Hawazi Daipi
Singapore
“Madam, between 2001 and 2014, of the international students at secondary and junior college levels who were granted permanent residence (PR) on their own merit, around one-quarter were on scholarships, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) scholarship, for their studies.”
“Madam, we are aware that these are secondary and pre-university students who are not likely to start working immediately after they have completed their "A" levels. So, we do not require them to work in Singapore. It is separate from the university-level scholarships. Page: 34”
“Madam, as I have said in my reply, we leave it to the schools to decide on whether a student or a staff member is fit or good enough for certain types of overseas trips. Some overseas trips can be very physically challenging, but some may not be.”
“Madam, the Member may be aware that MOE has worked with the Temasek Cares for a programme to assist families to manage the cost of treatment after the insurance coverage cap has been reached.”
“I think, generally, yes, Madam. The travel insurance coverage includes accidents and treatment of injuries as a result of accidents, as well as repatriation.”
“At the ground-breaking event, a number of non-Muslim grassroots leaders asked me how they can also support the construction of this community institution in Woodlands. I am heartened by such a supportive spirit and inter-racial and inter-religious cooperation.”
The complete record
Every one of 942 lines we hold for Hawazi Daipi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 19.
“Sir, I would like to ask what is the general reaction of employers towards this idea of portable medical benefits scheme.”
“To spread our resources too widely would only serve to invite undeserved criticisms that our contributions are not enough. Sir, with that, may I ask the Minister to clarify the aims and objectives of Singapore's humanitarian assistance.”
“Sir, I am glad to hear earlier in the debate from the Minister that Singapore has been active in extending technical cooperation and technical assistance to other developing countries. We have shown that even though we are small, we have a constructive role to play in helping fellow developing countries to develop more quickly. As a member of the international community, Singapore has benefited in the early years of its development from the benevolence of more developed countries not only in terms of funding but also with expert advice and financial aid. Without these, we would not have been able to overcome the obstacles of a young nation dependent on mainly entrepot trade. In our parents' generation, when Singapore was just starting out, they had to look after those in need at home first, at the same time that our leaders were fulfilling basic social needs of housing and creating jobs for our population. Our children's generation has grown up in an era of affluence where these basic societal needs have been more than met. Singapore, therefore, has a responsibility to assist those less fortunate and less developed than we are. When I read and heard about the response of our people and Government to the disasters and crises around the region, and sometimes even beyond as in the case of Turkey, I am assured and heartened that our society is progressing in the right direction. However, Singapore is a small country, small in size and its resources are limited compared to more developed countries. Because of these, I would like to urge that we focus on those disasters and crises in which we can respond quickly and in a manner that is sufficient to make a significant contribution.”
“Sir, our relations with Indonesia have gone through several phases from the time of our independence up to now. On the whole, our past relations with Indonesia were close, warm and friendly. In marked contrast, we have seen, in the last three years, two Presidents of Indonesia personally attacking Singapore and questioning our attitude and perceived unhelpfulness towards Indonesia. Although relations seem to have been smoothened out with the recent launching of the multi-million dollar gas project between the two countries, not surprisingly, the November episode has left a bad taste. On the whole, I would say that I agree with the Minister and support the position of the Minister in stressing that we should take a long-term view in our relations with Indonesia. Can the Minister update us on the current state of relations with Indonesia and the developments there? An Indonesia, that is strife-full, as it is now, is not good for the region, and not good for us. An Indonesia that is broken up must be worse. From interactions with the residents and fellow Singaporeans, I get the sense that Singaporeans want to know about the prospect of our largest neighbouring country remaining united. What is the view of the Minister in this matter?”
“Since my colleagues have already asked many of the issues that I want to raise, I would just like to focus on the importance of good relations between Singapore and Malaysia and how we should not allow the bilateral issues to affect our common good and common interest. When Deputy Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, came to Singapore and requested that the deadline of the relocation of the CIQ as well as the POA on redevelopment of land used by KTM be extended, we agreed. But I did not recall that we have set a new deadline for the resolution of the issues. I do not think we can negotiate all these issues forever. Is there a timeframe that we are working on?”
“Sir, in the late 1990s, we found an ASEAN vastly different in spirit from the ASEAN of the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, ASEAN was held up as the next best example of regional cooperation, next to the EU. It was confident, bold, innovative and taking active steps to strengthen its regional cooperation and cohesiveness. One such example was the formation of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994, which sought to be the forum for regional security cooperation and activity. The early 1990s saw a period of high growth rates for all ASEAN countries, and there was a feeling of euphoria, and ASEAN was respected. The economic crisis of 1997/1998 and its lingering effects on many individual ASEAN countries would appear to have dented the unity of ASEAN states, as political and economic instability has forced each member state to become more involved in their internal affairs, at the expense of regional cooperation. Instead of coming together, the economic crisis seemed to have pushed ASEAN states apart, and they are focusing on their own internal problems. Sir, could the Minister give us his views on the state of cohesiveness and unity currently within ASEAN? This is a critical time for ASEAN with the inclusion of four new member states in the last five years, especially since these new member states are also economically under developed. How have the older ASEAN states been able to help these new members to integrate? Can the Minister comment on how ASEAN can prevent a two-tier split into the economically more developed regional members of ASEAN on the one hand, and the economically less developed new members on the other?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”
“Sir, let me just conclude by saying that there is a large number of foreign workers in the construction industry. I would like to ask the Minister whether we have peculiar problems in the industry that we should address.”
“Sir, in this light, may I request the Ministry of Manpower for an update of the measures taken to ensure the protection of foreign domestic workers in particular, and work permit holders in general. I understand that MOM has, as of 1998, required employment agencies to attend a training course at the Singapore Polytechnic before giving them approval to recruit foreign workers. May I request the Manpower Minister for his views on the usefulness of such a course and whether it has produced the desired results. Can the Minister consider subsidising the training of maids here?”
