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 13 of 18.
“This would mean that we would have to target children with the message that having children is one good way towards fulfilment in life, and that having more than one child would not materially detract them from enjoying quality life. At the cultural level, we should attempt to mould young minds towards the idea of shared responsibility in the home front. When traditionalist attitudes are uprooted from a very young age in the home and community as well as at schools, our young people will grow up to appreciate the necessity of shared responsibility and the young women of the future will not mentally equate child rearing with drudgery for themselves, but is a joy shared by both husbands and wives. At the same time, when paternalistic attitudes are uprooted from a young age, future male bosses will be less likely to be prejudicial towards the needs of working mothers. And, speaking of prejudices against working mothers, I would like to raise my concern here with regard to the recent proposal of the Ministry of Finance to extend the maternity leave of working mothers from eight weeks to, maybe, sixteen weeks or even more. The proposal has it that the Government would be willing to shoulder the wage costs of employing these working mothers for the extra period being proposed, subject to a ceiling, which has yet to be decided upon. However, before attempting such a move, the Government would do well to bear in mind that there are costs that employers have to bear besides the cost of the wages being paid to replacement workers. The main cost that comes immediately to mind is that of the disruption to the work process that may be caused by an extended period of absence from work.”
“As mentioned earlier, I do not propose here to define what the vision of life and the vision of the people we ought to become and the types of children we ought to be raising. What I am proposing here is a Government-led, but civic-group and community-sustained effort at reorienting our moorings as a nation to one that is more community-minded and one that defines quality life in material and non-material terms. What I have just outlined is addressed to our approach for an overarching strategy. What I would like to do now is to look into the re-workings of substantive policy areas. Based on the feedback of various groups, a few things suggest themselves to me. Before I delve into them at some detail, may I suggest that these policies be targeted at the different groups of Singaporeans, whose differing attitudes to parenting I have outlined earlier in this speech. For Singaporeans who are set on not having children at all, I think there is not much that we can do to persuade them to do otherwise, other than to respect their right of choice. I do not think that getting them to pay more taxes is a fair way to deal with the issue for the simple reason that the Government incentives that would accrue to those who want to have more children would have been paid for from out of the tax coffers anyway. In other words, as far as revenues and expenditures are concerned, those who wish to have children or more of them, would already have enjoyed the benefits that would be extended to them. Some portion of the benefits that they would get to enjoy would already have been paid for by those who do not wish to have children. As far as the wish to not have children is concerned, I propose that the Government start to inculcate from a very young age the desirability of having children.”
“My feeling though is that the Singapore 21 project has still not touched on what quality life ought to be for Singaporeans as individuals and as families. As a result of our inability to recast a compelling vision of who we are as a people and what quality life is, many Singaporeans still define the procreation issue in terms of the same old divides. I do not propose to have all the answers of the nature or content of another campaign. But I do know that we have got to genuinely engage ourselves as a nation to discuss what the Singapore quality life is about. And the discussion should not be so boxed in as to define quality life in purely individualistic terms, but also encompass an awareness of how the nation's struggle with this issue will inevitably have an impact on whether Singaporeans will continue to secure the conditions for quality life in the future. The nation must go into a soul-searching process, and that means that there must be some shift of our cultural values, along with that of our policies. The Government can lead the way in reshaping our cultural landscape, but that soul-searching process should never stop with the Government. Indeed, if the campaigning process were to begin with the Government, and stop with the Government, it will not reach right into the hearts of Singaporeans. Short of cultural change, policies may, at best, arrest the decline somewhat, but will not reverse. As such, may I suggest that we adopt a values-driven approach in our attempt to reverse our declining birth rate. The values-driven approach will be holistic and strategically focused, but what sets it apart from other forms of synergy is that it is suffused with a re-orientation of an understanding of what life is about, and what children are about.”
