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 6 of 24.
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have a number of supplementary questions to ask. My first question is that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the safety and enforcement measures currently in force are effective. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware of an accident that occurred on 2nd August this year reported in the Straits Times which talks about a lorry carrying foreign workers which crashed and 16 people were hurt. That was barely two weeks ago. Second, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the existence of laws to prosecute those who jeopardise the life and safety of workers by carrying them on the back of lorries. How many convictions of such employers have there been in order to ensure the safety of these workers? Third, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary why does it take three years to introduce these measures? Can it not be a much shorter period? Because we are talking about the lives and limbs of people who come and work in our country. I do not see many Singaporeans being carried in this way; in fact, hardly any. If Singaporeans are carried in this way, they would probably not want to work for the company. So, why do we need three years? What are the interim measures the Ministry has in mind to prevent the occurrence of the accident which happened only two weeks ago?”
“More efforts must be made to increase our community’s awareness and understanding towards this scheme, so that our elderly can reap the benefits from CPF LIFE and have a more stable retirement income. With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Amendment Bill. *Cols. 915-918.”
“Our low-income workers can also make use of the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme which will provide an additional source of income that will mostly be placed into their CPF accounts. Secondly, this Bill stresses on the importance of financial planning. Financial planning not only refers to the act of saving money, but also on managing spending and planning our short term and long term needs. It requires us to differentiate between "needs" and "wants". "Needs" refers to things that are essential to have, while "wants" refers to a desire that will never be satiated and will never end. The more we control our "wants", the more savings we will have for our children’s education, old age, medical needs and other unexpected things. For example, before we decide to allocate 50% of our income for the next 20 years to buy a house, we must ask ourselves how changes like job loss, having more children, children’s higher education or serious illnesses can affect our capacity to pay off any debts. We have begun a programme called "Smart Spending" under the Community Leaders’ Forum, which is a good starting point. But even so, it is all about our own prudence and discipline. Thirdly, our community must know and understand well the aims and meaning of the Lease Buyback Scheme so that we can make use of it. It aims to help elderly Singaporeans fulfil their retirement needs because part of the amount is set aside for the CPF LIFE Scheme. I feel that many people in the Malay community are still unaware of this scheme. Some are also worried that if anything happens to them within the period of 30 years, the balance amount will not go to their children.”
“(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. The key amendment is the introduction of the CPF LIFE scheme that will help build up the retirement income of Singaporeans. Under CPF LIFE, we can receive income from the age of 65 years for as long as we live. Another key amendment is the Lease Buyback Scheme that will help elderly Singaporeans who live in 2-room and 3-room flats to unlock the value of their flats and use it for their retirement needs. There are three points I would like to touch on regarding the amendments. Firstly, in order to have a good retirement income, we must have a job and receive a stable income so that we can continue saving money in our CPF accounts. Without a stable income, we will not be able to save sufficiently to meet our needs when we are old, because CPF members must have $40,000 in their CPF savings in order to be included into CPF LIFE. For some who are facing the current crisis, they will face difficulties as they may have lost their jobs or face pay cuts. Even so, we have until 2013 to save up for the scheme and we must take advantage of this. If we lost our jobs, get help quickly, undergo re-training and do not be too choosy when looking for work, so that we do not stay unemployed too long. The longer we are unemployed, the more difficult it will be for us to get jobs. For those working on a contract or part-time basis, they will be drawn to ask or agree with the company’s suggestion to increase the take-home pay but without any CPF contribution. We must reject all these. We must all make it a habit to set aside part of our income each month for our retirement needs.”
“The Minister's explanation is that there is in existence a process where the Board communicates with the Registry of Marriages (ROM) and/or the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) but there could be other cases that fall outside the ambit of the ROM and ROMM. I would like to ask the Minister what are these cases. Have there been any cases where through ignorance, monies have been paid to persons other than the spouses, family members and children of the deceased CPF member? And I would like to ask the Minister to clearly look at this provision because the concern is that it is a very broad clause which exonerates the Board from ignorance in the event that it pays to a nominee of the deceased member if the Board is ignorant of the fact that the CPF member is married. It is such a very broad provision. If the intention is to cover only a few cases, as in the majority of cases people would be married under the ROM or ROMM, then the question is whether we really need such a provision. The concern is that the Board should also exercise due diligence, not just in cases where marriages are registered under the ROM but also the ROMM. Could there be some mechanisms developed by the Board to ascertain whether the marriages are registered before making payments to the nominees of the deceased member whose nomination has been revoked because of his marriage? So I would like to ask the Minister to really examine this provision closely because the concern is that it will deprive the spouses and children of the deceased member as a result of this amendment and certainly we do not want the spouses and children of the deceased member to suffer because of the ignorance of the Board of the marriage. Sir, let me just say a few words in Malay.”
“So, this clause is a cause for concern as it allows the Government to get out of its obligations and I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister what safeguards are in place to protect CPF members from the risk of insolvency of the Lifelong Income Fund. Sir, my next point on the CPF LIFE is on the amendment to allow CPF members to use their CPF savings to top up the accounts of their parents and grandparents who are below 55 years of age. This is a good amendment as it will make it easier for younger Singaporeans to provide for the retirement needs of their parents and grandparents but it applies only to those who already have the minimum sum in their savings. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister how many CPF members will qualify to make such top–ups for their family members. I now move on to new section 25(6) of the CPF (Amendment) Bill. Under section 25(6), Sir, it provides that if a member’s nomination is revoked by marriage, and the Board, in ignorance of the marriage, purports to pay any amount out of the Fund on the death of the member in accordance with the revoked nomination, the Board will nevertheless be discharged from all liability for making the payment. The purpose of the existing provision is very clear. It is meant to protect the spouse and children of CPF members who forgot to change their nominations after their marriage from hardship. The new section 25(6), in my view, will weaken that protection. The spouse and children of a deceased CPF member should not be made to suffer for the mistake made by the Board. I have heard the Minister's explanation.”
