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 7 of 8.
“As we learn from the experience, we can decide later whether the through-train programme should be extended to more schools. In Mandarin please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today, I wish to again urge MOE to consider implementing a pilot project of a through-train programme. Over the last 10 years. Members from different parties have urged the Government to scrap PSLE and allow parents and students to bypass PSLE. PSLE remains the most stressful examination for local parents and their children. Chronic stress from high-stakes examinations form a long-term negative stress that can impede the brain development of children and also affect children's esteem and mental health. Lately, tragic incidents have given us a wake-up call to pay more attention to the mental well-being of our students. A previous Education Minister has said that "removing the PSLE and having a through-train will only transfer the stress on parents and students elsewhere, such as at P1 registration". But if the through-train programme is implemented in a limited number of schools, while the mainstream is still on the PSLE system, this will not happen. This will at least give parents and students a choice. As we learn from the experience, we can then decide whether we should extend it to more schools. (In English): In 2020, MOE announced the introduction of student-initiated learning (SIL) in Secondary schools, Junior Colleges and MI. I would like to seek more information from MOE on this initiative. One, how many schools have implemented SIL? Two, if there are schools that have implemented SIL last year, how was it implemented and what was the outcome? PLD was also rolled out last year. Can MOE confirm that no students are without access to PLD due to financial reasons?”
“Mr Chairman, first of all, I declare that I run an education company operating education centres and a private school. Today, I wish to again urge MOE to consider implementing a pilot project of a 10-year through-train programme for Primary and Secondary school students, bypassing the PSLE. Members of Parliament across time and political parties – Ms Paulin Straughan, Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Yee Jenn Jong, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Ms Denise Phua and myself – have spoken up either for the scrapping of PSLE or a through-train pilot programme giving parents and students the option of bypassing PSLE. The PSLE remains the most stressful examination for local parents and students. Despite changes to the assessment, the PSLE stakes are high for parents, educators and students. Chronic stress from high-stakes examinations on young children is undesirable. Neuroscience tells us that long-term negative stress impedes the brain development of children. These are bad outcomes for their esteem and mental health. Lately, tragic incidents have given us a rude wake-up call to pay more attention to the mental well-being of our students. Over the years, efforts have been made to reduce stress on students by removing examinations at certain levels. However, the PSLE is the elephant in the room. A previous Education Minister has said that “removing the PSLE and having a through-train will only transfer the stress on parents and students elsewhere, such as at the P1 registration”. But if the through-train programme is implemented in a limited number of schools while the mainstream is still on the PSLE system, this would not happen. This would, at least, give parents and students a choice.”
“In order to encourage platform workers to make voluntary CPF contributions, will MOM consider a special scheme that allows them to withdraw their voluntary CPF contributions at any time? The income of platform workers is unstable. If they have the flexibility to withdraw their CPF in times of need, they may have less concerns. Meanwhile, they will also enjoy higher CPF interest, like other employees. My second suggestion is for MOM to consider requiring platform companies to contribute to the SDF, so as to provide additional training support to platform workers. Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) and a Four-day Work Week”
“I would also like to provide two suggestions. The lack of CPF savings is a major concern. To encourage platform workers to make voluntary CPF contributions, can MOM consider a special scheme to allow them to voluntarily contribute CPF and withdraw their voluntary contributions on demand? The income of gig workers is not stable. Due to this volatility, it is important to keep cash on hand. Gig workers are understandably hesitant about making voluntary CPF contributions over fears that when they need that money, they cannot access it. If, however, they have the flexibility to withdraw these contributions when needed, they would be incentivised to contribute CPF to benefit from the higher interest rates offered by CPFB, as salaried employees do. My second suggestion is on training. According to Grab, and I quote, "Around 70% of our partners have expressed interest in attending training and skills development programmes to improve in their current role, while two-thirds of our partners hope to leverage skills gained to transit into other career fields." Do platform companies have to pay SDF for their platform workers? If not, can MOM consider making platform companies contribute SDF and use these funds to give extra training support to platform workers? In Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] CPF is our main social safety net. It can be used for housing, healthcare, education and retirement. CPF inadequacy among platform workers is one area of concern. These gig workers or platform workers often engage in manual labour and usually have lower income. In addition, delivery and transport jobs may be replaced by machines in the near future. In this regard, I have two suggestions.”
“Mr Chairman, CPF is our main social safety net. It can be used for housing, healthcare education and retirement income. Self-employed persons do not have the benefit of employer CPF contributions. Their housing and retirement adequacy are areas of concern. About a third of the 228,000 self-employed persons (SEPs) work for platform companies that assigned delivery or transportation work to them. The UK Supreme Court decided to classify them as workers, a category between employees and self-employed, with some benefits like paid leave and pensions. These gig or platform workers often engage in physically strenuous work with low entry barriers and they also tend to earn less. The median monthly income of resident employees in 2018 was $4,000 for permanent employees, but only $1,322 for gig workers. Furthermore, delivery or transportation jobs have a high chance of being replaced by machines with advancements in technology in the not-too-distant future. Researchers in Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) warned of platform workers being caught in a poverty trap. The Advisory Committee on Platform Workers was set up six months ago, to look into better protection for platform workers. Can MOM provide an update on the progress of the committee and when we can expect the committee to make public its recommendations? 4.45 pm In addition, I would like to seek further information from MOM: what is the latest number of platform workers? What is their median age? How many are unable to meet the basic retirement sum (BRS) now? For those who are unable to meet the BRS, what is their average CPF savings? How many are making CPF contributions voluntarily? How many have recently completed or are currently attending SkillsFuture courses to upgrade their skills?”