“But I would like to put the issue into a sharper focus by suggesting to the Ministry of Manpower that the law should discriminate clearly the instances where the foreign worker may have unknowingly broken the law. The law must be unambiguous against offenders. The law should also take into consideration that foreign workers who, for instance, overstay may have done so because their passports were kept by their employment agencies or their employers. In these instances, the law must also punish the employers or the employment agencies that are responsible for leaving the foreign workers stranded. Foreign domestic workers, in particular, may be at the mercy of employment agencies that find opportunities to levy exorbitant fees on these foreign workers. I acknowledge that some of the cheating could have been committed in their home country, even before the foreign worker set foot on our soil. However, the Ministry of Manpower should monitor this matter closely, because the recruitment fees are levied on them when they first take up a new assignment in Singapore. In addition, if they change employers, or are repatriated to their own countries, they could be asked to pay unreasonably high administrative charges to the employment agencies. Yes, we can say this is a case of "willing buyers and willing sellers" of services here, but the Ministry should conduct regular checks on maid agencies which charge prospective employers a low fee and then pass the cost of recruitment to the maids who may not get their full salary. In fact, they may get even as little as $10 for as long as six months, because they have to repay the fee to the agency through the employer.”
“While the majority of employers treat the foreign workers well, unfortunately, there remains a small minority of employers and employment agencies who mistreat and abuse their foreign employees, through physical abuse, breach of previously agreed terms and conditions, and the lack of proper basic amenities like housing. Foreign workers must be protected against such errant employers and employment agencies. Singapore is a civilised nation where morality and the rule of law prevail. We have a responsibility to defend the poor and the helpless amongst us. Sir, the report published yesterday by the newspaper, Today, brings to light some of the problems that foreign workers in Singapore face. Entitled "Exploiting the Weak", it brings to mind the problems that unsuspecting foreign workers may face when they come to Singapore. It is true that some of these abuses and mistreatment may have started right in their home country but, all the same, Sir, we must ensure that those in Singapore who abuse and mistreat the foreign workers should be taken to task. I would like to ask the Minister about disputes involving foreign workers and action taken on employers who had mistreated their workers in the past one year at least, whether there has been a large increase in the number of complaints against employers and employment agencies. Sir, I am aware that MOM has proper channels for foreign workers seeking redress against abuses. I have also read in the press that penalties against abusive employers and errant employment agencies have been stiffened. These measures are laudable.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on the issue of foreign workers. Sir, I empathise with, and support, the Minister for Manpower when he said yesterday that Singapore needs to welcome foreign talent even while we search for more and better ways of enhancing the employability of our workers. Let me state at the outset that I support the existing foreign talent and foreign worker policies. We need these guest workers in order to enlarge the economic pie for our people as we are short of workers to enjoy sustained economic growth. I maintain, however, that in some sectors and industries, the Ministry should encourage more companies to redesign job functions so that our older workers can take advantage of the available jobs, instead of taking the easy way out by bringing in foreign workers, especially after our own workers have gained new skills that may be relevant to our companies in Singapore. Sir, having said that, foreign workers form a section of our working population whom we sometimes forget, even though we see and interact with them on a daily basis. They clean our neighbourhoods, and work on our factory floors and construction sites. In fact, about 100,000 households host them as domestic helpers, who cook and wash for our families and mind our children. For the contribution that they have made to our prosperity and well-being, we must, as a society, take care of the welfare of foreign workers, who now form about 1/4 of our workforce. Sir, as a union official, I would say that my views on this matter have largely been shaped by the social mission of the labour movement, which is led by NTUC, in taking care of the welfare of workers here, both local and foreign.”
“I think they have implemented the new retirement age at 62 long enough to study the problems and opportunities on both sides of workers and employers, and see how we can extend to 65 first, and later to 67. The Government can also help by encouraging more and more companies to embrace job redesign, so that there will always be jobs that are relevant to older workers, especially for those who have put in many loyal years to the companies. Through job redesigning, companies can reassign functions which are suitable to the physical make up of these older workers without having to bear too much additional cost, especially for workers who have attained relevant skills. Why should companies resort to employing and be allowed to engage foreign work permit holders when they can employ local workers who can do the same job? I would like to echo the views of some of our colleagues here, especially Mr Sin Boon Ann who spoke before me, of the need to consider fiscal incentives in order to encourage employers to consider employing older workers. Sir, the question of our older workers is not going away with the recovery of our economy after the economic recession. In fact, I think we are going to face more such problems as our economy continues to restructure. The tripartite partners should work more closely to address the issue of employment and re-employment of older workers, and even facilitate contract work as well as part-time work, so that we can help our older workers to continue to be financially independent.”
“For example, some assume that older workers will be unwilling or unable to work longer hours, which studies in the US have found to be untrue. They assume that older workers will only be willing to accept high salaries without even giving them the opportunity for an interview and, worst of all, they assume that older workers have less commitment and energy, which is untrue, because many older workers are more committed to their careers after spending much time and effort carving out a career. Sir, I agree with Dr Jennifer Lee that perhaps, in some instances, it is timely that older workers are not only retrained in new skills but also offered counselling, including how to present and approach prospective employers. At the same time, employers need to be more aware that they have discriminatory assumptions which can lead them to a wrong conclusion about older workers. In the face of an ageing population, perhaps employers and employer federations should be looking at ways and means to reduce the preconceptions that some of their members may have. In unionised companies, I am sure we can work out ways to work together between the unions and the management in ensuring that we can encourage more older workers to be retrained and to continue to enjoy employment. On the part of the Government, I hope the Ministry can assess the implementation of the new retirement age at 62. Although it has been implemented only since 1999, I would like to suggest that discussions among representatives of the labour movement, employers and the Government can be started with a view to phasing the eventual extension of the retirement age to 67.”
