Ho Geok Choo
Singapore
“I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive response. Just one question: the public had indeed been expressing reservations about eating seafood and I think we are also seeing Singaporeans shunning Japanese restaurants for fear of contaminated seafood. How safe is seafood imported from elsewhere and in Singapore now?”
“Thank you, Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. First question: short of sounding ageist, would the Ministry consider introducing an age quotient into the qualification criteria of this grant as such a move would encourage young couples to own a home and start a family of their own?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for his comments on how the political crisis in the Middle East and the nuclear crisis in Japan will have an impact on our energy needs. In view of these developments, what are Singapore's plans to go nuclear and what are our alternative sources of energy?”
“This is an example of mismatch. First, it highlights the need for course counselling for the individual to ensure that the training to be pursued is relevant. Second, it shows that employers in certain sectors are not ready or willing to accept PMETs who have formal management training.”
“Chairman, Singapore serves as a global and regional hub for several international companies. In the borderless global economy, accounting practices are being outsourced.”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore's 1961 Water Agreement with Malaysia expires on 31st August. As the date fast approaches, can the Minister update on Singapore's water situation and plans for self sufficiency? Mr Chairman, I would also like to find out what other plans does the Ministry have to strengthen the habit of saving water.”
The complete record
Every one of 857 lines we hold for Ho Geok Choo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 18.
“Yes, KPIs sometimes can be difficult to develop. But it has been done before by good businesses, and it drives businesses. So it can be done, and should be done. We have now reached 30,000 feet and we should stop thinking as if we are in base camp. We need to move on, renew our practices and move up. Dr John Chen says that the Employment Pass salary level is a heavy burden on companies. It is at $2,500 now. That level can be adjusted based on economic conditions. We raised it from $2,000 to $2,500 back then, but we will look and see what is the appropriate number. I also like to remind him that because we have that salary level, there is no restriction on the numbers, not like S Pass where there is a 5% quota or work permit holders where there is a dependency ceiling. However, for Employment Pass holders, and in marginal cases, MOM will take a flexible approach in considering other stable components of salary. If they find that the employees go below that threshold, they can now bring them in on the recently introduced S Pass, which is at $1,800. And if they want to bring in even cheaper workers, they can bring them in on work permits. Some Members have asked for clarifications. Dr Maliki asked about the Marriage Restriction Policy (MRP) ban . Our first message is - and Dr Maliki is quite right - to tell the workers that there are 500,000 of them and that the Ministry needs to exercise some custodial duties in deciding whether our societal structure can take it. So to reduce the numbers, we tell them upfront that they are here to work. If they fall in love, please remember that they have to ask permission to marry, and we may not grant it. To give more transparency is to sometimes give people more false hopes.”
“One of the feedback from companies that resisted joining the wage restructuring effort was they are worried that their competitive companies in the same sector would steal a march on them if they implemented it. They said, if they do it, and this was a particular sector, Company B does not do it, their employees might go to the other company. They both know they need the flexibility to respond, but, if one starts first, one might lose out. So we created a common platform, and when two or three companies came together in a cluster, they said, "Okay, we will join in because we know that everyone else is in, and there is security in numbers." In other words, the marketplace dynamics operates. Workers in Singapore are very well educated and they have unions to protect and advise them. If, in an economic upturn, you think that you can cut wages, they will walk with their feet. And most employers and HR managers whose business is thriving, really do not go to office every day thinking how they are going to abuse their employees. At least, I think not. Check with the employers in this House! They go into their offices, thinking how they can grow their business, and to grow their business they need good people. Unions can play an active role in ensuring that the rewards system is fair and equitable. If workers feel that employers have used this exercise as an excuse to short-change and take advantage of them, go to the unions or approach MOM. Let me also say that Singapore is not the first country in the world to start a wage restructuring exercise. The Towers Perrin Report recently released a report that Singapore is actually behind. More developed countries and better performing companies are doing this because it makes a difference to business. That is the main initiative.”
“It is about dealing with people, and we have experienced IR consultants from the Singapore Business Federation, SNEF, NTUC and conciliation officers from MOM who will conduct dialogue sessions and meet up with the companies. We have promotional activities. We work with the unions and employers' organisations. So we do not mean to offend the HR community by saying that they are not up to the task. We are saying there are specifics in this programme. We are building the platform. We will need the HR community to do this and we will fund them, but please be serious about this because it is good money and we do not want to pour good money after a bad outcome. And, as I have said, the approach has worked. Because we have had a few hundred companies with "X" thousands of employees who are willing to engage with us. I fully agree with what Mr Nithiah Nandan and Dr Ong Seh Hong said that, despite these efforts, we need to concentrate and focus on a transparent and fair performance appraisal. That is the crux of the matter because there are concerns that employers would take advantage of the wage reform to cut pay. Some employees are doubtful if employers can devise a fair and objective performance appraisal. Many Members have requested that the Ministry monitor these cases for abuse. We will do so. We need to have realistic and transparent key performance indicators, in consultation with employers and unions. And if there are objectives, they will motivate the workers to perform better. But I am less concerned that there will be abuse if there is economic growth. I will tell you why.”
“We also provide financial incentives to SMEs to engage experienced wage restructuring consultants to help these companies. The funding is 50% of coaching fees - about $8,500 - whichever is lower. Mdm Ho said that these sessions ended in a "sompah" session. For the sake of Hansard, "sompah" means to pledge on someone's life, yours or somebody else's. I want to assure her that we do not go around asking people to "sompah". I asked my staff: did we do this? They "sompah" they did not. What she probably meant was that at these 2-day workshops for HR managers, these companies that we engaged told them what it was all about. Next, they said, "If your company is serious about this, we will fund you. And, if you are serious about it, please indicate on this line that you are serious about it, then we will fund you." I supposed it was translated wrongly and it was considered "sompah". If the HR community feels offended by it, we will try to nuance our approach. But the fundamental point is clear. If you are not serious, we are not going to fund you. Why should we? It is your money. It is taxpayers' money. We will fund companies who want it. We will give advice and assistance to companies that are serious with us. We call it the SWAT team. I will try to change the acronym to "SOMPAH" team, but give me some time. SWAT stands for Tripartite Restructuring Wages Action Team and it consists of experienced industrial relations consultants, not only wage restructuring, but, as she rightly pointed out, this is a people's matter. It is not about statistics and business plan.”
“And, if it is variable, there must be key performance indicators to let employees know whether they are going to get it. On the ground, some companies, or a majority of them, do not practise AWS. But we leave it to the companies. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked how do we ensure workers' protection in this whole exercise. How do we make sure that employers do not abuse their employees? The greatest protection for workers is growth and a tight labour market. From 1970 to 2000, our wages increased six-fold. Was that achieved by legislation or initiatives and programmes? It was achieved because there was growth. In a tight labour market, the job of the NWC was to hold cost and make wages affordable. But, when we are in the sweet spot, as I said yesterday, in planning and outlining our strategy, workers will benefit. This is clearly exemplified in the hotel industry. We could have done everything during SARS to try to protect hotel workers but it would not have worked. We did very little else after SARS. In the second half, industries went up, occupancy and dining in the hotels went up, hiring went up, and wages went up. That is the best protection. Secondly, it is skilling them. Both Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mdm Ho have asked about the pace of this implementation. We recognise that this is a complex exercise and what we said is that we should be practically oriented. We should go down to the ground. So MOM will give specific assistance measures. Yes, she quite correctly pointed out that WDA does fund the training of HR managers to help companies and engage consultancy services for wage restructuring. We recognise that for certain companies it is difficult and so we will help them.”
