achieving his goals, it can be a much more important tool in terms of ---”
“The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos. 6 and 7 together?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is heartening that Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono understands the severity of this problem, really a problem he inherited from the past. In April 2006, President Yudhoyono declared war on haze. President Yudhoyono had also told PM Lee last month that he was determined in resolving the haze problem. Last week, President Yudhoyono wrote to update PM Lee on Indonesia's ongoing efforts to tackle the haze issue, including ratification of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. We appreciate President Yudhoyono's efforts. PM Lee has since replied to support President Yudhoyono's efforts and initiatives. I believe the forthcoming APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Hanoi on 18-19 November 2006 and the ASEAN Leaders' Summit on 11-13 December 2006 in Cebu will provide good opportunities for this issue to be discussed further. TEMASEK HOLDINGS (Acquisition of Shin Corp of Thailand) 6. Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) if he will give an update to the House on Temasek Holdings' acquisition of Shin Corp of Thailand and the resulting problems with the deal; (b) whether the Government agrees with Temasek acquiring such a large percentage, of around 97%, of the strategic asset of another country; (c) whether Temasek abided by all of Thailand's rules and regulations; and (d) how much money has Temasek lost in the Shin Corp deal. 7. Mr Alvin Yeo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in relation to Temasek's investment in Shin Corporation which has caused a considerable stir in Thailand, whether the Government agrees with such an investment and is satisfied that the necessary due diligence was carried out and no laws were broken in respect of the transaction.”
“Unfortunately, the Indonesian representatives in the UN did not want the haze issue mentioned at all. Hence, we had no choice but to make our own statement. We made a factual statement which acknowledged the commitments and efforts made by Indonesia and other countries. Our statement also aimed to present a comprehensive and balanced appraisal of the issue, including pointing out some of the more problematic issues that remain. The haze has already afflicted our region for 10 years. The problem has persisted despite efforts by Indonesia and other regional countries. Neither Indonesia nor ASEAN can solve this problem without international support. This is a major environmental problem that we can only overcome with full international support. Moreover, there is urgency to find a speedy and lasting solution as meteorological experts have warned that the haze could be far worse next year if the El Nino weather effect returns. We must take these warnings seriously. That is why Singapore felt compelled to take up the issue at the UN to help mobilise international expertise and resources. The recent ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on the Environment (AMME) in Cebu (9-10 November 2006) has endorsed a good and comprehensive Plan of Action, which Minister Yaacob had touched on earlier. This includes a high-level international conference, which would be hosted by Indonesia in the coming weeks to mobilise international support and assistance. I am confident that Singapore and Indonesia will be able to work together as well as with ASEAN and the international community, including UN agencies, to find a lasting solution to this very serious international environmental problem.”
“We have explained our position to the Indonesian government and the Industry Minister himself, and this has been carried widely in the media. Mr Speaker, Sir, the haze has affected the health and economic and social activities of millions of people and communities in our region. Beyond our region, the haze has also aggravated the problem of global climate change. World-wide deforestation from burning and cutting alone is responsible for 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The fires in 1997-98, the worst on record, contributed 22% (over 700 million metric tons) of the world's carbon dioxide production that year. According to experts at the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia's peatlands contain 21% of the earth's land-based carbon. Indonesia's 1997 peatland fires alone had accounted for 60% of the haze. Unless we ensure that there are no more extensive peatland fires in the future, all that carbon will end up as greenhouse gas. The economic cost from the annual haze should not be overlooked. According to the ASEAN Secretariat's Environment and Disaster Management Centre, the 1997-98 fires cost regional economies a staggering US$9 billion. As MM Lee pointed out recently, the haze will drive foreign investments away from the entire region, including Indonesia and Singapore. In view of the very serious and far-reaching effects of the haze, it would not have been credible for ASEAN to remain silent on this issue at the United Nations. The members of the UN have a profound interest in this issue because an environmental problem of this scale has global implications. Singapore had strongly urged our ASEAN partners to make a joint statement on the haze.”