“Many times, the focus has been on older workers. These efforts have been boosted with the enactment of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. This is one important way to help our older workers meaningfully. The task now is to encourage older workers to take up skills upgrading courses. There could still be complacency among our older workers, to take advantage and act on the schemes available for them. But I would like to make a point that employers too have a responsibility to encourage and support their older workers to upgrade their skills. At the same time, Sir, there needs to be more effort on the part of the employers to start hiring older workers, especially when they have acquired the relevant skills. There needs to be a change in the mindset of some employers with regard to older workers. It is not uncommon to hear that workers above 40 years old, who have lost their jobs, complain that they have been turned away, because they are considered too old. Some companies tend to generalise about older workers, believing that older workers are likely to get sick more often, and are slow to pick up new skills. These generalisations do not fit many older workers, especially in an ageless on-line environment that operates in an industry like the IT industry. In fact, many retrained older workers combine professional experience with fresh IT skills. Their attitudes are progressive and positive. In the service industry, older workers bring a lot of wisdom and maturity which have been learned on the job. This sense of responsibility is much greater, because of the financial and family commitment they have taken on with age. Employers have also a lot of preconceived assumptions about older workers.”
“Sir, we have increased our mandatory retirement age to 62 years. If we are to follow our own population trends, this will probably need to be increased to 65 years in the near future, as the average life span of all Singaporeans increases. Indeed, many in the old-age bracket enjoy keeping busy by continuing to work, albeit in less stressful capacities, not only because it keeps them physically and mentally healthy, but it is also because there is a psychological need to know that one is still useful and financially independent. Gone is the extended family system in which the successive younger members of the family look after the parents and the older ones in the same household. Most old parents now live on their own after their children got married and live apart, and thus have their own financial commitments. Our older workers, especially those who have little personal savings due to low income, need to work even beyond the retirement age. As our economy restructures further, we may face more problems in finding employment for older workers. The situation could be due to shortcomings of both sides, ie, from the older workers as well as the employers. The Ministry will surely look into this matter to ensure that the impediments to employment of older workers would be removed. On the side of older workers, there are those who could have lost touch with the latest developments, lack the required skills and are reluctant to go for training. Some may not like the prospect of their salary lower than the level they used to enjoy. The Government, employers as well as the NTUC representing workers and other groups have established programmes, subsidised training, partial payment of salaries for workers to acquaint them with the latest developments and acquire new skills.”
“I think we are on the way towards that. But at the same time, half a million of our workers do not have secondary qualification. We have set up the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund to ensure that our workers will be able to take up skills training courses to improve themselves in order to remain relevant. However, we are a long way from the target of helping so many workers to be retrained. I would like to ask the Manpower Minister for an update on the implementation of Manpower 21, in particular how the six strategies have been implemented since we started Manpower 21. For example, for integrated manpower planning aspect of the Manpower 21, how do we plan for manpower needs of certain industries when technology changes so fast? Is our manpower planning cycle able to catch up with the changes in technology? On lifelong learning and lifelong employability, I would like to ask the Minister to give us some progress on the retraining programmes under SRP and other training in the programmes, and how we are going to cover training programmes for half a million workers who do not have secondary qualifications. Lastly, Sir, on augmentation of our talent pool. As we need foreign workers and foreign talent, what is the optimal proportion of foreign workers and foreign talent that we can host in Singapore in the context of the needs of our own local workers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, people are our only resource. We have to maximise our manpower resources in order to carve a niche in the global competition. We have to ensure that our people have enough jobs, better quality jobs in future, in order to sustain high quality of life in Singapore. But competition is always going to get keener as new entrants into the industrial world offer cheaper manpower, land and other resource cost. We have been able to stay ahead of our competition because our manpower remains disciplined and well-trained. But we have to watch our competitors. Even as we improve our pre-employment education training, other countries, like the US and the UK, have also come up in recent years, with initiatives to improve the quality of their workforce. We are competing not only with fellow developing countries but also with more developed countries as our economy becomes more mature. To give an example, Sir, in the United States, a Workforce Investment Act was enacted in 1998 to provide greater support for workforce development and special statutory boards were set up to implement five years' strategic plans for workforce development. In the UK, the British government launched a new National Skills Agenda. I think this was done last year. Its primary objective is to boost workforce skills to support industrial development and, more importantly, to sustain the country's international competitiveness. So we have to watch our competitors as we try to improve the quality of our workforce. To support new investments and jobs so that we can sustain long-term economic development for Singapore in the next 10 to 15 years, we need a workforce with 65% post-secondary education.”
“Sir, we have, since our independence, been very supportive and involved with the United Nations. We have continued to contribute whatever support we could to the continuance and strengthening of the United Nations. In becoming a member of the United Nations Security Council, Singapore seeks once again to contribute to the United Nations to serve in a capacity which is equal to its ability. Indeed, on the United Nations Security Council, Singapore has been given the difficult task of investigating and instituting sanctions against Liberia. The trouble spots are increasing around the world as civil wars occur for various geographic, ethnic and religious reasons. We see the United Nations sorely stretched in terms of cash and manpower to cope with increasing demands for peace-keeping troops around the world. Because of its small size, Singapore has given what it can in the past and, most recently, in the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in East Timor in the form of medical and transport services. With its current role in the UN Security Council, a responsibility which Singapore will hold for the next two years, will there be greater demands on us contributing on peace-keeping duties through the United Nations? If expectations rise due to Singapore's membership on the Security Council, will the contributions asked, in terms of cash and manpower or both, be entertained or be responded to by Singapore? Would the Minister give some light to this?”