“Yes. At the end of the lease, when it returns to the Government, will it again, you know, repeat?”
“Apart from the two questions that the Minister feels is not necessary to answer, I have a few other questions mentioned earlier. One of which is: what would be the corporate tax rate increase that would be necessary to raise the same amount of revenue as a 2% hike in GST? And also, what is the expected rate of GST in 2030? Finally, can I seek confirmation whether or not land will be repeatedly sold to HDB at prevailing land prices and also does the same apply to industrial land with respect to JTC?”
“This is because the revenue for each year is the accumulation of land sales over many years in the past and the latest year's land sale would have a small impact on the revenue. For example, suppose Year 10 is a recessionary year and land sale is only $50 instead of $100, then revenue generated from the land sale in Year 10 is $2.50 instead of $5. However, revenue from previous years' land sales remains unchanged so that the total revenue for the year is $47.5 instead of $50. A 50% drop in land sale proceeds results in only a 5% drop in revenue because it is cushioned by the land sales in earlier years. Conversely, any attempt to sell more land in any particular year would also have limited impact on the revenue for the year since it is spread out over many years. It is, therefore, a rather stable revenue stream. Lastly, can I seek confirmation from the Finance Minister that under the current arrangement of HDB buying land from SLA, that the same piece of land acquired at low cost by the Government in the past will be sold repeatedly to HDB at the prevailing land price? By "repeatedly", I mean when the lease ends. And does the same apply to JTC with respect to industrial land? Other Tax Alternatives”
“Mr Chairman, I echo the call by the Workers' Party to exempt basic essentials from GST. To prevent the rich from also benefiting from such exemptions, we can set the price threshold. NTUC FairPrice house-brand rice sells for $1.40 per kilogram. We can, therefore, exempt rice that sells for, say, under $2 per kilogram from GST. This way, we prevent luxury goods from being included in the exemption. The Finance Minister said that additional cost would be incurred for having multi-tiered GST. Can the Finance Minister let us know how much cost is involved here? If we believe that, in principle, basic necessities should be exempted to help the lower-income households, then, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said two days ago when talking about the Ukraine war, we must be prepared to pay the cost for what we believe in. Also, what does the Finance Minister expect the GST rate to be in 2030? Can the Finance Minister also share with us how much the effective corporate tax rate would have to be raised by to generate the same revenue as a 2% hike in GST? The Finance Minister said earlier in his round-up speech that my example on land sales is simplistic because land sales will not stay stagnant every year. I wish to clarify that this is only an assumption made for the purpose of simplifying the illustration of the revenue stream. Varying land sales each year would result in a varying revenue stream but would, in no way, invalidate the model. I am sure the Finance Minister is able to extrapolate from that illustration what are the variations that would result from a varying land sale. Singapore will not be pressured to sell more land in order to generate more revenue in bad times.”
“Just now, the Minister for Finance responded to my question about the Budget cut. I did not just ask about the 1% cut, which is meant to start next year but also the 2% Budget cut that was supposed to have been implemented from FY2017. Can I take it that the same reason applies? That it was not really a cut but was reallocated to new initiatives and that therefore this is a reallocation, not strictly a Budget cut? Do the new initiatives, therefore, include subsidies to F1 as well as the transfer to SPH Media Trust?”
“While the land was most probably acquired under the Land Acquisition Act back in the 1960s to 1980s at low prices in the name of national development, the transaction between HDB and SLA is made based on current land prices. In other words, even though Government had acquired the land at low prices using tax revenue in the past, taxpayers have to now pay for that land again at current prices. This state of affair does not seem reasonable to us and further strengthens the point that land sale proceeds ought to be treated as revenue over the lease period. In conclusion, PSP objects to the GST hike. We do not currently need the revenue and when we do, we have other revenue sources and we should cut expenditure first.”
“This is how most individuals and businesses deal with cost increases Finance Minister Lawrence Wong shared that since FY2017 the budgets of all Ministries have been cut by 2% and, from FY2023, a further 1% cut will be implemented. However, a look at the actual Government expenditures from FY2017 to FY2019 showed them to be higher than the figures in FY2016. Can the Finance Minister explain how this is a budget cut? From FY2022 to FY2028, the Government is subsidising the F1 race to the tune of over $80 million per year and that works out to be over $560 million. If the race brings economic benefits, should the private sector not be paying for it? Why do we need to raise revenue to subsidise F1? Another dubious expenditure is the $900 million payment to SPH Media Trust over five years. If SPH had not been restructured, the losses from its news operations could have been covered by the profits from its property operations. With the restructuring, taxpayers end up with a $900 million bill! These are instances where we feel that our tax revenue is not being used judiciously. We disagree with such voluntary wealth transfers from the Government to commercial entities. They result in the costs being paid by taxpayers and the commercial benefits kept by the commercial entities. Each year, HDB pays about $3 billion to $4 billion to SLA for purchase of land. This internal transfer amongst different parts of the Government is treated as an expenditure on one end, but not as revenue on the other end. This means that we need to raise tax revenue to fund this transfer of land from SLA to HDB.”