“We understood that we have to leave it to the companies and the HR community, a point that Mdm Ho alluded to, to sell that message to themselves. That is why we said that CEOs must drive this effort. What we did was to propose a very broad wage ratio. So for rank and file employees, it is 70% basic wages to 30% variable component; middle-management 60:40, senior management 50:50. But we also recognise that companies need to build up their variable components overtime. I think it was Dr Ong Seh Hong who said that his feedback was, if a person earns $4,000, take $2,000 from it and put it as a variable component. I think that is suicidal. You will lose your employees, and we are not suggesting that. Companies will need time to gain this variable component. Philips, as I exemplified, is doing it the smart way, from 2% to 6%. And, yes, we must conduct frequent communications exercises. It is all about communications to explain to the workers what these changes mean. Dr John Chen asked and fed back that there was disquiet on the ground that the 13th month, what we call the Annual Wage Supplement, would be fixed. Let me again correct this impression. The Taskforce recognised that the AWS is an important component of wages. We recognise that many workers use the 13th month to buy books and uniform for their children. We were mindful of that. We never said that you must remove AWS. This was explicit. What we did recommend was that the companies decide for themselves whether the 13th month was to be fixed or a variable. You call it the 13th month, but is it fixed or variable? If it is fixed, treat it as fixed wage. If it is variable, then treat it as variable component.”
“I do not know the exact figure, I have to check on that. But this is the way that they have been doing, ie, raise the nominal wages by 2% and then move their fixed wages (4%) into the variable component (6%). The take-home pay of the employees is more, but the so-called monthly variable component was also increased. The HR managers use the word "re-labelling", in case in the future there is a difficult situation where they would have to cut costs. This is not a wage-cutting exercise. It is the company's flexibility. Mdm Ho said that she was alarmed - and this is the word she used - when she logged on to our website. And I thank her for logging on to our website, because it makes us more cautious about what we put in there. It showed that 75% of a particular poll on our website, ie, 75% of those who logged on, said that they would change jobs to another company in the same industry if their company implemented wage restructuring. She is quite correct on the figures, but she need not be alarmed. In this particular poll, about 1,160 respondents logged on and 75% said what she said. However, on the same website, another poll, and this time 91,000 respondents logged on, 98% indicated they would be willing to undergo wage reform to help their companies stay competitive, which means our message has gotten through. The last five years have helped our workers and companies to understand that without that flexibility, it may mean more job retrenchments. 12.30 pm Mr Seng Han Thong highlighted the need to have strong and sustained communications and promotion programmes among employers and HR practitioners. I agree with him. In fact, one of the reasons why this effort has been successful is that we decided that we need to give broad guidelines, but not to be too prescriptive.”
“As to whether I can give discreet measures of KPIs that I have achieved, I will try. When we embarked on the January 30th exercise, we consulted four sectoral groups. These sectors were electronics, hotels, chemicals and land transport. These four sectors in total have 1,730 companies which employ about 300,000 employees. After that launch, we continued and since then, we have engaged some 450 companies which employ some 130,000 employees. In other words, we have engaged so far about 1,900 companies which collectively employ about 430,000 employees. Not bad for three months' efforts since the launch. As to whether that is enough to meet my KPI, I will leave it to my boss. Members have spoken and asked for an explicit articulation by myself that the wage restructuring is not a cost-cutting exercise. Let me accede. The wage restructuring exercise is not a cost-cutting exercise. Let me be explicit. In fact, the Tripartite Taskforce never used this phrase. This is what the Tripartite Taskforce said: "A flexible wage system will enable companies to make quick adjustments to their wage costs, enable companies to stay viable, reward workers for their contribution based on the value of their jobs, and link rewards to company and individual performance. The flexible wage system is part of our efforts to develop a more flexible labour market." Nowhere in these motherhood statements was there any aspect to say explicitly that this is a wage-cutting exercise. In fact, the timing of our exercise for these few years may be opportune. I expect nominal wage increases this year as the labour market is getting tighter. Take, for example, the company, Philips. They realised that to be able to arrive at the variable component, they suggested raising wages by 2%.”
“The Employment Act does not stipulate the quantum of retrenchment benefits, but most employers in Singapore pay some form of retrenchment benefits. MOM carried out a survey, which was in the first nine months of 2001, which showed nine out of 10 locals received some form of retrenchment benefits. Retrenched employees who face problems claiming retrenchment benefits from their employers may approach my Ministry for advice and assistance. Let me now turn to the initiatives in wage restructuring. I thank the many Members who have expressed concern about my bonus. They have asked for updates and what are the chances of I securing some additional stipends in this. Mdm Ho Geok Choo expressed some disquiet that efforts have not been going on so well. I want to thank her for her concern. But I want to assure her, by many accounts, it seems that this particular exercise that we have launched, has worked well. Mr Seng Han Thong said that wage restructuring is nothing new. His forebears also had wage flexibility. I am assured that this effort we launched in January this year has been particularly successful. Whom are we assured by? One, by the unionists who have been at this game much longer than I have, and, two, by my own staff, many of whom have also been involved in previous exercises. I attribute the success to two reasons. The last five years have had salutary effects on expectations and outcomes, both for companies and employees. We have understood that the situation is volatile and that we need that flexibility. Second, I take success has been due to the practical approach. Yes, I agree with many Members who said that this is complex and to make it practically orientated, rather than just spouting platitudes and motherhood statements.”
“We are the odd one out in terms of labour relations. We have been able to achieve this because for the past three decades, we have built on the strong relationships amongst three social partners. It allows an excellent opportunity for this tripartite partnership to exchange views, sometimes in formal settings, but many times, in informal settings, just to build that relationship and to formulate policies which have an impact on workers, employers and the economy. The building of this mutual trust and respect enables employer-employee, management and unions to achieve corporate goals, enhance job security and improve the standard of living of our workers. Mdm Halimah asked whether we would review section 18A of the Employment Act which allows the employers to transfer their employees to another legal entity arising from company restructuring. She argues that since 1996, when this Act was introduced, business conditions have changed and with different forms of corporate mergers and alliances taking place, it makes the application of section 18A less clear. I agree with her. In some cases, the feedback is that both employers and unions are unsure when and how this provision should be applied. My Ministry, in consultation with the unions and employers' federation, will examine the need to review this section. We will also determine if tripartite guidelines will be needed to help ensure that the interest of workers is not compromised during corporate restructuring. As for the timeframe, my answer would be expeditiously. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang has asked what is being done to help retrenched workers transit over this period of unemployment. Yes, he is quite right.”
“Nobody expected the rebound to be so strong. Companies did not have to spend money recruiting. Without these measures, we would have more job losses and labour relations could have been adversely affected. There would be more disputes and these would have affected our investment climate and economic recovery. I fully agree with Mr Heng and Mr Yeo that we must never take this for granted. We will continue to be vigilant. I assure them that this Ministry will not relax on our efforts to preserve this precious asset which we have carefully nurtured over the last three decades. Weekly, I will meet with unionists and employers to nurture this relationship. Mr Yeo said that he wanted an update of disputes and what the unions have done. The number of disputes in the unionised and non-unionised sectors is another clear indication of what our unions have done. For the non-unionised sector, every year, we have about 10,000 disputes referred to MOM and, for the unionised sector, it is 200-300. It certainly reflects the ability of the unions to express the voice of their workers and to take into account their welfare. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked if Government's intervention in the recent SIA incident would show that something was seriously wrong that we have to intervene. On the contrary, as we have said, we want to nip things in the bud. We really do not want to wait till something is seriously wrong before Government acts. It was specifically to stem losses that we intervened. MOM will continue to do so in this fashion, if need be. Looking at all these aspects, and last year was a wrenching year but yet we did not have a disruption in labour relations, the question is not to ask why other countries are different from Singapore. The question to ask is why Singapore is different.”