“There were also some problems I believe that were technical in nature and that hindered the extent of cooperation among the member countries of the FPDA. I understand, Sir, that Malaysia has since started participating again in FPDA exercises. The continuing participation of Malaysians in the FPDA arrangements is indeed encouraging to all of us. I would like to ask the Minister whether the problems that we have with Malaysia in respect of the FPDA have been resolved and, whether going forward, we can expect the same level of commitment from Malaysia with the rest of the other FPDA members.”
“There has been a report in the Jane's Defence Weekly last December about the interest of Vietnam to establish closer defence relations with Singapore. Would we be able to take up the offer of closer relations with Vietnam? Mr Sin Boon Ann: Sir, it has been our stated policy to maintain multilateral and bilateral defence ties as an integral part of our defence architecture. To this end, we maintain bilateral defence ties with our neighbours and friends and also multilateral ties with several other countries. These ties have essentially served us well. We have been able to leverage on them to procure training grounds for the SAF and also to help deepen relationship to promote peace and stability in the region. With the sizeable number of defence ties which we have been able to maintain, perhaps, none is quite as prominent and well-established as the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) which was started in 1971 with UK, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia. Even after 30 years, the FPDA has become one of the main pillars for defence arrangements. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, Britain reiterated that it would honour the FPDA and would defend Singapore should the need arise. It is indeed reassuring to note the words of the Defence Secretary, Mr Geoffrey Hoon when he said, "I cannot see circumstances arising where if Singapore is attacked, the Republic could not look to the United Kingdom for support or circumstances where we would not want to give that support." Against the backdrop of the importance of the FPDA, we were naturally concerned when Malaysia decided to reduce its level of support some years ago, ostensibly on the grounds that it is facing constraints in the budget arising from the financial crisis.”
“Sir, I would like to make three related points on the issue of our defence relations with our neighbours in ASEAN. The first is whether the recent fluctuations in our relations with neighbouring countries have affected our bilateral defence relations with them. Relations with neighbouring countries seem to be coloured by the personality of leaders. In the past few months, Singapore has been sharply but wrongly criticised by the Indonesian President, Mr Abdurrahman Wahid. Has his outburst against us affected defence relations between our two countries? The SAF has enjoyed close and warm relationship with the former Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI). Considering the fact that the armed forces in Indonesia has reduced influence in the past one or two years, do we still enjoy warm relationships with the TNI, which is the successor of ABRI? Would recent developments in bilateral relations affect our air training facilities in Indonesia? In the case of defence relations with Malaysia, would the Minister also share the progress that we have made in our relations with Malaysia? My second point relates to the multilateral defence relations, the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) involving Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom and, of course, Singapore. Could the Minister inform the House if the member countries will continue to be committed to the FPDA, considering the fact that some of them have been facing budget constraints? My third point relates to defence diplomacy in general. We would like to engage more countries in defence relations so that we can have enhanced relationship and defence network with them.”
“The breakdown of law and order in neighbouring countries could also lead to the increased threat of piracy, terrorism and kidnapping, which will turn away tourists and investors. These issues pose a security threat to the whole of Southeast Asia and in East Asia in general, not just Singapore. In many instances, we have worked, and continued to work, with several countries to combat the rise of illegal immigrants, piracy, kidnapping and terrorism. Has regional cooperation to combat this kind of security issues been successful? Could the Minister elaborate on the strategies and measures that Singapore has taken, and will take, to counter these threats? What is the Ministry's strategy to remind Singaporeans of the need to be alert and vigilant to these possible non-conventional threats?”
“Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs in highlighting the security outlook in Southeast Asia and East Asia. Southeast Asia has seen disturbing developments, if not upheavals, in recent times. Even as they are smarting from the recession and the political turmoil in some countries, we can see continued problems that are cause for worry. In the past one and a half years, there have been political leadership changes in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. There have also been leadership changes in major countries further in the East - in the United States of America and in Taiwan. China continues to threaten to use armed force if Taiwan pursues independence. The mood for unification of the two Koreas has excited a lot of people although, in reality, it is not likely to happen in the near future and tension in the peninsula could continue. Then, there is also the question of whether the new US administration would continue to be engaged, or more engaged, in Southeast Asia and East Asia. With all these in the background, there are possible uncertainties in terms of security in Southeast Asia and East Asia. I would like to ask the DPM and Defence Minister to share with us his views on this matter and, in particular, the US defence policy in the region. 3.45 pm More directly, in our own neighbourhood, I am concerned with the political turmoil in Indonesia. The racial strife in different parts of Indonesia and the continued call for independence in at least two provinces could result in massive outflows of people to neighbouring countries, including Singapore, bringing with it the potential security threat to our people.”
“In the long term, bilateral free trade agreements could act as a stimulus for an increase of trade and investment in the region. Moreover, it can also accelerate and strengthen multilateral trade agreements.”
“Being a business hub, I am sure Singapore would be able to attract investments and companies to come to Singapore and look at the business opportunities in Southeast Asia. To give an example, without clear benefits to itself and to the region in which it is located, I am sure Mexico would have little interest to negotiate the FTA with us. In fact, Mexico, which is already a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), would not have concluded or negotiated FTAs with so many Latin and South American countries like Brazil, Uruguay and Peru, as well as with the European Union and Israel. In fact, Mexico has already started discussions with Japan, which is another country with whom we are negotiating an FTA. There are those within our own region which fear that our pursuit of bilateral free trade agreements could lead to massive inflows, into ASEAN, of non-ASEAN products, thus abusing the terms and conditions of AFTA, and diluting the benefits that ASEAN will gain from the full implementation of AFTA. Ironically, we have similar voices outside ASEAN that are full of concern that competitively-priced ASEAN goods will flood their domestic markets through Singapore, jeopardising their own local industries. We have heard this argument from some quarters in New Zealand before we signed a bilateral trade agreement with Wellington. Sir, there seems to be a need for us to explain to our ASEAN neighbours about our pursuit of bilateral FTAs, particularly to Malaysia and Indonesia, which have expressed concern over the possibility of Singapore being used as a backdoor to gain entry into the AFTA region. In my view, this is a very short-term view of the issues at hand.”
