Hazel Poa
Singapore
“Alright. I would like to seek confirmation that the latest round of tariff is a violation of the FTA between Singapore and the US, and if so, are we contemplating any action on that front? Given that we are a small country, are we exploring joint negotiations with other countries?”
“I urge the Government to set higher outpatient withdrawal limits for older Singaporeans and adjust them annually to keep up with healthcare cost inflation. Chair, in Mandarin, please.”
“I think the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Is the Senior Minister of State able to share what steps NCS has taken to prevent a recurrence? And has there been any impact on the execution of this policy due to the implementation being earlier than planned?”
“First of all, let me clarify that PSP is not displeased with the vouchers, because we believe that they will help Singaporeans in the short term, but not over the long term. The Prime Minister has said that he has concrete plans for the future.”
“I wish to make another pitch to the Prime Minister to consider measures to lower cost of living. Does he not agree that if we lower cost of living, it will benefit all Singaporeans, whereas if we take the approach of investing in education and training, to raise wages, then, not everybody can benefit from that, especially older Singaporea…”
“Can the Minister explain the logic behind this position that it is okay to impose or to specify to EBRC that the average size of GRCs and the proportion of SMCs should be maintained at current levels, but it is overimposing on EBRC to ask them to explain the reasons for their changes?”
The complete record
Every one of 388 lines we hold for Hazel Poa, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“The Workers' Party proposal is to introduce an optional 10-year through-train programme (10 YTS) from primary 1 through secondary 4 allows parents who wish to allow their children to bypass the PSLE to do so. Thus, their first major examination will be at secondary 4. Children develop at different rates and this option allows certain kids to learn at a pace that is more suited for them. Importantly, offering the extra room for children to blossom and to reach their full potential before they turn 16 could actually be even more important than allowing them to skip a major test at the age of 16. Certain schools already have a variation of 10 YTS. The Integrated Programme (IP) already allows students in secondary schools to skip the "O" Levels and proceed directly to their ultimate high-school exam, such as the "A" Levels – Catholic High, Hwa Chong, Raffles Institution (RI), Victoria, St Nicholas, among others; the IB – Anglo-Chinese School (ACS) and St Joseph Institution (SJI); or the high-school diploma, which is the case for NUS High. This proposal merely suggests an extension of the programme to a different high-stakes standardised test. Importantly, this option will complement, but not replace, non-10 YTS tracks. Students who wish to continue taking the PSLE may still do so. Perhaps more critically, this proposal does not mean that frequent teacher feedback, in the form of other feedback via other than high-stakes standardised testing should be de-emphasized. In fact, there is solid evidence that such feedback, along with other practices such as increased instructional time and specialized tutoring, is what distinguishes effective schools from those that are less effective.”
“Studies of university admissions based on making test results optional reveal no evidence of changes in application volume or yield rate, but conversely, improvements in the diversity of applications. Indeed, when COVID-19 struck, a host of universities chose to suspend testing as a requirement for entry and have chosen to retain this practice even after the pandemic. This list includes august institutions, such as Amherst, Brown, Cornell, the University of Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, WashU in St Louis, Williams and Yale. All this has led to a re-examination of the merits of high-stakes tests. Diane Ravitch, an education policy analyst that once was an advocate of testing and who oversaw the development of such tests in US schools, now call for an abandonment of standardised testing. The evidence aside, the reality is that a reliance on grades and test results are becoming less and less critical in many important settings. When I was in graduate school, it was common knowledge that those who excelled in the coursework component of the programme would not necessarily go on to become the best researchers. The top student in our first year dropped out in our second, to become an actuary, rather than see through the rest of the PhD programme. In contrast, one of our other mates, who had failed several of our first-year comprehensive exams, eventually went on to graduate, is now a practicing economist at a central bank and routinely publishes papers in academic journals. Beyond academia, more and more companies are eschewing formal traditional test-based metrics. Google famously does not hire on the basis of grades and no longer even requires a college degree, preferring to evaluate applicants on the basis of actual work produced.”
“Making this programme optional will also allow us to get a more accurate picture of the level of acceptance. And whilst our teachers and students take time to get used to the idea of student-initiated learning and how it can benefit them, perhaps schools can offer some structured programmes that students have voted for as mid-way measures? Another suggestion is to allow students to use Medisave to learn from classes at SkillsFuture and related online courses. Let us help students build a customised, relevant skills-based portfolio. They can match their learning interests from any class and vendor around the world. Flexible Through-train Programme for Schools Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Although I personally dislike taking tests – and as an educator, I lean toward minimizing the use of quizzes and exams – I am actually pretty decent at them. My wife, for all her innate talent and creativity, and bless her heart, turns out to be pretty bad at them. Yet tests are a common feature in the education landscape, both here and around the world, and most of us endure them, for good or ill. The ubiquity of tests and the varied performance of otherwise, like comparably-talented individuals, has resulted in an active debate about the value of high-stakes, standardised tests. One important reason for such variability – and for anyone who has experienced that stomach-churning sensation come testing time – is that test anxiety is real, can negatively affect performance and is unrelated to actual ability. Another is that individual motivation differs when confronted with the prospect of a test and this motivation is only weakly associated with performance.”
