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 3 of 24.
“But whatever amount that they provide, the presence of a Tribunal and a conciliation process provides them with a platform to get together and discuss with the whole family – maybe with their siblings and the courts as well – to think of ways to take care of their parents' basic needs. So, Mdm Deputy Speaker, even though the law cannot set the level of a child's contribution towards his or her parents, we should, and in fact, must ensure that children fulfil the most basic obligations towards their parents, that is, to pay for their needs. For families without direct support from their children, their relation has obviously been severed. If there was love and respect, they will surely take care of their parents. This Bill will not worsen this situation. So, for those who really understand their obligations, this Bill is not necessary and it would not apply to them. However, this Bill is required for the small minority who totally do not feel any obligation towards their parents. And with the presence of this Bill, I cannot see how it can worsen the situation. In fact, is it not worse if we face a situation where needy parents are forced to get social assistance or assistance from other sources and not from their own children? Which is more embarrassing – for an aged father or mother to obtain help through the Tribunal or other processes that are provided under this Bill, or for them to go to welfare homes or welfare organisations run by either the Government or self-help groups? I feel that having to obtain help from the latter is more embarrassing to them, as compared to trying to get assistance to claim maintenance from their children, either through the Tribunal or the conciliation process available.”
“These are not new debates since the same issues were voiced out in 1995 when this Bill was passed. I think that if we exist in a world where each of us are guided by noble values and fulfilled our obligations towards our parents, this Bill need not even exist. Unfortunately, in today's world, there are people who cast aside, ignore or are even willing to abandon their parents. We often see such cases during our Meet-the-People Sessions and during our house-to-house visits. At times, our efforts to solve family problems seem futile. In one case that was heard by the Tribunal, a mother made a claim on her son who was working as a lawyer. The son, who had a salary amounting to thousands of dollars, rejected his mother's claim as his spending included overseas holidays with his wife and eating at expensive restaurants, and yet he was unwilling to help take care of his parents. Mdm Deputy Speaker, should we allow such a son to escape from his responsibility towards his parents? I certainly feel not. And the Tribunal at that time also felt that it should not allow this child – a lawyer with a salary of thousands of dollars – not provide any maintenance to his parents. The Tribunal at that time issued an order for this lawyer to provide maintenance for his parents. And on the flip side, there were many cases in the Tribunal, where children who are not so well off, fulfil their obligations after being persuaded by the Tribunal. There are those who said that they can afford to give around $50 a month, and others who said that maybe they can afford $20 a month.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this Amendment Bill. I was part of the Workgroup that is proposing the amendment to this law. Some years ago, as a Panel Member in a session of the Parents Maintenance Tribunal, I came across a case of a rather elderly woman who was claiming for maintenance from her only son. Actually, the son did give a monthly allowance to his mother but she wanted a higher amount. However, a few minutes later, after the session began, what we heard was that at that time, she was not concerned about money issues. She actually wanted the court to issue an order so that her son could visit her more often or at least call her over the phone if he was too busy. She lived alone and often felt lonely. This case is actually a story of a mother who wanted and craved the love and concern of her son. But the court did not have the authority to issue such an order other than advising the son to consider his mother's request. Under this Act, the court can take action to issue such an order so that the children provide maintenance to their parents. However, the court cannot issue orders for the children to display love, appreciate and take care of their parents. In other words, the law cannot set the level of a child's contribution towards his or her parents. Mdm Deputy Speaker, some feel that this case showed that family relations are very complicated and should not be brought to court. In fact, some feel that finding resolutions through legal means can further damage family relations, and that by strengthening the law through this amendment, it may further weaken the institution of the family, as mentioned earlier by Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan. *Cols. 1823-1828.”
“Two supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State. First, what can we do for those who borrow money from loansharks and then refuse to change their addresses and allow buyers of their flats to be harassed by the loansharks? This is a serious problem and it has not abated as a result of the new measures. Secondly, although the Senior Minister of State said there is a decline in loanshark activities, 13,000-odd is still a large number of cases. Is there any indication that there is a linkage to the casinos, ie, people are now borrowing more money and, therefore, end up with a lot of loanshark problems?”
“I would like to put one question to Minister. Once a couple has reached the divorce stage, I think that is quite disastrous, the impact is already there on the family, especially the children. So my question to Minister is whether there are sufficient programmes now to assist couples who are facing marital difficulties to assist them in counselling because the information and feedback I get is sometimes couples are very confused. When they need help, they do not seem to feel that they have sufficient support and help for them in order to get that kind of assistance. So whether there are programmes and whether these programmes are effective and how do we make known to couples who need this help that these programmes are available?”
“If we believed that that is going to be done by having men patrol on bicycles, then that would be done. But over many years, we have done various studies on what is the most optimal use of our people: how do we leverage and synergise with the community, is it better to put our men in fast patrol cars and having an overall view of the entire area, having better intelligence, knowing what the hot spots are and being able to react very quickly? Bear in mind that each cohort in the entire population is shrinking and the Police force, like everybody else, has a challenge in getting our share of talent in. And only certain types of officers can make it to the Police force. Taking all that into account, we have to be realistic of what are the resources available and make the best use of those resources. The fact that the best use has been made of those resources, as the Member can see, has been borne out through the crime statistics. And that is the ultimate answer.”