“Sir, we have been informed by the Minister for Trade and Industry that Singapore is negotiating free trade agreements with Australia, Japan, Mexico and the United States, with the aim of concluding them by the end of the year. We have also been informed that we are also in exploratory talks with Canada and the European Free Trade Area. Our first bilateral FTA was signed with New Zealand in 1999. These are important developments. Speaking as Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, and a union official, I support the Government's move to establish free trade with like-minded countries, because the FTAs can help expand bilateral trade with and two-way investments in these countries. This means there could potentially be more economic activities and more jobs in our country, as well as in our partner countries. There may not be equal benefits for two countries involved in the bilateral FTAs, but there could be overall benefits for the ordinary people, as well as for businesses, as there would be more and, hopefully, better jobs and more businesses. We must make sure that the agreements would have sufficient safeguards for the workers, businesses, as well as for the states. Although FTAs should not be an alternative to multilateral trade agreements, they could prove to be decisive in fostering moves towards global trade liberalisation under the WTO. So, the FTA is a useful measure to take before there is a multilateral trade agreement later on. Free trade agreements will not only serve to better economic conditions for workers and businesses in Singapore, but also bring greater international interest into the markets in Southeast Asia.”
“Already Chile, Hong Kong, Hungary and Ireland, to name a few, have lower corporate tax rates than our 24.5%. At the same time, although many countries have higher corporate tax rates than ours, their effective rates may be comparable to ours as they have their own systems of rebates. Therefore, Sir, looking at these in the package, we have to sharpen our competitiveness edge in areas other than through fiscal measures only. With this in the background, I would support this Budget which I would describe as pro-workers, pro-people and a Budget for social cohesion.”
“So, I join our workers in welcoming this Budget in its aim to helping our workers, especially the lower-income and low-skilled who missed out on education in their younger days, in making the transition to the New Economy by facilitating the learning of new skills. By emphasising skills upgrading and retraining, the Government has shown its commitment to the long-term welfare of our workers. To me, this is a very important commitment to the welfare of Singaporeans. If we do not provide and improve the facilities and resources for programmes to enhance their employability, especially for the lower-income workers, the State will have to provide a more direct welfare scheme for them in the future. Our population and workforce are greying and our people live longer. If they are to remain independent, they need to be employed. And they can secure employment only if they can contribute to companies. Sir, therefore, we have to help them to gain new skills to remain relevant. The social welfare scheme of the West is costly to the society. In fact, many Western countries are modifying their schemes. We should not take the path that others are already discarding. That is why I support strongly the move to beef up the newly set-up Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. Sir, let me conclude by making a general comment on the corporate tax rate. I am glad that the Minister has announced a further cut of 1% point so that our corporate tax rate stands at 24.5%. Last year, Dr Hu cut it by half a percentage point. These measures, I am sure, could help companies to be more attracted to remain in Singapore or to come to invest here. But competition for investments and for jobs is not static. We should watch our competitiveness level all the time because many countries could catch up with us.”
“Also welcome are the lowering of personal income tax rates by 2 to 5 percentage points, the doubling of personal tax rebate to 10% and higher tax breaks on CPF contributions from the self-employed. Another union leader feels that all these measures show that the Government cares. I would add that the Government has kept faith with the people's trust in the consultative approach among the workers, employers and the Government. These personal goodies are very important but what is equally significant is Dr Richard Hu's announcement of the Government's plan to allocate more resources to education and to facilitate lifelong learning among our workers. This, as I said earlier, is important to help our workers remain relevant in the New Economy. We learnt that last year, many of the manufacturing investment commitments of $9.2 billion were in key knowledge-intensive industries like pharmaceuticals and high-end electronics - areas that will help Singapore's future growth. We can expect the proportion of jobs that require higher skills will be larger year after year. Even though retrenchments fell to 11,500 last year compared to 14,600 in 1999, we can expect the proportion of retrenchments due to structural reasons would be higher in future. Sir, it is because of this that our union leaders applaud the plan to beef up the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund by another half a billion dollars to $1 billion. So is the allocation of the $30 million for Manpower Development Assistance Scheme, on top of the $6.3 billion allocated to education.”
“Sir, this year's Budget is characterised by a strong sense of investor confidence in Singapore, which has been contributed, to a very large extent, by the discipline and sacrifice of our workers and our good governance. I am glad that the Government has decided to reward our workers for their sacrifices and help employers to enhance their competitiveness through this year's Budget. Perhaps, because of the good spread of goodies this year, the press was almost unanimous in describing it as "a generous Budget for everyone". I think they are right. But I would call it a "Budget for Social Cohesion" for the focus it gives, not just to the short-term reward for the sacrifices and in helping the lower-income Singaporeans through the rebates, but also in addressing the long-term need to help Singaporeans, particularly the lower-skilled workers, enhance their welfare through skills upgrading as our economy picks up pace in restructuring. With better skills, our workers will be able to enhance their employability and earn higher wages. Helping our workers to be employable is a very important welfare assistance to them, irrespective of their income status. These twin approaches will go a long way to addressing the issue of income disparities which could affect our social cohesion. Our workers, as reflected by the views of our union leaders, applaud the Budget. One union leader has called it a "pro-all Budget" for the various rebates given away on the service and conservancy charges, utilities and HDB rentals. These will benefit the lower-income workers who are already not paying income tax.”