“We want to move towards inclusive learning where neurotypical and neurodivergent children play and study well together. Small schools have the advantage of developing deeper connections between staff and students. Just being able to know everyone by name can build a stable, safe environment for children who feel left out and whose needs go unaddressed in big spaces and also, big class sizes. Can we not refurbish old school buildings that have been left abandoned for years, to a couple of small schools for a pilot programme? Lastly, I want to bring up the Student Initiated Learning (SIL) programme. Last year in October, MOE in response to my question, replied that SIL is "time is set aside for students to pursue their own interests and learn outside the curriculum. This is to encourage students to be more curious and self-directed in their learning" and that "Preliminary feedback indicate that SIL is valued by schools and students". The feedback that I have received on the ground is that the reception to SIL is uneven. For example, I do hear of instances where students who are not keen on the scheme choose to "learn" things that they already know. As this is a new initiative with an approach quite different from what is traditional in our schools, teething problems are of course to be expected. I am fully supportive of encouraging students to be more self-directed in their learning. However, I do feel that making this scheme compulsory is a contradiction to the whole idea of student-initiated learning. Let students have a chance to opt out of the programme if it does not work for them. Do not let them feel this is just another programme imposed on them from above.”
“Mr Chairman, first of all, I declare that I run a company operating education centres and a private school. Allow me to quote extracts from Everychild.sg's White Paper developed by Singaporean parents: "…the cultural norm among many Singaporean families is for a parent … to plan to take time off during the child's PSLE year, rather than during the first 1 – 2 years of the child's life… many Singaporean parents … prioritising giving their child undivided attention at the age of 11/12, which appears to the child to be tied to performance expectations, rather than the more unconditional and intimate love of infancy and early childhood. We would be naive to think this does not have a negative impact on children's mental health, emotional development, self-esteem and future relationships." This is the third time I am urging MOE to consider piloting a through-train programme for primary and secondary school students, bypassing the PSLE and I have no intention of stopping. There should be no sacred cows in education. The learner, especially the well-being of the child, comes first. Another sacred cow to slay is the size of our schools. There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution in school size policies. In our international school scene, families may choose from a variety of schools that best fit their children's profiles. There are primary schools that take in less than 200 students to big schools with a few thousand strong student population. For local students, we only offer big schools. MOE merges schools because of falling birth rates and changing demographics of housing estates. I urge MOE to consider a range of school sizes for the sake of our changing learning demographics too.”
“About the board. Whether when CPIB did the investigation, did they also investigate whether the others were involved?”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. Can I just then get confirmation that CPIB did not look into whether the board of directors were aware when they were investigating? Because you said that they did their investigation and narrowed down to the six individuals. But when they started the investigation, they would probably be looking at a wider range of individuals who may be involved. So, does that not include whether or not the board of directors were involved? And did they find out whether the board, or did they ask or try to find out whether or not the board is aware? And with regard to the six KOM executives, you said that you are unable to answer whether they authorised the payment because you are not privy to the investigation. Can I ask whether it is not permitted by law for you to answer the question about whether or not they authorised the payment?”
“I thank the Minister for her reply to the points that I raised on the Keppel corruption case. First of all, I just wish to say that whatever I have said that was said by Minister Indranee all came from Hansard. I did not put words in your mouth. But I do accept your point that these were supplementary questions and therefore, that could have contributed to the words that conveyed uncertainty and I should not have read too much into it. Having said that, there were still two questions that I believe remains unanswered to this day, which is that whether the board of directors at the time when the corruption payments were made, were they aware of the act and also whether the six KOM executives were aware of and authorised the corrupt payments. I do not believe I have heard the answer to that. I apologise if I missed it. Can the Minister give us the reply to those two questions now or if it is not at your disposal, if we were to file Parliamentary Questions again, would we get answers to that?”
“But the Working Mother Child Relief continues to be a disappointment to stay-home mothers. Stay-home parents contribute to society as much as working parents. Will the Government consider introducing appreciation of the contributions of stay-home parents in the form of CPF top-ups? Citizens and Permanent Residents”
“When asked about the mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests, she replied that she does not know all the details of the MLA but that for at least one or two of the latest ones there were no response. When asked about the witness who changed his tune, her answer was again uncertain: “I think the answer is yes” and “I do not have details of what exactly was said”. When asked whether the six KOM executives involved were aware of and authorised the corrupt payments, she replied that she did not know because she did not conduct the investigations. Whilst the Minister claimed that anyone with questions could raise them in Parliament, she did not come into Parliament equipped with sufficient facts or knowledge to answer those questions. This does not help the public maintain trust and confidence in our enforcement agencies. Our zero-tolerance policy on corruption is there for good reasons. If we stand by while corrupt companies win contracts and prosper, while more capable but uncorrupt companies lose out in the competition, what kind of world are we moving towards? Will the Minister consider appointing a committee to consult the public on what questions they want answered and to get the answers to those questions from the relevant agencies? Transparency and accountability is the way to convince the public that the investigation was conducted professionally and competently, and the decision not to prosecute is a sound and impartial one. Next, onto fertility measures. I welcome the increase in paternity leave. Experience in some European countries has suggested that a more equal distribution of parental duties can help to improve the fertility rate. Higher baby bonus is always welcomed to keep pace with inflation.”