“Thank you. PSP proposes that land sale proceeds be taken as revenue over the period of the lease. In other words, if a piece of land is sold on a 99-year lease, then the sale proceeds should be taken as revenue spread over 99 years. Take for example industrial land sold on a 20-year lease. Suppose the sale proceeds were treated as revenue over 20 years, then each year, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds for the next 20 years. In year 1, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1. In year 2, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 2. In year 3, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 2 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 3. For the sake of simplicity in illustration, if we were to assume that land sale proceeds remain constant over the next 20 years, by year 20, the revenue amount would be equivalent to 100% of the land sale proceeds for that year. This is illustrated in the form of a table in the handout. The same principle applies to land sold on 30- or 99-year leases. The revenue stream is cumulative and builds up to a significant amount. PSP, therefore, contends that treating land sale proceeds as revenue over the term of the lease does not compromise on financial prudence and is also a significant revenue stream. Thirdly, we need to look into cutting expenditure. We should not have this thinking that when cost increase, we just increase revenue to pay for it. If expenditure increases in one area, let us first look for ways to cut costs in other areas.”
“Today, PSP would like to suggest an alternative way of treating land sale proceeds. Currently, the Government typically sells industrial land on 20- or 30-year leases, and residential land on 99-year leases. After the requisite number of years, the land returns to Government and it can be sold again. The land sale proceeds are, therefore, more akin to rental income over the length of the lease. In Budget 2018, Workers' Party suggested that up to 20% of land sale proceeds be used as revenue. Then Finance Minister Heng said, with reference to land sold on 99-year lease, that, I quote, "If you are rigorous about it, you really ought to be spending no more than 1% of that land sale proceeds". This statement, while true, paints an incomplete picture and is, therefore, misleading. It does not address what happens over time. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout illustrating the revenue stream over time?”
“Instead of raising GST for additional revenue, we should look at raising corporate and personal income taxes. We are happy to note that the personal income tax rate for the highest tax brackets will be raised, but we believe there is room for more. While our corporate tax rate is 17%, there are tax incentives that lower the effective tax rate of many companies. Even if we were to raise our corporate tax rate to 20%, it would still be low compared to the region. The pandemic has affected different sectors differently. Some sectors suffered, others weathered it better, while some sectors actually benefited from the pandemic. Corporate tax is applied only on profitable companies and hence is a more discerning way of raising revenue. Loss making companies will not be affected by an increase in corporate tax rate but some will be hit with increased cost due to a GST hike. Moreover, many companies have benefited from the generous COVID-19 packages offered by the Government, including companies that remained profitable throughout the pandemic. It is only fair that they now pay a higher corporate tax. This is simple give-and-take. Next, I will talk about land sale proceeds. Currently, land sale proceeds are not treated as revenue, but are put into reserves. The Government considers this just a change in the form of the asset – from land to money – not an income. If the land is sold on a freehold basis – once sold forever gone – then I would agree that this approach makes sense. However, it would be a different matter if land is sold on a leasehold basis. The issue of using land sale proceeds as revenue is not new. My colleague Mr Leong also mentioned this yesterday, but we are aware of the Government’s long-standing position on this matter.”
“The fact that the Government is giving out rebates in excess of the expected additional GST to be collected over the next few years underlines the fact that we currently do not need the additional revenue now. If raising GST is to fund the additional healthcare and other social spending in future, how much would we have to raise GST by? The Finance Minister has shared that healthcare spending could increase from $11 billion in 2019 to $27 billion in 2030 based on current trend. So, does this mean that we would have to raise GST by 11% just to fund the additional healthcare spending? Are we looking at 18% to 20% GST by 2030? This is an alarming prospect which brings us to our second point: we need to look at other ways of raising revenue. GST was introduced to enable Singapore to cut corporate income tax and personal income tax rates to make Singapore a more attractive investment destination. GST started at 3% in 1994 and gradually increased to the current 7%. Over the same period, corporate income tax rate was gradually cut from 27% to 17% and personal income tax rate was gradually cut from 30% to 20%, before being raised to 22% in 2016. This tax development benefited the rich more than the poor and middle class. With the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative, not only will we lose tax revenue, using low corporate tax as a tool to attract investment will also become less effective. It is, therefore, time to review our previous approach of raising GST to cut corporate and personal income taxes. Income taxes are progressive while GST is regressive. The pandemic has also worsened inequality by hitting the poor more than the rich. In light of new tax developments and the current environment, we should reverse our earlier moves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many measures announced in this year's Budget Statement that we welcome. We welcome the further tightening of foreign manpower, the increased focus on re-distribution through the introduction of higher income tax rates at the top tiers and higher taxes on properties and luxury cars. We think that more can be done but are happy with the direction we are taking. However, we object to the raising of GST. Firstly, this is a bad time to be raising GST, and we do not need the revenue now. Singaporeans are concerned about the rising cost of living. Additional worries are on the horizon over the inflation outlook. The Federal Reserve Chairman and the European Central Bank's President articulated their expectations of high inflation this year. Oil prices rose by 50% in 2021 and the war in Ukraine is likely to worsen the picture. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food prices rose by 28% in 2021 and in December 2021, fertiliser prices rose to more than double the price from a year ago. This is expected to put further inflationary pressure on food prices. Closer at home, MAS has revised their inflation expectations upwards. Bus, train and taxi fares have been raised. Electricity tariffs has been rising steadily every quarter since the first quarter of 2021. The GST hikes will further exacerbate inflationary pressure. While for the time being, the rebates given out is more than the expected additional GST to be collected, it is only a matter of time before most Singaporeans have to pay more in GST; for that is the whole purpose of raising GST – to raise additional revenue.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Ministers and the Ministries for the efforts that they have put in and continue to put in to prevent future scams. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, is MAS considering the contingency reimbursement model in the UK where banks reimburse scam victims which started on a voluntary basis but there are now plans to legislate it? The second supplementary question: in working out the shared responsibility between banks and their customers, would MAS consider putting the onus more on the banks on the basis that: one, the banks are more tech-savvy and scam-savvy than the average bank customer and they have better resources to keep up-to-date with the latest tactics; two, it provides additional incentives on the banks to adopt a pre-emptive approach, for example, to consider the scam potential before pushing out new procedures or facilities; and thirdly, it is probably more cost-effective to focus on scam prevention efforts from the ends of a few banks rather than public education on a whole wide range of bank customers?”