“I could not agree with them more. I had said yesterday that the fourth pillar of our competitive edge is harmonious industrial relations. The value of this partnership was amply demonstrated during SARS. It seems far away, but it is actually very close, not more than six months. For example, during then, if we remember, the NWC had to make special recommendations to enable companies in sectors badly affected by SARS, such as the hotel and airline industries, to implement wage cuts. It has resulted in companies remaining viable. Take the hotel sector, for instance. In May, during the peak of the effects of SARS, occupancy in some hotels was single digit. I have spoken about this story before, but it bears repeating. During that time, many of the hotels' occupancy was down. We kept going, of course. The manager of the hotel brought me up, and in the lift I asked him what was his hotel's occupancy. He said 10%, and he was smiling. I asked him why he was smiling. He said that for the previous week, it was 6%. Despite that severe impact when occupancy went down, room rates had to go down. The hotel industry told me that very few were retrenched. How was that achieved? That was achieved because of the tripartite recommendations and relationships that NWC set for those companies which are not viable, if they do not make cuts. The food, drinks and airline workers unions, which represent the majority of the workers there, said that they would forgo $5 million in wages with the reduction in man days. In other words, they do not go to work and even if they go to work, they will forgo that $5 million. Because of that, the hotel industry kept their staff. It was a good thing that they did because in the third and fourth quarters, that industry added 3,000 jobs.”
“Given that the features of wage flexibility are not new and that many companies have already some form of flexible wage structure in place, one wonders whether such grants are well spent and whether such action would achieve the intended purpose. Or would it contribute further to our already materialistic culture? Second, there is also the nagging question as to why only SNEF and NTUC should conduct the workshops and not other professional and expert bodies well-versed in compensation and wage systems. Sir, some participants who have attended the workshops had fed back that the workshops seem to be indoctrination sessions. Apparently, much to their distaste, participants were asked to "sompah", ie, commit or pledge themselves to wage reform after the workshop, something participants, who are HR practitioners, felt it is very contrived - a feeling that reinforces that there lacks sincerity and trust. On WDA's accreditation process for consultants on wage reforms, questions were raised on the process, the credentials of the WDA's officials who conduct the interviews and why the funding for companies embarking on the wage reform needs to be pegged to these consultants. I urge that the Ministry address some of these concerns. Given our strong commitment to wage reform, would the Minister kindly give the House a status progress report on the implementation to-date and also provide the breakdown cost on publicity and promotion, training subsidies for workshops? And would WDA be extending the same conditions to other competing WDA partners and consultancy grants for companies and consultants? Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and Mr Heng Chee How have spoken about labour relations and said that a harmonious industrial relationship should not be taken for granted.”
“Sir, since the tripartite Taskforce on Wage Restructuring launched its report on wage restructuring for greater flexibility and competitiveness, there has been much debate, even confusion and reluctance, among companies and employees to embrace wage reform. For example, on a website poll by MOM, some 74% of respondents said that they would quit from their companies, if their companies embark on wage reform, and that they will change jobs to another company that is not implementing a flexible wage system. This, to me, is very alarming, especially after the big bang launch. Is the dismal poll result due to the fact that we have failed to convince the ground that, indeed, the process is a rational one and is fair and objective? Has the taskforce consulted the ground widely as it claimed it had done so? Sir, under the wage restructuring, we are replacing the seniority-based wage system with a performance-based wage system, as well as introducing the MVC component. There are practical HR and people issues to consider in this process. In restructuring the wage system, we have to understand that issues arising cannot be addressed by statistical analyses and figures alone. These issues touch on fundamentals of trust, sincerity, transparency and ability to forge unity in diversity. Can the Ministry comment on how these issues ought to be addressed differently in order to achieve our goals? 12.15 pm Sir, I would also like to give some feedback from participants who have attended the wage restructuring workshops and consultants who were accredited by WDA. First, I was given to understand that incentives or subsidies have been offered by WDA for participants of workshops by SNEF and NTUC.”
“While under MOM, the job seekers and even departing employees could enrol in the WSTP before taking on a new job. The WDA now recommends that a job seeker can only be enrolled in WSTP if he has been placed in a job. Job seekers and departing employees, unlike in the past, are now not eligible to sign up for the WSTP and funding support, even if the employees are on the verge of losing their jobs. They do not enjoy outplacement assistance programmes. I understand that the WSTP and the financial assistance provided by MOM in the past for companies have been effective and beneficial in building up the resilience of the professionals, managers and executives and have helped the job seekers and companies change their mindset with regard to the drastic changes and labour needs of the new economy, as well as in preparing the PMEs emotionally for the future, since many companies do not provide outplacement services. In view of this, on behalf of the PMEs, I urge the Minister to review the criteria for the WSTP for the jobless PMEs. Skills Recognition and Training Centre”
“Madam, DPM Lee has informed this House that the WDA will support the workforce in retraining them to remain employable. Can the Minister update on the types of new and higher skilled jobs created for the lower qualified cohort of the workforce? What types of new training programmes and in which sectors would they be launched? When and how can it be made easier for workers to enrol in them? Would WDA, SPRING, NTUC or any Government agency, including the polytechnics, be involved as training providers? Would WDA consider allowing the private and professional sectors to play a role as part of the Government's best sourcing strategy in the delivery of services? Can the Minister also update what types of programmes in which industries are being planned for the professionals, managers and executives? Given that new jobs may not be accessible to all retrenched employees, what measures and assistance programmes are being contemplated to help alleviate the plights of the professionals, managers and executives when many of them, with good experience but above age 50, are left without jobs for more than 12 months, a point shared by my hon. colleague Ms Irene Ng? They feel that they have been discriminated against because of their age and not because of their cost, for they are willing to take less. MOM has successfully pioneered the mindset change Work Skills Training Programme (WSTP) for PMEs, and the effectiveness has shown that four out of 10 of them were able to get employment by understanding and applying the knowledge and skills acquired in the WSTP for the new economy. The newly formed WDA which took over the administration of the WSTP, however, has changed the eligibility criteria.”
“I feel that it is important for WDA to take a lead as a role model in engaging some of our retrenched professionals, executives and managers.”
“Madam, I would like to raise a matter with regard to the activities of the newly formed Workforce Development Agency (WDA). The mandate of WDA is to champion and enhance workforce development in Singapore. To this end, WDA intends to coordinate national continuing efforts and to manage the development of the workforce development infrastructure. I have three questions for the Minister. First, I would like to ask the Minister to update this House on the progress that WDA has made since its inception. Is there a coherent strategy to effectively and closely monitor the set of skills needed by the industry? And are the retraining and matching programmes on offer sufficiently responsive to both the needs of the industry as well as that of the job seekers? Second, how does WDA engage the industry players and job seekers in this respect? My question has to do with the duplication of some of the activities being undertaken by WDA and that of outside providers. One observation that has been raised by some quarters is that WDA should confine itself to a minimum regulatory and facilitative function and allow private sector bodies to compete with one another in providing continuing education to job seekers and in matching the skills needed by industries to those of job seekers. Would the Minister kindly comment on this? Lastly, it is noted that WDA has been on a recruitment drive, perhaps necessitated by their expansion plan and in the process creating jobs for Singaporeans. Can the Minister verify whether the Ministry will be filling some of these positions with some retrenched executives on conversion programmes? To-date, does WDA have any retrenched executive on its payroll?”