“Mr Chairman, two weeks ago, on 6 February 2023, Minister Indranee answered Parliamentary Questions on the decision not to prosecute the Keppel & Offshore Marine (KOM) executives involved in a corruption case. She said that it was standard practice not to issue any statement if law enforcement agencies decided not to proceed after an investigation. But if anyone has questions on the decision, the matter can be raised in Parliament. However, the answers given by her in Parliament were far from satisfactory. The US succeeded in prosecuting KOM and imposed a huge fine of US$422 million. But we were told CPIB is unable to find sufficient evidence to prosecute. Surely we would want to know in more detail why we have failed where others have succeeded. We want to know what were the facts uncovered during the investigation and which could not, which led to the decision not to prosecute. The Minister’s replies to several questions were however evasive, uncertain or “I don’t know”. Let me give a few examples. When asked by the Leader of the Opposition whether the Board of Keppel at the time when corrupt payments were made were aware, the Minister replied that she cannot answer for Keppel. We are not asking the Minister to answer for Keppel, we are asking for the result of CPIB’s investigation. Whether or not constructive knowledge is an offence is beside the point. Corruption is an offence and during their investigation of this offence, surely, CPIB would make it a point to find out which decision makers were aware of the act. Did CPIB look into this? If they did, what was the result?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I wish to respond to what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier about my proposal for land sales proceeds to be taken as revenue divided over the period of the lease. He said that under the current arrangement, where the land sale proceeds go into reserves and we get NIRC, it generates higher returns or we get more revenue from that because we can get more than 1%. I wish to refute that by pointing out two facts. One, if 1% of the land sale proceeds goes into revenue, the other 99% still goes into reserves and continue to earn investment returns. So, the drop in NIRC is only with respect to the 1% that did not go into reserves. Mathematically speaking, there is no way the investment returns on that 1% can be higher revenue than the entire 1% itself, unless we are getting investment returns of 200% per annum from our reserves. Secondly, if we were to recognising land sales proceeds as revenue, in the first year, indeed, it will be 1% of land sales revenue, but in the second year, it will be 1% of current year plus 1% of the previous year, and in the third year, 1% of current plus 1% of previous and 1% of the year before, and so on. So, again, you will not have higher revenue under the current arrangement. So, that misunderstanding having been cleared up, will the Deputy Prime Minister reconsider?”
“Therefore, to see the full effect of our tax policies on companies in a holistic manner, not just of the corporate tax rate but also tax incentives, exemptions and other treatments, we should be comparing the amount of tax paid with profits before tax. We should review the tax incentives and treatments given to companies earning profits beyond $10 million so that they pay more taxes. For example, if companies earning above $1 billion in profits pay just 3% of their profits as taxes instead of the current 0.9%, the additional revenue raised would be about $5 billion per year! It is time for companies to pay a fairer share of their profits as taxes. Even in the absence of any global agreement, this is something we should do, not because we are forced to and it need not be tied to any global timetable. We have traditionally used low corporate tax as a means to attract investments. When the global minimum corporate tax is implemented, this strategy will lose effectiveness. With the loss of this tool, it has become even more urgent for us to find ways to address the high cost in Singapore. With higher corporate tax revenue, we can use that to lower business cost and cost of living to offset the higher effective tax rate thereby making Singapore still an attractive investment destination and provide relief to Singaporeans. PSP therefore urges a thorough review of our policies on property and transport to bring down costs. In conclusion, we urge that land sales proceeds be taken as revenue divided over the lease period to ease the tax burden on taxpayers and for more profitable companies to pay more taxes and to use that additional corporate tax revenue to lower cost in Singapore.”
“For example, higher GST, higher taxes on tobacco and higher-end properties and vehicles. Companies, on the other hand, have either new tax incentives or existing ones extended. PSP is of the view that the more profitable companies should pay more taxes. Based on MOF's reply to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) on corporate taxes paid by companies of different profit levels, it is seen that for YA2018 to YA2021, companies earning profits before tax of between $200,000 and $10 million paid on average 8% to 9% of their profits as taxes. Those with higher profits paid a lower percentage. Companies earning between $10 million and $100 million in profits paid on average 5.1% of their profits as tax. For companies earning between $100 million and $1 billion in profits, 2.8%. For companies with profits beyond $1billion, 0.9%. Companies with the highest profits actually pay the lowest percentage of their profits as tax! To illustrate, a company making $2 million in profits pays 9% of its profits as taxes. This is 10 times the rate of a company that makes $2 billion in profits, that is, 1,000 times the profit. This is highly inequitable. In their reply, MOF stated that effective tax rate should be calculated based on percentage of chargeable income, not profits before tax. I disagree. Profits before tax is calculated based on internationally accepted accounting standards but chargeable income is affected by things like which expenses are tax deductible and which are not, what income is taxable and what is not, which capital expenditure can be expensed over one year and which over longer and so on. In other words, chargeable income has already incorporated part of our tax policies and treatments.”
“Today, I venture further to point out that the situation we are facing with home affordability issues highlights how the current practice of putting land sales proceeds into reserves is not sustainable and places unnecessary tax burden on taxpayers. The increasing land cost that necessitated higher subsidies and grants in order to keep houses affordable makes higher taxes necessary. However, if the land sale proceeds were taken as revenue, higher land costs mean higher revenue which can fund the higher subsidies and grants without needing higher taxes. There is inherent stability in this approach and the concept is sound. Against the backdrop of the tight fiscal position shown in MOF's paper, if we continue with the current accounting practice, the tax burden of HDB subsidies and grants will get increasingly painful in the years ahead. Proceeds on the sale of leasehold land is income generated from land reserves, similar to the investment returns from our Sovereign Wealth Funds. Treating the proceeds from sale of leasehold land as revenue is thus similar to Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC). Whereas in the case of financial assets, we may need to retain part of the investment returns to ensure the value of the assets keep up with inflation, the value of the land that reverts to the state at the end of the lease period is inflation-proof. PSP therefore urges the Government again to review its accounting treatment of land sales proceeds. Coming after the announcement of the 2% GST hike, MOF's paper warning of tax increases raises worries of further tax burdens on the people who are already straining under the rapid increase in cost of living. The additional taxes in this year's Budget have fallen primarily on individuals rather than companies.”