“I think it is quite hypothetical using the 1% on the 48,000 —”
“I have explained earlier in my speech why we cannot apply the two-thirds ICU statistics to the current situation because of the changing vaccination rate. The data in 2021 is based on a case where, for the first half of 2021, more than 50% of the population was unvaccinated. Therefore, it is not reasonable to apply those statistics to the current small number of unvaccinated. So, I presume that in implementing this strong measure which risks 48,000 livelihoods, MOH must have done studies on what is the impact, specifically on the number of expected job loss versus the additional burden on the hospital ICU utilisation. Can the Parliamentary Secretary provide us with the statistics for this?”
“We urge the Government to rescind the ban on the unvaccinated returning to their workplace from 15 January and continue with the current arrangement of using testing as the means to control the spread of COVID-19. Vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) on children. The vaccination of children aged five to 11 started in December last year, with only the mRNA option. There are differing schools of thought on COVID-19 vaccinations and even more so for the vaccination of children, with several medical doctors publicly opposing it. The unanswered question on the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines is even more relevant for children who have another 70 to 80 years ahead of them. Parents are, understandably, uncertain and anxious. Making the decision on behalf of their children is more stressful than making decisions for themselves. Heavy on their minds is whether VDS will be imposed on their children. In light of the fact that COVID-19 is milder in children, can the Government commit to not imposing VDS on children for at least another year to give parents more time to digest new information, monitor developments and perhaps wait for more vaccination options to become available? At this point in time, is the Government able to give an indicative timeline for the assessment of inactivated virus vaccines, like Sinovac, for children and the required conditions for approval? This information will be helpful for parents making their decisions on the vaccination of their children. In conclusion, we urge the Government to rescind the ban on the unvaccinated returning to the workplace from 15 January and commit to not imposing VDS on children for at least another 12 months.”
“Focusing on the 52,000 unvaccinated employees, I do not have the information that will allow me to get a good estimate of the expected number that will fall seriously ill. For example, the age breakdown of the unvaccinated is a key piece of information. However, as a ballpark figure would help form a clearer picture by indicating the order of magnitude, I have used whatever limited information I can find to arrive at a rough estimate. Assuming the number of daily cases to be 800 out of a population of 5.5 million, applying that proportion to the 52,000 unvaccinated employees gives us 7.6 cases. MOH's COVID-19 statistics from 1 May to 15 December 2021 showed that, amongst the unvaccinated, the percentage of COVID-19 cases requiring ICU ranged from 0.051% to 0.53% for those aged 20 to 49, 2.4% for those aged 50 to 59 and 7.2% for those aged 60 to 69. The 52,000 unvaccinated employees are working age. So, assuming that most of them are below the age of 60, I used the ICU rate of 2.4%, which is the highest rate amongst those under 60. Applying the rate of 2.4% on the 7.6 cases gives us 0.18 case requiring ICU per day. If the number of cases were to double to 1,600 per day, that would give us 0.36 cases requiring ICU. If the number of daily cases reaches 3,000, that would give us 0.68 ICU cases, bearing in mind that Omicron is expected to be more infectious but less severe, as shared by Minister for Health earlier today. I would be happy to receive more accurate figures from MOH. However, based on what I currently see, there does not appear to be any basis to fear that allowing the unvaccinated to return to the workplace would overwhelm our ICU facilities.”
