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 15 of 24.
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the explanation. I also think that just because legislation does not work in other countries, that does not mean that we should not consider, review and look at what aspects of the legislation that is useful to us and we can then apply our situation in connection with the earlier point about the need for legislation on whistle-blowing. We have reached a certain turning point where obviously the existing framework is not sufficient to protect whistle-blowers.”
“Sir, there have been some reports about deaths involving Japanese children after being vaccinated with the Tamiflu vaccine. I would like to ask the Minister for his comments whether the Tamiflu vaccine is still safe for use.”
“Fourthly, Sir, clause 6(3) provides that there could be uncertified facilities operating without the restrictions and conditions stipulated under the Act. The Senior Minister of State had cited a few examples, but could he also please clarify what other types of facilities can remain uncertified and therefore operate outside the ambit of this Act? What is the purpose of excluding them? What safeguards will be introduced with regard to the use and/or storage of biological agents and weapons in these places? Will these non-certified facilities be gazetted, so that there is transparency and people know that these are facilities which are not certified? Finally, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are any plans to work with other countries in the region, particularly those that have not adopted any standards or the equivalent of this Bill. We may be very vigilant and supervise closely the facilities dealing with biological agents and toxins within our own borders. But if nothing is done to get other countries in the region to adopt the same standards, that could also weaken and undermine our efforts to keep Singapore safe. If other countries in the region have lax standards so that it is easy for biological agents and toxins to fall into the wrong hands and end up being used for non-peaceful purposes, these will undermine our efforts to protect ourselves. So, it is useful if there could be some collaboration in the region on this issue. I would appreciate the Senior Minister of State's comments on this. On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Will insurance costs, for instance, shoot up for facility operators who would want to insure their risks, which have increased? The real issue, I suppose, is to ensure that the standards imposed reflect the balance between costs and risks. There is no doubt that biosafety and biosecurity are very important subjects, and we should have stringent measures in place. Nevertheless, increase in costs is one of the complaints that had been cited overseas when such measures were introduced. The real concern here is whether the increase in costs will result in disincentives for companies or individuals wanting to do research on dangerous pathogens. If this happens, it will not be a positive development as, in today's context, we certainly need to have more and not less research conducted on this subject. Hence, I would also like to urge the Ministry and the Senior Minister of State not to make it too expensive to register facilities as well as other licensing requirements under the Act. Thirdly, Sir, this Bill alone is not sufficient to prepare Singaporeans for the dangers posed to them, if there is a biological weapons attack. In addition to this legislation, we should also include an effective medical and public health response programme as part of our overall strategy to deal with the possibility of such an attack. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether we already have such a programme in place, and whether we are also taking steps to educate Singaporeans on the dangers posed by a biological weapons attack, as my sense is that Singaporeans are generally more aware of the dangers posed by bombings and are not so sure on how to protect themselves against a biological weapons attack.”
“The biosafety committee has the responsibility to formulate measures, policies, programmes and codes of practice for the operator of the facility to comply with. Members of the biosafety committee are also subject to penalties, if they give advice in a reckless, grossly negligent manner or in bad faith. Depending on the size, resources and capabilities of the facility operator, we can expect biosafety committees to have different capacities to formulate measures on biosafety in the facility. This being the case, I wonder whether it will be more prudent for the Ministry of Health to come out with some standard guidelines which can be used by the biosafety committees and the facilities, subject to modifications to suit their own needs. The guidelines could be used as the reference point for all biosafety committees. I believe that, in this manner, there will be some consistency as well as some minimum standards for all facilities, as otherwise standards could fluctuate significantly from facility to facility. As these will be minimum standards, all facilities can be expected to reach for higher standards to protect their own interest. I believe that these guidelines will be useful, especially for smaller facilities, as the current Bill will cover all places, big or small, where biological agents or toxins are stored, used or developed, including both public and private laboratories. Secondly, Sir, I wish to ask the Minister whether complying with this Bill will result in a significant cost increase for research bodies, hospitals, as well as laboratories operating these facilities. There will obviously be more paperwork now, as well as costs, in introducing the other measures required under this Act.”
“But even the tiniest quantities of disease organisms can be lethal. For example, the botulinum toxin has been described as three times more potent than the chemical nerve agent Sarin." Bioterrorism, Sir, is not a hypothetical threat. It became a harsh reality soon after September 11, when letters containing a refined preparation of dried anthrax spores were sent to the US mail, infecting more than 20 people and killing five. Although the damage in that attack was limited, it gave us a glimpse of the mayhem that could result from the use of biological weapons. So, I would like to applaud the Ministry of Health for proposing this Bill. This is indeed a far-sighted and strategically important move to protect our people. It will enhance the security environment for our people. Sir, as I was running through this Bill, I found a research paper published by Jonathan B Tucker from the US Institute of Peace very useful. Mr Tucker was also the biological weapons inspector in Iraq in February 1995. He suggested that good biosecurity standards should include the following elements: (1) Mechanisms to account for pathogens that are being stored, used during experiments or transferred or exported; (2) The regulation and licensing of facilities that work with dangerous pathogens; (3) Physical security at these locations; and (4) Procedures for screening laboratory personnel. I notice that most of the provisions of the Biological Agents and Toxins Bill are focused around these four elements. There are, however, a number of clarifications, Sir, that I wish to seek. Firstly, I note that the Bill requires every operator of a facility to appoint a biosafety committee comprising specified persons.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. The Biological Agents and Toxins Bill is an important piece of legislation. It represents one critical part of the armoury that we need to put in place under our national security framework. The key focus of this legislation is to enhance Singapore's biosafety and biosecurity. It aims to put in place measures to guard against the deliberate release of biological agents and toxins for malicious purposes or, as stated under clause 5 of the Bill, for non-peaceful purposes. Clause 2 defines what is meant by non-peaceful purposes, by listing seven situations. This includes using biological agents and toxins to cause death or endanger any person's life, create a serious risk to the health or the safety of the public or release into the environment, distribute or expose the public to any biological agents or toxins in order to cause damage or harm to the environment. So, the possession, use and development of biological agents or toxins for legitimate purposes, such as research work, are not prohibited. This Bill is our effort at prevention, by trying to reduce the risk of an attack and ensure higher standards in the handling of such materials. If biological agents and toxins fall into the wrong hands, the destruction and dangers posed will be indescribable. At the Fourth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention held in Geneva, one expert described how dangerous biological weapons could be. He said: "Biological weapons are immensely destructive. In the right environment, they can multiply, and so self-perpetuate. And they can naturally mutate, frustrating protective measures. Chemical weapons, for all their horrors, become less lethal as they are dispersed and diluted.”
“Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to urge the Minister, at an appropriate time, to also consider reviewing other provisions of the AMLA which are unclear and have led to some controversy, such as the provision on nuzriah. The community feels that clarifying this provision is also important and should not be left unresolved for too long. Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment will enhance the leadership and administration of MUIS and MUIS will be able to effectively manage the administration of Islamic law. On this note, I support the Bill.”
“For example, Islamic banking is now gaining in importance and the MUIS board may need a Muslim banker with strong expertise in this area to advise the board on aspects of Islamic banking and investments that are acceptable in Islam. There are many other areas of expertise that the board may need, if it wants to be truly effective in performing its role and remain relevant to the needs of the community. To me, what is also more important is for the Minister to make sure that the seven individuals he appoints to sit on the board have a sound understanding of the Muslim way of life and the issues and challenges that we face in the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. Hence, whilst the process is important, I would like to urge the community to focus more on the outcome. The duty of MUIS is to advise the President of Singapore in matters relating to the Muslim religion in Singapore. MUIS can perform this function effectively only if it has a board which is strong and knowledgeable to supervise and help it address the very complex socio-economic issues of Muslims living in a challenging environment. This is where every member of the board, both representing the Muslim organisations and individuals, can complement and enhance each other by bringing their different strengths to the decision-making process at the board. Fourthly, Sir, I support the decision to delete section 136 which prohibits a Muslim who is not a citizen of Singapore or Malaysia and who has married in Singapore to leave the country without the permission of the President. This provision is indeed grossly outdated and irrelevant.”
“So, he would probably remove the CEO both as a member and as the CEO of the statutory board. However, in the case of MUIS, it is stated that the President of Singapore can cancel the appointment of the MUIS Chief Executive as a board member, but only the Minister can remove him from the office. I think it would be neater if there is a provision to stipulate that the MUIS Chief Executive, if he is also appointed as a member of the board, would automatically cease to be the Chief Executive when his membership of the board is cancelled by the President of Singapore. Thirdly, there has been some feedback on the proposal to increase the number of MUIS board members appointed by the Minister from five to seven. The concern here is whether this will tilt the balance, a carefully calibrated balance designed to give the Muslim community a greater say in religious matters affecting them. In my view, we should not worry excessively on the power that has been given to the Minister to appoint more MUIS board members. The issue is not so much how many members the Minister can appoint to the board but rather what is the role of the board and how effective it is in reflecting the interests of the whole Muslim community. Mr Speaker, by increasing the number of the Minister's nominees to seven, the current amendment gives the Minister a greater flexibility to appoint people with sound expertise in various fields and who can make significant contributions to the knowledge base in MUIS. In this way, the MUIS board would be able to make better decisions for the benefit of the Muslim community.”
“I am not against the proposal to separate the functions of the two. But it is not clear to me what would be the role of the President and what would be the role of the Chief Executive after the proposed amendments. The concern here is that, if there is no clarity of roles, then will there be duplication of duties and, ultimately, even conflicts arising which may even hamper the efficiency and smooth functioning of MUIS? It is worth noting that, in all the other statutory boards, the Chairman of the Board is not an employee. I am not quite sure what is the arrangement with regard to MUIS after the amendments come into effect, as the current President is a full-time employee. I hope that the Minister, in his response, could give us a better idea of what are the separate and distinct roles that the two are expected to perform. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a conflict between section 10 of the existing Act and the proposed section 7A(2) of the Bill. Under section 10, the appointment of a member of a board can be cancelled due to various reasons, such as the conduct that brings discredit to the Majlis. Under section 7(6), the Chief Executive can be appointed by the Minister to be a member of the board, but section 7A(2) provides that the Chief Executive cannot be removed from office without the consent of the Minister. Will we have a situation where a Chief Executive is found to be undesirable by the President of Singapore and his membership of the board is cancelled but his employment continues unless the Minister also removes him? In the other statutory boards, this may not be a major issue because the power to remove a CEO as well as a member of the board lies with the Minister.”