“This situation is caused by the way we treat land sales proceeds. Under current practice, the proceeds from the sale of land are put into reserves. The Government argues that to do otherwise would reduce the value of the reserves. Progress Singapore Party (PSP) begs to defer. Back in the days when land was sold on a freehold basis, this practice made financial sense and was the prudent thing to do. PSP agrees with this approach. However, when land is sold on a freehold basis, this practice should have been reviewed. Since land reverts to the state at the end of the leasehold period, there is no reduction in the value of the reserves at that point. On what basis do we claim that our future generations have been deprived? The same piece of land the Government now owns will still belong to the Government 99 years later, or 20 years later or at the end of any other lease period. The land sale proceeds is payment for the use of the land over the lease period. This is similar to rental payments which is also payment for the use of land over a fixed period, albeit a shorter one. Whether the use of the land is given on a three-year basis, 20-year basis or 99-year basis, the same principle applies. At the previous Budget, I have argued that land sales proceeds should be treated as revenue divided over the period of the lease. I have also illustrated via a table how this can grow into a significant revenue stream in a steady state. MOF's response to my proposal then was that this is a different concept. They do not deny the soundness and financial prudence of the proposal.”
“Mr Speaker, it was announced that the grant for resale Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats will be increased in order to make resale flats more affordable for first-timers. This is exactly the price spiral I spoke about during the debate on public housing two weeks ago. The resale grant will push up demand for resale flats and therefore, increase resale prices, which would later necessitate a further increase in resale grants feeding into a continuous price spiral. More tax revenue would also be needed to fund the additional grants. As land costs is determined based on resale transactions, the increase in resale prices would result in higher land cost. The amount that HDB pays to Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for land would increase, thereby, increasing the cost of new flats. This would mean that either new flat buyers have to pay more, or subsidies and grants for new flats must be increased to make the new flats affordable. More tax revenue would be needed to fund any increase in subsidies and grants. Such a cycle of more and more tax revenue being needed to be paid into reserves in the form of land price is unsustainable and places an unnecessary tax burden on taxpayers. Let me explain why I say it is unnecessary. The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has said that we continue to be in a financially tight situation and the reserves drawn out to fund the COVID-19 packages were unlikely to be paid back. An occasional paper from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) on medium-term fiscal projections has also warned of the need to raise further taxes to fund the expected increase in expenditures. Under such an environment, any increase in subsidies and grants for housing would necessitate an increase in taxes.”
“Madam, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Just now, Member Ms Carrie Tan asked me what is the point of talking about reserves when there were not any at that time? What I am saying is that reserves are not just money; state land also forms part of our reserves. Several Ministers have educated the House many times on this. Does the Member Ms Carrie Tan not agree with this?”
“Okay. Just now, Miss Cheryl Chan also made the point that if we increased the supply of flats, how that will impact the resale prices and whether people will still be able to sell their resale flats to fund their retirement needs. Can I clarify in effect what she is saying is that we are controlling the supply of new flats in order to keep up the prices in the resale market? Can I confirm whether that is the Government's approach?”
“I am responding to what other Members have said.”
“I would like to make a clarification because there were two Members – apart from Mr Murali Pillai, I believe Miss Cheryl Chan, earlier, also had the same misunderstanding. In my speech, I mentioned the building rates in the 1980s. I am not suggesting that we build the same number of flats as we did in the 1980s. What I did is to use that as an illustration of what is possible, not that we should build exactly the same number. As to how many should be built, I think that will require a lot more information than I have available on what is the current backlog. But I do want to make the point that considering that the number of resident marriages every year is 24,000 to 26,000 and new citizen numbers are about 20,000 a year, the supply of 20,000 units a year averaged over 2021 to 2025 does appear inadequate. Secondly —”
“I would like to take this opportunity to seek a few clarifications from the Minister about his speech earlier. The Minister mentioned that if we do not charge land at market prices, that will lead to a reduction in the value of the reserves. Given that the first-generation PAP leaders actually sold HDB flats without land cost, in the Minister's opinion, did Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the first-generation PAP leaders raid our reserves? Secondly, in his Annex 9, where he compared affordability in terms of the ratio of income versus the price of houses, can I seek his confirmation whether he is comparing like-for-like? Does the Minister agree that it would be unfair if we are comparing public housing with private properties and leasehold properties with freehold properties? Lastly, in Annex 7, where he showed the trend of the median household income versus the cost of a 4-room BTO flat, does the Minister agree that using the median household income may not be a good indicator because median household income can change purely based on demographic changes without any change in an individual's wage level?”
“Under this proposal, with the land cost deferred, the amount of CPF withdrawn to pay for the flat will be much lower, leaving Singaporeans with more funds in their CPF. This will make the lease decay less of a problem. Lastly, I wish to touch on HDB flats for singles. PSP supports Workers' Party's (WP) proposal to lower the eligibility age for singles to buy HDB flats to 28. In addition, we propose that singles be allowed to buy 3-room flats or smaller. Singles who own a 3-room flat will be able to get married immediately upon finding a suitable partner and even have children whilst applying for a bigger flat. Let HDB flats not be the reason for any delays in marriage and having children. In conclusion, if we are serious about tackling the low TFR problem, we need to pull out all the stops. Our low TFR is not only affecting our economy, it is also affecting the make-up of our social fabric, the social support for the elderly and our national defence. This has been such a long-standing problem and with the feedback that our young want their own homes before starting a family, why are we not taking decisive steps to address this? The supply target of up to 100,000 over five years from 2021 to 2025 is too modest. We should be increasing supply more decisively in the immediate term and change to a model of building for projected demand based on factors like marriage and immigration numbers instead of the BTO approach. Secondly, using Government subsidies and grants to achieve affordability is not a silver bullet. As the Chinese saying goes, 羊毛出在羊身上, this means that what appears to be a benefit has actually been paid for in other ways. We urge the Government to seriously consider the alternative deferred land cost model we are proposing.”