“Has the Government studied the impact on these 52,000 unvaccinated employees and an unknown number of unvaccinated SEPs before making its decision? They are not mere statistics; they have elderly parents, they have children. For those who lose their current jobs because they are unvaccinated, what is the likelihood of them finding another? Measures that threatened livelihoods should never be taken lightly. They may become marginalised if they are unable to regain employment. The prospect of an impending GST hike does not help matters. Throughout the pandemic, the Government has taken great pains to keep our borders and our economy open, even at the risk of importing COVID-19 cases. For the sake of economic gains, the Government has chosen to manage the health risk. Please now extend the same consideration to the unvaccinated, recognise the importance to them of keeping their livelihood and allow them to manage their health risk. What is the risk of overwhelming our healthcare system by allowing the 52,000 unvaccinated employees to return to their workplace? Earlier today, the Minister for Health shared that the unvaccinated comprise two-thirds of the ICU cases. This is presumably based on a period of time when our vaccination rate was lower and the proportion of unvaccinated people in the population higher. Based on MOH's statistics, our vaccination rate reached 50% on 18 July 2021. Therefore, for the bigger part of 2021, more than half of our population was unvaccinated. While it is undeniable that the unvaccinated are more prone to serious cases, attributing the high number of unvaccinated cases of ICU or death in 2021 to the current small number of unvaccinated is misleading. These are not ratios we can use to project into the future.”
“The same principle should apply to non-criminal actions as well. The consequences that we seek to impose should fit the action. In making the choice between the risk of COVID-19 infection and the risk of adverse effects of vaccination and, where the risk falls primarily on themselves, is the loss of livelihood a befitting penalty? This ban on the unvaccinated returning to their workplace and, thus, risking their livelihoods, is too harsh. Even though the Government has asserted that every effort will be made to enable them to work from home, this is not always practical for every job affected. The new measure is essentially “licence to terminate”. And what is the expected benefit of imposing such a strong measure? Even without this latest measure, on 5 December 2021, we achieved a vaccination rate of 96% of the eligible population then. With the threat of loss of livelihood, will we achieve 97%, 99%? Will the number of daily COVID-19 cases drop from 840 to 830? Government policies are made based on macro considerations and statistics designed to benefit the majority. Just as there are exceptions to every rule, there will always be a small group which would be adversely affected. While it is understandable that Government policies cannot possibly cater to every single individual, we can, at least, recognise the existence of exceptions and leave room for them. Do not put them between a rock and a hard place. The Government has revealed that there are 52,000 unvaccinated employees. What is the number of unvaccinated self-employed persons or gig workers? What is the breakdown by age and industry? How many of them are expected to lose their jobs?”
“I understand that the Government is concerned about the health of the 52,000 unvaccinated employees. But I also believe that these 52,000 people are, at least, as concerned about their own health and safety as the Government is, if not more so. They must have strong reasons, based on their own individual circumstances and personal medical history, for sticking to their decision not to vaccinate, despite the VDS measures that had been progressively put in place, placing various restrictions on their movements and activities. To them, the risk, or cost, of vaccination must have been significant. This latest measure that threatens their livelihood would just place them between a rock and a hard place. There are many legitimate questions on the vaccines that are as yet unanswered. For example, what are the long-term effects? What are the effects of repeated jabs administered every six months? Harbouring doubts about vaccination is not unreasonable. When faced with a situation that is relatively new and where there are many gaps in our knowledge and information, it is always a good idea to keep an open mind, treat current knowledge with caution and not be too absolute in our measures because new knowledge could emerge later to prove us wrong. A good example would be the Government's stand on masks in the initial stage of the pandemic. Let us learn from that experience. Japan has a policy of no discrimination against the unvaccinated and they achieved a vaccination rate of 79% of their population versus our 87%. So, yes, our VDS probably pushed up our vaccination rate by a few percentage points, but there is the question of degree and the law of diminishing returns. It is often said that punishment must fit the crime.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, my family and I are fully vaccinated and not affected by the Vaccination-differentiated Safe Management Measures, or VDS. However, I watch with concern the latest VDS measures. With effect from 15 January, the unvaccinated will not be allowed to go back to their workplace even if they tested negative. I am particularly disturbed by this latest measure that puts the livelihoods of the unvaccinated at risk. Many Singaporeans are similarly concerned and anxious. Former Singaporean tennis player, Jaime Wong, started a petition on this issue on 1 January 2022. She was a national tennis champion and represented Singapore in many international competitions, including SEA Games and the International Tennis Federation Fed Cup. In her petition, she shared that, with effect from 15 January, she would no longer be able to continue her profession as a tennis coach nor enter the tennis school that she started because she is unvaccinated. This petition has garnered over 6,000 signatures. It is heartening to note that amongst them are fully vaccinated Singaporeans acting out of concern for the livelihoods of the unvaccinated. We aspire to be an inclusive society. This means that we need to accept differences, not just differences in race, language, religion or culture but also differences in opinions and views. We need to respect decisions that may be different from ours. What is the justification for preventing the unvaccinated from returning to their workplace? It is not for fear of infecting others, because vaccination does not stop the transmission of COVID-19. The risk is, therefore, mainly to themselves, not others. They bear the brunt of their decision not to be vaccinated.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just now, Ms Sim Ann mentioned that the exchange between me and the Minister for Manpower had worried her because we seemed to be talking about whether some Singaporeans are local-born or not. I would like to clarify that the term "local-born Singaporean" was not said by me. It was the Minister for Manpower who had given the statistics, and more than once. In her ensuing speech, Ms Sim Ann has expressed disdain for this attitude. I would like to ask if she was directing this at the Minister for Manpower?”
“Maybe let me just clarify. The majority of the job increase or majority of the PME jobs are held by those born and bred in Singapore?”