“I would like to ask the Minister what safeguards are in place to ensure that premiums remain affordable. I would also like to suggest that, like the MediShield scheme where public consultations are conducted before any increase in premiums, the Ministry should also consult the public before contemplating any increase in the CPF LIFE premiums. My next point on CPF LIFE, Sir, is on the issue of solvency. New section 27N(7) of the Bill provides that the CPF Board shall not make any payment under CPF LIFE unless the Lifelong Income Fund is solvent. Sir, while I can understand the legal basis for this provision, I find it quite disturbing to have it reflected in the Bill. My understanding is that even for commercial insurance companies, there are stringent MAS rules to ensure that insured funds are not jeopardised. And even in the worse case scenario when that happens, I suppose Singaporeans who are affected, while they may feel aggrieved, may still grudgingly accept it as these are commercial transactions. The relationship between the CPF Board and the CPF members, however, is not just a legal contract but, more significantly, it is a social contract as the Board has a social responsibility to manage CPF funds prudently in order to help Singaporeans meet their retirement needs. I have every confidence that this Government has every intention to fulfil its obligations no matter what it takes but one cannot be certain what will happen years down the road if we have a different government in power and how it will treat its obligations to Singaporeans.”
“My next point, Sir, on CPF LIFE is on those excluded from the Scheme. CPF LIFE does not cover those who have less than $40,000 in their accounts. I would like to ask the Minister how many would fall under this category and how will they be assisted in planning for their retirement needs. This is indeed a major concern as based on the Low Wage Workers’ Report, the number of Singaporeans who are now working part-time or on contract work have increased, and this global trend will continue. With the economic cycles of boom and bust becoming shorter, companies will continue to look at ways of making their labour force very flexible by minimising their permanent liabilities. We have seen the income of those at the lowest 20th percentile stagnating and has even declined for some occupations. As our low wage workers are the ones who need such a scheme the most as they are not likely to have discretionary savings or other assets, I would like to ask the Minister to study this issue carefully so that we can have a truly inclusive CPF LIFE scheme. My next point, Sir, is on premiums. Under new section 27L of the Bill, the Minister is given the power to determine the amount of premiums to be imposed under the CPF LIFE scheme. As this is almost a compulsory scheme and we really want all Singaporeans to stay on the scheme, it is important that we keep the premiums affordable. Section 27N provides that any costs and expenses incurred by the Board in establishing and maintaining CPF LIFE would be deducted from the premiums. Hence, for premiums to remain affordable, it is imperative that the Board keeps a tight lid on the costs of administering the scheme so that the bulk of the premiums will be used to provide a retirement income to Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. A key amendment is the introduction of the CPF LIFE which will help to strengthen our social safety net as we can now look forward to an income for the rest of our lives instead of only for 20 years after retirement that is under the current regime. Condensing the scheme from 12 to four options is certainly a vast improvement as people were really confused on the options, but even with these four schemes, not everyone understands. There is still a significant number that we need to reach out to and I do urge the Ministry to continue with its outreach and education efforts. I also support the Lease Buyback Scheme and also urge the Ministry to step up on its outreach efforts, so that elderly low-income Singaporeans can truly benefit from this Scheme. Sir, I have a number of points which I wish to raise on this Bill. First, the impact of inflation on the CPF LIFE. Sir, a key concern over CPF LIFE is that the payments are fixed whereas the retirees' purchasing power is affected by the cost of living and inflation. This is a genuine concern, as although our inflation rate has been historically low, in 2008, it shot up to 6.5%. We are an open economy and import most of our products and, therefore, cannot be expected to insulate ourselves from the vagaries of price changes affecting food and other basic commodities here. But if CPF LIFE does not factor in inflation, then, over time, it will become a less effective and meaningful scheme as purchasing power will be so badly eroded that the payment will not be sufficient to provide for a retiree’s basic needs. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister how the Ministry intends to address this issue, if not in the short term, at least in the long term.”
“Sir, just one supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he clarify whether the 13,000-plus jobs were to fill up existing vacancies or are these new jobs created by the public sector? And when the public sector says it wants to create 18,000, is it referring to 18,000 new jobs or does it include filling up of existing vacancies? Mr Teo Chee Hean: Some of the jobs are new, but some of the jobs are also to fill up existing vacancies.”
“Could I ask the Minister for his assessment of whether the problems affecting the PMETs will become worse? Do we see the PMETs becoming a bigger challenge for us, in terms of those who are unemployed in the current economic situation that we are faced with? I would also like to ask the Minister what more can be done in order to assist the PMETs because I have heard the programmes being mentioned, but the general sense on the ground is that the support and help or the infrastructure for PMETs is a lot less established compared to that for non-PMET workers who have lost their jobs or in need of help. This also applies for PMETs who are in need of support to move from sectors that are perceived as not doing well and want to move to sectors that are doing better because their jobs are in jeopardy. What assistance is going to be rendered to them?”
“Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The Minister mentioned that the supply of Tamiflu will not be enough. Are there efforts to try and increase the supply? Some countries like the UK, for instance, have decided to provide the vaccinations to almost the entire population. Is that feasible and desirable in Singapore's context? If not, is it practical or possible to focus on the high-risk groups and to vaccinate them in view of the fact that there may be a more virulent strain of this virus that may develop in later months?”