“On the appointment of the Chief Executive, I note the Minister's explanation that this is to bring AMLA in line with the other statutory boards which also appoint Chief Executives. However, at the same time, in my opinion, there is a difference between MUIS and the other statutory boards. In the other boards, there is really no equivalent to the post of President of MUIS who is appointed by the President of Singapore, and not the Minister in charge of MUIS. In the other statutory boards, the Minister in charge of the statutory board would appoint the Chairman of the Board. In the other statutory boards, there is also no equivalent of section 19 of the AMLA which defines the functions of the President of MUIS as having "general control of all deliberations and proceedings of the Majlis". Neither is it equivalent to section 25(1) of the Act which gives the President the powers in an emergency to act on behalf of MUIS, even without a resolution of a Majlis. These provisions seem to vest the President of MUIS with certain powers, which are different from the normal functions of the Chairman of other statutory boards. This is borne out by the fact that the President of MUIS has, up to now, acted mostly like the CEO of a statutory board. Under the amendments, the Chief Executive's duties are to be responsible to the Majlis for the proper administration and management of the functions and affairs of the Majlis, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Majlis. If the President has general control of all the deliberations and proceedings of MUIS, would it not mean that he too has the power and duty to administer and manage the affairs of MUIS? If he is to be vested with certain powers during an emergency, he must be sufficiently in control of MUIS to do that.”
“A few have suggested that this indicates a lack of transparency in the way MUIS operates, citing not only this amendment Bill but also the recent increase in the contributions to the mosque building fund as examples where more consultation would have been useful in getting greater community support for the changes. I hope that we would view these comments in the right perspective. It should not in any way be taken as criticism of MUIS or its credibility. MUIS has done good work in helping the community to navigate through really rough waters, particularly over the last few years after September 11 and the increased spotlight on the Muslim community. By no account is the task of MUIS an easy one. MUIS must reflect the views, concerns, hopes and expectations of the Muslim community when it advises the Government on Muslim affairs. At the same time, it also has the responsibility to help the community develop into a progressive, educated and well-integrated Muslim community with a distinctly Singaporean identity but still strong in Islamic values. The Muslim community here is deeply religious, yet, at the same time, acutely aware of the secular context and the need to strike a balance. Mr Speaker, hence, views expressed requiring more consultation on the AMLA changes is a good sign. It shows that the community is engaged and wants to participate more actively in matters that affect them. I feel that it is important that these concerns are adequately addressed. At the same time, I also urge our community when these concerns have been addressed to move on as there is not much point in endlessly debating this issue and diverting our attention from the more important task ahead of us. Mr Speaker, let me now come to the substantive amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act. MUIS is an important institution among Muslims in Singapore. Over the years, MUIS has played a more effective role in helping the Muslim community handle various complex issues and new challenges that they face. MUIS now covers a broad spectrum of matters of direct relevance to the Muslim community, such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, wakaf, zakat, fitrah, haj, administration of mosques, religious education, halal certification, and many other areas. In short, every Muslim in Singapore knows about MUIS and would at some point in their lives have come into contact with it. Given the impact and significance of MUIS on the life of the average Muslim Singaporean, there is no doubt that any changes to the law or provisions pertaining to MUIS would be closely watched. There is probably no other law in Singapore which affects the Muslim community as pervasively as AMLA. It is in this context that one must view some of the comments that have been made about the current amendments. To the Muslim community, MUIS is not just another statutory board. It is a key institution which affects the well-being of themselves and their families. There have been views expressed that the amendments were not widely discussed among community leaders and Malay/Muslim organisations. The points stressed were that greater consultation would have ensured a greater buy-in and sense of ownership of the changes among the community.”
“But for some people, it may be more. It varies. $10,400 is not a small sum: provided you consistently save, I think you will build up a significant amount. If despite all your efforts, you still need help, then Medifund is there to help out. MEDICAL NEEDS OF ELDERLY SINGAPOREANS 14. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) whether Singaporeans above 65 years have adequate Medisave balances to take care of their medical needs; and (b) whether there will be any help given to assist needy elderly Singaporeans who are likely to be inactive CPF members to pay for their MediShield premiums, which are now higher and in view of the extension of the MediShield maximum coverage age to 85.”
“Two supplementary questions, Sir. On the self-employed, I would like to ask the Minister what other measures can be taken to encourage them to contribute regularly to the Medisave, particularly that we can see a lot more people are going into contracts for services or being self-employed. On the Minister's point that those earning less than $1,000 have got $10,400, enough for more than 10 average Class C hospitalisations, in a lifetime, how many times are people expected to be hospitalised? Mr Khaw Boon Wan: For self-employed, there are various ways to encourage them. I hope Members can also help me whenever they meet their constituents, especially those who are self-employed - taxi drivers, hawkers, and so on - encourage them. Because under our system, while we heavily subsidise healthcare, we also require patients, for good reasons, to co-pay a small part of the bill. And provided you consistently and monthly save a little bit each time while you are fit and active, you will build up a sizeable account. So, please, let us help to educate them. Of course, the other extreme measure is for CPF Board to occasionally remind them, and sometimes very strongly. But it is for their own good. As for my data of less than $1,000 per month having about $10,000-odd, this is a global average for all low-income groups. It covers various age groups. So, whether $10,000 is big or small, it depends. For the young, it is small, because they have just started saving. As for the question on how many hospitalisations in a lifetime, the data generally suggest that each of us, on average, may incur one hospitalisation per decade. I am now 52. On average, I should have had five hospitalisations. But because I take healthy lifestyle seriously, for me it is only twice, below average.”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned that there is about enough flu vaccine for 25% of the population. I wonder, if there is an outbreak, whether there will be a problem with allocation of the vaccine. Secondly, the Minister mentioned about the need to involve stakeholders. I wonder whether the Ministry involves companies as well because there was a report which says that companies are not very prepared for the eventuality of such an outbreak.”