“Yes, but the PRs become citizens. So, there is a drop in the PRs and then the new foreigners go in to fill up the PR numbers. So, as a whole, the number of citizens plus PRs actually increases. That base increases, and, therefore, leading to an increase in the number of local PME jobs purely due to reclassification, not job creation. That is my point. I am not really even making a difference between citizens and PRs. I am just talking about local citizens plus PR.”
“Okay, I have mentioned this in my speech earlier. So, let us say, for example, you have 1,000 PME jobs held by foreigners. And when these foreigners become PRs, because of the change in status, these 1,000 jobs are now classified under local PMEs —”
“Actually, my intention is just to net off the effect of that job increase which is due to reclassification so that we get a better idea what really is the number of new jobs created.”
“Okay, you are unable to give a number? Just majority?”
“Okay, I would like to clarify that my intention is not to separate between those who are born in Singapore and those who are naturalised, but merely to understand which are really jobs created and which are really just, due to technicalities, they result in an increase in job but is actually not a real increase; it is just that the job holder's status is reclassified.”
“Okay. The Minister is still quoting 300,000 increase in local PME jobs, but you have not quite answered my question whether those figures include changes resulting from reclassification, as I have mentioned in my speech earlier. To clarify on my PQs asking for data that is already published, when I communicated with the Parliament Staff, I made it clear that I wanted to compare with some of the statistics that the Government has released; sometimes, as PMETs, sometimes as PMEs. So, I said that they could either tell us which are the finer classifications that come under PMEs or PMETs or, alternatively, give me the total number of PMETs and PMEs because what is published goes into finer classifications.”
“Firstly, the charts that have been displayed on the screen over at our location, we cannot see it, any of it. So, can I request for it to be made available to us in a different form?”
“There are other quotes we can delve into if we wish to discuss this matter further but we would rather not open up old wounds and prefer to look forward and engage in a constructive debate on how to make things better. It is an area that deserves attention and a fuller discussion in the right spirit, one which is empathetic and cooperative, not adversarial. Minister Lawrence Wong gave an example of an Indian Singaporean who feels that debating about CECA is affecting his job search. I would like to emphasise that PSP is pushing for a tighter control on foreign manpower. If foreign manpower is tightened, he will find his employment prospects much improved. I am an employer myself and I have been reading resumes for 20 years. Recently, I have seen the trend of Singapore Citizenship status gaining greater prominence in resumes, not just in the resumes of Indian Singaporeans but also Chinese Singaporeans and Malay Singaporeans. If more Singaporeans feel that their citizenship improves their job chances, is that not a good development?”
“As the saying goes, what gets measured gets done. Make it concrete. Make the percentage of Singaporean workers into a Government key performance indicator (KPI). I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the points that were raised earlier by Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister K Shanmugam. On the issue of spreading misinformation about CECA, from what has been said, it seems that attempts to spread misinformation hinge on the use of words like "free flow of labour". I would like to point out that both George Yeo, a former Cabinet Minister, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have used similar words in 2006 and 2005 respectively. On 29 June 2005, at the dinner after the signing of CECA, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, "As economic linkages expand and a free flow of people and ideas continues, I am confident that the relationship will grow from strength to strength." Mr George Yeo, on 2 March 2006, during the Committee of Supply, said, "Professionals like doctors, accountants and engineers are able to move back and forth freely, operating within the same legal and regulatory framework." Does this imply that they are also making attempts to misrepresent CECA? For most laypeople, such words are not taken so literally but merely seeks to imply easy access rather than the total absence of criteria. This focus on semantics and technicalities instead of the underlying causes is rather disappointing. We also object to the implication that discussions on free trade agreements stir up racism and xenophobia. In our opinion, asserting that Singaporeans are not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister does greater damage to our decades of efforts to eradicate racism.”
“Those who fail the standards can have their licence taken away. We can similarly license HRMs and task them to ensure compliance with manpower policies in their companies. Large employers should be required to hire licensed human resource managers who will have personal responsibilities to ensure full compliance with Government manpower regulations and, those who do not, risk penalties, which can include losing their licence. A high turnover of HRMs will also be a tell-tale sign of trouble. In conclusion, we agree that maintaining an open economy and taking in manpower from other countries are beneficial. The issue is one of degree. To what extent do we take in foreign manpower? At what point does it become an overdose? We are not asking for a closed economy or a closed labour market but a reduction in our reliance on foreign manpower to a lower level and keeping a close eye on wage growth while we adjust the level of foreign participation in our labour force. It would also be a good time to reiterate that Ministerial Salaries should be pegged to the median wage. Increasing labour supply leads to GDP growth, which increases Ministerial Salaries. However, the same labour supply increase depresses median wage growth. Our current model can lead to a divergence in the movement of the salaries of political leaders and those of average Singaporeans. This is not a good basis on which to build trust. On the other hand, if Ministerial Salaries are pegged to the median wage, it sends convincingly the message that the political leaders and Singaporeans at large are on the same boat, more so than any words can. Today, representatives from various parties talk about the importance of a Singaporean Core. Let us not stop at lip service.”