“Rioting with youth involvement has come down from 205 in 2005 to 112 last year. So far, up to September this year, 96. If Members would like to look at the proportion of total rioting cases which involve youths, it has stayed steady at about 40%. If Members look at actual numbers: because the total number of rioting cases has come down, the number of cases of youth involvement in rioting has also come down. I do not have the precise gender breakdown here but I can tell the Member that in that regard it is primarily boys and not so many women. We had a programme specifically targeted at at-risk Malay youths, the Giant Trampoline Project. It was a successful programme but after review we decided that it was best done combined with the national StreetWise Programme. So it has been folded into the national StreetWise Programme. For the detailed statistics, perhaps if the Member wrote in, we can give them to her. The second point that the Member made is a larger policy point, about the perception that there is reduced Police presence and whether we can increase Police presence. We have to go back to the underlying point: the thrust or the assumption behind the question is that crime is increasing and that can be solved by having more Police patrolling either by bicycles or by having men-in-blue patrolling. But that assumption is wrong. Crime is not increasing. Crime is actually decreasing. We seek to continuously reduce crime. Any case of rioting is taken seriously. That is the meaning of the "zero-tolerance" policy. We, however, have to be realistic that in a city of five million people, there will be some crime. We will have to deal with it. What is the best and most optimal use of our resources?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. First, the Minister used rioting as proxy to determine whether there is an increase in gang-related activities. Could the Minister please give figures as to the kind of arrests and the number of people arrested for the gang-related activities that the Minister has cited? The second part of this question is: could the Minister share with this House the breakdown in the figures, for instance, by gender and more specifically whether there is an increase in the number of girls involved in the gang-related activities and whether there is an increase in the number of Malay youths involved in gang-related activities? My second question: One of the questions among people is that they feel there is less visibility on the ground of the Police compared to the past with the Neighbourhood Police Posts when the Police would ride their bicycles and go round the neighbourhood. Now, even the Neighbourhood Police Posts operate much shorter hours. Would the Ministry consider increasing the presence of the Police on the ground or increase the operating hours of the Neighbourhood Police Posts or resurrect the Police-on-wheels scheme? That would help to restore confidence in the people. Mr Shanmugam: Thank you. The Member has asked for fairly detailed statistics. As I understand it, the Member would like to know the number of youths picked up for gang-related activities and then, specifically, whether we could give the gender and, third, whether we could be more specific on Malay youths. For some of these statistics, I think it would be best if the Member wrote in and then, I can give it to her because I do not have the details right now. Let me try and do the best that I can. Total rioting cases: I have given the handout.”
“First, on the stipulated income ceiling of $4,500 for eligibility of inclusions, may I ask the Minister what is the proportion of disputes filed in the past three years which involve employees earning less than $4,500? This data will help us appreciate the number of cases which this Bill will help offload from civil litigation. I believe it is important to avoid civil litigation whenever possible and over-reliance on litigation to resolve disputes will inevitably drive up legal costs. More importantly, a case that heads towards the Courts for formal adjudication will inevitably result in irreconcilable relations, especially where the nature of disputes is likely to be resolved by mediation. The amendments proposed in this Bill will be mutually beneficial to both employees and employers. My second query focuses on the constitution of the Mediation Panel. For mediation to work, the expertise of the panel is critical. May I ask the Minister for details on how members of the Mediation Panel will be chosen, what are the criteria for selection and will panel members be given formal training to equip them with the necessary skills to resolve labour disputes? Finally, will the outcomes of mediation be known to the public? I think it is important that proceedings are kept transparent and, through observation, employers may pick up best practices to avoid potential unhappiness in the workplace. Similarly, employees will also be able to level up on their appreciation of what are the fair practices and fair expectations they may have from their organisations. 5.37 pm”
“Again, whilst this is a good start, over time, I hope that the Minister could consider widening this provision so that other claims could also be referred to the Labour Court, as limiting it only to salary claims is quite narrow although it is still a very useful start. I also urge the Ministry to allocate adequate resources and to have sufficiently trained staff so that this new tripartite mediation mechanism can work effectively. As the claims of executives will not be based on the Employment Act, which does not cover them, and with their better education, conciliation officers need to be properly trained to effectively chair the tripartite mediation sessions. The NTUC, on its part, has been gearing up efforts to provide assistance to PMEs once the new law is in place. In conclusion, Sir, in my view, the adjudication and tripartite mediation mechanism provided under this Bill is a huge step forward and provides for a constructive way of resolving the grievances involving our executives. This is a win-win formula, possible only because of our strong tripartite relationship. I am confident that it will further enhance labour management relations in Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill. 5.34 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill aims to establish a new scheme for the mediation of disputes involving employees engaged in the professional, managerial or executive positions and their employers. There is ample evidence to show the strong correlation between job satisfaction and productivity at the workplace. I stand in support of this Bill, as a proposed dispute resolution mechanism involving adjudication and tripartite mediation will help sustain harmonious workplace relations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have three short queries for the Minister.”
“I would like to urge the Ministry to monitor the situation closely so that the objective of the Act is not undermined. Sir, clause 30(k) provides for the appointment of tripartite mediation advisers to assist the conciliation officer in the solving of disputes. The Bill is, however, silent on how this tripartite mediation advisers will be appointed, what would be their qualifications and what would be their roles. I would appreciate if the Ministry could throw more light on this. Sir, on the amendments related to the Employment Act, the Bill raises the salary cap for salary disputes involving PMEs that can be referred to the Labour Court under section 115. Currently, only those earning $2,500 can refer their salary disputes to the Labour Court, but under the Bill, PMEs earning up to $4,500 can do so. This is certainly an improvement and I welcome it. However, the Bill has also introduced a limit on the salary claims that PMEs can make in the Labour Court, which is $20,000, when currently there is no such limit. Could the Minister explain why there is a need to impose this limit and whether this would deter PMEs with bigger claims from making use of adjudication process to settle their disputes? At the same time, I would also like to urge the Minister to review this $20,000 limit regularly to ensure that the provision remains effective. Secondly, Sir, under the Bill, executives can refer only salary claims to the Labour Court for adjudication if the dispute cannot be resolved through tripartite mediation.”