“Three questions, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is necessary for Singaporeans to get a flu vaccination, if that is useful, if not for all Singaporeans, at least for those who are travelling overseas. Will that be an advice that the Ministry of Health thinks useful for those who are travelling to avian flu infected areas to have the flu vaccination? Secondly, my question is whether there is sufficient quantum of the Tamiflu vaccine available because there appears to be a severe shortage in the US, and the US is trying to increase production. Is there a shortage in Singapore? Thirdly, I would like to ask what kind of cooperation exists with the countries in the region, particularly those countries where avian flu is particularly serious. The Minister did talk about international cooperation and support. Is there some regional cooperation on this?”
“If the whole idea is to encourage mothers to work in order to raise the quality of life and income levels of families, it is time the Government reviewed this subsidy and increased the amount. Sir, I would also like to urge employers to be more open and receptive to flexible work schemes at the workplace. The number of employers that have implemented flexible work schemes in Singapore remains small despite tripartite efforts and even with some Government funding. In 2004, there were only 39,700 private sector employers who were involved in flexible work schemes. Employers can do a lot more to make it possible for their female workers to continue working as well as enable others who are not currently in the workforce because of difficulties of balancing work and family to work. Sir, I support the Bill but I wish to reiterate that there is a need for a more comprehensive, holistic and integrated range of services to help low-income mothers stay in the workforce as part of the overall strategy to break the poverty cycle in Singapore. I think the crux of the issue is this. We understand that if mothers work, this could help raise the family income and improve their quality of life. Also, this will help to strengthen the work ethics and provide positive role models for the young. However, without an adequate support structure, mothers will not be able to work. Or if they do so, their young children may be neglected, causing a whole range of other problems in the future. Hence, I urge a critical re-examination of our existing support schemes so that we can identify the gaps, assess new needs and be more effective in helping low-income mothers stay in the workforce. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The answer is probably because it is not commercially viable due to the low volume and extra cost involved. Whatever may be the reason, this absence of childcare facilities at night for working mothers is a long standing issue and is one of the gaps that we should address. I hope that the Ministry will look into this matter and together with the childcare operators as well as VWOs suggest some solutions on how to provide for this need. Let me now come to my next point, Sir, and that is the case of mothers who are neither really low-income nor high-income who are sandwiched in between. For low-income mothers, there is the CFAC to help them pay for childcare fees. But the CFAC applies only to mothers whose household income does not exceed $1,500. Hence, mothers who are in the lower middle income range do not benefit from this subsidy. So a mother with a household income of $2,000 will not enjoy the CFAC, although if she has two children in a childcare centre, the cost will be too high for her and it may not make it worthwhile for her to work. I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider reviewing the household income and raise it to a more realistic level so that more mothers can go out to work and strengthen their families' financial position. Sir, the Ministry should also consider reviewing the $150 subsidy that is currently given to every child of a working mother who is placed in a childcare centre. This subsidy was fixed for quite sometime now, and I think that it is appropriate that this subsidy be reviewed to a more realistic level so that more mothers can benefit from it.”
“For instance, a mother with two children - one of kindergarten age and the other of school-going age - will still encounter problems. Her younger child may be placed in a kindergarten so that she can work but there will be no one to take care of her older primary school child before or after he comes back from school when she is still working. There are bodies providing before-and-after-school care services, but these are not extensive enough. Moreover, the privately-run before-and-after-school care centres are too expensive for low-income families. Currently, the MCYS subsidises this service, but the subsidy is given only to before-and-after-school care centres run by the VWOs. There are not enough of such services run by VWOs all over the island. Therefore, this service remains unaffordable as well as inaccessible to mothers. Sometime ago, Sir, I raised a question in Parliament over whether the MCYS would consider giving the subsidy to all before-and-after-school care providers, much like how we treat the kindergarten service instead of confining the subsidy only to VWOs. The MCYS' response, at that time, was that it would look into the matter, but there has not been much progress since then. I hope that this is one area where we can see some improvement with the establishment of the ComCare Fund. Another difficulty, Sir, for low-income mothers is that there are no childcare services after 7 pm. This is indeed one gap in the provision of service for working mothers as we have a 24-7 economy where shift work is very common. This makes it difficult for mothers who have no one to take care of their young children to perform the graveyard shift and therefore limit their job opportunities. Why is there no childcare operator operating at night?”
“As one newspaper report described it, all these had an important psychological and practical effect, legitimising the decision of young mothers to go back to work. Sir, we are in agreement that having more than one breadwinner in the family is important in today's context. I believe that this has also been identified as one important strategy in helping low-income families. A working mother will help to strengthen the family's financial situation. Many low-income families suffer not only from income instability but also job insecurity. A lot of the jobs performed by low-income workers are more precarious, subject to outsourcing or are casual or short-term in nature. These are also jobs that are subject to intense pressure from international competition which, in turn, has an impact on the wage levels. So a working mother will help to reduce the insecurity that the family faces in the event that the father loses his job or something happens to him. There is at least a buffer for the family. However, the existing support structure that we have is, in my view, inadequate to help mothers with young children to continue working, or those who are not working to re-enter the workforce. Let me just cite a few examples, Sir. We have schemes, such as KiFAS or the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, under which mothers can get up to $65 subsidy per month for putting their children in a kindergarten. Another scheme is the CFAC or the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare to help low-income mothers who work. Such schemes are good, Sir. But, again, what we suffer from is that we tend to look at such schemes in isolation. As a result, there are gaps in the kind of assistance that is provided to working mothers.”