“It is difficult because companies these days are too demanding of our time, and the cost of living in Singapore is just too steep to have more than one." There are yet other Singaporeans who face infertility problems in their reproductive lives, and having children is biologically impossible or very difficult to achieve. Because the nature of the problem is complex, to my mind, the solution should likewise be multi-faceted. Firstly, at some stage in our national life, we have got to define for ourselves what quality life is. Back in the 1960s, when the Government attempted to sort out our then demographic problems, we had a campaign: stop-at-two. The stop-at-two campaign portrayed having lots of children as incompatible with conducive living in a modern metropolis like Singapore. It did not just put out financial incentives for mothers to have less children, but went on to alter the consciousness of Singaporeans concerning the hassles of having too many children. Now, I think that Members would agree with me when I say that the campaigning methods of the past will not be as effective in persuading a more sophisticated citizenry of today, particularly when the content of the campaign touches on as personal issue as that of procreation. On the other hand, I also think that Members would agree with me when I say that the broad incentivising methods of the past will not work as they did years ago. Singaporeans have more choices today. To be sure, quality life includes material well-being and a comfortable and secure financial life. But quality of life is more than just that. It must also include values that transcend financial well-being. The Singapore 21 project is a commendable one in that it seeks to define who we are as a people, and what we are becoming as a nation.”
“At the same time, we also need that critical mass of productive Singaporeans to help constitute the tax base upon which the infrastructure of the nation continues to be of such standards as to appeal to the global investment community. We also need that critical mass of solid-base citizens whose tax revenues ensure that we maintain healthy fiscal balances. All of what I have just cited are indeed national imperatives. In fact, they are absolutely necessary if we hope to be able to survive and sustain ourselves, our vibrancy, our security, and our prosperity as a nation. Yet, at another level, individual Singaporeans have their own set of imperatives. For example, some Singaporeans define quality life as one that is free from the obligations of parenthood. To this group of Singaporeans, having children hinders them from enjoying life to the full, with all its possibilities and potentialities. Other Singaporeans want to have children, but are also in search of a better life for themselves and their offspring. To this group of Singaporeans, having more than one child would materially detract them from achieving the many goals that they set for themselves in life. One variant of this group of Singaporeans are those who feel that having more children than they can reasonably afford is an irresponsible thing to do because they are not able to give to their children the financial and time resources that they need in their lives. More often than not, this group will give grouse to their feeling that the Government is preaching an inconsistent message: "On the one hand, they want us to work, on the other hand, they want us to have children. How can that be done?”
“At first glance, we may brush aside the need for such an exercise, and simply argue that we should just plunge straight into tinkering with our policy tool-kit. However, if we do not ask ourselves some fundamental questions over this most fundamental of issues, we would simply repeat the same mistakes of the past. In the past, we had tried to fight the decline of our birth rate by taking out what we thought was the most effective weapon in our armoury - financial incentives. Yet, this approach has not provided the results we have been looking for. From 1.7 in the 1980s, we are now at 1.24 children born to each female. That makes us wonder why a supposedly materialistic citizenry has not responded to incentive schemes that were financially driven. An immediate analysis would be that financial incentives are not enough. And, indeed, that is what some Singaporeans are saying, judging by the feedback of participants at feedback forums. And these Singaporeans may be right! But, in my view, only partly so! For the chasm between the national imperative and individual ambitions is more profound than a simple two plus two equation. At the national level, we are well aware of the need to rejuvenate our economy. We need a certain critical mass of a citizen base that is intelligent, productive, educated, and committed if we want to maintain our competitiveness in the new economy. We need that mass to nurture our local small-medium enterprises to maturity before they take to the jungles of an ultra-competitive global market-place. We also need a critical mass of able-bodied male soldiers to help guard and defend the sovereignty of this nation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I congratulate the Government on proposing yet another prudent and forward-looking Budget that is both pro-business and pro-future-generation. Singapore is going through a very difficult transition in an unpredictable global arena. As I see it, the churning of the economic restructuring process, the relaxation of political and cultural controls, the emphasis on creative learning in our schools, the encouragement of a participatory civic culture, and the opening up of our borders not only to trade and investments but also to foreign labour, are all inter-related in ways that produce positive outcomes in some situations, but could also be perceived to be negative in other senses. Sir, I propose to touch on three aspects of the change process that are upon Singapore. The first aspect has to do with demography in general, and a declining birth rate in particular. The second aspect has to do with the aging population, and the third aspect is on the professionals, managers and executives group. Sir, demographic changes in the population are an ever recurring theme in the life of any nation. What is critical though is the idea that demographic forces ought to be shaped and brought under certain degrees of control in order that certain long-term national objectives may be met. However, national objectives can conflict with individual objectives. It is important that the Government treads softly and gently in finding modes of reconciliation between long-term national needs and the immediate term preferences expressed by individuals. So, before we even begin to find ways and means to decide whether our procreation policies need revising, we have to first and foremost satisfy ourselves that such a reconciliation is possible.”