“My advice to employers is that if they do not want their PMEs to refer to their disputes to adjudication and tripartite mediation, then treat them fairly and, above all, provide for an effective grievance procedure within the company itself which the PMEs can have easy access to. Sir, let me now come to some specific clauses in the Bill. Clause 30(f) of the Bill limits access to tripartite mediation only to executives earning not more that $4,500 a month. While this income ceiling would cover quite a significant number of executives today, I would like to urge the Ministry not to cast this in stone but to regularly review this salary ceiling as incomes will rise and we have to ensure that the scope is wide enough to cover a sufficient number of executives; otherwise over time, we will find that this mechanism becomes less and less useful to executives. Sir, clause 30(i) provides that an employer has the right to object to the eligibility of an executive employee to tripartite mediation on certain grounds listed under paragraphs A to E. Clause 30I is an exclusion clause. In other words, although an executive may be earning less than $4,500 per month, he or she may be excluded if he or she falls within any of those paragraphs, for example, if the person is employed in a senior management position. Although I am aware that each case will have to be decided on its own merits, as this is an exclusion clause, I hope that it will be invoked sparingly as we do want as many executives as possible to be covered under tripartite mediation. The other concern that I have is whether some employers can take advantage of clause 30(i) in order to frustrate an executive's claim by deliberately delaying the process, instead of the given 14 days in order to file an objection.”
“With a strong labour market, PMEs could also vote with their feet, resulting in the companies losing good employees in whom they have invested heavily. Also, unlike mediation, litigation injects a lot of hostility and contention in the workplace. The beauty in the tripartite mediation approach is that it provides a non-adversarial, less conflictual method of resolving disputes as the focus of the mediation is to find a solution acceptable to the two sides, not to mention it is also inexpensive and simple. So even though the tripartite mediation mechanism is introduced through legislation, its approach is still very much conciliatory. Sir, the Bill also seeks to address other gaps in the current system. Although there is currently an Executive Mediation Unit in the Ministry which provides conciliation service to PMEs with disputes against their employers, the Executive Mediation Unit has no power to compel attendance, a point which is now addressed under clause 30J(2) which provides that mediation is compulsory and that an employer who fails to attend tripartite mediation is guilty of an offence and can be fined up to $5,000. Sir, let me take this opportunity to commend the Ministry for Manpower for introducing this Bill and providing greater protection to our PMEs. Let me also commend the employers in Singapore, too, for their far-sightedness and their constructive approach in supporting this Bill. Some critics may argue that this Bill has not gone far enough. But we need to bear in mind that everything has to have a start and this is as good a start as any. Others may be concerned that this may open a Pandora's box with a deluge of PME disputes suddenly surfacing.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The amendments address a current deficit in our law and seek to provide Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) who have employment disputes with their employers with access to adjudication and tripartite mediation. Extended access to adjudication for PMEs who earn less than $4,500 is a welcome move as this is something already provided for in many countries. For example, in Malaysia, executives have access to the Industrial Court in order to resolve their employment disputes. Our rank-and-file workers already have recourse to adjudication by the Labour Court because of the coverage under the Employment Act. Sir, the difference in this Bill is that it also provides for a tripartite way to resolve employment disputes involving PMEs. I am not aware of any other country which has a similar provision which means we are likely to be the first to introduce it. The establishment of this tripartite mediation mechanism is, in my view, a great testimony to the strength of tripartism in Singapore and the extent to which it has evolved and matured over the years, and the confidence and trust that the tripartite partners have developed in each other. Sir, we know very well that we need a procedure for the amicable settlement of disputes involving PMEs. With better education and the transit to a knowledge-based economy, the percentage of PMEs in our workforce has increased exponentially. If we insist that their disputes should continue to be settled through litigation in a civil court, as is the current situation, we are not being fair to the PMEs as litigation is costly and takes a long time. At the same time, a status quo is also not to the advantage of employers as dissatisfied PMEs cannot be productive workers.”
“I would like to ask the Minister what efforts will be made to extend rehabilitation services to those members of the Asmom family in terms of the Religious Rehabilitation Group's (RRG) efforts in this area as well.”
“Sir, I want to thank the Minister for his clarification but I am a little puzzled because the Minister said that there are no gaps in the rules and guidelines. Yet, at the same time, the Minister did say that gaps in the supervision on the part of the supervisors. So, obviously, there is some systemic problem involving supervision of officers for auditing purposes. My second question is: if the Auditor-General cannot audit all the agencies in a particular year, does that also then open the door for such frauds to take place? People know that in a particular year, which statutory boards or agencies are being audited and therefore they do have sometime in order to commit those frauds. My third question is to ask whether this is confined to IPOS and SLA or whether there are other statutory boards involved? Is there a check being done on other statutory boards to see whether there are any other fraudulent attempts on the part of staff in those statutory boards as well.”
“The Minister did mention that the Auditor-General did not do audits of SLA and IPOS during this period. My question to the Minister is: why is that so? What criteria does the Auditor-General use as to which statutory board or Ministry it should audit and why it does not audit others?”
“I want to thank the Minister for his explanation. I am also glad to hear that the two iconic structures will be conserved. I have a couple of supplementary questions to ask the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister, in light of these developments, whether he could give an assessment of the state of relations between Singapore and Malaysia. The second supplementary question is the rapid transit system link: how far has the discussion proceeded and has it been agreed whether it will be under the water or on land? And the third question I would like to ask is the issue of development charges: has this already been referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? These are the three questions I would like to ask. And I would like to compliment the Prime Minister and also the Prime Minister of Malaysia for their very brave and forward-looking way in trying to iron out these issues. Now that we have reached this stage, this would pave the way for other issues to be resolved and ironed out as well.”
“One last clarification, Sir. I heard the clarification from the Minister. Is that a reassurance that when it comes to disputes involving domestic abduction cases where one parent has custody or access, that there will be greater coordination between MCYS, for instance, and the Police to help in terms of locating the child? I am talking about a case where the parent already has custody or one parent has access but is denied access because the child has been abducted and kept somewhere else where this parent cannot have access to the child or this parent having custody does not know the whereabouts of the child. It is a most perplexing situation, not helped by being asked to go to Court to enforce the custody order or the access order. So, will there be that coordination support system from the relevant agencies?”