“Women's labour force participation rate reaches a peak at the rate of 85% for those aged 25-29 and then begins to decline as a number withdraw from the workforce after marriage and childbirth. Hence, only about 61.9% of the women in the age group of 45-49 remain economically active, compared to their male counterparts, which is 96%. This figure continues to decline to 53% for those in the 50-54 age group, compared to their male counterparts, which is 93%, and 40% for those in the 55-59 age group, compared to their male counterparts, which is 78%. In contrast, in countries with a stronger system of state assistance, they have seen a rise in the number of women in the workforce. France, for example, has the highest rate in the EU of female employment and professional activity. 80% of French women between the age of 24-49 work, including those with children less than three years of age. The strong social support system in France has not only benefited women and their employment market. France, together with Ireland, has the highest birth rate in the European Union - 1.9 children per woman as against a 25-nation EU average of 1.4. This is possible because of state assistance which enables working women to have a second or third child without damaging their family budget. In the 1970s, the French government expanded free full-time municipal creches, free public pre-kindergartens and canteens were vastly increased in number as well as subsidised vacation colonies during the summer and winter school holidays. There are also State financial incentives, family allowances, support for volunteer creches formed by groups of mothers and family tax benefits, many of which increase significantly with a third child.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the ComCare Endowment Fund Bill. When the Prime Minister announced that the Government will be establishing a ComCare Fund to help needy Singaporeans and their families, there were a lot of expectations. As a result, some of us have seen a spike in the number of cases coming to our meet-the-people sessions for help. I am not quite sure whether the message to the ground is clearer now, but the objectives were clearly defined by our Prime Minister when he launched the ComCare Fund a few months ago. He said that ComCare aims to help the needy help themselves and work towards being able to support themselves and their families. This is an important point. We have to ensure that we do not create a welfare-dependent mentality. At the same time, we have to ensure that those who receive help can do so with pride and dignity as they know that their efforts to help themselves will reap benefits. Sir, the most effective way of ensuring that our needy are self-reliant is to make sure that they have jobs and can support their families. Currently, one group that finds it particularly difficult to continue working or to re-enter the workforce are mothers with young children, particularly single mothers. They need a more comprehensive and holistic range of services than what is currently provided if we want to make sure that they can work and do not have to depend on welfare. I would like to urge the MCYS to critically re-examine our existing social support schemes to make it easier for mothers to work. If we were to look at the statistics, the signs are not encouraging.”
“Sir, my question is this: is there some truth in that? That because we have been outsourcing cleaning work, that is the reason that has contributed to this perception of the standard of cleanliness and the number of dengue cases increasing. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I do not think we can say that because it was done once by the daily-rated employees, they did a better job as compared to the private contractors. Both NEA and PUB check very closely to ensure that the places in which we are responsible are well kept and well maintained. But having said that, we have stepped up our cleanliness regime. In terms of the flushing of our drains, we do it more frequently. So I think we will continue to review and learn. And, in fact, the exercise over this weekend has revealed some very interesting things for us to do together with the Town Councils in terms of how to keep our common areas clean. So I do not want to debate whether there is truth in the matter or not. More importantly, let us learn from the experience, work together, and move forward in this process. But I will be most happy to listen to Members' suggestion on what more at the ground our agencies can do. As mentioned by Mr Mah, this is a long-term thing in terms of some of the changes that we have to make but I think the immediate task is to reduce the population of mosquitoes, and this is where if we can step up our maintenance and cleanliness regime several notches, I think we will be able to put this challenge under control, Sir.”
“Sir, there is an impression down the ground that the incidence of dengue cases has increased because there is some linkage to the way cleaning is done at the ground. And the way cleaning is done is also associated with the people doing the cleaning. So the question is whether, because there is now a lot of outsourcing of cleaning work and, therefore, that has in some ways affected the way cleaning is done which is not so thorough and not so well. Previously, when these were done by the direct employees, and they had been doing the job for many years, they had a certain instinct as to where the mosquitoes could possibly be hiding. They have some experience and the ability to do that. But now that it has been outsourced, the contractors come in, they employ people and they may not be the ones---”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned that most of the occupants have already indicated that they would be able to move out by the deadline, except for one. In the event that they are not able to do so, what further assistance will be rendered to them, including the one person who has not given the indication that they will be able to move out by the given deadline?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether it is possible to increase the subsidy for KIFAS, because the feedback I get from some families is that even the present level of subsidy is not sufficient. My second point, Sir, is that the CFAC requires the mother to already have a job. Some mothers have said it is a chicken-and-egg problem. They cannot go and get a job if their child is with them, but yet the CFAC said they must have a job first. Is it possible to review the scheme?”
“I wish to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation. But I think there is a need for the education programme to be more targeted and focused. One area is specifically to educate people on how much they need to save for their retirement because, right now, the programme is very general and not so specific. One suggestion would be that the Ministry could work with the grassroots organisations and even think of coming out with brochures and handouts in the four languages. I think that would be helpful if they are in simple language for people to understand.”