“Sir, with reference to enhancing the overall image of our hawkers, is there any long-term plan to enforce the wearing of uniforms and caps so that we will actually bring up the standard of our hawkers in Singapore?”
“Sir, from what I understand, there are still several hawker centres that are under the purview of the HDB. Can the Minister throw light on when these other hawker centres will be taken over by NEA and whether at this point, these hawker centres actually come under the same housekeeping guidelines as the hawker centres under NEA?”
“Sir, in view of the need to eat properly cooked food, will the Ministry be implementing measures, such as sending out food inspectors to ensure that the chicken rice chicken are well-cooked and not bloody as they should be? Or will they be issuing advisory to these hawkers? Another question is whether the Minister will be issuing advisory on avoidance of half-boiled eggs sold at popular joints, like Ya Kun and Kopitiam? The third question is with reference to children staying away from chickens which are normally kept as pets. Will the Ministry also be issuing advisory to schools to discourage them from keeping chickens as part of their science education programme?”
“Sir, this is part of the bilateral air services agreement that Singapore has with the US and therefore it is something that is entrenched. Although the US carriers have the right, so far, they have not done so because there are other factors involved, such as whether it is more cost-effective for them to do it versus buying services from SATS, CIAS or the third ground handling company that we will be setting up.”
“The passenger traffic at that time was only 8.1 million, compared to 28.9 million in year 2002. She asked whether the passenger load has increased. I would say yes. Since the birth of SATS and CIAS, passenger traffic has more than tripled. In fact, over the next few years, I expect the traffic to quadruple over the 8 million that Changi registered in its first year of business. She asked about the number of airlines. Yes, I am happy to tell her that when we started at Changi, there were only 34 airlines. Today, there are 69. In terms of cargo, the growth has been phenomenal. When we started in 1981, the cargo volume was only 200,000 tonnes a year. Today, the cargo traffic has gone up to 1.6 million tonnes. That is an increase of eight times. So I would say that the business pie has definitely grown and we expect the business pie to continue growing in the years ahead. I think it would be instructive for me to show the experience elsewhere. Hong Kong International Airport has a throughput of 27.4 million passengers last year and they have seven passenger handling companies there and three apron handling companies, as well as three flight catering companies. That is in comparison with our two operators. Amsterdam Schiphol Airport has about 40 million passengers a year. They have four ground handling companies and three flight catering companies. It shows that in Changi, there is plenty of scope for a third operator. The third operator would definitely stimulate the existing two operators to become more innovative, and perhaps come up with new methods of work, improve their productivity and therefore be able to offer a better service and, hopefully, at a better price. She asked whether we will review the special permission given to US carriers to self handle.”
“At this point, Sir, I would like to declare that I work for SIA Engineering Co. Sir, what actually is the rationale for the establishment of a third ground handling company? Has the number of foreign carriers or the volume of business activities at Changi grown to warrant the establishment of a third ground handling company? Has the overall business pie grown bigger, or is it the intention to have the three ground handling companies fighting over the same pie? May I ask the Minister: is it a belief that with three ground handling companies, there will be a higher motivation to cut operating costs to survive? If not, would not the existing two ground handling companies have taken the initiative to reduce drastically costs in the first instance when the aviation industry was hit by the downturn last year? Has it been studied that with three ground handling companies, there will be an overall improvement at Changi with better service levels and more attractive pricing for handling of aircraft in Singapore? Will it make Changi a more attractive airport for the operators to fly to? Will there also be a review of the special permission to US carriers to self-handle? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, Mdm Ho asked about the reason for having a third ground handler. As I mentioned very briefly in my reply, it is to ensure that the situation in Changi is more competitive and that the airlines will be able to enjoy better service and, hopefully, better pricing as well. Sir, Mdm Ho asked whether there has been growth in the passenger load and number of airlines to justify having a third ground handler. Let me bring the hon. Member back to 20-odd years ago, way before her time, when Changi Airport started at T1. At that time, we only had two ground handlers - today's SATS and CIAS.”
“Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister whether that means that our local companies will never become the main preferred economic strategy for Singapore. My second question is: are there any specific programmes that are geared towards preparing Singaporeans' mindset for the new challenges? Much has been talked about in the education industry and in skills acquisition, but is there any specific programme for mindset change? My third question is with regard to enhancing the customer service skills of Singaporean service providers in this new economy. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think Singapore companies by themselves can ever become the mainstay of our economy. We will always need foreign players in large numbers to operate here. That has always been the history of Singapore and I believe that it will remain the basis of the Singapore economy well into the future. As to efforts to change the mindset of Singaporeans, I believe this is already happening. Among young Singaporeans now, there is a more realistic assessment of where we stand in relation to present and potential competitors in the future. And this is seen in the growing number of Singaporeans who are prepared to work overseas. As I mentioned earlier, more and more Singapore companies are now taking part in overseas missions and sniffing for prospects and opportunities elsewhere. As for the Member's third question on specific programmes, I have mentioned some of them. There are others which she can take up during the Committee of Supply.”
“" Even if the intent is there to touch base with the next-of-kin first, it is good to have the inclusion as a check and balance to ensure that indeed this procedure is not inadvertently left out. Sir, on this note, I support the amendment Bill.”
“Germany is the exception where it has an extra-territoriality clause which makes it illegal for a German citizen to purchase organs anywhere in the world. Based on the above research findings, Sir, I am concerned that the issue of 'transplant tourism' is real and may catch up with Singapore. It is therefore prudent and timely, as we debate the proposed amendments to HOTA, that we also address the potential illicit trafficking of human organs more extensively. Specifically, what would be our stand with regard to the wealthy purchasing organs from living donors in developing countries? Therefore, I urge that legislation with regard to living donors and recipients needs to specifically address aspects such as definition of organ trafficking; the introduction of an extra-territoriality clause, as exists in Germany; removal of an organ by force; promise of payment or payment for an organ; participation of medical staff in the illegal transplant of an organ. The fifth area pertains to new section 5(2) of the Amendment Bill. Sir, at this juncture, I would like to make reference to clause 4 which amends section 5(2) to allow organs to be removed from the deceased person who has died from any cause of death, and not just where the death was caused by accident or resulted from injuries caused by accident. From the medical perspective, the removal of organs is very much a mechanical process. We must not forget that such an act can cause intense emotion in the next-of-kin of the dead person. Although there is presumed consent, it would appear to be more humane if we could include in this clause the following "after having informed the next-of-kin and explained the procedure of the removal of organs.”
“Opponents, include Alistair Campbell, Professor of Medical Ethics at Bristol University, who argued "Our body is not a piece of property in the sense that our house is. Also the consequence of a market in human organs is inevitably exploitative, as studies from countries like India have shown." According to Campbell, "Far from improving the lot of the poor, it worsens their situation. The notion of an 'ethical market' is a myth and it will only be the most needy who are ready to sell organs." Surveys conducted in the US have shown that only 12% of people were likely to donate an organ for a financial incentive and 5% said that they were less likely to do so. At the same time, there are indications that more people in developed countries are offering organs for sale, often via Internet. In a recent case, a British woman offered a kidney for US$200,000 so that she could purchase an apartment. Studies have indicated that, not surprisingly, it would be the poorer section of society who would be most likely to sell their organs. Also, many live donors suffer a decline in their own health. Other studies conducted in the US into commercial blood banks indicated that there were four times as many cases of hepatitis among paid donors, because offering payment attracted poorer and sicker donors, who sometimes lied about their health. As a result, commercial blood banks were curbed. In all EU states, with the exception of Austria, payment for organs beyond reasonable compensation is strictly forbidden. But penalties vary from country to country and there is nothing to stop EU citizens from travelling abroad to purchase organs from live donors in countries where the practice is not illegal.”
“While feedback and surveys so far indicate willingness to move towards a system of presumed consent, we need to put in place sufficient mechanism to address the concerns of those who have not expressed support and to understand their reasons for not doing so. Only then, we can better convince those unconvinced of the cause that we are promoting. The fourth area of concern is on the proposed regulation of living donor transplants. Here, I would like to make some observations on this issue in other countries. The HOTA Act 1989 forbids people from accepting organs from anyone not genetically related, unless it is approved by a panel of doctors. Even then, no money is allowed to change hands. The existing legislation is the same in the UK. This issue is being debated by the BMA in the UK at present. It has been proposed that the NHS is permitted to buy organs from live donors. John Harris, Professor of Bioethics at Manchester University, argues for healthy donors to be given the right to sell organs. According to him, "Thousands of lives could be saved by establishing an 'ethical market' in live organs. This payment should be tax-free and donors should not lose entitlements to state benefits." In an article in the BMA Journal, he says, "This would prevent the rich using their purchasing power to exploit the market at the expense of the poor. People would not be able to use wealth to jump the queue and rich countries should not be allowed to buy organs from the poor countries." One proposal is to only allow organ trading to take place within countries or within a bloc of countries. Legalising the sale of organs would also remove the incentive for illegal profiteering from the trade.”