“I would like to ask the Minister how are we developing our teachers for this exciting and yet exhausting future. In what ways has NIE improved its basic orientation training programme, the one-year beginner teacher course, to prepare our teachers? How has the programme included the new important aspects of a teacher's life over and above just teaching well in class? Has the school helped in the continuous development of our teachers after they have been posted to the school? How are our teachers learning to do new things like customer relationships? Sir, I also understand that a new scheme called Enhanced Performance Management System was introduced in 2003 to assess teachers. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to how teachers are assessed and evaluated for greater effectiveness in their skills in relating to students and parents? How will this scheme also award teachers for embracing a more socially-inclined lifestyle that will help to promote our procreation policy? Quality Teaching Force”
“Sir, teaching has changed so much over the last 30 years since Singapore embarked on its education strategy. In the past, our focus was simply on literacy and employment. Teaching in schools was at the basic level, so that our people are able to read, write well and find a good job. It is a lot different now, especially with the slew of further changes announced yesterday. While the focus still remains on literacy and employment continues to be important, there are also so many other things that have become equally critical, eg, the nurturing of creativity, the importance of National Education, the focus on multi-disciplinary learning, the drive for arts and sports, the dynamics of entrepreneurism, and the need for diversified programmes. Such are the demands of this global environment in which Singapore participates. What do all these changes translate into where teachers are concerned? It means that we need to have a very different batch of teachers than those of earlier years. Our teachers are now expected to have a global perspective while retaining a local flavour. Our teachers not only teach the students but, increasingly, have to deal with parents as customers of the school. Our teachers must complete the syllabus on time and on budget as set by the Ministry, and also imbue in the ear experiential learning and creative delivery. Our teachers must build relationships with those that they teach and also build passion for the school in which they teach in. All these sound extremely exciting, but they add on to the stress and burden of our teachers, which could affect the attractiveness of this very noble profession. I understand that some have difficulties catching up with the changes that are taking place.”
“Sir, I have received feedback that in some hospitals, the diagnostic process is slow and the decision on how to treat patients takes a longer time and causes much anxiety to both patients and family members. Some have even decided to discharge the patient to seek private hospital treatment. I would like to know what are the specific plans MOH has in its cost cutting exercise. Another area which I am concerned is waiting time. I noted that waiting time at hospital's specialist clinics and polyclinics has been long. In some instance, waiting time in some polyclinics can be as long as two hours. As we put forward budgetary and fiscal cost cutting measures, the Government must beware that certain areas are very sensitive to cost cutting measures. I urge the Government to be mindful of this, especially in the area of healthcare. Quality of Service”
“Sir, like my colleagues before me, I would also like to touch on the two public healthcare clusters. The public health delivery system was reorganised into two vertically integrated networks in 1999. This reorganisation created the National Healthcare Group and the Singapore Health Services. The intention then was to enable more integrated and better quality healthcare services through greater cooperation and collaboration among public sector healthcare providers. It would minimise duplication of services and ensure optimal development of clinical capabilities. But, in reality, the competition between the two clusters has resulted in a mushrooming of services and clinical capabilities. They have business development departments that market and source for overseas patients and bid for hospital projects in foreign countries. They compete with the private sector for local healthcare projects. Perhaps all these explain the reason for the big staff strength in their setup. The point is: is this necessary, in view of our public economy drive? As the two public clusters are significant players, their actions have a major impact on the local healthcare scene. In October last year, the Minister for Health asked the two clusters to stop the silly competition and not to fight for market share. Like my colleagues before me, I would like the Minister to state categorically what is the current mission and role of the two public healthcare clusters and how the mission and role should be changed. Standard of Medical Service Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I appreciate that MOH is finding ways to cut healthcare cost. My concern is whether the cut cost initiative will have the side-effect of cutting corners as well and, therefore, affect the standard of medical services.”
“Patients who are means tested and receive a subsidy can choose to be treated in public or private hospitals. We should compete on the basis of price and care. The resulting market competition amongst public and private hospitals should lead to more cost- effective pricing by the hospital care providers. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: since the recommendations of the Health Services Working Group were accepted in full by the Government, does the Ministry of Health intend to make the healthcare subsidy portable? Medisave”
“Sir, Singapore currently spends slightly more than 3% of our GDP on healthcare. Contrast this with the 14.7% of GDP spent on healthcare in the US and 6-10% in other developed nations, it would appear that we are containing our healthcare costs quite well. However, it is quite evident that the cost of medical treatment in Singapore has been rising to the point that we have priced ourselves out of the regional healthcare market. The Report of the Health Services Working Group of the Economic Review Committee shows that neighbouring countries like Malaysia and Thailand are attracting more foreign patients to their medical facilities. Even Indonesians, who have traditionally come to Singapore for their medical care, are also going to Malaysia to get cheaper treatment. More importantly and worryingly, Singaporeans are feeling the pinch of having to pay more for healthcare. Recently, published data on hospital charges show that facilities like Alexandra and Changi Hospitals, generally thought to be cost-effective regional hospitals, are not as cheap as they are perceived to be. In fact, prices for certain procedures at unsubsidised rates may be obtained more competitively at private hospitals. Well, taken in this context and with some reconsideration of determinants, I suppose the advent of means testing to determine the eligibility of patients to get subsidised care can be seen as a timely one. The Minister for Health has stated that the savings from not subsidising the better off will help put off annual increases in C Class rates. Linking the healthcare subsidy to a needy individual as opposed to a bed category will also allow the subsidy to be portable, as recommended by the Health Services Working Group.”
“My other question to the Minister is: if we use income as the main criterion for means testing, are there mechanisms in place for individuals to explain why they should be getting Government subsidies, even though their income would require them to pay more for the class of ward that they are staying in? From what I gather, in some countries that had adopted means testing as a way to determine the amount of subsidy that patients enjoy, mechanisms are put in place that permit patients and their families to explain more fully the specifics of their family situation. I think this is only fair because income alone does not indicate the ability of the family to pay for their healthcare cost. And so my question is: would the Minister adopt a more liberal and open approach to the determination of affordability, with income perhaps as one determinant of affordability and not the only determinant? And would the Minister consider putting in place mechanisms that would allow patients or their family members to explain the financial situation they are in?”
“Sir, much has been said recently about the need to revise hospital charges so as to better reflect the affordability of patients and their families to pay for the cost of their hospital stay. The main criterion by which affordability is determined appears to be solely that of income. Sir, the ground has raised, through feedback, a number of concerns with respect to the proposal to make changes to the proportion of subsidies, by the income of the patients and/or their families. Sir, first, is the question of income and affordability. The assumption that both of them are synonymous appears to be an unwarranted one. The high incomes that some patients earn could very well be spread out across very many family members who are dependent on the income of the breadwinner for their maintenance and sustenance. Whatever is done to change the manner by which hospital fees are to be charged will, in my view, have to take into consideration a whole range of factors, other than income by which to gauge the ability or otherwise of patients to pay. Second, Sir, is the question of fairness. If high income patients are made to pay for the subsidised wards, then the issue of double payment would crop up for high income patients are paying higher taxes, part of which goes to the subsidies that patients staying in Class C and Class B2 get to enjoy. If they are made to pay a higher fee for their wards, then they would effectively be paying twice for the cost that they incurred. Will the Minister reconsider this scheme to ascertain its desirability from the perspective of ensuring the efficient use of our resources and from that of fairness?”