“Sir, I just would like to clarify the point that I made earlier. I think the Minister missed my point. I am fully aware that the purpose of this Convention and this Bill is to return the abducted child to the place of habitual residence of the applying parent. What I am asking about the disparity is that abductions also take place locally by a parent, and usually one parent abducting the child where the other parent has been given custody, for instance. I want to ask whether the Ministry will review existing procedures that are in place because, very often, the feedback I get is that the parent, who is affected because his or her child is being abducted, will be told that this is a matter for the Court to decide. He or she, who is aggrieved, should go to the Court to enforce the order. Whereas under the Convention, under the Bill, the Central Authority will have to assist in locating the whereabouts of the child when it involves cross-border abductions, and it will have to try and persuade the errant parent to return the child voluntarily, failing which, to assist the aggrieved parent to file a case in Court. So there is a lot more assistance rendered to the parent of a child caught in cross-border abduction as compared to a child caught in domestic abduction because, often, the Police would say that, "Look, this is a domestic matter. Could you please go to Court and get your order enforced?" which I think now that we have this Bill to take care of cross-border abductions, the same principle should extend even to abductions of children from parents who have custody of them domestically. So, that is what I am asking for a review.”
“First, given that it has taken us serious deliberations before we finally acceded to the Convention, may I ask what were the Ministry’s concerns regarding this Convention and how have these concerns been addressed? Second, a reason given by some countries which have not signed the Convention is the protection of their citizens and their children from abusive foreign spouses. Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister to share with us the number of reported cases where Singaporean wives had to flee from abusive foreign spouses? With the passing of this Bill, how can we continue to help Singaporeans who are caught in these crisis situations? Relating to this is my third query on child custody battles involving foreign spouses. Do we have cases currently pending judiciary outcomes and how will the passing of this Bill affect these families? Finally, the focus of the Convention is the prompt return of the child. This is unlike domestic proceedings involving children where the welfare of the child is the chief consideration. What if a case arises where a very young minor child brought here by the Singaporean parent does not want to leave? Will the children’s requests be taken into consideration by the courts in informing their decision? The Minister has assured that the courts can exercise discretion. Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister, what constitutes being of age and sufficient maturity?”
“Also, Sir, with regard to section 13, the clause and I quote, "by any person appearing to the court to have sufficient interest in the matter", there perhaps should be some clarification on this, for example, who is "the persons"? Should it be previous caregivers, a next-of-kin, a child welfare officer or a VWO personnel, etc? Some clarification would be needed on that as well. Sir, all in, I support this International Child Abduction Bill. Singapore has much to gain with this Bill and from the Singapore study I quoted earlier, the majority of abductions are out of Singapore, thus, ceding to the Hague Convention and passing this Bill will help Singapore-based citizens recover their children quickly. 4.40 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Bill seeks to implement Singapore’s obligations under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed on 25th October 1980. It enables children abducted from countries abroad in breach of custody or access rights to return to those countries for their cases to be settled there. This is to prevent protracted court battles over child custody and to provide clearer direction for the courts, for example, in divorce cases where husband and wife reside in different countries. The intent of the Bill is to protect the minor child. Given the increase in the number of cross-cultural marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners, this Bill will become even more significant as it may have direct implication for these Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, as I stand in support of this Bill, I have four queries for the Minister.”
“In a local study by Debbie Ong et al, from 2001 to 2006, 26 cases of child abductions were dealt with by our Family Courts. Twenty-two cases of the 26 were abductions outside Singapore and four within Singapore. Overall, 16 out of the 26 cases or 62% remain unresolved to date and the 10 cases that were settled took an average of 15.3 months to be solved. Some of the cases that involved outgoing countries included countries such as Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and the UK; and the incoming cases involved countries like Thailand and Norway. This Bill, Sir, is also a very good illustration of how, national, regional and even international collaboration and teamwork can come into play to assist in alleviating difficult situations. As States abiding to the Convention will have their own unique laws, will there be any other international understanding or binding agreement on the matter? I would like some clarification on that, please. And it is also stated and I quote, "this Convention shall apply as between Contracting States only, to wrongful removals or retentions occurring after its entry into force". This would mean that there will be no retrospective effect of the Bill. What will be the options then, for cases that are pending or ongoing, ie, those that happened before 2010? Sir, with reference to article 4, it is stated that the Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Can I clarify what will happen if the abducted is a mentally subnormal person or child who is, say, 17 years of age? What would be the approach for such cases?”
“However, there is no definition of what amounts to an abducted child's habitual residence in the Convention. Could the Minister give some indication as to what could constitute a place of habitual residence? On this note, Sir, I support the Bill. This is indeed a progressive Bill and this a right move on the part of Singapore to adopt to rectify this Convention. 4.36 pm Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef: Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill, which will assist in the local application and implementation of the Hague Convention and I feel it is time for Singapore to align and become a signatory of the Convention which has been around since 1983 with 82 members to date. Let me reiterate the two main aims of the Convention, namely:(1) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to, or retained in any signatory state; and (2) to ensure that the rights of custody and of access under the laws of one state are effectively respected in other signatory states. As such, Sir, it will be beneficial for Singapore to join as a signatory. In today’s global village that we live in, cross-border interactions, relationships, and even marriages are increasing. In the event that some of these do work out, there are certainly risks of one parent taking the child out of the country where the other spouse is not. If not done amicably, or done on a unilateral basis, these can have consequences, most certainly. And the Hague Convention can, thus, offer a framework to help in the resolution of such situations. Parental child abduction is a global phenomenon, Sir. For example, there was a 27% rise in the number of applications made under the Hague Abduction Convention between 1999 and 2003 and Singapore is certainly not exempt.”