“Either way, the amount paid into the reserves continues to grow larger and larger as resale prices increase, paid for by flat buyers and taxpayers. In summary, the affordability comes at the expense of retirement savings and taxpayers who have to fund the Government subsidies and grants for HDB flats. PSP is therefore proposing a different pricing model for affordable housing as mentioned by my colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, earlier. In this model, new flats are sold to Singaporeans without collecting the land price upfront. However, if the flat is subsequently sold by the original buyers, the land cost will then be recovered from the resale price. The objectives of this model are two-fold. Firstly, to offer young Singaporeans new flats at a lower upfront cost. About 60% of the total cost of a HDB flat is land cost and the remaining 40% is construction cost. If the land cost is taken out, the upfront payment will be significantly lower. Secondly, to preserve the value of existing flats. One of the biggest problems in any attempts to offer new flats at lower prices is the uncertainty over the effect on resale prices. However, under this proposal, since land cost must be paid at the point of resale, this puts the new flats on par with the other flats sold earlier with land cost. This will serve to preserve the value of existing flats. Another problem we are currently facing is the lease decay issue. As the remaining lease of an HDB flat gets shorter, the value of the flat drops. At the end of 99 years, the flat returns to the Government and the value thus goes to zero. The worry is that flat buyers who used most of their CPF funds to buy the flat will be left with little retirement funds as the value of their flats goes to zero.”
“But the prices of new HDB flats have been rising over the years. How is it still kept affordable? There are two ways to achieve this: one, stretch the loan repayment over a longer period of time so that each instalment is lower and hence affordable; two, by giving Government subsidies and grants. The first method worsens retirement adequacy because it means that CPF money is being drained for a longer period of time and the amount of interest to be paid also increases significantly with a longer loan tenure. The second method provides an illusion of affordability by presenting a selling price after subsidies and grants that is lower. But where do the Government subsidies and grants come from? From taxpayers, from the GST that we pay, from incomes taxes, from duties on liquor and tobacco, taxes on petrol and vehicles. So, while the Government subsidies and grants are not paid directly by the flat buyers, we are all indirectly paying for everybody's HDB flats. Furthermore, the Government grants can create a price spiral. As grants are also provided for resale flats, this increases the purchasing power of the buyers, hence increasing demand and therefore, resale prices. When resale prices increase, to help first timers afford resale flats, grants will have to be increased, thus leading to a price spiral. Meanwhile, when resale prices increase, the Chief Valuer looks at recent transactions and revises land prices upwards. This means HDB needs to pay more to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to be put into the reserves and the price of new flats before subsidies increases. When the price of new flats before subsidy increases, either more tax revenue is needed to provide more subsidies and grants or flat buyers must pay more.”
“MND has placed a full-page advertisement in The Straits Times with examples of different couples at different income levels paying for flats of different sizes to illustrate the affordability of new flats after Government subsidies and grants. These examples illustrate how different couples are able to pay for their flats using only their CPF, with no cash payment. What is not illustrated is what happens to retirement adequacy after paying for the flats using CPF. In response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the Minister for Manpower replied that HDB flat buyers used 64% to 100% of their Ordinary Account contributions to pay for their HDB flats. This is especially serious for those in the lowest 20% in terms of income levels, where 96% to 100% of their CPF contributions into the Ordinary Account are used up to pay for the HDB flat. For the other income groups, close to two-thirds or more are used up. This adversely affects the adequacy of their retirement savings. According to the Minister for Manpower, in 2021, 67% of our CPF members met the Basic Retirement Sum, which pays out about $850 per month. This payout is not enough to meet expenses. Researchers at LKYSPP and NTU conducted a study in 2017 to 2018 and estimated that the amount required is about $1,379 per month. With inflation, this amount must now be higher. And what about the one-third who cannot even meet the Basic Retirement Sum? In conclusion, the affordability of the new flats, after subsidies and grants, comes at the expense of retirement savings. At worst, retirees are unable to meet basic expenses. At best, retirees suffer a lower standard of living after retirement. New HDB flats used to be even more affordable, under the previous generation of PAP leaders.”
“The Minister has said that they have ramped up the BTO supply to launch 23,000 flats each year in 2022 and 2023, and are prepared to launch up to 100,000 units in total over the five-year period, from 2021 to 2025 if needed. That is an average of 20,000 units per year from 2021 to 2025. This supply of flats pales in comparison to the past. Forty years ago, over the five-year period, from 1981 to 1985, HDB completed 189,000 units. That is an average of 37,900 units per year. Can the Minister explain why HDB is not supplying more flats when it is possible to do so? The Prime Minister said in his National Day Rally speech that "our problem is not finding the space to build enough flats". So, if land is not the constraint, what is causing us to be unable to build as fast as 40 years ago, despite technological advancements? As the saying goes, when there is a will, there is a way. Does the Government lack the political will to tackle the low TFR problem we are facing? Our low TFR has resulted in our over-reliance on foreign manpower, which has brought along a whole suite of other issues, like job competition, social friction and national identity. But I will not go into these issues today. Increasing the supply of new flats would not only shorten the waiting time for future applicants, enable them to get married and start a family earlier, it would also spur economic growth at a time when global growth is slowing. PSP therefore urges the Government to increase the supply of new flats in the immediate term. Next, let us look at affordability.”