“Two follow-up questions, Sir. What other measures can the Ministry of Manpower consider, because I have heard about MoneySENSE and the CPF website but, despite that, the survey done by MAS does show that a large proportion of people still do not understand very much about retirement planning? Many people still do not understand how much they have to save to meet their retirement needs. That shows quite a significant portion, ie, 24%, are not aware. What is even more worrisome is that 42% of those surveyed thought that the amount the CPF will give them monthly will be equivalent to their last-drawn pay, whereas the reality is that, in 2004, of those who reached the age of 55, only 40% were able to reach the Minimum Sum.”
“I hope that other charities will also take a leaf from this and do their own housekeeping if their house is not in order. Let me conclude, Sir, by appealing to all Singaporeans - I understand your anger and frustrations. But let us not add more confusion to the already complex situation. The Ministry of Health has promised that it will do a thorough investigation together with the new Board. And we should give them our support so that they can do their work effectively without hassle. Sir, notwithstanding the recent fiasco, the NKF has done good work and can continue to do so after some rigorous housekeeping. What we need to do now is to focus on the lives of those Singaporeans who need kidney dialysis and for whose sake, we need to support the NKF. For the NKF is not about Mr T T Durai, it is larger than that. It is about saving the lives of fellow Singaporeans, many of whom are low income workers who need the support of the NKF.”
“This has resulted, in the NKF's case, in a serious lack of transparency and accountability. Sir, I call upon the MOH to conduct a thorough investigation of the affairs of the NKF so as to restore trust and confidence in charities which have taken a severe beating. At the end of the day, I must also say that no matter what checks and balances are put in place, a lot depends on the integrity of those who run these charities. We have seen that even in America, despite the more rigorous corporate governance laws that are in place, fiascos such as Enron can still happen. In Singapore, businesses are subject to thorough and tough business and company laws, financial guidelines and regulatory practices to ensure that they carry out their businesses properly and honestly and are answerable to their stakeholders. What about our charities who are dealing with public donations and funds? Should they not be more well-governed than private companies? What is equally important is also our own vigilance. As donors, we should be more discerning, discriminating and demanding, to quote Mr Gerard Ee's words. Perhaps, as donors, supporters and contributors of NKF, we also cannot completely absolve ourselves from blame. How many of us must have felt somewhat uncomfortable with the glitz and gloss associated with the NKF's fund-raising efforts, including the television shows? We must have wondered and asked ourselves many questions, but never took the trouble to seriously articulate them. Or have we allowed ourselves to be intimidated by the law suits that we knew NKF could well bring against critics? On the positive side, this whole NKF episode is actually a good lesson on the importance of good corporate governance for all charities.”
“If we do not think that legislation is the way ahead and still opt for the self-regulation mode, then we need to have a system in place where full and complete disclosure is possible, and the public is given sufficient information for it to make an informed decision and to have trust and faith in the charities. Applying this principle to the NKF, the kind of disclosure that the public would like to see would cover the following areas: How much reserves does it have and how long will those reserves last? How many patients does the NKF have? What is the subsidy policy? And is the subsidy adequate, as some of us have been approached for assistance by those turned away by the NKF? What percentage of the fund-raising should be used for expenditure and how much must go towards helping the needy? What are the disclosure guidelines and processes that charities must adopt to improve on their transparency and accountability? Is there an audit committee? What does it audit and what is its responsibility? Are independent auditors already appointed, and are they performing a reasonably good job? What is the role of the Board of Directors? As in the NKF's case, the Board's supervisory role is clearly absent. Is there a system where volunteers or staff can raise concerns, bearing in mind that one such volunteer was sued in court for raising the very same issues that are now the subject of today's debate? Are whistle-blowers protected, Sir? For the Government is now thinking of protecting whistle-blowers when it comes to corporate governance for companies. It seems to me that what is lacking now is that we have opted for a scheme of self-regulation, but there is no system in place to check whether this is working.”
“We would be a very sad and uncaring society if this day were to come. In moving ahead, Sir, the real issue that we need to deal with is not the question of how much we should pay the CEO of NKF. Of greater importance is the issue of how should charities, which are given autonomy to raise money from the money, be governed. What accountability should there be to the public which provides such charities and, more importantly, the needy constituents their lifeline? What are the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that there is no misuse of public funds? Who should test the system periodically to ensure that the rules are not flouted? Is it reasonable now that we can see how much money in charities, such as NKF can amass, to leave everything to self-regulation? When questioned during cross-examination as to why he did not disclose to the public about his pay and other perks, Mr T T Durai replied that he had no legal obligation to do so. Sir, I think that this is a fundamental issue. We need to decide on the kind of regulatory regime that we want to put in place. I believe that charities should be governed by legislation, particularly those of a certain income size, if regulating all would be too onerous. If we want charities to upgrade and professionalise themselves and to be run as companies, and if we argue that their staff should also be well-paid to attract the best, then surely they should also be subject to the same rigours of accountability as companies, which are governed by legislation. I do not believe that introducing laws would make the system more rigid. Certainly, it would introduce some amount of administrative work but charities which are well-run and organised should not be concerned about this.”