“We need to have consistency and a balance between the procedures to deal with domestic disputes over parental child abduction and procedures involving disputes over international abductions or cross-border abductions to which the Hague convention applies. I would like to ask the Minister whether the MCYS will work with the other agencies, such as the Police, to review the current procedures so that more could be done to help parents affected by abductions that take place domestically? My second point is on the designation of the Central Authority under this Bill. The Hague Convention requires a ratifying state to appoint a central authority. The role of the central authorities in the Contracting States is to do their utmost to achieve the objectives of the Convention. The central authorities of these countries are supposed to be in close contact with each other and also to work with the various agencies in their own countries as well. The Bill provides for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to be the Central Authority for Singapore. I seek a clarification as to whether this is appropriate and what are the reasons for designating the Minister as the Central Authority? In the US, for instance, the Central Authority is the Department of State's Office of Children's Issues that has been designated as the authority. Should a similar arrangement not apply in Singapore? Finally, Sir, the Bill mandates the return of an abducted child to his or her "habitual residence" before the abduction took place. This is the most significant part of the Convention as the Central Authority's function is primarily to make sure that the child is returned to the place of habitual residence.”
“The Central Authority, which under this Bill, will be the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, would have to locate the abducted child in Singapore and then urge the errant parent or other persons to voluntarily return the child to the parent from the Contracting State asking for help. If this fails, then the Minister would either have to bring the case to court or offer various types of support to the parent from the Contracting State to file a lawsuit in Singapore. This is clearly stated in the Bill which provides for the Central Authority to "take all appropriate measures to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained". It also provides for the Minister to "provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers". In the case of child abductions that take place domestically, however, no such assistance or less of such assistance is available. Usually the authorities would leave it to the affected parent to seek a court order as the Police view this as a domestic issue which they should not interfere in. Parents affected by domestic abduction cases suffer from the same anguish and pain as those involved in cross-border abductions and they should similarly be provided with help and support to locate their abducted child and to have the child returned to them. This Bill will also provide legal aid to a parent from a Contracting State who applies to court for an order. Again, are we providing more rights to them compared to our own citizens involved in similar disputes but domestically?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to applaud the Government, through the good efforts of the Minister for Community Development Youth and Sports, for ratifying this Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed before an alleged wrongful removal or retention, thereby deterring a parent from crossing international borders in search of a more sympathetic court. Since society and families have become more internationalised, international cases of child abductions have been drawing attention as a serious social problem. As child abduction is a serious infringement of the welfare of the child, preventing child abduction is an extremely important goal to be achieved by the international community. As more than 80 countries had already ratified the Convention, Singapore's ratification of it is timely and necessary. This Bill gives effect to our obligations under the Convention and I support it. However, Sir, I have a few clarifications to seek. First, even as we adopt measures under this Bill in order to give effect to our international obligations, we have to ensure that we do not end up giving greater protection and support to parents caught in cross-border disputes involving the abduction of their children but less or little support to those caught in domestic abductions of their children. In other words, is this Bill giving more rights to parents caught in cross-border abductions of their children compared to those where the abductions took place in Singapore? This Bill provides substantial support in order to swiftly return an abducted child to the aggrieved parent from a Contracting State.”
“They really need the special attention and support of the Fund to climb up the income ladder through skills training and upgrading. Training for low wage workers can be particularly challenging as they usually hold more than one job and depend a great deal on overtime to boost their monthly income. So, for any training programme to succeed, there will have to be an income subsidy to incentivise them to train and compensate for the loss of income. I would like to ask the Minister, how would the Fund allocate its resources and support all workers and their different needs? My last point, Sir, is on the issue of accountability. The Government has announced a big budget to achieve our productivity growth of 3% over the next decade. In some sectors, it is easy to measure productivity but not so in others. We have to ensure that the huge amount allocated to the Fund is really well spent. Could the Minister clarify how would the effectiveness of this Fund be evaluated? What are the measurements and KPIs of this Fund and the Board? Also, the budget allocated thus far is for a five-year time frame. Could the Minister also clarify what are the long-term plans and initiatives of this Fund and the Board as our goal is spread over a 10-year period? In conclusion, Sir, I support this Bill. I see the establishment of the Fund and the Board as an important move to upgrade our economy and improve our productivity. I see it also as a way of ensuring a more inclusive growth where low wage unskilled workers could upgrade themselves, enjoy a more productive and meaningful working life and enjoy better wages. 3.19 pm”
“The electronics manufacturing sector value added per worker in 2008 is $155,000 and labour productivity grew 6% from 1998 to 2008. However, compared to Germany, Japan and US, even our electronics manufacturing sector has some catching up to do. The situation is far worse in the services sector or the construction sector where productivity growth is much lower and very challenging. Hence, the Productivity Fund Administration Board’s task will not be an easy one. Could I seek a clarification from the Minister on how the Board proposes to allocate its resources to cover all the sectors and achieve these varied goals? Also, we are all aware that the SMEs need more help in order to boost their productivity because they lack not only the funds but also the capabilities to move forward. How will the Fund assist the SMEs? Will there be special provisions for them as they collectively employ a significant number of employees? Other than ensuring that different sectors with different needs get an adequate allocation of resources, it is also important that the Fund takes into account the different needs of workers as well. Specifically, the Fund has to apply to all workers, including professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) and the professional services which have hitherto not been given much attention in our efforts to upgrade the skills of our workforce. Today, at least 50% of the workforce is in PME type jobs and the figure will continue to increase with better education and upgrading of capabilities. We also know based on the statistics that older PMEs find it a lot more difficult to find jobs after they are retrenched. At the other end of the spectrum are our low wage workers and there are several hundred thousands of them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The objects for which the Fund may be expended are stated in clause 4 of the Bill and further enumerated under the Second Schedule of the Bill. It is primarily aimed at achieving the objectives announced during this year’s Budget debate which is to increase Singapore’s productivity level and to promote continuing education. These are two very important objectives and the fact that we now have a Fund and a statutory board solely dedicated to our efforts to boost productivity is meaningful, as one of the common complaints in the past is that it is not clear which agency is providing the policy direction or coordinating productivity efforts in Singapore. The sense is that this has led to a situation where productivity has fallen through the cracks and is partly responsible for the current low productivity challenge that we are facing. With the establishment of the Fund and a statutory board, our efforts at increasing productivity will be a lot more focused, co-ordinated and policy-driven. However, Sir, I wish to seek a number of clarifications. First, increasing productivity is undoubtedly our goal but different sectors and industries face different challenges and are at different levels of growth. As a whole, the manufacturing sector or, more specifically, the electronics sector, which faces fierce international competition is doing better compared to the services sector. It has progressed from labour-intensive, low-value added manufacturing activities to capital-intensive, complex manufacturing activities. More companies are also setting up research and development centres, headquarters and regional/global control towers.”