“Can I ask Minister for an assessment of the effectiveness of the Jobs Credit Scheme in meeting its objectives? I would appreciate a reply to that.”
“I would like to ask the Minister how many companies have benefited from the Jobs Credit Scheme. How many workers have benefited from the Jobs Credit Scheme? Could the Minister also give us an assessment as to the effectiveness of the Jobs Credit Scheme in achieving its objectives? And could the Minister also inform the House if there was a mechanism in place to identify whether there were any phantom companies, even before phantom companies were found? And, finally, could the Minister also inform the House how many SMEs and MNCs have benefited from the Scheme?”
“In conclusion, Sir, I support the call to strengthen tripartism which has been a distinct comparative advantage for Singapore and has helped us to weather previous recessions, and the current crisis is no exception. First company to embark on SPUR, for example, is an unionised company, which just shows how quickly we can move and make things happen once there is tripartite consensus. I am confident that with our strong tripartite relationship, Singapore will not only be able to get out of this crisis but will be able to do so without disrupting our social cohesion, and in a manner that is beneficial not only to companies but also to our workers. On this note, Sir, I support the motion. 4.23 pm”
“I have heard from many schools that the number of students seeking financial assistance has increased, showing that there are now more families in distress and, therefore, these additional funds is certainly a welcomed move. Our low-income workers are also grateful for initiatives such as the WIS, especially the special payment that was made this year. Whilst it has been beneficial, one common complaint among workers is that the WIS penalises those who are hardworking as overtime is included for purposes of determining eligibility. This is unfair as the more hardworking a worker is, he is penalised, whereas his less hardworking colleagues get to enjoy the WIS. I would like to urge the Ministry to review this. Alternatively, the Ministry could also consider increasing the salary level for coverage - $1,500-$1,800 - so that more low-income workers will benefit. Or it could consider keeping the $1,500 but based payment on the family's income per capita, just like other schemes. The WIS, Sir, is an important strategy as it helps to enhance the value of low-paying jobs and encourage people to continue working. But at the same time, we have also seen increasing numbers of Singaporeans who are not able to work because of health reasons, which will be exacerbated because of improvements in our healthcare system. The financial needs of such Singaporeans would increasingly demand a different treatment, as existing schemes which are short-term and which tie aid to work may not be very feasible. I, therefore, urge the Government to continue to pay attention to the needs of such Singaporeans, so that they too can benefit from our progress.”
“I, therefore, urge more companies to tab on the ADVANTAGE FUND to redesign work and to make them suitable for older workers. Sir, in his Speech, the President touched on social cohesion and reminded us that our current situation could put stresses on our society and our families. He pointed out that globalisation benefits Singapore tremendously but it also widens income gaps and will continue to put pressure on lower-skilled, less educated workers. This is an important point. Even before this crisis, we have seen the income gap widening. In past financial crisis, employment returned to pre-crisis levels only four to five years after economic recovery on average. This is the experience of most countries. Wage inequalities increased in several Asian countries following the 1997 crisis. At the Meet-the-People Sessions, we too have seen many more cases of people coming for financial assistance. In many countries, during a recession, workers and the lower income bear the brunt of the crisis. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) itself estimated that 200 million workers could be pushed into extreme poverty as a result of the current global crisis. We are fortunate that in Singapore, there are many schemes in place to help companies keep workers and to directly help families in need. We need to constantly review these measures to ensure that these are adequate and effective in helping families. Therefore, Sir, I welcome the measures announced to upgrade education including opening more university places for Polytechnic students as well as the provision of S$68 million to assist students from low-income families. This is a very tangible way of helping low-income families to move up the ladder and to break the poverty cycle.”
“The adjustment has been hardest for the older PMETs because of the higher pay and employment perks but many have had to make the transition. In a newspaper article, a former boss of an interior design company described his experience of attending a job fair as very humbling. In Singapore, we now see cases of older Singaporeans in their 60s and 70s asking for jobs. The Government has undertaken many efforts to help older workers stay at work and find new work through SPUR, WIS and re-employment initiatives, such as the ADVANTAGE FUND. However, there is a need for both employers and employees to change their mindsets. The Tripartite Centre for Fair Employment has been promoting the message of fair employment to employers. Among the complaints received by TAFEP, age discrimination is still the highest. Employers continue to ask job seekers for their age when they call up for jobs and in application forms even when age is not relevant to the job. Employers should assess job applicants strictly on their merits and not based on their age, race, family status or gender. Older workers have skills, knowledge and experience, a point which many employers would value if they could go beyond the age factor. On their part, Sir, older workers too need to adopt a flexible mindset towards the types of jobs, conditions and salaries that they are offered. This also applies to their children whom may not want their parents to work in jobs perceived to be less socially desirable. Work not only provides income but also an important way to stay independent, meet other people and learn new things. Jobs are still available for those willing to adjust and to try something new.”
“Ferrying them in open lorries, which expose them to the weather and the risk of being flung out of the lorry during an accident or sudden jerks, is not humane treatment and will certainly not contribute to the goal of a globally leading workplace outlined by Ministry of Manpower. In a recent incident, as we all know, three workers died as a result of being flung around in the lorry during an accident. Sir, I welcome the focus in helping Singaporeans to work longer and to enhance income security. Re-employment legislation will be passed in 2012 but, certainly, companies are well advised to start early in putting in place policies and programmes for re-employment. This is an important issue because of our rapidly ageing population. Overseas, especially in the US, more older people are returning to the workforce or deferring retirement. In the US, the number of workers above 55 years has increased but the unemployment rate has also increased. It takes longer for older workers in the US to secure jobs and age discrimination lawsuits have shot up. In fact, a recent survey by an online career site found that 60% of workers over the age of 60 were postponing retirement as the economic downturn had eroded their savings significantly. Those with relevant skills and experience, such as in nursing, find it easier to hold on to their jobs or find new jobs. In fact, the unemployment rate for older workers in the US is still lower than for younger workers. But many older workers have found it necessary to adjust their mindsets, learn new skills and accept a lower pay in order to land jobs. There are now even special job fairs for older workers in the US.”