“Therefore, such a distinction is untenable. The public outcry over the conviction of the police corporal, therefore, suggests that oral sex between a male and female is not perverse or depraved conduct. If this is so, then there is no reason to criminalise such a behaviour. In a letter to the Forum page of 4th March 2004 edition of the Straits Times, a writer Mathias Korber expresses mockery at the fact that a soldier who knocked down a cyclist while driving under the influence of alcohol only got a four-month jail sentence, whereas the police corporal got a jail sentence of one year for oral sex. Sir, if the law is archaic, we should amend it so that the law will not be held in mockery and over time, will lose the respect of the public besides earning their ridicule. On the other hand, if indeed an amendment is passed, then how should we deal with the case where a man forces a woman to perform oral sex on him? Also, is there an age limit to be considered if both parties of the opposite sex are minors? Sex with Minors”
“Sir, the conviction of a male police corporal for oral sex with his wife's sister has aroused much public outcry recently. In light of it, it is timely to consider this question: should oral sex between persons of the opposite sex be criminalised? The public outcry suggests that oral sex between consenting persons of the opposite sex should not fall within the ambit of section 377 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224). 12.30 pm I understand that judges are divided over this issue. The former Judicial Commissioner, Mr Amarjit Singh, was of the view that oral sex between a male and female does not come within the ambit of section 377 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224). But it is also my understanding that his decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which prefers the decision of Justice Lai Kew Chai whose opinion is that oral sex between a man and a woman, which is performed as a lustful substitute for and not a prelude to and enhancement for natural sex, is carnal intercourse against the order of nature and punishable under section 377 of the Penal Code. Sir, the recent outcry clearly suggests that this distinction, that is, it finally leads to intercourse, is absurd and untenable. What if one consenting party subsequently changes his or her mind about proceeding to have sexual intercourse after having had oral sex? What if the male experiences premature ejaculation while having oral sex? What if the female suddenly becomes frigid and would no longer proceed? Oral sex itself is either a perverse form of sexual conduct or it is not. Its legitimacy cannot depend on whether it leads to full natural intercourse, in which case it is acceptable and lawful. Whereas it is perverse and unlawful, it does not lend to full natural intercourse.”
“However, we know that the crime rate is rising and, at the same time, there are new organisations being introduced into grassroots level. I like to mention the newest one, which is the Emergency Preparedness Groups (EPGs). They are to be formed to prepare for emergencies of all sorts. Many see this as yet another organisation for safety and security when we already have the civil defence groups and the neighbourhood watch zones. The Home Team has distinguished itself operationally by being able to integrate and be seen as a whole, even though comprising several uniformed agencies. My question is: should not the various safety and security grassroots groups be integrated to form just one task force in each constituency, maybe a Home Team group or Home Team task force, to deal with emergencies which may include crime and disasters as well? This will make the lines of authority and accountability much clearer, and it will also benefit from some economies of scale in terms of resources to be allocated to them. Currently, the allocation of resources to such organisations is not high. I think that if the Home Team wants to engage citizens in a meaningful and active manner, it needs to give them more support and resources and, at the same time, it needs to make sure that the organisational structure is not so dissipated.”
“Madam, I would like to raise the issue of the progress of our efforts in cooperating with countries that are fighting terrorism. The threat of terrorism is a cross national one and the response must similarly be cross national. We have been engaged in information sharing and capacity building with other countries since the events of 11 September 2001. Lack of cooperation between countries can simply open the doors to other attacks, given the global nature and the illusive nature of many of the criminal group. Our own intelligence and security agencies must similarly adopt an integrated approach. Chasing bad guys does not work. We need to target their processes as well. In this connection, I am concerned about the state of our cooperation with neighbouring countries in combating terrorism. I have two questions for the Minister. (1) To what extent is the Indonesian government making progress in the fight against terrorism, and has there been the kind of cooperation rendered by the Indonesian government to our Government in our efforts to monitor the movements and activities of suspected terror networks and groups? (2) To what extent are we beefing up the resources of our Police Coast Guard in terms of manpower, funding and monitoring stations? And related to that, are we getting the kind of cooperation that we would like to see from Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries as well? Community Policing Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Madam, I would like to raise the issue of community policing. These days, the Community Safety and Security Programmes, in engaging citizens in worthwhile projects in safety and security in the neighbourhoods, have been paying off in terms of protection around the various zones in each neighbourhood.”
“Secondly, the location of the mediation centre is alien to the quarrelling parties. Would it not be more meaningful for the two quarrelling residents to go to the local community club or the MPS, say, in Geylang West? If the dispute is between neighbours, then the forum to resolve such dispute must surely be in the neighbourhood of the parties. 5.30 pm Sir, I would advocate for more grassroots and community leaders, who have some standing in the eyes of the parties, to be trained as mediators. This is one effective way where community mediation centres can reach out to the quarrelling parties, and not the other way round which would be less effective. Sir, generally, the mentality of the average HDB heartlander is to see the MP or the grassroots leaders for advice or help whenever he has a problem. We must exploit this mentality so that the quarrelling parties will say, "Let's go to the MPS or see the grassroots leaders." I would like to ask the Minister the following questions: To what extent can we improve the accessibility of the mediation centres and the effectiveness of the mediators? Given that trust and confidence in the mediators are important considerations to disputing parties, is there a plan to mount more public and community education programmes on mediation via the schools and grassroots organisations? Lastly, how do we retain the voluntary service of the mediators?”
“Sir, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) awareness programme was launched last year to promote awareness of ADR options to the general public and specialised sectors, such as members of trade and industry-based organisations. Indeed, this was a commendable effort to encourage settlement of private disputes out of the arduous court process. At this juncture, I would like to ask the Minister how he would assess the effectiveness of community mediation in Singapore. Can he say that indeed a culture of mediation has taken root in Singaporeans? Sir, as I understand it, the focus of the CMCs is on disputes involving neighbours and peers. Such disputes usually relate to assault and use of vulgarities arising from heated quarrels over use of common property or excessive noise. One observation on the shortcomings of the present community mediation centres is that they are aloof from the community. Why do I say this? I would like to support it with this example. Now, if two neighbours in, say, Lorong 17, Geylang, have a dispute and are referred to a mediator in, say, Marine Parade CMC, the nearest location, what sense of identity do they bring with them? Firstly, the mediator is a person unknown to these two neighbours. Who is he, the neighbours may wonder. This is important because the mediator must be a person of standing in the eyes of the party, as otherwise the mediator will not have the clout to extract concessions from them. In the good old days, the kampong headman who mediated in a dispute involving two fellow villagers was able to command the deference of the villagers simply by reason of his standing as the headman, a person whom the villagers looked up to and seek help and advice if they have a problem.”