“Understandably, there is a widespread underlying concern among the public as a whole that less effort may be put into saving the life of a patient if it is assumed that his organ can be harvested and used for transplant. It was reported in the newspapers, sometime back, that a well known Japanese author observed that, in the interest of prolonging the lives of others for the greater good, American doctors administer heparin and phentolamine to the brain dead to keep their organs alive for transplant. The moral issue arises. Heparin prevents blood clotting within organs, whilst phentolamine widens the blood vessels so that more blood flows through the organs to keep the brain alive. These two drugs do not improve patient comfort or care but can hasten heart death. I understand that in 1997 an ethicist blew the whistle. To date, there is no consensus on the morality of using these two drugs. I am interested to know whether these drugs are used by our Singapore doctors and, if so, how do we deal with the dilemma. Sir, it is important that any debate of the issue needs to take account of these reservations with the aim of providing further clarification and reassurance. It is also important that there is enough information reaching out to the public so that those affected can be reassured and make better-informed decisions. For example, for a teenager reaching the age of 18 and who now qualifies legally to make a decision on HOTA, what kind of education or information sharing is put in place to sufficiently prepare these teenagers for making an informed decision and choice with regard to HOTA?”
“Perhaps, we could also look into other organs, and some thought ought to be given to the issue as to the maximum number of organs that can be harvested from any single deceased patient. The second area concerns the consistent application of HOTA on the population in a secular state like Singapore. Muslim Singaporeans have been excluded from the amendment on HOTA on presumed consent unlike all other non-Muslim Singaporeans. Should Singapore, as a secular state, pass a law differentiating the various religious groups? I would have thought that we should have a law that is consistent with our secular nation state status since there is no fundamental objection, as explained by the hon. Member Mayor Zainul Abidin. Sir, the Muslim population forms a significant number in Singapore. With the amendment on HOTA providing for Muslims to opt in, I would like to check with the Minister on the impact on Muslims who need organ transplants. I wonder, Sir, how many will die whilst waiting to be accorded the priority for an organ transplant. Can the Minister enlighten us as to the number of Muslims in Singapore waiting for organ transplants and what would be their priority in the queue? The third area concerns the definitions and issues of brain death. Sir, as medical science evolves, the definition of 'death' is being expanded. Life can be prolonged artificially for the purpose of organ removal. This has raised questions as to when death takes place and does 'brain death' in all instances constitute death? Like my colleagues before me, I am concerned. Some doctors, for example, claim that tests for 'brain-stem' death, the precondition for organ removal, can actually precipitate the condition.”
“Another example would be a person who is a drug addict or a convicted criminal. How would he be placed on the priority list? I am quite sure that hospitals in Singapore attempt to look into who best to give priority, when deciding on organ transplantation, but there are no clear and publicly available indications of who would be placed in the front of the queue. In the case of car control, the Government steps in on the demand side of things. In the case of organ transplants, the Government steps in on the supply side of things. There is nothing wrong with the approach. However, just as I feel that more can be done on the supply side of the car population, so I think that more can be done to indicate how demand of organs can be better managed. As far as supply of organs is concerned, since a person who decides not to opt-out is effectively saying "yes" to donating his/her organs, the amendment should also include something about the community giving back something to the immediate family members of a deceased patient who has his/her liver, kidney, or cornea removed upon the certification of brain death. A one-off benefit could include the defraying of funeral expenses; a one year write off of income tax being owed; grants and so on. Quite obviously, there must be a cap on the amount that can be given out, but in making this gesture, the Government will be signalling that it, too, is doing something about properly managing the harvest of organs in this country. Sir, the amendment does not include other types of organs. A few years ago, there was a successful lung transplant being carried out in Singapore.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the amendment Bill. It is encouraging to note that many seriously ill people are saved each year through organ donations. At the same time it is just as depressing to note that yet many more die each year, because there are simply not enough organs donated. HOTA will change this as more organs for transplant can be made available to those who are in need. I applaud the Government for having the moral courage to introduce these changes despite the many issues and concerns that need to be addressed and clarified. Reassurance and practical solutions to allay the fears, apprehensions and concerns of Singaporeans will need to be put in place. Sir, I would like to raise some of these concerns focusing on five areas: The first area of concern is that the Bill focuses too much on the supply side of the equation. What is not surprising is the rationale that the MOH gives for the need to include liver, heart and cornea under this opt-out system. I reckon that the dire need for such organs is what prompts the Government to introduce the amendment. However, in my opinion, there is just not enough debate in this nation about the demand-management side of the equation. We are not sure by what criteria patients who need these organs are given priorities one over the other. In the US, the authorities have developed rather elaborate contra-indications of who should get priority and who should not. There is no such set of contra-indications in Singapore or, at least, we are not sure what those contra-indications are as they are not made publicly available. For example, I am pretty sure that a patient who is 85 years old, an invalid, and a widower would not be given the priority over, say, a patient who is a 35-year old and a breadwinner of his family.”