“In California, it was very difficult to get approval for new power stations which meant that supply could not keep up with demand. The strict environmental rules have discouraged investors from building new power plants. In Singapore, we must make sure that good economics drive the liberalisation of our energy market. In California, the problem was not economics but politics. Work on our liberalisation is progressing well and the new market will start functioning in the second half of this year. However, the deregulation of our electricity industry will not be problem-free as it is a complex exercise. For this reason, we will liberalise in stages. By the end of this year, the market for big customers will be completely liberalised but, for households, we will do a more detailed implementation study before proceeding. Our target date for households is the year 2003. The Energy Market Authority of Singapore, to be set up in April this year - the Bill will be tabled afterwards - will be overall responsible for the security and reliability of energy supply. The wholesale market will facilitate the free trading of electricity either through the Electricity Pool or directly between buyers and sellers. Future trading of electricity is permitted. Retail competition will also be introduced in phases. Our new regime will continue to allow the market to determine electricity prices and our consumers to pay a price that reflects the true economic cost of electricity. Consumers will benefit from a wider range of electricity products and services at competitive prices.”
“Led by the economic boom, electricity demand in California grew strongly, but this was not dampened by higher electricity prices because those were capped and supply was not met by the planting of new generation capacity. And due to its strict environmental regulations and wide public resistance of having a power plant in their backyard, no new generation plants were built in the state for more than 10 years. In fact, some commentators described California as a "banana" state, because they had this policy of "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody." As a result, the generation reserve capacity in California dropped drastically from 30% to below 7%. A confluence of various factors, including bad weather, resulted in a severe mismatch of supply and demand which, in turn, led to soaring prices on the electricity wholesale market. A series of planned blackouts was therefore implemented in January this year to ration electricity. California had expected the market prices of electricity to remain low after deregulation and thus imposed a rate freeze. However, as prices on the spot market soared, this rate soon became lower than the cost of generation. The utilities companies incurred a 10-cent loss for every kilowatt-hour (kwh) of electricity sold and were driven to the brink of bankruptcy with a total debt of US$12 billion. The State has now stepped in to prevent the situation from getting worse. The key lessons for us from California are: (i) The market structure and regulatory framework must be sound and robust; (ii) The market must be allowed to work. Price adjustments are needed to enable consumers to adjust their consumption and to motivate new investments in generation capacity; (iii) Entry to and exit from the industry should be facilitated.”
“Sir, do we know of any countries in the region, in particular, which have launched into negotiations on FTAs on their own? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Thailand has expressed interest and had exploratory talks with, I believe, countries like South Korea. Japan is interested in Mexico and South Korea. Hong Kong, which in the past, took a very doctrinal position against FTAs, is now in some kind of negotiations with New Zealand. There could be other countries involved. I do not have a comprehensive list here. PRIVATISATION OF POWER COMPANIES 12. Mr Ong Ah Heng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the lessons we can learn from the privatised operations of power companies in California, USA, and how the same problems can be avoided in Singapore as power supply is also privatised. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the California electricity market was deregulated in 1996. Electricity tariffs in California were much higher than the rest of the United States and it was hoped that deregulation would lead to lower prices. From the outset, there were flaws in the partially deregulated market structure. Utilities had to buy all their power requirements through the state power exchange and could not buy power in forward markets or hedge prices in any way. Prices were also frozen at the 1996 levels until 2002 to allow the utility companies to recover the stranded costs of old investments. The Independent System Operator (ISO) was tasked to operate the network but was not responsible for planning and building additional transmission capacity. The bidding procedures in the power exchange were also vulnerable to gaming by the generation companies. Post-deregulation, several developments led to the crisis in January this year. Fuel prices rose dramatically.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would we have any problem to include labour and environment clauses in this Agreement should we be asked by these bilateral partners to include? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, we have to stick to the approach on labour and environment from the previous Administration. For us, it is not a very important issue but is an issue which will have to be discussed with the new Administration when talks resume.”
“Other than our unions and employer organisations, we should indeed make the Fund accessible to grassroots organisations like the Citizens' Consultative Committee, Community Clubs and the Community Development Councils to provide IT courses at the local community level. But I should caution against wasteful duplication of having too many IT centres in the same community. Mr Speaker, let me just conclude by stating that the setting up of this Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund is a step in the right direction in helping our workers imbibe the culture of continuous learning. This is a bold way to support our people against the pitfalls of structural unemployment already experienced by many developed countries. This is a positive way to help our workers and our economy to be even more competitive. We are fully aware that if we are not competitive, we will not be able to generate enough jobs for our people. We will have unemployment. Even if we are competitive as an economy, but if many of our unskilled workers become unemployable as we move deeper into the Knowledge-Based Economy, we will face the problems of structural unemployment due to the mismatch of skills and jobs. So this new Fund, as provided in the Bill for which it is debated today in our first sitting in this new millennium, is a very important vehicle which will lead Singapore well into the 21st century. It could help our workers to level up in terms of income so that they can continue to enjoy high quality of life and thus maintain social cohesion in Singapore in years to come. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The inclusion of such a clause in the Bill will help to ensure that the Fund can be used to provide incentives to companies that promise to employ retrenched workers, particularly those above 40 years old, who take up full-time SRP or SRP-like courses. Sir, I raise this suggestion because some older retrenched workers face difficulties in getting jobs suitable with the newly acquired skills after they have completed their full-time courses. The number of such workers is now small, but it could be more in future as even older workers would be retrenched and they would need the support of their employers to gain better jobs after they have completed their courses. It should provide the incentives to companies that offer jobs to such retrenched workers on the condition that these workers complete their courses. Based on NTUC's experience working with retrenched workers during the recession and working with self-help groups to help these workers under the SRP Facilitators Programme, I find that many retrenched workers are motivated to upgrade their skills. We should take one more step in helping them, by giving incentives to companies to hire them. Sir, this Bill also includes possible funding for research and development of "learning methods and technology to enhance the acquisition, development or upgrading of such skills and expertise". This provision will make it possible to fund the development of better designed modular courses; courses that will make teaching simple and learning fun; those that would not make the workers feel fearful of being shown up as unintelligent in the classroom. Sir, I am glad that the Prime Minister and the Manpower Minister have mentioned the IT Literacy Programme as one of those that would take advantage of the new Endowment Fund.”