“But we do not have young people coming forward to take care of the older people that are becoming old. The reasons are plenty. They have been seriously discussed in the media and in this House. I am confident that, Minister Lim Hng Kiang will come out with a good proposal. But whatever we do, we should not try to use money to buy babies because using money to buy babies is only a short fix for a long-term problem. In the longer term, we really need to change the environment. Changing the environment is the key to sustainable solution to more births. Many people say that Singaporeans are so busy that they have no time to make babies and that when the babies come they have no time to nurture the babies, no time to look after the babies. There is a grain of truth in all these. Sir, MINDEF has several overseas air detachments, one in France, several in the States. If you look at the behaviour of our airmen out there you will find that it is quite different from what they do here. Basically, they have a baby boom there. Last year, I was up in Arizona and saw some of the airmen there. I have never seen so many pregnant wives and young babies. It is not a big detachment and I feel happy for them. These are young families there, training very seriously to become Apache pilots and engineers and technicians. So even as they train, they find time to make babies. But obviously the environment there is conducive and I urge the Government to put in place some of the environment that encourage babies to come about.”
“All this talk about Chinese being a very difficult language to learn is doing us harm. It is not just a language issue. It is an economic issue. It is the survival of the future issue. For Singapore to tap into the fast-growing market of China, we should learn the language seriously. Personally, I do not lose sleep over all this talk that Chinese is difficult to learn, that we should not learn it or we should not allow the children to suffer anymore. Kiasu Singaporeans will know what to do. The marketplace of jobs will decide whether Chinese is important or not. Sir, the more intractable problem which has been talked about in this House is the low birth rate and the consequent problem of a greying population. Minister Khaw Boon Wan is not here but he pointed out correctly that Singapore's healthcare problem is not a serious one and that our healthcare is one of the best in the world because of many reasons - the share of GDP is low, there are few admissions to the hospitals and hospital stay is also short. This is no doubt due to good administration and policy on the part of the Ministers in charge. But there is also a very important demographic factor that underlies all these good statistics because we were a young nation and we are still relatively a young nation. In another 10 years, when the post-war baby boomers reach retirement age, we will see. Inevitably, there will be more admissions, stays in hospitals will be longer, and the challenge then is really how to prevent expenditure on healthcare from ballooning too big. I am sure this problem is well taken care of. The underlying problem is that if we have a large pool of old people to take care of it is still not a serious problem if we have enough young people to carry them.”
“He said that the English-educated actors on the English sitcoms are more academically qualified so they can learn the tricks of the trade and bring their art to a better form for the audience. I am not sure whether he was right. I demurred. But the results vindicated me. Even though there are no more Chinese schools, all of us speak English of one form or another in schools. Chinese students in English schools today still prefer to watch Chinese programmes, sing Chinese songs and play Chinese games. I do not watch TV but I read in the press that one Chinese sitcom, Holland Village, received such high viewership that on some episodes, the viewership was close to one million people. An MP's wife told me recently that after watching the long running series, she was inspired to re-learn her Chinese which she has forgotten and did not learn seriously when she was in school. I think this problem of learning Chinese in schools for Chinese students should be placed in the right perspective. It is a problem for some, but it is not a problem for all. Today, one Straits Times' reader suggested that to make it fun, teachers should tell stories in schools instead of asking students to do assessments, listen to Chinese pop music, talk about pop stars, etc. I think she has a point there, but all these multi-media aids are actually available on the TV. Obviously, this parent does not allow the child to watch Channel 8 or Channel U. I think it is not quite necessary for the teacher to repeat what is happening in the pop world, music or movie world in the classroom. The Chinese has a saying, "san ren cheng hu", which means that if three persons talk about something which did not happen, bystanders will think something actually has happened.”
“Many foreign students who come to our universities need extensive remedial English lessons. So why do we lock out Singapore students who are not good in Chinese? We should allow these students who do not do well in Chinese, to enrol into the university. There is no need to discriminate them against their inability to master the language. The marketplace of jobs will ultimately discriminate against them one way or the other. For the vast majority of Chinese Singaporeans, the learning of Chinese is not a big issue. In fact, Chinese is widely spoken on the university campuses. It is, in fact, the preferred language of choice of a vast majority of students. I know because I have been living in the university campus, not teaching there, for 13 years. I stayed on top of the canteen. I went there quite often and I mixed with the students. I saw them at the bus-stops, I gave them lifts. I spoke with them in Chinese. They taught me many Chinese phrases. They sang in Chinese and talked in Chinese. With a thriving community of Chinese mainland undergraduates now on both campuses, I am sure more students will speak good Mandarin. Sir, if we look at the TV viewership ratings as well as the radio listenership ratings, we will not be surprised to find the phenomena that Chinese is the preferred language of the Chinese community, contrary to all the letters that have been appearing in the English media. The viewership on Channel 8 is always higher than the viewership on Channel 5 and that of Channel U is higher than that of Channel I. Some years ago, a media specialist told me that local English sitcoms would receive higher ratings than Chinese sitcoms. I asked why.”
“They said because in the named schools, the children speak English and they come from middle-income, English-speaking homes, even though the school may carry a Chinese label. My advice to parents who think that their children would have problems learning Chinese is to do the simple thing by sending them to the nearest neighbourhood school. All primary schools in Singapore follow the same syllabus. When it comes to PSLE, they all take a common examination. All schools are structured to teach more or less in the same way. I believe that if a child is academically clever, he or she will do well in PSLE, whatever school he or she attends. If a child is not so academically well-endowed, it is better for him or her to go to a neighbourhood school because the environment there is more friendly and, at the same time, he or she can pick up Mandarin. Look at it objectively, look at all the branded schools, not all the children go to the top four schools - RI, RGS, Nanyang Girls and Chinese High. Conversely, if you look at the background of these students in these four schools, you find many of them come from neighbourhood schools. Recently, the English media was flooded with letters from parents whose children suffered from learning Chinese. Even today, the Straits Times' Forum page ran two long letters. I suspect that there is real angst among the English-educated. But the problem, I suspect, is confined to the English-educated Chinese elites. It is not a problem with HDB heartlanders. While I empathise with their problem, I think they should not be too afraid. The Ministry of Education has made some changes and I agree with those changes. The University of Singapore enrols undergraduates who cannot speak English well.”
“If we are lucky to count ourselves as one of those people, I think we can make a good living, bridging the west with China. Sir, many educated English elites lament that it is difficult to learn Chinese. Why? Because they themselves do not speak Chinese. I think this should not itself be a problem. The simple answer to parents who do not speak English at home or cannot speak English is basically to first send them to a PAP PCF and, secondly, to a neighbourhood primary school. I speak Chinese but I am never home to speak to my children in Chinese. Like most MPs, we leave home before they wake up and we go back after they have gone to bed. In my case, my wife does not speak a word of Chinese because she never studied in Singapore not one single day. When I am at home, I do not speak Chinese. I speak English. Hence, my family is in the same position as many English-educated parents who find it difficult to encourage their children to speak Chinese. So it was a conscious decision to enrol our children in a neighbourhood school just near to where we live and the results are most encouraging. My children picked up Mandarin like little ducks to water. They found it absolutely easy. Why? Because in that school, all the Chinese students speak Mandarin. They come from Mandarin-speaking homes. They watch Mandarin programmes, they sing Chinese songs, they play Chinese games. In such an environment, Sir, it is impossible not to speak and write Chinese. We are convinced that we did the right thing, at least up to now because my friends, some of whom are in this House, warned me that if I send my children to some of the branded name schools, my children might not speak Chinese. I asked them why.”