“Even as we prepare workers to reskill and upgrade, it is important that we also enhance the quality of our jobs as some jobs continue to be so lowly paid with poor benefits that few Singaporeans find them attractive. So I urge the Government to continue with efforts to upgrade existing jobs and to continue to create good quality jobs - a point alluded to also by the President in his speech. A globally leading workplace in my view must also be one which creates decent work, where work is empowering, has respect for workers' rights and the labour laws and there is effective social protection with minimal monthly contributions to the CPF. We should create sustainable jobs that will ensure that workers can earn wages that will enable them to take care of themselves and their families. But Singaporeans must also be prepared to adjust their expectations and be prepared to work in new sectors or do shift work or work further from home. There are still some sectors where companies continue to find it difficult to recruit workers and it is not uncommon to find the night shifts mended largely by foreigners. Better management of foreign workers will also prevent an oversupply situation, leading to stranded foreign workers without jobs. Poor management of foreign workers will also affect our own image. It was reported recently that the Fujian province authorities had wanted to restrict their workers from working in Singapore because of poor treatment. The President's call for better integration and acceptance of foreign workers is therefore timely and necessary. Sir, we should treat foreign workers humanely. The same standards meant for Singaporean workers should be extended to them.”
“How can we help workers, not only to remain hardworking and disciplined, but also to be innovative and creative in their work so that they can become more productive, add greater value and earn better wages? Our workers cannot be globally competitive if we have weak management with backward human resource practices and poor employment conditions that do not help to bring out the best in people. So I support the need to build globally leading workplaces and I look forward to hearing from MOM what measures will be put in place to strengthen the quality and standards at our workplaces and what are the outcomes it hopes to achieve. Sir, I support the need to calibrate the balance between the foreign and local workforce to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term. It is important that our foreign manpower management policy does not remain static, but should instead take into consideration the state of the economy and jobs situation. I hope that this would lead to some kind of a review of the existing quotas of foreign workers which was set at a time when we were experiencing strong economic and employment growth. However, the situation today is vastly different as unemployment has gone up and there is weaker job creation. There are now so many foreign workers, even in the services sector, that Singaporeans are beginnning to feel squeezed out. One danger that we must also guard against is the hollowing out of skills among our local population which could happen when large numbers of foreign workers occupy jobs in a particular sector and crowd out local workers. This is not, in my view, a healthy situation.”
“I think Singaporeans would welcome more information about the work of this group, its terms of reference and when it is targetted to complete its work and make known its recommendations. If I could suggest, the Government should also share the progress made by this group when it is timely, as this would go some way towards allaying the fears and concerns of Singaporeans over the state and general direction of our economy. Sir, I welcome the MOM's (Ministry of Manpower) focus on developing a globally competitive workforce. This is indeed Singapore's distinct comparative advantage as countries can duplicate infrastructure, systems, programmes, machinery and equipment, but the real difference is the value that resides in people and how we can convert that to competitive advantage. The NTUC has been working closely with many companies to put workers on the SPUR programme. This is a win-win strategy as workers acquire new capabilities while companies continue to keep their skilled workers. I must also commend the Government for being responsive to our calls for change when it increased the absentee payroll, as this would help more companies train more PMETs who earn higher pay. Companies that we work with welcomed this move as we have seen in this recession that more professionals are affected. Sir, I also urge the MOM to think beyond just the current downturn and to have a more comprehensive strategic training blueprint for our workers to prepare them for the longer term needs of the economy and to meet global demands. For instance, what workforce attributes do we need in order to remain globally competitive in a completely changed world environment?”
“We must prevent a situation where the number of our long-term unemployed increases, as research has shown that the longer a person is out of work, the more difficult it is for him to secure employment and the danger of the person being deskilled and becoming unemployable intensifies. Sir, the situation is also not improving globally. In his report to the ILO conference entitled "Tackling the global jobs crisis" which will be debated in June this year, Juan Somavia, the ILO Director-General has urged governments to adopt a global jobs pact. According to him, based on current trends and ILO's monitoring of labour markets, the worst-case scenario which it had earlier forecasted that global unemployment will rise to more than 15 million is becoming a reality. The ILO believes that the world is looking at a deep and prolonged global jobs crisis which will last for the next six to eight years and this would have serious social implications. Sir, since the start of the recession, there have been a lot of discussion among economies and more recently, even the Asian Development Bank have suggested that Asia needs to revisit its export-driven growth model which is highly dependent on consumer spending in the US. We know that Singapore has a very small domestic market and boosting domestic consumption will not have a significant impact on our GDP. Hence, we have to continue exporting our products to the world and look for new markets. But the recession has also exposed the vulnerability of economies that are dependent on the US and exports as key drivers of growth. The Prime Minister mentioned recently that a group is currently reviewing our economic strategies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the President for his sober, yet reassuring speech. The President reminded us that the job situation is still grim. He also reminded us that when the storm clears, we cannot expect the world to be as before. The withdrawn global landscape will be less benign and predictable. It will be a challenging environment for Singapore. Sir, this is an important message for all Singaporeans. In a survey conducted by AC Nielsen recently, Singaporeans listed job security as their biggest worry. Singaporeans have reasons to be concerned. Many unionised companies that we engage with, particularly in the manufacturing sector, were not able to confirm with any certainty what all these will be like beyond the middle of this year. So whilst there were a lot of excitement over "green shoots", we continue to be weary of the "brown weeds" that may confront us in the second half of the year and it is important that we prepare workers for the long road to recovery. Sir, with more than 5 million Americans losing their jobs since the start of this crisis and with falling wages, rising unemployment benefit claims, poorer pension and the credit squeeze, consumer spending is expected to remain weak in the US and we all know that recovery in the manufacturing sector depends a great deal on a sustained recovery of American consumer confidence. Hence, even as we continue to review our economic strategies, job creation should continue to remain the key tenet of an economic and development policy. And, most certainly, in this crisis, ensuring that jobless Singaporeans quickly find jobs, should continue to be our priority.”