“While the Fund should widen further the training opportunities for older workers at company and industry levels, it can also be even widened to assist training of better-skilled workers. I would like to urge that the Fund be made available for workers who want to take up courses not covered by the SRP by subsidising the course fees as well as to encourage companies to send their workers for skills upgrading through absentee-payroll scheme, like the SRP. As we have seen in the past three years, including during the recession years, even skilled workers and professionals were retrenched as their companies reorganised and restructured. In the New Economy, all workers, irrespective of their skills levels, are not protected against skills obsolescence, unless they upgrade and re-tool themselves. In this case, the flexibility of the endowment fund must be stressed. But having said that, I must emphasise the priority that we must give through this new Fund in assisting the more vulnerable lower-skilled workers to learn relevant skills to remain employable. According to the Bill, an advisory council will be set up to advise the Minister on the tasks to be undertaken through the application of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. It is important that this advisory council be made up of people who can best determine the array of skills courses which workers should have access to under the Endowment Fund. Representatives from the labour movement and employer organisations should be included in the advisory council. The provisions of the endowment fund also provide for "the promotion of the acquisition, development or upgrading of such skills and expertise".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The need for lifelong learning cannot be emphasised enough in Singapore which depends to such an extent on its skilled, educated workforce. The setting up of an endowment fund to actively encourage Singaporeans to pursue the skills needed in an economy where technology is still rapidly evolving will only underscore the importance we see of directing Singaporeans towards a philosophy of lifelong learning. The plan to set up an endowment fund is a bold move that will help a large number of older Singapore workers who missed the opportunity for higher education in their younger days and who are now saddled with low skills. The Fund will give them better hope in taking up skills courses that can help enhance their employability. Following the announcement of the plan to set up the fund by the Prime Minister in August last year, our workers and union leaders await eagerly for the details. I am sure today's announcement by the Minister for Manpower will be welcome not only by our low-skilled workers but Singapore workers in general, including the better educated, as well as the employers. The Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund can fill a gap in existing assistance programmes like the SRP, the NTUC Education and Training Fund and other programmes supported by the Skills Development Fund. The conditions governing the SRP and SDF limit subsidised training to particular groups of employees. In contrast, the Lifelong Endowment Fund does not set any limits on the target groups. It should, therefore, work alongside schemes like SRP, NETF and SDF, rather than duplicating the areas already covered by these programmes.”
“If we do not equip our children with the basic education to help them to acquire new or additional skills for the future, we would not be able to guarantee our children and the country's future. The children who do not have a good basic education will not be able to get good employment or to learn new knowledge when these are the basic necessities of survival in a competitive working world. The challenge for the Malay-Muslim community in Singapore as well as others is to continue to study such issues and to bring about a balance between their worldly and spiritual needs. We should assist our community in enhancing their ability to discuss this matter at a higher level so that we will be able to understand the challenges that Singapore is facing. The world that we are facing now is not static. It is rapidly changing. Therefore, requirements in education should change accordingly. The Malay-Muslim community should enhance the way we educate our children in religion so that it will be in tandem with the changes in this world. This is to ensure that the Malay-Muslim children in Singapore will be able to fulfill their educational, employment and spiritual needs. Mr Speaker, some members in the Malay-Muslim community found that the decision of the Prime Minister to exempt madrasahs from Compulsory Education is a victory for them. For me, this is not a game to be won. In fact, the Compulsory Education system proposed by the Government is to assist or to help every child in Singapore, including the Malay-Muslim children, to be winners in this competitive world so that their future will be guaranteed.”
“I believe that science, mathematics and English are important basic subjects for our children. Therefore, it is important for every student, who is exempted from the national school under this Compulsory Education system, to sit for the PSLE examination together with their cohort. Some members of the Muslim community have earlier given a negative response to CE. They were concerned that the madrasahs will be closed, and some of them felt that the Government intends to close the madrasahs. Their concern for the future of religious education is understood: who will become the religious leaders who will then educate the Muslim children with the moral and Islamic virtues if we are unable to produce religious teachers in Singapore among ourselves? This is a relevant question or issue, although some of the bases of these questions are not accurate. The Malay-Muslim community will be able to focus themselves on how to assist their Malay-Muslim children to receive religious education. For children whose parents want them to be religious teachers, there are ways in which the religious or madrasah leaders can offer them to achieve this objective. But there is also a group of madrasah and religious leaders who need to understand more about the majority of the needs of the Malay-Muslim children whose parents want them to have religious education besides having secular education. Whatever had been decided, every community leader and parent should be aware of the global changes that had taken place, including Singapore. In a knowledge-based economy, and with globalisation, the working world has changed tremendously.”
“With this, they are also able to grab all opportunities provided by the Government, the employers or the trade unions, and they will also be able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the ITE, polytechnics or the universities. In short, what is emphasised is basic education for life-long learning and in obtaining skills. This, I believe, is the best way to ensure that our children will remain employable when they begin to work. Mr Speaker, when the recommendations on Compulsory Education were first studied, some members of the Malay-Muslim community had raised their concerns that the madrasahs will be closed when this is implemented. The Committee on Compulsory Education did not make any recommendation for the closure of the madrasahs. I am also confident too that the Government does not intend to close the madrasahs. I hope the Government, as mentioned by Mr Yatiman, will explain its policy on the madrasah system of education. It must give an assurance that the madrasahs will not be closed and the Government does not have the intention to close the madrasahs by virtue of this Compulsory Education Bill. Mr Speaker, the Government has already announced that some schools, eg, the madrasahs, San Yu Adventist and those involved in home-schooling, will be exempted from Compulsory Education. Facilities should be provided for the children in preparing them for the PSLE examination, together with the other students in their cohort. But the question is, especially among the madrasahs and the Malay-Muslim community, what will happen to the madrasahs when the students are not able to attain the minimum standard. I hope a clarification by the Ministry of Education will help them to understand how the exemption criteria will be implemented.”