“A unionist recounted how his unemployed son who had used his savings to donate had quarrelled with him for accidentally throwing away the NKF pledge form during house-cleaning. Such was the intensity of feelings that the NKF was able to invoke through the many years of their fund-raising efforts to appeal to Singaporeans to help the kidney patients. When events turned out this way, Singaporeans were angry, particularly because the last few years had been tough years for them as many had lost their jobs, suffered wage cuts or enjoyed lower increments. Many were outraged to find out that in 2003, during SARS when some of them had to take no-pay leave or work reduced hours to keep their jobs, the CEO of NKF was paid 12 months of bonus and all in the name of charity. It is true that we cannot expect those who work for charity full-time to be lowly paid. If we want the best people who can mobilise others, raise funds and run effective programmes for worthy causes, we have to pay them a reasonable or decent salary. But the real issue here is how much is enough or reasonable, especially when payment is made out of charity dollars. Singaporeans have overwhelmingly voiced their opinion that $600,000 is excessive. I think that any attempt to try and justify this amount would only make things worse. But, Sir, we are all agreed on one point - we, as a society, should move ahead. We should not allow this whole incident from deflecting support for the NKF or the worthy cause that it is promoting - a mission to save the lives of fellow Singaporeans afflicted with kidney disease. We should also not let this affect our support for other charities as it would be unfair and unthinkable if Singaporeans were to stop helping the needy one day.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. First, let me thank the Minister for his Statement outlining the measures that will be taken to restore stability and confidence. Sir, when news first broke out about Mr T T Durai's pay and that the NKF's figures on the number of its patients and how long its reserves would last were misrepresented, I felt as if I was under siege. As wherever I went, people demanded to know what the Government would do. So I was quite relieved when the NKF finally invited Minister Khaw to assist them. The Minister's intervention has restored some amount of confidence because people trust the Government and believe that the Government will get to the bottom of things and put the house in order. But looking ahead, I also wonder what would have happened if the NKF had decided not to involve the Ministry of Health. Is there a mechanism for the Government to intervene to protect public interest? This points out to me the importance of having a system in place to ensure proper checks and control so that intervention can be made much more earlier, and not only when the situation has become so serious. Sir, I can understand how Singaporeans feel. At every union meeting that I attended over the next couple of days after the story broke, I was besieged with a deluge of questions about NKF. There were many angry words, frustration and, above all, a sense of betrayal. These feelings are to be expected. Almost two out of every three Singaporeans had donated to the NKF. Among these were many low-income workers who had donated a part of their hard earned money to the NKF because they believed that their money would be put to good use.”
“Sir, the Minister made reference to the recommendations of the Council of Governance on Institutions of Public Character, which will come into effect in 2007. One of the recommendations of the Council is for the salaries of the top three executives of charities to be revealed. But this was scuttled because there was no support from the charities. Will this be restored in the Council's guidelines now, in view of the recent happenings?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether there have been any employers prosecuted under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act, because that has been the mechanism used in order to protect foreign workers. Have there been any employers who have been prosecuted in view of the fact that we have seen a number of cases where foreign domestic workers have complained of lack of rest and other minimum standards?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that auctioning foreign workers in the manner suggested is quite demeaning for the foreign workers because it amounts to auctioning human beings? My second question is, if we allow unrestricted transfer of foreign workers, that would also undermine our efforts and job redesign in certain areas?”
“Sir, the Minister made extensive references to the need to consult stakeholders, which I agree entirely with him. Our own feedback also shows that when it comes to retrenchment of pregnant female employees, actually employers are a lot more generous and have been paying maternity benefits. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will now initiate facilitation and consultation among the stakeholders on this issue.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will not agree with me that maternity benefits are actually very basic benefits and if a female employee is retrenched it is usually through no fault of hers and therefore she should be entitled to maternity benefits if she is retrenched. Also, the existing law already provides that a female worker must have worked with the employer for 180 days. Is that not a sufficient condition for entitlement?”
“Sir, I agree with the Minister that there is a need for a balance to take into account both employers' and workers' interests and we do not want invariably too much improvement or protection to result in a reverse effect of employers not employing female workers. On the other hand, the question I would like to ask the Minister is, if we give enhanced benefits as well as other benefits but, at the same time, these benefits are not protected, will it not be counter-productive in the sense that it will not be effective because the female workers will not be able to enjoy these benefits? So I would like to ask the Minister, bearing in mind the need for this balance and also the fact that female workers whose services are terminated and without maternity benefits will find it difficult to get another employment, would not the Ministry reconsider its position and review this legislation to provide more effective protection for pregnant female employees?”
“Sir, first, I note with some concern that the person accused of murdering Huang Na, Took, was able to just leave Singapore and go into Johore without a passport and without being stopped by immigration on both sides. I think that causes some concerns among Singaporeans on the issue of security. So, I would like to ask DPM's comments on that. My second point, Sir, is that one of the comments about these four men who were the bombers is that they came from the Beeston area of Leeds. There was a comment piece which I read which pointed out the fact that there is not much integration in that area. In fact, there was extreme segregation and isolation among British who are Caucasians and those who are Asians living in the Beeston area. What I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister is whether, in his view, there is something else that we can do a lot, in terms of integration. We have already got the IRCCs in place. Are we comfortable with that or is there something more that we can do to ensure more integration in Singapore?”
“Sir, when will the review be expected to complete and the new policy implemented?”
“Sir, as the IR is expected to create about 10,000 jobs, I would like to ask the Minister whether planning has been done already to identify what kind of jobs would be created and to prepare Singaporeans so that they are able to do these jobs because some of these may require them to go through a course of training which may require a few years.”