“For over 200 years, the Chinese have been trampled upon by the west. They have never forgotten the humiliation. Today, a resurgent China is speaking their language, be it the Chinese language or trade language, or the language of diplomacy or economics on Chinese terms. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 4.35 pm One example is the recent ruling that they enacted on the sale of software. The new rule says that if we do not allow the software to be source-code open for Chinese programmers to write or to edit, then that software cannot be sold in China. This is one way where they are changing the rules. In manufacturing, for example, they are also setting new standards which the Chinese feel comfortable, in other words, standards which they are superior in. We have to manufacture to their standards, otherwise, we cannot sell our manufactured products in China. Does it matter? I think it does. Can any supplier afford to ignore a market of 1.3 billion consumers? In short, China is now saying today that, "We have the market, you want my business, you are welcome, but you speak my language." I would like to encourage my fellow Singaporeans to learn Chinese and learn it well. Contrary to popular belief in the English media, it is not too difficult a language to learn. To master it is a different issue. To learn it, it is not so difficult. We have got to remember that there are hundreds of millions of very clever people around the world who are good in English. If we are one of them, it is really no big deal. But there are not so many people, maybe tens of millions who are effectively bilingual - English and Chinese - and who are clever up here [indicating].”
“If we want a southern accent, they give it to us. If we want a northern accent, they give it to us. Even if we can find as many Singaporeans who are as qualified as the Indians, which is, of course, a dream, we will still lose out because we do not speak English like that. We do not have to speak like the Americans, but we must speak English that is intelligible. In order to poise ourselves to catch some of these high quality outsourced jobs, we really need to declare war on Singlish. Unfortunately, the local English sitcoms flourish on Singlish. The more Singlish spoken on a local English sitcom, the more popular the rating. I think that is doing us in. The English spoken on Channel NewsAsia today bears absolutely no resemblance to the English spoken in this House, or on the streets and in the schools. So when I heard the Ministry of Education saying that X% of Singaporeans speak English at home and therefore, cannot be expected to do well in Chinese, I find it a bit disturbing because clearly, the statement means X% in Singlish. I do not see the correlation why, if we speak Singlish, we cannot do well in Chinese. I grant that if we speak received pronunciation in English, we might have some problems. I have been following the debate on the learning of Chinese in Singapore. I think it is something we have got to fix because China is another one big economic engine that we cannot afford to ignore. Even if we do not see it, we can hear the humming. I think it is very naive, when I read some of the Straits Times' Forum pages' readers, saying business is business, the Chinese will have to speak English because it is an international language. Yes, Chinese can speak English. Many of them can, and those who cannot are learning English with diligence. That could be history.”
“Trade and services flow uninhibited between countries, and everybody speaks English. We are 3 to 4 million in Singapore. We claim that we speak English. China has 1,300 million or 1.3 billion people. One percent of that speak English is 13 million. So, it is a substantial number of people in China today who can speak English. I do not have the numbers, but perhaps more than 3 to 4 million people can speak effectively in English and Mandarin. Sir, our labour cost will never be as low as India's. But assuming that it could go as low - God forbid - we would still not be able to attract to Singapore the kind of jobs that have gone to India. Our problem is really our spoken language. And for a long time we think that it does not matter what we speak, so long as we get the job done. In the world of manufacturing, we do not have to speak. In fact, if we go to a clean room, we are all masked up. We are not allowed to speak. But things have changed. A lot of the outsourced jobs from America to India require real-time voice communications or talking. And many people dismiss these as low-paying jobs, eg, telephone operators, telemarketers, or maybe somebody calling DPM to buy insurance. But actually it goes beyond that. Many of these are actually very high-value jobs, for example, lawyers in India masquerading as consultants, giving advice on international law; software programmers going on real-time with Silicon Valley's programmers to talk about how to debug or frame a software; medical specialists interpreting mammograms and x-rays over the telephone, giving advice to their clients in the States. All these are high-tech jobs, behind the phone, at the end of the line is a very qualified Indian, speaking impeccable English. They also have the talent to speak like an American.”
“Intellectually, we are on the same wavelength with the western world, particularly the Americans and the Europeans. The fact that we speak mostly in English today is telling in itself. We are truly at the crossroads of the world. Hence, I think this gloom and doom that some Singaporeans talk about, that the best days are behind us, is really quite mistaken, quite unnecessary. We have had more than 30 years of good growth, and only seven years of not-so-good growth. I think it is more than what any one young country could have hoped for. We should think it this way: the worst is behind us, the days ahead can only be better. But in order to catch some of the jobs that could be coming beyond India and China to Singapore, we will first have to change some mindsets. For a long time, Sir, we thrived in this region because we speak English, unlike our neighbours. They speak English, but it is not their main administrative language, not their legal language. And this gave us a decisive edge in the past. But no longer. When Mr Lee Kuan Yew opened up our borders and put out a red carpet to MNCs in the 60s, he actually went against the economic advice and political tide of the day. The prophets of post-colonialism preached closed-door self-sufficiency. We did the opposite. We opened up. So, even though Singaporeans spoke less than good English, the world beat a path to our doors. Why? Because we were the most hospitable in the region. They were looking for a low-cost place. They could not go to India; India's doors were closed. They could not go to China. China talked about socialism and communism. The third-world, they were all caught up in the "merdeka" or independence movement. So, they came here. But today the world is borderless. Communism is in form but not in substance.”
“In the case of Singapore, we have seen substantial changes in the economy, structural changes which the United States need not have gone through or did not go through. After the Asian crisis of 1997, the economy has restructured. Our wages have come down substantially. CPF rates have also come down. Land costs - Mr Inderjit Singh is not here - have come down very substantially. Taxes have come down. The once mighty Singapore dollar, which MAS defended with all its might, has also come down. Most of all, expectations have also come down. People are willing to take lower paying jobs, work longer hours. All these mean that we have been right-sized. Singapore is now ready to grow once more. But we need opportunities. But at least we are ready. Second, Sir, there is no stopping the outsourcing of jobs from the USA. Even as the politicians on Capitol Hill debate in the Congress, more jobs will flow out to Asia, India and China, and Singapore will no doubt catch some of these jobs, if not all of them. We are no longer expensive. We are very educated, and I think we are becoming very hungry again. Third, we are small, unlike the USA. And small is an advantage. Although we are small, we are cohesive, which means we punch above our collective size of three to four million people. Small means we can move faster, fly further, and bounce up quicker. Fourth, Singapore is one of the most wired places in the world. I do not just mean electronically. I also mean mentally. Geographically and culturally, we are also close to the places where action is taking place - in India and China. These two big engines of economic growth will pull us along just fine. We have learnt to dance with the lion; we can also fly with the dragon.”
“Sir, only one month ago, the US administration, no doubt encouraged by financial analysts, not economists, was almost certain that the continued economic growth in the States would bring about the end of the job famine. The latest February reports proved them terribly wrong. The data confirm what serious labour economists had feared all along, ie, that in spite of the good economic growth, 2004 in the States is likely to be another year of jobless and joyless growth. The unemployment rate today in the States stays at 5.6%. The real unemployment rate is much higher than that because the long-term unemployed have opted out of the job market. So, the employment rate has actually fallen. Today, the debate between John Kerry and George Bush, Jr, is not how to create new jobs. It is how to stem the flow of jobs to India and China. Hence, the heated debates on Capitol Hill on legislating against outsourcing of jobs. Sir, some economists in Singapore think what happened in the States will also happen in Singapore. The Minister for Finance did not offer substantial personal goodies, although he offered quite substantial goodies to companies. But I think the Minister for Finance did a good job. He gave a good unexciting Budget. Many may be disappointed because there are no fireworks like personal rebates, tax cuts and reliefs. For the last few years, we have seen a lot of fireworks in this area because moving ahead from 2001 to 2004 were uncertain times. The Minister for Finance gave a Budget which he thinks will match the growth this year. He is confident that the growth will be respectable. And I share his conviction. I share it because Singapore is quite different from the States.”