“Firstly, I would like to inform the House that I am a member of the Committee on Compulsory Education led by Dr Aline Wong that had made recommendations to the Government. I would also like to inform Mr Chiam See Tong that although there were five Members of Parliament in the Committee, a number of feedback and dialogue sessions were conducted and views and feedback from various community groups were received. Therefore, I am unable to understand when he said that there is a political motive in the recommendations of the Committee on Compulsory Education. I support this Compulsory Education Bill because it will ensure that children in Singapore will have the basic education relevant to Singapore. We will be facing keen competition. The technologies being used in companies are more advanced and they require our workers to acquire new skills in order to work in such companies. The working world has also changed. As a result of globalisation, our companies also need to change their operational structure constantly and this will affect our workers' employability. Compulsory Education offers a basic minimum education for every child to face a new era based on knowledge. Although I agree that Compulsory Education is meant for the primary level at this moment, I believe those who are involved in the education of every child, whether teachers, parents, schools or community leaders, should ensure that every child receives a minimum education up to secondary level. With a strong foundation in education, each child will be better prepared in receiving quality education and acquire new skills in the years ahead.”
“You can file another motion to debate that.”
“Sir, I do not think this is a forum to discuss that.”
“Sir, it is very easy to talk about how to help the workers, but we should not just criticise efforts that have been made or, worse still, not recognising what has been done for the workers.”
“The Government is the representative of the people. He said that we are forcing Singaporeans and our workers to accept the effects of globalisation. What we are doing is actually helping them to be part of globalisation and benefit from it, and not run away from it, but overcome the forces and benefit from it. He said that we should help those who are left out. But we are not helping just those who have been left out, we are helping those Singaporeans so that they are not left out. So before they are left out, we want to help them through skills upgrading and other schemes. Sir, in conclusion, I can only summarise that Mr Jeyaretnam has written the workers off. What we are doing is that we have tried to help our workers to overcome the forces of globalisation. Let me just quickly respond to Mr Low Thia Khiang. He expressed concern over the widening income gap and workers older than 40 years and those with low skills. Every Singaporean should. But who first identified the potential dangers of structural unemployment? It was NTUC. It was in 1997, even before the recession began. And what did we do? We did not just sit down and talked in Parliament. We designed the Skills Redevelopment Programme and asked the Government to fund it and raised it to be a national programme. We also realised that there would be workers who could not benefit from the SRP. NTUC itself set up a fund called the Education and Training Fund. We have raised $5 million and the Government has topped up $15 million. The Government has agreed to give another $15 million if we can raise another $5 million - to raise the fund to $40 million.”
“Mr Jeyaretnam, we are in the business of helping workers. Is NTUC outnumbered in NWC? Again, he is very wrong. NTUC, the Government and the employers have an equal number of representatives on the NWC.”
“Some 30,000 workers have been trained under this Skills Redevelopment Programme and as far as I know, we are trying to train 70,000 more people in the next three years. If that is not helping workers to cope with the forces of globalisation, I do not know what is. In my view, what is important is to help our workers cope with the changes in the new economy rather than talking about doling benefits to them. It will not help them in future. You can give free medical services. You can give free of everything, but in the end, it will not help them in the long run. Mr Jeyaretnam talked about the problems of having a Cabinet Minister being the leader of the trade union movement. He sounds like the trade union leaders in Europe talking about us, probably about five to seven years ago. Even now, they are changing. They are coming to discuss with us on what we have done for our workers that they can take a look at. Who has fought for continuing education and training for our workers? It was NTUC. Who fought for SRP and Education and Training Fund? - $100 million a year and the Government, as announced by the Prime Minister, has agreed to give $500 million more to a fund that will ultimately be $5 billion in Lifelong Education Fund. NTUC has a part in it. And because NTUC is led by a Cabinet Minister, the workers' concerns go direct to the Cabinet and it has helped the workers. Who has first articulated the view that CPF should be restored early? It was NTUC. And who during the recession tried to lower costs for ordinary Singaporeans? It was NTUC, through NTUC FairPrice, and various other cooperatives. So these cooperatives are not just organisations which are there to make money. We are in business because we are helping the workers.”
“It means that they are now working more closely with employers by establishing a partnership institute. While they talk about workers' strike, human rights, at international level, at home, they talk about ways to enhance the workers' skills so that they can get better jobs and better income. Mr Jeyaretnam also talked about the union's role for not serving their workers well. Tripartism has been the hallmark of our industrial relations in Singapore and it has done so well. I am very proud to say that so many unions from all over the world are looking at our example, even though we do not project ourselves as a model for any country. They thought that it is worthy for them to come and watch how we are doing things so that they can learn a thing or two. And I am proud to say that, despite the fact that they see the model that we have been practising for a long time, we are not ashamed to learn from that trade union in Europe which is now focusing on partnership. We will learn from anywhere in order to enhance further our services and protection for our workers. The new challenges are many. In the past, we were talking about full employment and employment. Now we are talking about enhancing employability. In the past, we just talked about cost competitiveness. Now we talk about new capability in productivity and innovation. Sir, what we are now doing is actually focusing on job creation, skill creation and employability enhancement for our workers. And these are the best protection that we can give to our workers. Mr Jeyaretnam gives the impression that nothing is being done for older workers. Again, he cannot be more wrong. Because 80% of those who have gone through SRP training have less than eight years of formal education and 70% of them are above 40 years old.”