“As an additional safeguard, the new provision also empowers the Court, on application by a member or creditor of the amalgamating company, to make an order against a proposed amalgamation, eg, directing that the amalgamation proposal must not be effected, if it is satisfied that it would unfairly prejudice a member or a creditor of the amalgamating company. Conclusion Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government will continue to look into implementing the few remaining CLRFC recommendations that require amendments to the Companies Act, such as the recommendation to adopt the UK's statutory restatement of the general principles for directors. We will also continue with our regular review of the provisions in the Companies Act to keep pace with developments. The current amendments will give companies the flexibility to design appropriate capital structures which best suit their needs, at a lower cost, provided that there is full disclosure. We have also balanced the granting of flexibility with safeguards. This is consistent with our overall policy to make Singapore a good and progressive place for business. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“This will provide greater flexibility to the companies. Again, as a safeguard, a solvency statement is needed before a company can fund its share buy-back or redeem its preference shares out of its capital. Introducing the concept of treasury shares Today, all shares repurchased by a company must be cancelled immediately upon re-acquisition by the company. Clause 26 introduces new sections 76H to 76K, which will allow a company to hold re-purchased shares in treasury instead of cancelling them. The introduction of treasury shares will make it easier for companies to restructure their capital through share buy-backs and facilitate any future capital raising without having to issue new shares. As a safeguard against possible abuse, the voting and dividend rights of the re-purchased shares will be suspended so long as these shares are held in treasury. Liberalising the amalgamation process for companies Under the current regime, section 212 of the Companies Act provides for the amalgamation of companies by according the Courts the power to effect a transfer of assets and liabilities of the companies and their undertakings. This provision is however seldom used in practice, given the high costs involved and its restrictive application by the Courts. Clause 49 introduces new sections 215A to 215J to allow amalgamation of companies, including holding companies and their subsidiaries, without a court order. To protect creditors' interests, the amalgamation has to be supported by solvency statements from the directors of each amalgamating company as well as the amalgamated company.”
“To provide greater flexibility, the publicity requirements will be provided in the Regulations, with the Minister being statutorily empowered to prescribe other modes or channels of public communication. The shareholders' resolution and solvency statement have to be made available for public inspection. Consistent with the existing practice, creditors with valid claims will be allowed to object to the capital reduction if they can show good cause. Liberalising financial assistance restrictions Currently, a company is generally prohibited from providing financial assistance to third parties to acquire its own shares, as this might lead to an improper depletion of the company's assets to the detriment of its creditors. Clause 23 liberalises the restrictions on the giving of financial assistance by a company to third parties, if the amount of assistance does not exceed 10% of the paid-up capital and the reserves of the company, or if all the shareholders approve the giving of the financial assistance. The financial assistance has to be supported by a solvency statement. In response to feedback that the current statutory formulation relating to financial assistance is unclear, clause 23 amends section 76 of the Companies Act by clarifying that representations, warranties and indemnities given by an issuer or vendor, in good faith and in the ordinary course of commercial dealings, in the context of an offer to the public to subscribe for its shares, will not be construed as financial assistance. Share buy-back regime Currently, share buy-backs can only be funded out of distributable profits. Clause 25 will amend section 76B to allow companies to buy back shares or redeem its preference shares out of profits or paid-up capital.”
“As a consequence, ACRA will also amend the Eighth Schedule to the Companies Act shortly. The Eighth Schedule prescribes the requirements for the Annual Return to be submitted by a company having a share capital. Reforming the capital maintenance regime The Bill also reforms the current capital maintenance regime by introducing greater flexibility to how companies raise and maintain their capital. The Bill seeks to achieve this by: (a) introducing an alternative capital reduction regime; (b) liberalising financial assistance restrictions; (c) reforming the share buy-back regime; and (d) allowing the redemption of preference shares. I will now briefly explain each of the amendments. Alternative capital reduction regime Currently, a company is required to obtain the High Court's approval before it can reduce its share capital. Clause 28 introduces new sections 78A to 78K, which would allow companies to reduce their share capital through a special shareholders' resolution, without the need for approval from the Court. Creditors' interests will continue to be protected. First, companies will be required to support the special resolution with a solvency statement, which is a declaration from the company's directors that the company is able to pay its debts as they fall due and that the company's assets will exceed its liabilities after the transaction. Next, public companies undergoing capital reduction will be required to publish in advance in a national newspaper a notice of reduction of share capital, while private companies can choose either to publish the notice in a newspaper or send a notice to inform all their creditors.”
“The authorised share capital is the maximum amount of share capital which a company is authorised to allot under its Memorandum. Calculation of paid-up share capital, based on par value, is an outdated concept that is no longer relied on by investors and creditors as an accurate proxy of a company's underlying value. In practice, measures, such as earning per share and net tangible asset backing, provide a more accurate guide to the economic value of a company. Not only is the concept of par value not an accurate proxy of a company's value, the rule that shares cannot be issued at a discount to par value also serves to prevent a company from raising new funds when the market value of its shares has fallen below par value. Clause 8 amends section 22 to abolish the concept of authorised share capital, thus removing the upper limit to the number of shares that companies may issue, a limit which serves no prudential purpose. Clause 15 introduces new sections 62A and 62B to abolish the par value concept and provides for the transition provisions for the treatment of share capital. Clause 18 repeals sections 67 to 69F which are no longer applicable as the concepts of share premium and share discount will cease to apply. For shares issued after the abolition date, the measure of liability of a shareholder shall be the consideration agreed to be paid on or price of the shares. This includes the amount that would previously have been classified as share premiums. The notion of issued and paid capital will continue to be relevant even after the abolition of par value, but they will no longer be measured against the par value of shares. Instead, they will be measured against the amount of capital issued and actually paid up.”