“It has been evident for a while that the BTO approach is not meeting the needs of young Singaporeans. The Government's launch of a small number of flats with a Shorter Waiting Time (SWT) is recognition of this. From 2018 to 2022, between 1,000 and 2,900 units of such flats were supplied each year. This is a small proportion of the total supply of new flats. Under SWT, flats are constructed in advance before they are launched for booking. This is already a departure from the BTO approach. It is time to face up to the fact that the BTO approach is not satisfactory and to start to build for projected demand based on factors like marriage rate and new citizens growth rate. The Government has the means to forecast and project. This should not be a major challenge. There was a lesson in the past for over-building but that should not stop us from exploring options to be proactive. Former Minister Mah Bow Tan changed from the Registration for Flats system to a BTO system because the registration queue fluctuated widely in the wake of the 1997 Financial Crisis. We agree that a registration queue that required no commitment is an unreliable indicator. However, annual marriage and new citizen numbers are relatively stable. In the 10 years from 2012 to 2021, the number of resident marriages each year ranged from 24,000 to 26,000, except in 2020, the year that COVID-19 struck, when it dropped to 21,000. The number of new citizens each year is about 20,000. In addition, there is always a demand for rental flats to provide the buffer for any excess flats built. In the meantime, efforts need to be made to accelerate building to clear the current backlog and shorten the waiting times for current and future cohorts.”
“Mr Speaker, we are all familiar with the low total fertility rate (TFR) in Singapore. As Minister Indranee shared with us on 4 October 2022 in response to my Parliamentary Question (PQ), many couples continue to aspire to have their own home before they start a family. The affordability and accessibility of HDB flats therefore play a very important role in our TFR. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) contends that our current housing policies has delivered on either affordability or accessibility, but not both. New flats are affordable after grants and subsidies, but not accessible due to the long waiting time. Resale flats are accessible but not affordable due to high resale prices. This is the reality and predicament faced by young Singaporeans when they are looking at getting married and starting a family. Let us look at these issues one by one. First, the waiting time. The Ministry of National Development (MND) tracks waiting time by measuring time from the point of successful Build-To-Order (BTO) booking to the point of key collection. This waiting time does not include time spent on unsuccessful applications. But for young couples, the waiting time for HDB flats starts from their very first application, whether successful or not. There is some disparity in the concept of waiting time between the two groups. As MND does not track the time from first application to key collection, it makes it difficult to grasp how long couples have to wait from the time they decide to get married to each other to the time they get the keys to their first flat. All we have are anecdotes here and there, which build up the impression that our young people mostly feel that the waiting times for BTOs are too long.”
“One of the roles of a news media is to expose wrongdoing. In this case, we have SMT discovering its own wrongdoing but not breaking the news themselves. Did the Minister seek an explanation from SMT why they did not break the news themselves but instead waited for an online news media platform to break it; and then responded?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I had filed two Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on how the Government manages these two investment entities – GIC and Temasek. I do not believe they have been answered in the Minister's answer earlier. Firstly, when there are huge investment losses, does MOF demand internal and external investigations, just to make sure that there is no evidence of negligence or misconduct? Secondly, does MOF benchmark the performance of Temasek Holdings and GIC against other comparable funds, like other sovereign wealth funds? If so, which funds are these and how do they compare?”
“We will support a constitutional amendment, if it says that the definition of marriage is to be determined via national referendum.”
“Okay. As far as the vote for the constitutional amendment is concerned, we will be voting no, because of what I have explained earlier, that we would like the definition of marriage to be via referendum, rather than through Parliament.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to respond to Minister Masagos' comment earlier on PSP's position. I wish to clarify that our position on wanting the definition of marriage to be determined via a national referendum instead of Parliament is not a convenient way to avoid difficult decisions. A case in point would be the fact that we do have a position on section 377A which is also a difficult one. We are aware of the Government's position on what the criteria are for holding a referendum. It is just that we have a slightly different view on what are the issues that should go for a referendum. In this particular case on the issue of the definition of marriage, we feel that this is an issue that is important to many Singaporeans and there is a high level of interest from the public to have a say in this matter. And since it is an area that does not require any specialised knowledge – which would otherwise make it unsuitable for participation from members of the public – and actually, marriage, as many Members have pointed out, is a matter of social norm, we feel that this is an area that is suitable for the public to participate.”
“Recognising that no one single person can have his way all the time and that taking turns to compromise is part and parcel of democracy, it is a sign of maturity. The willingness to compromise is not a sign of weakness, but instead one of maturity, resilience and community spirit. Many Singaporeans are concerned about the effect such a repeal will have on the institution of marriage. PSP's position is that the definition of marriage should be decided via a national referendum rather than by Parliament. This will allow the many Singaporeans who have expressed concerns to have a say in this matter. The path towards political maturity is filled with gives-and-takes from all sides. PSP is confident that Singaporeans can do it and we will strive towards that direction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of whether 377A should be repealed has been a difficult one for Singapore. When I last spoke in Parliament on this issue at the query of Minister Shanmugam, I said that there were two different views within PSP and we had no consensus at that time, similar to the situation in our society at large. Whilst there is a big group that does not feel very strongly about this issue, there is also a significant group that holds very strong and opposing views, and they are not easily persuaded. We were of the view that any attempts to forcefully reach a single position at that point would be divisive. PSP believes that while we strive to establish common ground in core areas for unity, we also need to leave room for diverse viewpoints in other areas. Therefore, we believe that this is one issue where we should allow Members to hold on to their personal beliefs. Societal values evolve with time and laws evolve accordingly. Let society at large determine when is the right time to change this law. Since then, we have held more rounds of lengthy discussions in yet another attempt to seek common ground. We recognise the unfairness of 377A on the gay community, but we also recognise the fears of many on the subsequent effect on families and the difficulties they face in reconciling with their religious beliefs. Our concern is again whether this issue would damage social harmony in Singapore, which is something that we value. Eventually, recognising that 377A is unenforceable, some members were prepared to put aside their personal opinions and not pursue their objection to the repeal of 377A. With their compromise, PSP is now able to come to a party position of supporting the repeal of 377A. In any society, contentious issues will always arise.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I just want to make sure that I understood the Minister correctly. When he said that there will be no KPIs for family doctors and no clawback, because that would mean that essentially, if I recall correctly, the amount of money that will be paying in service fee is $400 million a year. Does that mean that we will be paying this $400 million a year, with no accountability?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I understand that the hon Member Xie Yao Quan sought a couple of clarifications from me. First, with regards to my suggestion of tax on unhealthy food, he asked for specifics. And also, the second part is whether imposing such a tax adheres to the spirit of the White Paper. As to the specifics of the tax, one specific example would be the sugar tax that exists in many countries and cities, including places like UK, France, India, Thailand, Malaysia and in certain cities in USA, it is is quite common. And a few months ago, a research that was funded by the World Health Organization came up with a report that examined the effect of this tax on the countries or regions that have in place this sugar tax. And it was found that it decreased demand for sugared drinks by 15%. So, it has been proven to be effective. As to whether imposing this text adheres to the spirit of the White Paper, I do believe so. In fact, I do not see any contradiction. So, if the Member disagrees, perhaps, he can share why he feels that it does not. And, in same spirit, I would also like to ask the Member whether he thinks that our current tax on tobacco and liquor adheres to the spirit of the White Paper and does he think that they ought to be removed.”