“Then, I abstain. Question agreed to; Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. APPENDICES”
“Point of clarification, Sir. I thought the first "abstention" covered all the rest?”
“Abstain. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Khaw Boon Wan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Question put, "That Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive stand part of the Bill."”
“The third issue I would like to seek clarification on is equitable allocation of kidneys. A patient who can pay will now be able to get a kidney transplant faster. He gets a donor, he reimburses the donor, he gets the transplant faster. Could the Minister clarify what would be the situation of a poor patient who needs a transplant very quickly and urgently but, unfortunately, he has no money? Will this mean that he has to live with a lower priority because he does not have the means to defray or reimburse the donor? Finally, I listened very carefully to the Minister's point, and he said, yes, indeed, there will be phased implementation. But I would like to ask for the reimbursement for foreign donors. Would the Minister go one step further to say that if and when payment for donors is implemented, it will start with Singaporean donors and then later on, after the experience is gained, the system is more mature and established, and safeguards are appropriately secured, it will be opened to foreign donors?”
“First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his very detailed explanation. I hope that his clarifications on some of the key areas would have shed some light on some of the core concerns that we have. This topic is a very important one and the concerns that we have raised are equally important. Because what we do not want to see is the opening of illegal organ trading in Singapore and affecting our reputation as a medical hub. But we are also very concerned about the need to save lives and I think, at the end of the day, this is what this amendment is all about. I have a couple of clarifications to seek from him because these are important in order for me to make my own decision. First, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is practical, in his view, for a foreign worker, who is under tremendous pressure because of a huge debt that he has incurred, to admit to the hospital's Ethics Committee that he is under duress, or is he likely to say that he is doing it out of his own free will and that the money is not an inducement to him. This is going back to my earlier concern about the presence of foreign workers and their susceptibility to being pressurised to become organ donors because of their own condition, and tremendous need, they are in financial hardship, and are in need of money. My second clarification is to ask the Minister how does the Ministry intend to ensure that the foreign donor who has returned home has proper post-surgery medical checkup? Because the Minister said that this is an important part of the ecosystem that will be put in place in order to take care of the needs of the donor, to make sure that he is properly taken care of. In fact, I think the whole reason of this legislation, this amendment, is to be fair to the donors.”
“I just want to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Rohingya issue, which is a long-standing issue and obviously a humanitarian issue and the way it is dealt with, reflects poorly on ASEAN in the sense that it is not able to handle an issue like this. And what does it augur for future issues of this nature or other issues that come about in terms of how ASEAN is able to effectively deal with such issues?”
“If someone is prepared to pay more than what is recommended by some government appointed agency, then I am certain they will find a lot more donors. Desperate, vulnerable and badly in need of money, many of these foreign workers will be pressurised to become donors. To a desperate foreign worker, even a reimbursement of $10,000 would be attractive compared to going home empty handed with a huge debt waiting for him. I truly hope to hear the Minister's comments and responses to these issues. In conclusion, Sir, I struggled quite a bit in deciding whether or not to support these amendments because I feel that there are serious ethical issues, particularly involving payment to foreign organ donors. But as I studied the amendments, they are neutral as there is no specific mention of the donors’ nationality. And I do believe that subject to safeguards and the various clarifications that I have sought and also so long as it is consistent with the WHO guidelines, reimbursing Singaporean organ donors for costs incurred, such as medical costs and income losses is acceptable. And as a whole, the amendments would make available more kidneys and organs for transplants, which is good for Singaporeans. But I do hope that in its implementation, the Minister would seriously reconsider the idea of paying foreign organ donors because there are many pitfalls and there is really no need for us to be the trail-blazer in this especially when the potential for abuse is great. On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Would we be seen as condoning or encouraging their citizens to break their law? I would also like to ask the Minister on WHO’s reaction to our proposal and whether they have expressed any concerns about the potential for such cross border transplants to promote trafficking in human organs? If the WHO had expressed reservations, then I would like to ask the Minister how do we intend to address this and whether it would affect our efforts to promote Singapore as a medical hub? Would we be seen as exploitative and would this affect our reputation? Sir, the other reason I am very concerned about this proposal to reimburse living non-related foreign organ donors is we have a huge presence of foreign workers in Singapore. Many are now affected by the global economic downturn. There are unscrupulous agents who have brought in such workers but have no jobs for them or want to send them back after only a few months. Foreign workers had to pay their agents thousands of dollars before coming to Singapore. Because of poor business, many foreign workers are also affected because they used to depend on overtime, which is now very much reduced because of economic situation. I am afraid, Sir, that if these foreign workers cannot earn enough to pay off their debts, they will become a ready, vulnerable pool of organ donors to be exploited and abused. And this will really be bad for Singapore. For the reasons that I have mentioned earlier, I am not convinced that we can completely eradicate the problem of the middlemen. The same unscrupulous agents that have brought in these workers could now become their middlemen because it is not possible to stop under the table payments as organs can now be allocated based on who can pay.”