“Meanwhile, I think there are other environmental challenges like the peatlands that I mentioned earlier. Peatlands require agreement on the part of the Indonesian government to build up the water tables so that they rise high enough to be able to douse out the peat fires which are below ground. As I mentioned earlier, there are already some successful results in Kalimantan and this came from an NGO, working together with a local province in Kalimantan. So, clearly, I think we can also try and replicate some of this in our collaboration at the local level. HAZE (Implications on bilateral ties between Singapore and Indonesia) 5. Ms Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what implications does the haze issue have on bilateral ties between Singapore and Indonesia. The Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, Indonesia and Singapore are ASEAN partners with a multi-faceted relationship and many common interests. Both of us agree that the haze is a serious transboundary problem with very harmful effects - on Singapore and other countries neighbouring Indonesia, and even more so on Indonesia itself. Hence, there should be no reason for the haze issue to affect relations between Singapore and Indonesia. Members of the House would nonetheless have read in our newspapers about the recent exchange of correspondence between our Ambassador in Jakarta and the Indonesian Industry Minister, following his decision to absent himself from the Joint Steering Committee meeting on 3rd November to discuss the implementation of our Special Economic Zones (SEZ) initiative in Batam, Bintan and Karimun. He was protesting against Singapore’s statement on the haze problem at the United Nations.”
“May I just ask one last follow-up question? May I ask the Minister what does adopting fire-prone areas mean? Considering that even our offer of an aircraft has not been accepted, what kind of flexibility and how effective are the systems that we can render by making this adoption? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the details are not clear yet, but I think the first thing we have to credit the Indonesian government is that they are offering us districts to work with. From the Singapore Government's point of view, we are more than happy to do so, not only working with the local province authority but also bringing in outside help into the region. I see this as a tripartite relationship between Singapore, the Indonesian local authority and support from outside the region, perhaps an international NGO or even some international community organisation that might want to come in. In terms of the exact plan, we have cobbled something in Singapore but we have to work with our Indonesian colleagues. But, as I mentioned earlier, there will be two things: one, is really fire prevention, which means working with the local authorities, with farmers and plantation owners on alternative land clearing methods, and what is it that we can do. Secondly, on building capacity internally because, in order for this to be sustained, we cannot have our Singapore team there for the next 20 years, we have to build up local capacity among the farmers and among the regional authorities. What are the capacities needed? We have to define that. Obviously, it will be in terms of ensuring compliance of the land clearing practices that we have agreed upon, making sure that people are trained appropriately to use whatever equipment and machinery that is needed, and so on. So it will be at that level.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, by the time you wrap up this debate, the House would have heard the views of a good number of MPs - new as well as seasoned ones - and Ministers too would have responded to the many points raised. Some of us will be happy that the Government will incorporate our views when fleshing out the blueprint for the future. But there is no need for anyone to feel upset, if their proposals are not taken on board. If we feel strongly about an issue, we should continue to plug the line. The end of the debate on the President’s Address does not mean we cannot raise our pet topics at future sittings. Nothing is static. So what is deemed to be unsuitable today can well be considered just the right thing to do at some other time. Sir, all of us have a responsibility to place our national interests over sectional interests. Whether we are Ministers or Backbenchers from the PAP or any other party, work in the public or private sector, in business or operating as grassroots leaders, are retirees, homemakers or students, our primary responsibility is to promote and safeguard our national interests. We can continue to forge ahead as a nation only if each individual accepts full responsibility and ownership of policies designed for our common good. This does not mean that we should not encourage a healthy exchange of views, whether in Parliament, public forums or the media. But let us do so with Singapore’s interests at heart. Sir, I support the motion. Question proposed. 2.03 pm”
“Even middle-income Singaporeans have their fair share of concerns since many are under-insured for health and we need to address their concerns as well. And there are specific needs that should be addressed such as the need to focus more attention and allocate more resources to persons with mental illness. I would also like to urge the Government to annually top up the Medisave accounts of particularly older and low-income Singaporeans. I also call upon the Government to consider topping up the Medifund and making the rules more flexible so that a wider variety of cases could be covered. Helping children from low-income families to have a good education and minimise drop outs Next, Sir, we need to do more to help children from disadvantaged families so that they have access to a better education. Looking at the profile of children who drop out of school or who do not do well, we know that many come from poorer homes. Every year, more than a thousand students drop out from our schools. This is a big waste of our human resource, and the biggest concern is that they will end up as the future wave of low wage workers living in poverty. We need to do more to identify those at risk and help them remain in school. This is the best approach as once they drop out of school it will be a lot more difficult to assist them. For those who have dropped out, we need to do more to assist them. Currently, they cannot enrol at the ITE as they are not qualified and cannot attend the SDF subsidised training courses as they are not working full-time. So the majority ends up taking temporary, unskilled jobs. There is also the danger that some of them may fall by the wayside, becoming delinquents or drug addicts.”