“I have heard anecdotes of how some people chose inpatient treatment for something that can be treated as an outpatient and at a lower cost, because the former can be paid via MediSave while the latter require cash outlay. Therefore, demand is skewed towards the more expensive inpatient treatment due to MediSave rules. In line with the efforts outlined in the White Paper to move our healthcare more towards preventive and primary healthcare, will MOH consider allowing MediSave to be used for all outpatient treatment? Secondly, healthier food tends to be more expensive than unhealthy food. Can we find ways to make healthy food less expensive compared to unhealthy food? One option to consider is a tax on unhealthy food that goes towards subsidising healthy ones.”
“Would there be any financial reasons for GPs or healthcare clusters to lean more towards one group? Next, I have some questions on the manpower requirements. What are the number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals now and projected in the next decade? How does MOH intend to reach those numbers? Would it be via an increase in enrolment in relevant courses at our universities, polytechnics and other training centres? If so, what is the planned enrolment for these courses in the next decade? How many is expected to be via recruitment from outside Singapore? And does MOH plan to change the terms and conditions of these healthcare professionals to attract and retain them? I also have some questions on chronic diseases. The White Paper showed that the rate of diabetes has fallen slightly, while that for obesity has risen slightly. However, the rate of high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol has risen sharply. Unbalanced diet and low level of physical activity were cited as reasons. These two reasons would, however, cause rises in all four categories. And since the magnitude of change is so different, could there be other contributing factors apart from diet and exercise? For example, would stress levels and poor work life balance be contributing factors? Can MOH also provide more details on what ways is our diet unbalanced? The White Paper also mentioned that the prevalence of chronic diseases have risen across many age groups including the young. Can MOH provide the prevalence rate with breakdown by age? Lastly, I have a couple of suggestions for the Minister to consider. I have raised this before and I will raise it again. MediSave can currently be used for hospitalisation and limited outpatient treatment.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the plans outlined in the White Paper to bring about healthier Singaporeans. I have a number of questions on the funding model and manpower requirements, which I hope the Minister can provide answers to. Firstly, on the funding model for healthcare. I welcome the change in funding model to incentivise efforts towards preventive and early intervention measures and better health outcomes. Since we are paying the GPs and regional health managers on a capita basis, and learning from the SportsHub experience, will there be provisions for clawback of fees paid or termination for non-performance? What are the KPIs for family doctors? I note from the White Paper that MOH is still in the process of working out the KPIs for the healthcare clusters. I would like to request for these to be presented to Parliament once they have been worked out, as they will be of much interest not only to the Members here, but also to members of the public. Apart from KPIs based on the performance of the healthcare clusters at the regional level, I hope to also see KPIs based on outcomes at the national level as well for the regional clusters. This will provide incentives for the regional clusters to cooperate with one another for a better outcome at the national level. After all, the outcome at the national level is of greater importance to us and the KPIs should reflect that. Apart from KPIs for the healthcare organisations, the performance appraisal and reward system of key personnel should also be revealed for the same reasons. For the service fees that the Government will be paying to GPs and healthcare clusters, will there be any difference between foreigners and locals?”
“But I note from the Senior Minister of State's speech earlier that he mentioned that this is for the purpose of certain Government departments being able to proactively approach companies that may qualify for certain Government financial assistance or other assistance programmes. I appreciate the good intention of this move but feel that it would be better if the Bill then specifies under what circumstances such disclosure without consent can take place, instead of leaving it open-ended, which then throws the gate open for disclosure without consent under any other circumstances. The 11th Schedule currently lists only company information and not information on individuals. However, clause 41 of the Bill allows the Minister to amend the 11th Schedule. This seems to suggest that the Minister will be able to add personal information into the 11th Schedule subsequently. If so, this would raise privacy concerns and is quite a major departure from what the current Bill contains. I have grave concerns about this power being vested in a single individual. Any such decision should be justified and debated in Parliament. I therefore suggest that instead of amending section 106(3), to insert instead section 106(4) to allow the Minister to amend the 11th Schedule subject to the barring of any individual information being included.”