“Even the Philippines – which has had a reimbursement scheme similar to the one that we now want to introduce and has two non-profit institutions handling such transplants, namely, the Kidney Foundation of the Philippines and the Philippines Organ Donation Programme, which is a government body – has not been able to stop the black market and exploitation of the poor. A review of the Iranian system in the British Medical Journal also shows that even with legalisation of organ trading, Iran has not been able to correct the problem of the black market for organs and the exploitation of the poor. Sir, because of the severity of the problem, in June 2008, the Philippine government banned foreigners from getting organ transplants in the Philippines. India, too, has plans to tighten its organ transplant laws and put more curbs on foreigners who come for such operations. The Philippine government’s concerns are valid. In 2007, just over half the 1,046 kidney transplants in the Philippines were for foreigners despite a 10% foreign recipient rule in each hospital. Some hospitals were doing as many as 90% of their transplants on foreign patients. So, there are really serious concerns when we open the doors so wide to allow compensation for foreign living unrelated organ donors. Could I ask the Minister, how would this affect our relationship and solidarity with other countries, particularly those from the ASEAN region? How would the Philippine government, for instance, view our efforts to allow their nationals to donate their kidneys in Singapore for a reimbursement to non-Filipino foreign patients when such transplant operations are illegal in their own country? Would this create friction among ASEAN countries?”
“Even on this, the Ministry may want to be pre-emptive and consider disallowing Singaporean living organ donors, who are not related to the foreign patients, from donating their kidneys. This is the situation in some countries to prevent the exploitation of their own citizens by foreigners. Although the odds of this happening in Singapore is quite low because of the level of our development and the standard of our education, one can never tell what may happen in the future. My biggest concern, Sir, is over allowing payment to foreign organ donors. The Minister had said that we should not discriminate against foreign organ donors. According to him, it would be unfair if a donor in Singapore who is a citizen can be reimbursed but a donor in Singapore who happens to be of a different nationality cannot. Whilst we want to ensure fair treatment between local and foreign donors, there are other more compelling reasons why we should seriously reconsider whether it is wise to extend payment to living non-related foreign donors. A key concern would be whether this would lead to an influx of poor donors from developing countries, brought in by unscrupulous middlemen, and whether this would tarnish our reputation as a medical hub. Would we end up as a major transplant centre where rich patients can take advantage of cheaper transplants with organs secured from poor living unrelated foreign donors? Surely this is not the kind of distinction that we want for ourselves.”
“One of the biggest gaps found in many countries, including the Philippines, is this lack of effort to provide for the needs of donors, particularly in medical care after the transplant. Sir, I would also like to suggest that instead of paying everything in cash, the Ministry could require that part of the payment go into the Medisave account of the organ donors, which they can then use to pay for their medical insurance or any hospitalisation cost in the future. Two other points which I hope the Ministry would address is the question on whether allowing payment for living organ donations would affect altruistic organ donations, including cadaveric donations. Would people now feel that they are less compelled to donate their bodies or donate their organs after their death? Would they opt out? Would this also make even living organ donors, who are related to the patient, also feel that if there is payment to be made there is no need for them to donate to their loved ones. There is also a need to strengthen the hospital ethics committees as we now have enhanced roles having to assess whether or not there is inducement when a living non-related donor appears before them. I am not quite sure whether they are equipped for the role and the Ministry may want to consider whether it wants to follow the Philippines' model of appointing a separate committee to perform this task. Generally, Sir, subject to proper regulations and safeguards on the points which I have raised earlier, and so long as it is in line with the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, reimbursements for organ donations among Singaporeans is still acceptable as the element of inducement and exploitation would, in my view, be much less and, thus, more manageable.”
“This is an important point and I hope that the Minister could elaborate whether there will be any impact on the equitable allocation of kidneys and how the Ministry intends to assist poorer patients who cannot afford to pay so that they do not end up seriously disadvantaged. Sir, organ transplants involving living donors carry certain risks for the donors. Where living related organ donors are concerned, this would not be a major issue as love, care and concern arising from strong family ties would be key considerations. But when living non-related organ donors are concerned, especially now that there will be payment, it is important to have in place a proper system to educate would-be donors on what is involved in donating one of their kidneys so that they can give informed consent. Kidney donors need to undergo proper health and psychological counselling. For example, they need to know that with only one kidney, if that kidney fails to function, they may end up having to receive dialysis or kidney transplants themselves! They need to know whether it would impact their ability to work and they need to have regular post operative medical check-ups. In a survey which was conducted recently among 311 living non-related kidney donors in the Philippines, about 25% reported that their health deteriorated after the surgery and 40% felt that their economic status worsened or did not change after they donated their kidneys. So, I would like to ask the Ministry of Health to look into this. I would also like to suggest that the Ministry creates a database of all living donors to ensure that there is a proper checking and follow up on their welfare.”