“Despite having a higher employment rate among those aged 60 to 64, Japan recently introduced legislation requiring employers to re-offer employment to their workers who reach 60 years of age. Perhaps we should consider whether we should have a similar legislation at some stage, especially if we do not make very significant progress in our efforts to promote the re-employment of older workers. Enhance the financial security of older Singaporeans Fourth, Sir, we have to enhance the financial security of Singaporeans. Surveys show that many Singaporeans rely mainly on family support and are not prepared adequately for their financial needs in old age. The minimum sum is currently set at $94,600. This sum ensures a monthly payment of $711, which is roughly 21% of the monthly income of an average earner, for 20 years from retirement at age 62. But only four in 10 Singaporeans aged 55 had the mandatory nest-egg in their CPF accounts in 2005. We need to focus more on how to help enhance Singaporeans’ retirement savings and how to help them convert their assets to cash. I think these were the two issues that were raised about two or three years ago, and we do hope to see some progress in these two areas. Ensuring access to good and affordable healthcare and top up Medisave and Medifund Fifth, I strongly support the President’s call to keep good basic medical care affordable to all, and if I may add particularly for the elderly. Our 3M system has undergone changes for the better but further refinements are needed as big hospital bills are still of concern to Singaporeans. Allowing Medisave to be used for diabetes has proved to be very successful and there is scope to extend coverage beyond the four chronic diseases.”
“We should review the results, and modify the scheme to make it more effective. Upgrade skills of low-income workers Next, Sir, we must step up efforts to upgrade and re-skill our low-wage workers. The NTUC has embarked on extensive efforts to assist our low-wage workers to upgrade their skills. In 1995, we initiated the Skills Redevelopment Programme and since 2000, we have created 200,300 training places. In 2004, we started the Job Recreation Programme (JRP). The JRP now covers about 15 sectors and 8,500 jobs have been recreated since 2005. What the JRP does is to convert low-paying jobs often shunned by Singaporeans into higher value-added jobs, which pay better. The JRP is an intensive programme, which requires the total commitment of workers, unions, companies and the Government. While we have made good progress, more can be done and even greater support must be given to such programmes. Enhance the employment rate of older workers Third, we have to improve the employment rate of our older workers. The employment rate for workers aged 60 to 64 in 2005 was only 34.3%, lower than Japan (52%), South Korea (53.4%), UK (41.3%), US (50%) and Sweden (58.4%). NTUC is now working with 171 companies and close to 1,500 workers above the age of 62 years have been re- employed. We target to increase this number to 4,000 next year. We need more companies to support the re-employment of older workers above the age of 62 years. A recent study commissioned by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation found that Singaporeans, unlike their counterparts in other countries, wish to continue working for as long as possible to remain financially independent.”
“" Sir, in a nutshell, after surveying extensively all the schemes that are implemented in the world to achieve equity and development, the World Development Report concluded that whatever we do, it should not weaken the individual’s incentive to work and be self-reliant, a concern with the Western European model of welfare. Also, these schemes must be economically sustainable in the long term and not in a perverse way affect investment and growth. If we take these as our parameters, our current emphasis on workfare, rather than welfare, is clearly the way ahead. Workfare rewards those who work and are prepared to put in the effort to improve themselves. Let me now turn to some specific areas where I feel that our safety net can be strengthened. Workfare Bonus as part of social safety net Sir, I hope that the payment of a Workfare Bonus will become a permanent feature of our social safety net. The second payment of the Workfare Bonus will be made next year. After that, it is not certain whether the Government will continue to pay a Workfare Bonus to our low-income workers. In the past, when I tried to match some of my residents with certain jobs like Town Council cleaners, they were reluctant to accept. Today, many more readily accept such jobs knowing that so long as they remain employed for at least six months, they can look forward to a Workfare Bonus from the Government. So, the scheme has achieved its desired goal of motivating and incentivising people to work and should be continued. In my view, this is important as I think wages between the top and bottom end will continue to be very stretched, despite our good economic performance and strong job creation. However, the scheme need not be exactly as it is now.”