“He is aggrieved that while he does the right thing to employ Singaporeans wherever possible and to report to authorities actual salaries paid, his competitors would use such tactics to lower their costs, and therefore, offer much lower prices to win tenders, with salary being a huge proportion of the cost for projects. Organisations calling for tenders do not have incentives nor reasons to care whether or not such practices are going on in the company winning the tender. While we are trying to build a Singaporean Core in companies, should we not strengthen our policing of such practices? It would be ironic if companies that break the rules are rewarded over law-abiding ones. The increasingly common practice of subcontracting can also dilute the effectiveness of enforcement. Separate companies can be set up to take over certain business functions and "take the fall" should they be discovered to have violated any manpower policies and regulations. There are also various other ways of circumventing the rules, for example, the use of phantom employees to meet quota requirements. We would, therefore, like to suggest two ways of strengthening enforcement. Firstly, we propose that for large contracts or tenders, a certain level of duty of care be imposed on the purchasing company. For example, to include audit requirements on successful tenderers to ensure compliance with manpower policies. This will provide incentives for companies to comply and also make evasion via subcontracting more difficult. Secondly, we suggest the Government explore the licensing of human resource managers (HRMs). Currently, we license certain professions, for example, doctors, lawyers and real estate agents, amongst others. We impose on them certain standards of service and code of conduct.”
“The Government had previously indicated that it is aiming to limit the proportion of foreign manpower in our labour force to one third. Is that still the target this Government is holding to? With this target in mind, does the Government turn down FDIs that would require a higher proportion of foreigners? How is this target put into effect? My colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has spoken extensively on manpower policies and proposals. I will now touch on another area of concern and that is enforcement. There is a Chinese saying, "上有政策、下有对策", which, translated, means that while the government has policies, those who are governed have ways to deal with it or have counter measures. There have been several widely publicised cases of underpayment by employers. This is when employers make inflated claims of staff salaries to MOM or staff are paid full salaries but told to return a portion to the company in cash. This practice effectively circumvents minimum salary requirements for S Passes and EPs. The reality is that this practice has been going on for years. Mainly, because money is returned in cash, it is difficult to trace unless a thorough investigation is conducted or the employee reports the matter to MOM. Recent calls by a Labour Member of Parliament and a Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) Member of Parliament asking for greater teeth to be given to TAFEP for enforcement are also an indication that the current level of enforcement is not meeting our needs. Recently, a business executive who is tendering for various projects highlighted to me that this practice has created an uneven playing field.”
“Economic theory tells us that when supply of labour increases, all else being equal, the price of labour, or wages, in other words, decreases. There are, of course, other factors affecting wages, with the supply of labour being one factor. But looking at the labour force growth and the real wage growth from 2009 to 2019, we see that in years of higher labour force growth, we tend to have lower real wage growth and vice versa. When labour force growth is lower, real wage growth is higher. The handout contains a scatter diagram showing the correlation and the regression line between labour force growth in Singapore and the real wage growth. The regression line is negatively sloped, which means that these two move in opposite directions. In other words, when labour supply growth goes up, real wage growth goes down. As we pursue economic growth, we should always bear in mind that economic growth is a means, not an end. A means to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Increasing labour supply by bringing in migrant workers increases economic growth but dampens local wages, a trend that we observed in our study using statistics from 2009 to 2019. We would like to ask the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has studied the effects of how labour force growth depresses real wage growth and, if so, what is their conclusion. If our priority is economic growth, then, indeed, we should welcome all foreign direct investments, or FDIs, even if they should require a huge influx of foreign manpower. But if our priority is wage growth, then we would be more selective and focused in bringing in FDIs that benefit primarily the local workforce and does not require a high proportion of foreign manpower. Trading economic growth for wage growth is a worthwhile exchange.”
“Singaporeans who were displaced from their jobs may subsequently find employment that do not commensurate with their qualifications, skills or experience. Given that this concern has been raised for many years, have we made any attempts to measure underemployment? Does the labour survey contain questions to identify and measure underemployment, apart from hours of work? If not, why not? If so, can MOM share the information on the extent and trend of underemployment in Singapore in the last 20 years? With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout on a comparison of our labour force growth versus median wage growth?”
“My colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has raised doubts over claims that our foreign manpower policies have created more jobs for locals and queried this number. Allow me to elaborate. A portion of the 380,000 jobs could be due to reclassification, a result of Permanent Residents (PRs) becoming citizens and foreigners becoming PRs. For example, suppose 1,000 foreigners holding PME jobs applied for and became PRs. Then, these 1,000 jobs previously classified as foreign PME jobs became local PME jobs when they became PR. There is no increase in jobs but there is an increase of 1,000 local PME jobs and a decrease of 1,000 foreign PME jobs. Each year, we have about 20,000 new citizens on average. Over 15 years, that is an increase of about 300,000. The number of PRs has been stable in recent years. So, the total number of residents, comprising both citizens and PRs have increased by about 300,000. While not all the 300,000 increase in citizens and PRs are holding PME jobs, it still suggests that a significant portion of the 380,000 increase in local PME jobs could have come from a change in the status of the job holders and not due to the creation of new jobs. Can MOM clarify whether the changes arising from the change in the status of the job holder is included in the 380,000? If so, how many new local PME jobs were created after netting off the effect of reclassification? As for the point on foreign labour providing a buffer for job losses in an economic downturn, our foreign workforce is large enough that even if we were to cut the foreign workforce significantly, the same buffer would still exist. In addition, what is not addressed is underemployment, an area my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has spoken on earlier.”