“Thank you, Sir. I think for many families, financing home-based care is actually quite a burden, so that affects their ability to keep their elderly sick at home. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will consider providing more subsidies for home-based care and also allow for more flexible use of Medisave for home-based care.”
“Sir, the crux of the problem is actually a mismatch in demand and supply. There is a severe shortage of housing for foreign workers partly because of the huge influx of foreign workers in the last few years. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what measures are being taken in order to address this issue? Employers are also complaining that they are not able to get accommodation and the cost has also gone up tremendously.”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his affirmative response. My supplementary question is: when will the review be done? The three options that he mentioned – living with parents, renting from the market and also buying a resale flat – may not necessarily be viable options for some newly-weds or, in fact, quite a number of the newly-weds. When will the review be done?”
“Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister, for that clarification. Just one supplementary question. Could the Deputy Prime Minister share with the House what are some of the challenges that the Government faces in trying to attract Malay foreign talent? Moving ahead, as we see the decline in the birth rate of the Malay community and the difficulties that we faced in attracting Malay foreign talent, what other measures can be implemented to address this issue?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply and I can see the shift from having examination-focused type of education to a more holistic education. In my view, the question that is still not answered is whether the Ministry of Education has really gone far enough in this effort as we still have streaming at the relevant stages and we still have PSLE. Hence, we will continue to see students, parents and teachers focusing on examinations. Worse, this may, in fact, make additional tuition classes more necessary. May I ask the Senior Minister of State for her comments on this because that is the feedback that I am getting from parents?”
“To ensure that censored agents will not be able to resurface through another agency, will there be a central database of blacklisted agents that will be easily accessible by the public? Second, I have a query on the standard agency agreement that will detail the contractual terms between client and agent. Will the clients’ interest be sufficiently represented in this agreement? Can the Minister ensure that there be sufficient public consultation before the agreement is firmed? This is very important as the presence of a standard agency agreement results in the monopoly of market practice. Third, given the stricter requirements on training, accreditation and regulation dictated by this Bill, will clients have to pay more for the services of the licensed estate agents? Perhaps, it is prudent for the CEA to provide a guide on fees as noted already by Ms Cynthia Phua and Mr Ang Mong Seng. Finally, with the advent of this Bill, will individual home owners as well as buyers be able to act on their own behalf when they enter a transaction? 5.14 pm”
“Rather than view this legislation as restricting their moves, the industry should welcome and embrace it as providing them with the necessary legal framework and opportunity to weed out the bad apples from the rest. Estate agents and salespersons who are fair and who are doing an honest day’s work have nothing to worry about. Perhaps they could even show that their standards and practices are higher than whatever code of practice that the CEA will introduce. But errant agents and salespersons with dubious practices better beware. The public’s tolerance level of all the malpractices has reached its limit. I hope that the estate agency sector will rise to the challenge. I also hope that our consumer bodies, too, would rise to the challenge and, together with the CEA, help to do their part in educating consumers. Apart from the estate agents and salespersons, in my view, Sir, bankers and lawyers, who are part and parcel of the estate agency business, too, can play a role in helping to raise the standards of professionalism and fair play in the industry. On this note, Sir, I support the Bill. 5.12 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill, which establishes the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) as a new statutory board to regulate the real estate agency industry. I am particularly impressed with the clause that highlights the public education focus of the Council’s work, which will empower ordinary Singaporeans to become informed consumers. However, I do have several concerns. First, for the CEA to be effective in policing the real estate sector, it must have sufficient power to deal with delinquent agents.”
“I suggest that the CEA works closely with CASE and the Singapore Compact to address this shortcoming and information gap that exists among consumers, particularly low-income consumers who are not aware of their rights, and who may not know how to access the information that will be made available to them about their estate agents and salespersons as is provided under the Bill. Consumer education should go beyond just advising consumers on their rights in property transactions. It should also help them in financial planning, particularly in viewing their flats as long-term investments to meet their old age and retirement needs. Sir, finally, to be effective, the CEA would require sufficient resources and manpower to carry out its work. I hope that the Minister would adequately address this issue so that we will have an effective CEA that will indeed safeguard consumer interest and raise the standard of professionalism in the industry. I also urge the Minister to extend whatever assistance that is required and to work closely with the industry to help them transit to the new regulatory regime. The Minister had said that it will be at the end of this year when the estate agents will be deemed to be registered. I am not sure whether this is sufficient time because this is already September but, obviously, these are issues which I think the Ministry should look into to help our estate agents and salespersons transit to a really effective new regulatory regime. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to once again applaud the Minister for this far-sighted and comprehensive legislation that will address the many concerns of consumers.”