“So, let us welcome the emergence of diverse forms of business enterprises in Singapore, and let us encourage Singaporeans to join with each other to take the initiative to create jobs for themselves. Let us also send out signals that this Government is there to facilitate the process along, to render the necessary assistance, if such be needed, and to stand alongside Singaporeans as they seek ways and means to carve out niches for themselves in the uncertain times ahead. On this note, I support the motion. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and Minister for Defence (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, 2004 is an exciting year for Singapore. Around us, elections are all about. In Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan, elections have reached a feverish pitch. From afar, we have the elections in the States. Many of us in Singapore watch these elections with great interest, because the outcome of any one of these elections will have a big impact on our policies. At home, Sir, bets are changing fast on when the new Prime Minister in Singapore will take over. Still, in spite of all the talk that the new Prime Minister will be elected by Members of Parliament, I know of no bookmaker who is offering bets on the new man or woman. Sir, while the political transition offers no surprises, the economic transition is far less predictable. We are definitely recovering from a long economic downturn. Our economy appears to be growing well. The question is whether this growth will translate into new jobs, and what kind of jobs. And Mdm Ho Geok Choo is worried that the unemployed who are in their late 40s will be permanently unemployed. Will the unemployment rate fall overall, or will it remain at the present level?”
“For example, assistance can be rendered to these co-operatives to secure loan facilities at attractive rates of interest; technical assistance can be rendered by the various Government agencies; learning programmes can be funded; and technology transfer linkages can be effectuated by bringing these co-operatives and multinational or Government-linked companies together. I would like to share this observation made by Rodrik in 1997 where it succinctly summarises the responsibility of the state to its people: "It is not whether you globalise €¦ it is how you globalise. The world market is a source of disruption and upheaval as much as it is an opportunity for profit and economic growth ... It has now become commonplace to point out that market-oriented reforms require social safety nets to prevent people from falling through the cracks €¦ The provision of social insurance is an important component of market reforms - it cushions the blow on those most severely affected €¦ and it avoids a backlash against the distributional and social consequences of globalisation." Sir, the point is that whilst we make changes, we must at the same time ensure that we preserve the social compact in the transition. Generally, we agree on the need to lend a helping hand to the least well-off and the most vulnerable in society. But there is much less certainty or agreement about the role of the Government beyond that. Therefore, I see that we have an obligation to the PMEs that we cannot deny: an obligation to give the unemployed PMEs a chance to be economically active again. So long as they cannot be re-engaged economically again, we will have a potentially explosive force to deal with.”
“What I do wish to raise though is the possibility of directly creating jobs for this group of formerly employed professionals and middle executives through means of pooling their shared resources. I know that the Singapore Professionals and Executives Co-operative (SPEC) has already taken the first step in this direction, but there is much more to be done to get this idea to gain acceptance among Singaporeans. The Government is already trying to move our economic base to one that is not solely reliant on MNCs and GLCs, but to help nurture home-grown small and medium enterprises to become global players. This is a very commendable effort. However, I think that there are alternative forms of employment and job creation, one of which is to get people to pool their resources to start up co-operatives that can venture into areas like infant care, finance, travel and tourism, retail, restaurants, information technology, and so on. By pooling their resources, these formerly-employed PMEs are not only able to raise capital, but also contribute their vast expertise, experience, networks, and knowledge in the running of such co-operatives. I strongly encourage Singaporeans to support the rise of more such co-operatives in Singapore, and here I call upon our Government to lend its support by helping to facilitate the cultivation and nurture of such enterprises. One area that the Government can help facilitate these co-operatives is to extend to them many of the schemes that are currently being administered by SPRING Singapore.”
“Employers are still reluctant to employ people over 50. Too often, they are stereotyped as being less trainable and not receptive to new ideas. Research, however, indicates otherwise. As such, we need to initiate more public awareness campaigns to acquaint employers with the facts. Measures that could promote such a message and convey our sincerity include increasing the retirement age, mounting "back-to-work programmes", and retraining. Older workers are a valuable resource and, as such, should not be wasted. Finally, Sir, I would like to speak on a different issue, ie, that of job creation for professionals, middle executives who are over 50 and who have been laid off by companies during the retrenchment exercise of recent times. The Budget has not addressed this directly. Sir, many of the jobs for which the PMEs have been trained will not be coming back to Singapore. That, Sir, is structural unemployment. And, for many of those professional and middle-executive managers who also happen to be in their 50s, they will have to reckon with age discrimination in the hiring process as well. If we add to that the hesitance of employers to hire those whom they think to be well paid, then the triple whammy that this group of people are suffering may just be too overwhelming. And, with no prospect in sight for any short-term recovery of their previous positions, I think we need to see if the Government can do something to facilitate their reintegration into the labour force. Quite obviously, the chief means to prepare them for reintegration is that of retraining. Of retraining and job matching, much has been said, and I do not wish to revisit the same ground here.”
“For female Singaporeans who feel that taking a few years off work to look after their children will only serve to set back their careers, I feel that companies should be provided with the incentives to retrain these women if need be, and to be provided with all the assistance they need to more easily reintegrate their female employees into the work setting. Practically speaking, we may even put a timeframe (such as three years) in which companies get to enjoy these subsidies. The civil service should set the tone for the rest of the economy. If the civil service does not send out the appropriate message, then I think that the effort would have been wasted. From the feedback of various groups that I have talked to, it would appear that the civil service could do more to fully implement the Government's policies to make it easier for women to be reintegrated to work. Another option would be to lower the cost of employing maids. Reduce the maid levy and offer working mothers maid subsidies so that they can employ maids to help look after the children while they are out. Our policy should be to remove key obstacles currently discouraging Singaporeans from having children. Another contributory factor to the decline in birth rate is infertility. Infertility rates are increasing in Singapore. Often related to stress and the general pace of life, couples must be encouraged to seek treatment. Infertility treatment needs to be made more affordable and we need to remove the stigma that still lingers. Men in particular must be encouraged to seek infertility treatment and counselling. A public information service needs to be put in place. The second aspect of our demographic issue is on the ageing population. Singapore now has the second highest number of senior citizens in Asia.”
“The disruption may come in the form of hiring temporary but less experienced workers to cover the duties of the employee on maternity leave. This disruption may cause employers to think twice about hiring mothers, and the practice of discrimination in hiring may become widespread. If our female workers catch wind of such discriminatory practices being endemic in the workplace, they may be reluctant to have children or to have more children than what they already have. To counteract this problem, some may even propose that the policy includes giving males paternity leave as well. This will then ensure a level-playing field between males and females in the process of job recruitment and selection. In other words, our policy should address the issue of the declining birth rate from the employment practices front as well. For those groups of Singaporeans who feel that having children, or having more of them, is good but who feel that they have to cope with the very many demands that will come their way if they decide to have children, a few policy changes can be considered. Companies should be given tax rebates or write-offs for providing childcare facilities at or near the workplace. Alternatively, companies may also enjoy these rebates or write-offs if they provide their female employees with subsidies for enrolling their children at childcare centres. These incentives attract companies to invest in pro-family programmes, instead of only looking at procreation as cost issues.”