“But if it is too high, then it will no longer be a reimbursement but becomes an inducement. Another question would be: how do we assess loss of earnings? Would a person who is unemployed receive much less than someone who is working and would a high-income earner receive more than a low-income earner? Is it fair to make these distinctions since it is the unemployed and low-income earner who is more likely to donate compared to the high-income earner? In fact, this is the experience in the Philippines. Most of the donors are unemployed or they do jobs that earn very low income. And what about foreigners? Should they be paid the same amount as Singaporeans? If so, would it not be an inducement especially if they are from poorer countries because of the income disparity among countries? Sir, in this context, I would like to ask the Minister to share more details with this House on how the Ministry intends to regulate and administer the reimbursement and payment process. I hope that these details would add greater clarity and depth to this debate and address concerns over whether allowing reimbursements could lead to organ trading. Sir, another major concern now that reimbursements are allowed is the issue of equitable allocation of kidneys. If in the past, criteria could include factors like age, health condition or likely benefit from the transplant, without regard to a person’s financial situation, what is the criteria today? Could a recipient who is low in priority now be able to jump the queue because he or she can afford to pay the reimbursement?”
“I would like to suggest that the Ministry of Health consider this proposal. This would give the Ministry more time to examine in greater depths some of the issues raised in relation to payment to living donors. Sir, as I see it, the amendment to allow for reimbursement or payment for living donors is meant to tread the middle path. On the one hand, we have the current situation where there is absolutely no ability for any payment whatsoever to be made. On the other hand, we have the extreme situation where there is organ trading which is highly deplorable. I note that under the WHO Guidelines, Guiding Principle 5, certain reimbursements are allowed, for example, costs of recovery from operation and loss of income. Minister Khaw, too, has stressed that this amendment does not condone or legalise organ trading. Sir, I have a number of issues to raise with regard to the proposal to pay living donors. The real challenge, in my view, will lie in the implementation. Although the intent of the law is clear in practice, once payment is involved, it will be very difficult to say which donors are motivated by only altruistic reasons, especially when foreign donors from poorer countries with no relationship whatsoever with the recipients are involved. This is the crux of the issue: when is a payment only a reimbursement of expenses and lost wages and when does it become an inducement, which is prohibited under HOTA, especially when it involves living non-related donors? At what point would a transaction involving an exchange of money become organ trading? Sir, other questions also arise. One of it is how is the price to be set? What is reasonable compensation? If the amount is too low then it will be unfair to the donors, which then defeats the purpose for this amendment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the present Bill proposes three amendments to increase the number of organs available for transplants. The first two on removing the upper age limit for cadaveric organ donations and allowing paired matching of organs are pretty straightforward. The experience of Spain, which has a short waiting list for kidney transplants, is useful as a third of the cadaveric kidneys are from people over 60 years old. Likewise, paired matching is not new and will help to increase the number of living donors. These two changes are welcomed. I also strongly support the increase in penalties for those who are engaged in organ trading. Sir, the third amendment, however, which allows payment for living donors, has raised some concerns as it can be viewed as a modification of the hitherto accepted principle of altruism in organ donation. In fact, in my humble opinion, Sir, it would have been better if the three amendments were done in two stages. We could have first proceeded with the two amendments, which remove the upper age limit for cadaveric organ donations and allow paired matching. This would give us time to assess the effectiveness of the changes in reducing the waiting time for patients before proceeding to the more controversial amendment, which allows for payment to the donors. We could then study in greater depth the experience of countries like Spain and Norway, which have very successful living donor programmes and short waiting lists. If we fail, then we are clearly in a much stronger position to change the basis for HOTA and allow payment for organ donations. Notwithstanding this, although the amendment covers all three situations, I believe that the implementation could still be in stages.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and while I welcome the Minister's proposal to look at those affected and who are at the margins, I would like to ask whether the Minister would be kind enough to extend the margins so that they are not so narrow because the community hospitals' means-testing is different from the public hospitals – it is a lot more stringent and because of the substantial increase in the hospital fees of community hospitals, a lot of middle income Singaporeans are affected. In the case of one hospital, the C class ward has gone up to $3,900 per month in terms of the ward charges. My second question to the Minister is: how many patients who are in the community hospitals are receiving subsidies and this constitutes how many percent of the total number of patients residing in the community hospitals.”
“Sir, whilst I understand the Minister's rationale not to erode our competitiveness, especially for the export-led sectors like manufacturing and, therefore, not to review the allocation policy between local and foreign workers, I would like to ask the Minister's comments with regard to the non export-led sectors, the non tradeable sectors, whether there is scope to review the current allocation criteria, especially restaurants and other services.”
“Sir, I would like to seek two clarifications from the Minister. First, now that we have the tripartite guidelines on managing excess manpower, I would like to ask the Minister how does the Ministry intend to ensure that the non-unionised companies adhere to the principles of the tripartite guidelines because for the unionised companies, we can at least work directly with the companies but, in the non- unionised companies I reckon that that would be a problem and that would affect the ability to save jobs. My second question is to ask the Minister whether he would reveal the quota for S-Passes, because the S-Passes is a very attractive category of Passes. Salary threshold is low – $1,800, much lower than the P-Passes but at the same time, it does not have the restriction of the Work Permit-Passes where it is subjected to a two-year term. Also, they cannot bring their families. Therefore, it is a very attractive category of Passes but yet at the same time, it is also a category of Pass holders that will come into direct conflict, competition with the PMETs now that we have a lot more PMETs who are looking for jobs. Can the Ministry review the current quota for S-Passes?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister four questions on CPF LIFE. First, could the Minister give an update on CPF LIFE? The scheme was started last year but we have not heard very much about the scheme up to now. Second, Sir, the CPF LIFE scheme offers 12 different plans for members to choose from. The sheer number of plans is simply mind boggling and I seriously wonder how anyone would be able to make a proper choice, bearing in mind that not all CPF members understand insurance products well. While we want to give people choices, too many may also confuse and actually deter them from making a decision. In the end, I fear that people would just go for the default option. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what are MOM's plans to help CPF members choose from so many life plans? Are there any plans to simplify the scheme? Third, to be automatically covered under CPF LIFE, members must have $40,000 in their retirement account. This requirement excludes quite a number of Singaporeans, such as housewives and low-income contract workers with insufficient CPF savings when these are precisely the groups that need the most help to build up their retirement income. We should make the CPF LIFE scheme as inclusive as possible and not let the scheme become an example of the social-divide in our society. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what efforts are being made to help those without $40,000 in their retirement accounts to also benefit from CPF LIFE? Finally, could the Minister indicate what would be the impact of the current severe economic downturn on the CPF LIFE scheme? As the interest rate has gone down, could the Minister indicate whether this will effect the adequacy of the CPF LIFE scheme payouts?”