“Mr Speaker, the Bill permits the Comptroller to disclose information with consent to public offices and private individuals engaged by the Government to assist public officers. These private individuals have to execute a declaration of secrecy and commit an offence if they were to disclose such information received. Can the Minister tell us what is the penalty involved for this offence? Would that be under section 94 of the Income Tax Act, which states that the penalty is a maximum $5,000 fine and in default, imprisonment not exceeding six months. Is this adequate for deterrence purposes? Under the PDPA, the penalty for unauthorised disclosure of personal data is a maximum $5,000 fine or imprisonment, not exceeding two years or both. This is more severe than the penalty under the Income Tax Act and yet, income information is something that most consider highly confidential and sensitive, more so than other personal data, like addresses, phone numbers and so on. Will the Minister review the penalty for unauthorised disclosure of income information? Secondly, what measures are in place to prevent individuals with access to confidential income information on individuals and companies from utilising that confidential information to benefit themselves or their companies financially? What penalties are in place for unauthorised utilisation of information? The financial gains for such unauthorised utilisation may outweigh a $5,000 fine. The Bill also permits the Comptroller to disclose information listed in the 11th Schedule without the person's consent. I had earlier intended to ask for an explanation of under what circumstances this would be required.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister mentioned earlier that they can already take action on individuals for non-compliance. Can the Minister elaborate on what kind of actions can be taken on these individuals? And which legislation is this power conferred under?”
“Can the Minister share with us how MOM came to the conclusion, that the Letter of Consent (LOC) for spouses is material and needle-moving, was it based on a survey of prospective candidates or advice from an international HR consultancy? And secondly, with this introduction of the ONE Pass, which separates the top talent from the other EP holders, it actually gives us flexibility to further adjust our EP criteria without affecting our ability to attract top talent. So, does MOM have plans to further tighten control of EP?”
“A third area that I wish to bring up is that of foreign spouses. We would like to see greater transparency in the criteria for residency for foreign spouses. With the implementation of COMPASS, we have moved towards a more transparent model for approval of work passes. A similar move towards transparency on residency criteria for foreign spouses would benefit our citizens worrying over how to ensure long-term residency for their foreign spouses and the recurrent cost of visit passes. There are many good plans in the White Paper. At the end of the day, we need to measure reality. What are the indicators that will be tracked to monitor if we are achieving the objectives stated in the White Paper and what are the targets set? Setting a target shows our commitment. For example, we can set a target for female representation on the Boards of Directors. Since Statutory Boards and IPCs can achieve about 30% female representation, it shows that 30% is a realistic target. Listed companies have a female board representation of under 20%. Will the Government commit to setting a target of 30% within three years? Another area that is very important to most women would be the sharing of parenting and caregiving responsibilities. Will the Government be tracking and setting a target for this as well as the utilisation rate of maternity and paternity leave?”
“An NUS study found that children are less likely to have behavioural issues and fathers experienced reduced conflict, stronger family relationships and increased satisfaction in their marriage. Another study found mothers get improved maternal postpartum-depression outcomes. However, not all fathers take paternity leave. In 2019, the take-up rate was only 55%. A key reason cited was work culture that does not support the taking of paternity leave. We should, therefore, look at incentives for employers to provide better work-life balance. Next, I will move on to financial support for caregivers. The Home Caregiving Grant is given to defray cost of caring for persons with disabilities who require assistance in performing three or more Activities of Daily Living. This grant is given regardless of whether the caregiver is a paid professional, foreign domestic helper or an unpaid family member. Therefore, it is more a financial support for the disabled person, rather than for the caregiver who may have had to give up a full-time job. The same applies to the Senior Mobility and Enabling Fund which subsidises the cost of mobility devices. Another measure that the Government is changing to improve the retirement adequacy of caregivers is to raise the CPF top-up tax relief cap from $7,000 to $8,000. Can MOM provide the number and percentage of caregivers who received CPF top-ups each year and what was the average amount of the top-up? Is this a measure we can rely on to ensure the retirement adequacy of caregivers? If not, would the Government consider a scheme where a portion of the monthly CPF contribution of the working spouse is transferred to the caregiving spouse? It is fair for a married couple who share the responsibilities of family and work to also share the rewards.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP welcomes the move to introduce workplace fairness legislation to offer protection against discrimination and harassment. In general, we support the plans outlined in the White Paper. There are a few areas we wish to add on. The participation rate of women in the labour force has been rising over the years. Women have taken on more economic responsibilities, but their share of caregiving and family responsibilities has not been decreasing correspondingly. It should not surprise anyone if this situation makes marriage and having children more daunting. As the White Paper correctly pointed out, mindsets on gender roles need to change. Our current parental leave structure reflects the old mindset that needs to change. Currently, maternity leave is 16 weeks, paternity leave, two weeks, and fathers can share up to four weeks of their wives’ maternity leave. With the mothers getting a much longer leave than fathers, it reinforces the idea that childcare is primarily the responsibility of mothers. This is inconsistent with our move to change mindsets on gender roles. I urge the Government to change it to equal shares by default, with flexibility to reallocate parental leave between the couple based on mutual agreement, subject to a minimum period for each parent. The default equal share of parental leave between the couple underlines the belief that parenthood is a responsibility that should be shared equally by both parents. Equal parental leave would also give less reason for employers to discriminate against female employees. Various studies have shown the beneficial effect of fathers taking paternity leave and taking on a bigger role in parenting.”
“As the Minister has pointed out, there are two different camps with different views on this particular issue. For us, within the Party itself, we also have people with different views. So, this is not an issue that we actually have a consensus on at this moment in time.”
“After one year of implementation, how has PLD affected the students’ learning? PSLE Benchmark for Full-time Madrasah”