“Sir, section 66 provides for the establishment of one or more dispute resolution schemes for the resolution of disputes arising from or relating to the provision of services by estate agents and salespersons. This is certainly a very useful mechanism as it is expensive for consumers to bring a matter to Court against errant estate agents or salespersons. However, it is not clear from the Bill whether consumers will be charged for making use of such dispute resolution schemes and, if so, could the Minister ensure that the cost will remain affordable and the proceedings kept simple. There is also no indication whether lawyers will be allowed to represent the parties but, if so, again my concern is that the average consumer may not be able to afford expensive legal fees whereas a big estate agency will have no such difficulty. This would provide for a lopsided representation at the dispute resolution centres and will undermine the whole objective of mediation in the first place. I seek the Minister’s clarification on this. Sir, under section 9(1)(g), one of the CEA’s function is to develop measures to equip consumers with the necessary knowledge to conduct their property transactions with prudence and diligence. This is a very important task, as no matter what regulatory measures are put in place, I agree with the Minister that nothing can replace the vigilance and circumspection of empowered consumers able to protect themselves against errant estate agencies and salespersons. Consumer education is an area that is seriously lacking now.”
“In this regard, I would like to suggest that the Minister consider appointing one representative from either the Consumers Association of Singapore or the Singapore Compact which promotes corporate social responsibility, as a member of the Council. Sir, section 30 prohibits an estate agent from simultaneously holding a moneylender’s licence or be an employee, director or partner of a licensed moneylender. This is a good move and will complement the recent amendment to the Housing and Development Act prohibiting the registration of caveats against HDB properties by moneylenders. But, like my parliamentary colleague, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, I believe that there are many ways for estate agencies to get around this rule. One way is by registering the moneylender’s licence under the name of family members or sleeping partners. Could the Minister please clarify how the CEA would address such concerns? Sir, section 49(3) provides that the Council may require a complaint or class of complaints to be supported by statutory declarations. Statutory declarations are intended to ensure that consumers do not make frivolous complaints against estate agents or salespersons, and one cannot deny that even now there are some consumers that are unreasonable and take advantage of their estate agents or salespersons. However, we must guard against this requirement for complaints to be backed by statutory declarations from becoming a deterrent to consumers filing complaints against their estate agents or salespersons, as unlike these estate agents or salespersons, consumers do not have the knowledge or the money to get lawyers to prepare and file statutory declarations for them.”
“So the requirement for that the estate agents and their salespersons will have to be registered and be professionally competent is a good move. Likewise, the provision that the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) can publish details of estate agents and their past history, including any disciplinary actions taken against them, will ensure greater transparency and certainly enhance consumer protection against abuses. There have been cases of agents who simply switch to another estate agency after being fired from one. Even salespersons convicted by the Court on matters related to their property transactions could continue to function. A further protection that I strongly support is the provision under the Bill for the CEA to prescribe standard estate agency agreements between estate agencies and their clients and to ensure that the agreements do not contain unfair clauses. I have heard of cases where estate agents and salespersons make their clients sign agreements appointing them as the sole or exclusive agent in marketing the client’s flat but for months did nothing. But when the client finds a buyer on his own, they demand to have a share of the commission. This is one example of an unfair practice by sales agents that is detrimental to the interest of flat owners and which I hope that the CEA will address in the standard agreements. I have a number of clarifications to seek from the Minister. First, section 8 of the Bill provides for the appointment of a Council of Estate Agencies (CEA) comprising a President and between five and 15 members to be appointed by the Minister. It is important, in my view, Sir, that the voice of consumers and their interest are effectively represented on the Council.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The current regulatory framework is completely inadequate to deal with the multiple problems that had arisen over the years, particularly during the period of the property boom. Malpractices and abuses were not adequately addressed. Accreditation to the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies is voluntary and consumers are not sure who to refer complaints to, whether they will be investigated and what kind of remedies they will get especially if the agency is not even a member of the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA). As a result, public confidence has been badly affected. In a public perception and expectations survey of estate agents conducted by Ngee Ann Polytechnic last year, about four out of 10 of those surveyed were not satisfied with their estate agents. Despite of this, it is worth emphasising that not all estate agents or salespersons are rogues and there are many out there earning an honest living but the minority that is behaving badly is enough to give the whole industry a bad name. Over time, even the good ones may resort to underhanded tactics if they see that errant agents and salespersons can get away with impunity. Their actions would also cause untold misery because in Singapore an HDB flat is the most important asset for the majority of people and if that is lost or compromised because of unethical estate agents and salespersons, we are depriving people of an important source of security for their old age. The key thrust of the Bill is to safeguard consumer interest and raise the professionalism in the industry. Currently, there are zero barriers for anyone to become an estate agent or a salesperson.”
“Just two short questions for the Minister. My first question is that the two casino operators have obviously violated the law, other than asking them to stop, will there be any other penalties being imposed on them? My second question is to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the concern on the ground about work permit holders patronising the casinos and gambling away their hard-earned money, which is obviously not the raison d'etre that they are here, and also the concern as to how this would impact their work ethics. Is the Minister aware of these and will any measures be taken to address these concerns?”