“The agreement imposes an obligation to grant work permissions to nationals from the first country, provided our manpower policy requirements are met, but no such obligations exist with respect to nationals from the latter country. So, the agreement forms the first gate and our manpower policies form the second gate. To address the concerns of Singaporeans, we need to go beyond CECA to our foreign manpower policies in general. Currently, quotas are imposed on Work Permits and S Passes. There is no quota for Employment Passes which are for jobs with a minimum salary of $4,500 and, in the case of the finance industry, $5,000. If we impose only a minimum salary requirement and open up all jobs beyond that salary to fair competition globally, then, when our small population competes fairly with the huge global population for those jobs, mathematically speaking, we can expect a significant proportion of the jobs to go to foreigners. As the world becomes more integrated, it will only get more so. So, while fair competition sounds ideal, it is neither tenable nor practical. This is especially so when many other developed countries impose a tighter level of control on foreign manpower, making it an unlevel playing field for Singaporeans competing for jobs globally. It is our view that tighter controls on foreign manpower are necessary. The Government maintained that by opening up to global labour supply, we bring in more jobs for Singaporeans and that the foreign workforce provides a buffer for job losses for locals in times of an economic downturn, as in the recent pandemic. The Minister has said that local PME jobs have increased by 380,000.”
“What then is the basis for claiming that the growth rate in Singapore is a reflection of global trend? Can the Minister provide examples of other countries that experienced similar growth to Singapore's? Singaporeans who experienced such changes in their daily lives naturally searched for answers, thus, putting CECA in the spotlight for it seems to offer an explanation. The Ministers have explained that the clauses on manpower are still subject to our manpower policies and also pointed out that Japan and South Korea have similar agreements with India. Japan and South Korea have natural barriers in the form of language, thereby making them less accessible as compared to Singapore. Other English-speaking countries are presumably more cautious about signing such an agreement. We are all familiar with the effect of messaging in a commercial context. Two identical products, one with a good advertising campaign with a strong message and another with a weak message can have very different sales outcomes. The same applies to other areas of life as well. A strong message is a powerful tool. This clause on the movement of 127 professionals in an agreement signed by the governments of two countries sends a strong message of welcome to Indian professionals. To ignore this effect and conclude that the presence or absence of this clause does not change anything since it is still subject to our manpower policies and criteria is being blinded to reality by technicalities. Consider two different countries, one with whom we signed an agreement on the movement of labour and another without.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, of all the FTAs that we have signed with other countries, the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, or CECA, has attracted the most attention for two reasons. Firstly, it contains a clause in article 9.5 granting entry to persons in 127 professions, which is not found in the other FTAs that Singapore signs with other countries. Secondly, there was a rapid increase in the number of EP holders from India working in Singapore in the past 15 years. The Minister for Manpower has revealed that the proportion of EP holders from India has increased from one in seven in 2005, to a quarter in 2020. Based on 65,000 EP holders in 2005 and 177,000 EP holders in 2020, we can calculate that the number of EP holders from India increased by 377% from 2005 to 2020, an average growth rate of 11% per year. In comparison, the proportion of EP holders from China has remained stable, therefore, implying that the number of EP holders from China grew in tandem with the increase in the total number of EP holders, that is, an increase of 172% from 2005 to 2020 or an average growth rate of 7% per year. The Minister explained that the increase in migrant workers from India is a global trend. Based on the figures provided in the Ministerial Statement, the number of international migrants from India increased from 10 million in 2000 to 18 million in 2020 or an average growth rate of 3% per year. If we assume a stable growth rate, then, for comparison purposes, the global growth of migrants from India over the period 2005 to 2020 would be 55%. The growth of 377% in Singapore far outstrips the global trend. To summarise, the percentage growth of EP holders from India to Singapore is nearly seven times that of the global trend.”
“Sir, some of these points that Minister Shanmugam has raised are in my speech. Can I suggest that we leave it here for now and we can discuss again after —”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like to point out that I have listened to his reply, but I still did not get the answer to my question, which was: how many Singaporeans earning less than $1,400 would not be covered by this scheme? On top of that, I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, would employers who wish to employ foreigners no longer be able to employ part-timers at under $1,400? Would this spell the end of part-time employment? Last question: the Senior Minister of State mentioned that over the years 2009 to 2019, the real wage growth of the lowest quintile outperformed those of the highest. If we look at only wage growth, it does not include other incomes like investment income or rental income. So, this does not quite give us the full picture of how inequality is changing. Does MOM track similar data but in terms of total income?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This incident, as well as the incident at SJI, has thrown the spotlight on the importance of mental health. Last year, the number of suicides among boys aged 10 to 19 was at a record high. I echo Mr Patrick Tay's call, which the Minister did not specifically address, and urge the Minister to consider implementing measures to regularly and systematically monitor the mental well-being of our students, like how we monitor their academic achievements and physical fitness. This can be in the form of questionnaires that measure stress level, anxiety and depression. I understand from mental health professionals that such questionnaires are already available. The outcome of these questionnaires will allow us to proactively reach out to students who need help. Without measurement, we act and react with a blindfold. The second question that I have is based on earlier exchanges. There is recognition that the workload on our teachers is heavy. Such being the case, why is the enrolment at NIE dropping?”
“Sorry, Minister, I should clarify that they actually tried to make the appointment but they are told that it is fully booked.”