“Our model has hitherto been to provide a basic social safety net through subsidised education, healthcare and housing, supplemented by social assistance programmes for the needy through a many-helping-hands approach. We are not the only one having reservations about the Western European model of social welfare. The World Bank too has expressed its reservations. In its 2006 World Development Report on Equity and Development, the Bank said, and I quote: “Things can also go greatly wrong when governments mandate protection with no attention to incentives. In much of Europe, governments implemented generous unemployment benefits with little connection to the workers’ actual job search behaviour. The result was an increase in the duration of unemployment and the emergence of long-term unemployment, with its destructive impact on human capital, loss of employability, weakened ties to economic and social life and, for many, high degrees of poverty and social exclusion." The same report goes on to say, and I quote: “By the same token, those interested in greater equity must not ignore the short-term trade-offs. If individual incentives are blunted by income redistribution schemes that tax investment and production too steeply, the result will be less innovation, less investment and less growth. The history of the 20th century is littered with examples of ill-designed policies pursued in the name of equity that seriously harmed - rather than spurred - growth processes by ignoring individual incentives. A balance must be sought, taking into account both the immediate costs to individual incentives and the long-term benefits of cohesive societies, with inclusive institutions and broad opportunities.”
“Today, even with economic growth, there will be boats that flounder and others that cannot rise to the top without help. As the President said, we are now at a turning point where we have to decide what more we can do to help those left behind because they cannot adjust as quickly or as well to globalisation. Left alone, they will not be able to make it. Worse still, the poverty may even be transmitted across generations. We see examples of such cases at our meet-the-people sessions as well as through other contact points. Although it will get increasingly more difficult, we have to do our best to ensure that there continues to be social mobility in our society so that people will continue to have hopes and see a future for them. What more can we do and in what form, are the issues that we need to debate and reach a clear national consensus on. It is not something only for us to debate in the Chamber of this Parliament. It should be something that all thinking and feeling Singaporeans should worry about. In the process, we would develop a better understanding of the issues and challenges and develop a national consensus on how to move ahead. So, if the Government wants to provide more assistance, what form should it take? Should we adopt the Western European welfare state model? Should we adopt unemployment insurance or a minimum wage? Should we have a pension scheme for all Singaporeans? So far, we have avoided these paths. Even we unionists are not convinced that the welfare state is the model for us to adopt as we have seen the pitfalls. The reality is that there are no perfect models for us to copy and blindly follow. Every country has to develop its own approach taking into account its own needs and context.”
“So, in India too, the wage gap is widening. What an Indian IT worker or call centre worker earns in a month is what an average Indian worker earns in a year. The situation is the same in China where its top economic planning body earlier this year warned that the income gap in the Chinese cities has reached dangerous levels. Sir, we have a high degree of social mobility in Singapore and regardless of our background, everyone has a chance to move up. Many of my trade unionist friends had missed out on a good education because they came from poor families. But many are proud to say that their children are in university. In one generation, Singaporeans have moved up. The social status or wealth of one’s parents does not determine success; the overriding consideration is the will to succeed, supported by the right conditions provided by the Government. In a nutshell, up to now, we have indeed done very well for ourselves as a very young nation. Since independence 41 years ago, we have made remarkable economic progress as well as good social progress. As we move ahead, there will continue to be a lot of opportunities for all Singaporeans. The job situation has been extremely encouraging. We have had the strongest job growth in 15 years, with 113,000 jobs created in 2005 and 123,000 jobs created in the first nine months of this year. At 2.7%, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world - better than the EU’s 8% unemployment rate and the 5% in the US. Our three key pillars - education, healthcare and housing - have served us well. How to strengthen our social safety nets? However, Sir, we also know that the road ahead will not be so rosy for everyone. In the past, economic growth was the tide that could lift all boats.”
“Just last month, I was having a meeting with some foreign unionists in Turin, Italy, and when I shared with them about some of the schemes that we have put in place, both nationally and by the labour movement, to help low-income Singaporeans, they were very excited. Although they recognise that their situations are different from ours, they felt that Singapore is an interesting model of how a small country without any natural resources has been able to remain economically competitive but yet socially very cohesive. In the ILO, Sir, no meeting would be complete without a mention of the “G” word, and that is globalisation. But the discussion seldom goes beyond the rhetoric; remedies and solutions are in short supply. Many governments recognise that they need to deal with problems arising from globalisation but they lack the political will or resources or they cannot muster enough support from their people to do what they know they must do. As a result, the disparity and social inequity have continued and tensions mount. Mostly, governments, employers and unions take different positions and nothing moves. In the end, we hear only a lot of airing of frustrations from all sides but no concrete action. In the meantime, the people suffer. Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenge of building a more inclusive society in the face of intense change and globalisation is not peculiar to Singapore. All countries - both developed and developing - face such challenges. My unionist friends from India tell me that the stories that we hear about how income has risen so fast in India is only one part of the story. According to them, income has risen but not for all Indian workers. Many continue to labour under poor working conditions and earn low wages.”