“Whilst the intention of this amendment is good, as we also want to make sure that those who are self-employed have enough Medisave savings to take care of their medical needs, I would like to urge the CPF Board to put in place a system where the self-employed will be informed in advance before his licence is suspended, revoked or terminated as this affects his livelihood, and we all know that the self-employed faces greater income volatility compared to normal employees. They normally default when they are faced with other pressing immediate needs which they had to settle, such as the children's school fees or housing arrears, which may then affect their ability to pay their Medisave contributions. Mdm Deputy Speaker, other than these comments and clarifications, I support the Bill. 5.21 pm”
“This is certainly a good move. As this is a purely voluntary decision on the part of the member, members can decide based on their own needs and in their own interest and it is not a controversial change. In fact, it would help to enhance the CPF savings of surviving members of a deceased member. On the amendment with regard to the unclaimed CPF assets of deceased and dormant members, could the Minister provide information on how many people will be affected and what is the total amount involved? On a further point, could the Minister also enlighten this House as to who will be considered as dormant members and what steps will be taken to locate the beneficiaries before the funds are transferred to the CPF general fund? Could the Minister also provide some information about what will happen to the monies of the deceased and dormant members that are transferred to the general fund, how will it be used and who will benefit from it? On the amendment to allow conditions to be imposed upon the grant, renewal or reinstatement of any registration, licence, certificate or permit, without any application being made for that registration, licence, certificate or permit, I assume that this refers to the Medisave contributions for self-employed persons. The purpose of this amendment is likely to catch those situations where the licence once issued need not be renewed any further. With this amendment, the relevant Government agencies will now have the power to have a licence terminated, suspended or revoked if a self-employed person has not been paying his Medisave contributions.”
“The second change to the CPF LIFE scheme allows the Board to make use of additional funds that a member accumulates in his Retirement Account after joining the CPF LIFE but before the Draw-Down Age, to top up his LIFE plan so as to provide for a higher monthly LIFE payout. I think that this is also quite an important change. While the objective may be good, that is, to provide a higher retirement income for members, some members may not welcome the move as they would already have made their choices on which of the four LIFE plans to choose from, based on the amount that is available when they turn 55. There is certainty when members know exactly the amount that would go into their LIFE plans at the time they turn 55. So the new amendment will add some element of uncertainty as it allows additional monies accumulated in the Retirement Account after they join CPF LIFE to be used as premiums for their LIFE plan. In other words, members who are covered by the plan will not have a definite idea as to how much will actually be used for their LIFE plan as the amount can increase after they have joined the plan so long as they have monies in their Retirement Account. Could the Minister clarify what is the basis and why this change is being effected and why was it not included in the original law when the scheme was first discussed, so that members have a clear idea on their financial commitments under the LIFE plan? Could the Minister also provide information on how many of those currently on the LIFE plan did not meet the Minimum Sum requirement? Madam, I welcome the idea of allowing CPF members to bequeath the CPF monies directly to their nominees’ CPF accounts, as this would better provide for the healthcare and retirement needs of their nominees.”
“However, as some of the changes seem to be quite significant, especially those concerning the CPF LIFE, I think Singaporeans do need a clear understanding of these changes which are important to their own well-being. Therefore, I have a few clarifications to seek from the Minister on this Bill. The changes to the CPF LIFE scheme seeks to do two things. First, it provides for a second auto-inclusion of members who were excluded because they did not qualify as they do not have $40,000 at the age of 55 years in 2013. With the amendment, such members will now be automatically included if they have $60,000 when they are 65 years old. Although this appears to be a logical development viewed from the perspective of the CPF LIFE as it aims to be a comprehensive retirement scheme, and its objective of protecting as many retirees as possible is laudable, it does nevertheless give the impression that CPF LIFE is rather arbitrary. After first rejecting those members without sufficient funds, it then seeks to subsequently auto-include them the second time after they have come into some monies. While some members may welcome this move as they are now given a second chance, others may prefer to be given a choice instead of being compulsorily included when they thought that they were already excluded. So, could the Minister clarify the rationale for this second auto-inclusion and whether such members should be given a choice of whether or not to join the CPF LIFE, instead of being compulsorily covered? Could the Minister also give an idea as to how many people will be affected by this change?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, our CPF scheme is an important social safety net that has served Singaporeans well by enabling us to take care of our three critical needs, ie, retirement, medical and housing. The introduction of the CPF LIFE further strengthens our capacity to plan and provide for our retirement better. While there continues to be criticisms from some quarters that the CPF LIFE is yet another device for the Government to retain the members’ CPF monies, by now Singaporeans know that the CPF LIFE is in their own best interest and the Government’s actions, demonstrated yet again during the last recession with its Jobs Credit, SPUR and other schemes to help Singaporeans, clearly show that it has consistently put people’s welfare before anything else. With a rapidly ageing population, it is imperative that the Government puts in place a sound retirement saving scheme, which will not only provide a reasonable retirement income but is also sustainable from the perspectives of both the individual and the economy. One of the biggest challenges facing many countries today, whether developed or developing, is providing for the retirement needs of their people. In the developed world, the sustainability of the pension scheme is a big concern due to budget cuts and weaker growth. In the developing countries, the weakness and inadequacy of the retirement scheme is the problem which causes untold miseries to many. So, in my view, the measures and refinements suggested in this Bill will further strengthen our social safety net and retirement income to meet our future needs.”
“Sir, supplementary question for the Minister. The IMF had warned the Asian countries of possible shocks from the Euro zone crisis and the excessive capital flows into the region. Could the Minister comment on this and also whether there is a danger of a double dip recession? I note the Minister made some general comments of a positive outlook but also made very qualified statements towards the end, and we also know that the unemployment situation is still quite critical in both Europe and in the US. So, is there a danger of a double dip recession affecting us?”
“In this case, the law can only disallow the use of the HDB flat or sale proceeds from being used as collateral for the loan. HDB knows of many instances where home owners incur debts with other creditors, such as credit card companies, and sell their flats as a way to settle their debts and they end up with bigger problems as they do not have alternative accommodation. So, flat owners must accept personal responsibility and exercise financial prudence in whatever lifestyle choices that they make. They too have a duty to protect the roof over their heads. Sir, I agree with a strong emphasis on the importance of viewing HDB flats as a long-term investment. And I am really happy that this Bill will send a very strong signal to flat owners as well as to moneylenders and others who are interested, that they should similarly view the flats that they have as a very important shelter for them and their family. Sir, on this note, I support this Bill, and I once again thank the MND for its quick response to protect our flat owners. 5.38 pm”