“So we know of cases where they may be receiving help from four, five places because you see them when you are the Guest-of-Honour somewhere else giving out help. They are there, you see. Then you know, this person is receiving help from other places. Otherwise, you have no means of finding out and then you may either undergive, give less or give more and you may not be fair to those who are not receiving from so many places. I hope you could develop some database where we can also access, so that we can provide appropriate level of assistance to needy cases.”
“Madam, I have two clarifications to seek. I agree with the Minister's approach that there need to be a lot more help for dysfunctional families. I am happy that MCYS is focusing on them. But having spoken to some of these dysfunctional families and then especially those that have pulled their children out of schools, their main response is that they do so because they feel that the help they are getting is usually very truncated and short-term, whereas investment in education is a long-term investment. They feel that support will be stopped at any point of time, they just don't feel that it is sustainable for them to send their children to school. So, I think that is a very important point in the minds of the recipients of aid which MCYS has to address. Otherwise, I think it will be very difficult if they continue to pull out their children from school because they think they are not going to get long-term help. The second point that I want to raise is the question of the co-ordination of help for the needy. I raise this point because when I listened to Minister Balakrishnan and he said, "Look! we look at the PA cases as well as other cases. There are so many causes giving help but I hear other members say, "The amount of help is very much less". So that brings me to the point in which I raised that has not been adequately addressed. The question is that we really do not know the total amount of help a person is receiving. When they come to us and we have to give ComCare funding support for instance, we don't know how much more help are they getting and from what other sources, other than CDCs. We do not have that information.”
“I hope that the Minister will focus on these issues and provide more information on what is being done to give assistance to those who need it, and to have a better coordination. Supporting the Vulnerable in Singapore”
“Sir, last week, some MPs asked for assistance for retrenched workers and the House was told that there is already such a scheme - ComCare Transition. Let us capture in a nutshell the problem. There are so many schemes now for the needy and they are growing by the day. It is perhaps time to consolidate some of these schemes. Sir, the other challenge is to know how much has been given out under the many-helping-hands approach. We suspect that some needy recipients are receiving help from multiple sources, but we have no means of finding out. Knowing how much a needy recipient is receiving is important so that we can size financial help accordingly, because we must also be fair to other recipients who are receiving help only from one source. So we need greater coordination in the assistance schemes. I hope MCYS can address this concern. (In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Sir, we have many schemes to help poor Malay/Muslim families. The number of people who need assistance will increase during this economic downturn. However, the present coordination is not very effective in helping them. There are two types of recipients of assistance. Some get help from various sources but we have no way to ensure the full amount that they receive, and they receive more help compared to the rest. There are also those who did not receive any assistance because they do not know how to get help. We need to ensure that those who need help will receive it. At the same time, we have to also ensure that the assistance rendered will not weaken the spirit or resilience of our recipients. The assistance schemes have to be linked to efforts to get jobs and upgrade their skills.”
“Sir, the public service is the custodian of public funds. It has a responsibility to ensure a high degree of financial prudence and efficiency in the deployment of public resources to serve the public good. In the current severe economic downturn, companies are aggressively reviewing their cost structure or scaling down on activities which do not directly contribute to the bottomline. Hence, the 2008 Auditor-General's Report highlights some disturbing instances of extravagance and waste, and also poor use of state land and buildings by some Ministries and statutory boards. To quote one example, the Singapore Tourism Board spent $1.5 million over seven years before deciding not to proceed with efforts to convert the Capitol Theatre into a performing arts venue. The Auditor-General had estimated the rental revenue foregone to exceed $280,000 a year. The Auditor-General had also observed instances of poor handling of reserves and cash grants in some Ministries and statutory boards. If I could give another example based on my own observations, the annual reports of Ministries and statutory boards are now getting glossier and, certainly, looking more expensive. Our public agencies seem to be competing with each other to package the best looking annual report for public consumption. Annual reports should be concise, but highly informative to give the public a good sense of the work that the public agencies are doing in order to serve their interest. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister what measures are in place to ensure that our public agencies exercise fiscal prudence, avoid extravagant expenditure and achieve greater efficiency? How does the Ministry ensure that there is effective and proper management of all lands and buildings? Social Report Card”
“Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Minister Khaw and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Hawazi for their very comprehensive and very patient responses to our questions. I would also like to thank all my colleagues who have participated in this debate and made their contributions. I am deeply reassured of the commitment by Minister Khaw that during these very difficult times, retrenched workers and those who suffered pay cuts as well as others needing subsidised care will not be deprived of affordable healthcare. On that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,083,813,300 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $621,110,900 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head Z – Financial Transfers”
“I would like to ask the Minister to respond to that point. My final point is to ask the Minister whether he will also include dementia in the Medisave coverage for outpatient treatment of mental illness because that is also a serious and increasing problem. And dementia treatment does take up a lot of a person's finances.”