“I see this greater allocation of resources as an investment in our people and not expenditure. It is an investment to develop the capacities of our people as well as an investment in building social cohesion and a strong society, necessary ingredients to help us move ahead. I am deeply heartened by this shift in focus, which will set the tone for the Government over the next decade. Of course, it is not possible for us to ensure that everyone will enjoy the same outcome from their individual efforts. Motivation and capabilities differ. Nevertheless, it is possible to help everyone to have access to the same opportunities by removing barriers or obstacles. In my view, this debate that we are having today and over the next few days is an important one and I am sure that there will be many ideas and suggestions made on how we can build a more socially inclusive society. At the same time, I think that we need to stay focused in this debate. We will be starting on a wrong footing if we proceed on the premise that thus far nothing has been done to help our low-income, the poor and the elderly. In fact, through the Progress Package, ComCare Fund, Workfare Bonus and other initiatives, the Government has spent billions of dollars to help needy Singaporeans. With the many-helping-hands approach, the labour movement too has done its part to help our low-income workers. This year alone, NTUC distributed $6.4 million in the form of hardship grants, transport vouchers, Fairprice vouchers, Family Recreation Fund and through the Back-to-School programme as well as through bursaries and scholarships. Many foreign unionists are impressed with our programmes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel deeply honoured to move this motion. I beg to move, 'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'. Strongly support strengthening of social safety nets and increased Government spending Sir, first, I would like to thank the President for a thought-provoking, insightful and, in many ways, ground-breaking speech. The President has outlined the priorities of the Government over the coming years. One very important area that he has touched upon at some length is the need to build an inclusive society. As a trade unionist, I warmly welcome the greater emphasis placed on building a more equitable society, a topic also touched upon by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech in 2005. To me, long-term economic development is only sustainable if there is also social development, as the two go hand-in-hand. A society which focuses only on economic development will be lop-sided and unequal, leading to tensions and conflicts which in the end will jeopardise the interest of everyone. The President’s speech therefore marks a perceptible shift in the direction of the Government. According to the President, the Government will do more and will introduce more measures to help needy Singaporeans more systematically. Its spending will rise over the next decade as it invests more in Singapore’s future needs and spend more to meet our growing social needs. I strongly support the idea for more resources to be allocated to help all sectors of our society, especially the needy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the proposals.”
“Sir, I really hope for some clarifications from the Minister on these points.”
“Can I just seek some clarifications from the Minister? First, I would like to clarify that I am in full support of strengthening the family and in using the CPF as a tool to strengthen the family. In fact, the suggestion that I have made for a study to be done on the situation of CPF savings for women is intended to contribute to that objective, ie, strengthening the position of the family. This is precisely because if someone else is nominated other than the wife, obviously the children will suffer. If the husband dies and the money does not go to the wife and the children, the entire family suffers as a result of that. That is the basis of the recommendation that I have made. And I hope that the Minister would look into some of these issues because I think these are really important issues. Increasing the labour force participation rate is one way, but I think we are not going to be able to completely address that issue when we deal with this aspect of low CPF saving rates for women. So we need to look at other ways as well. My second question, Sir, is this. The Minister said that you cannot have similarity. Under the existing provisions, there is similarity between sections 15(2), 28 and 40. When he said the changes to section 15(2) cannot be extended to sections 28 and 40, my question is: is there any other mechanism to help those who are faced with a terminal illness or, as stated under the new amendments, who are faced with the prospect of a shortened life expectancy, and they are not able to pay for the their mortgage payments or take care of their livelihood or that of their dependants? Are there some provisions to help them, because that is the raison d'etre, as I understand it, of the HPS and the DPIS?”
“On the other hand, we have policies such as this one, which is unfair to older Singaporeans. Even if they work and are able to pay for the Home Protection Scheme premiums, they cannot enjoy the protection provided under the Scheme. I think it is time the MOM reviewed this policy and end the discrimination by removing the current age limit. 4.52 pm”