“Sir, would the Minister consider taking a two-pronged approach other than targeting at couples? Would the Minister also actually stretch a little bit down to children because he knows that very often we are addressing an issue that is just on the surface. But, to my mind, I think this is more a question of family values and whether such an approach would be taken at school where we will begin to continue to time pump in the message of the need for students to be aware of the fact that when it comes to their time, they should be responsible adults doing their part for society and for themselves. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, unfortunately, the Minister for Education is not in the House. I would have asked him to answer the question. But to answer the Member's question, we are working with the Ministry of Education through a variety of programmes, one of which is called the School Family Education Programme. Together with some schools that we have partnered, we work through the schools, not only in terms of promoting some of the family values that we all hold dear in Singapore, but also to help our school children, in terms of some of the issues that they confront. So we are working with the schools in some of these issues that the Member has raised. I am not too sure whether we will be successful in implanting in them the need to have a family. But I certainly agree with her that if we can start them young to understand the need to have a family and children as something that we hold dear in Singapore, we may have a chance in bucking this trend.”
“Can the Minister enlighten the House on how can we ensure sustainability of growth in companies in the restructuring of the wage system? My second question is: how can we build the element of flexibility such that we can trigger cuts and restoration readily? Thirdly, how can we convince employers, employees and unions to embrace the restructuring system at a faster rate?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister say that during Prime Minister Badawi's visit to Singapore the issue of the bridge will be discussed?”
“How would the players in the private sector be affected, especially if the Board is intending to provide advisory and consultancy services and training as well? Sir, I am concerned that such intentions by the Board may give the impression that the Government is encroaching into the private sector. The framework on the formation of a statutory board is very business-oriented. For example, it can collect fees, impose fees or commissions for services, create joint ventures and companies. I would like to know whether the Board has already worked out its maiden organisational plan and the budget for its first year. Sir, despite the Minister's mention of subvention as a form and main source of funding, with reference to clause 21, I would like to seek clarifications on: (i) What are the other monies that will be transferred to the Board and how will these funds be used? (ii) What other grants or subsidies will be given to the Board and how these monies will be used and for what purposes? Sir, clause 27 provides for the Board to invest monies in funds, securities or investments as may be authorised by the Minister. Sir, I would like to clarify which Minister are we referring to. Is it the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Education? I look forward to the Minister reviewing the inputs I have given and incorporating them where they are appropriate. On this note, I support the Bill.”
“But, Sir, it is important that we establish a process to localise this separation, and it is important that we work within a timeframe to ensure that, eventually, we set up a system that is robust. The Bill is silent on this. Sir, we have to take cognisance that it takes time for credibility to be established and it is in our interest that, in evolving our own examination system and process, we do not take an overnight transformation, which we are very well-known for. Although the Minister has mentioned that announcements on the change were made before, in 2002 and 2003, we must continue to be mindful of the need to be linked to a credible body in evolving the process. Just recall the instant trees that we saw overnight along our expressways some years back. We could successfully do this with our expressways for physical and tangible infrastructure. However, when it comes to knowledge, skills competencies and expertise, we need to evolve them. Therefore, a weaning process over a time period will definitely land us in better stead, as we will have an opportunity to build our credentials and to put our stamp on the international education scene. Sir, I would also like to seek further clarifications on the following. Would the setting up of an autonomous agency lead to a more streamlined MOE plus statutory board? If not, what is the expected increase in costs to the Government and MOE that would be incurred through the creation of the new statutory board? Would there also be an increase in fees and costs for students using the services of the new statutory board? With reference to clause 11(2), what are the types and examples of "assessment" referred to here?”
“With the separation, how do we establish this relationship of working in tandem to ensure the relevance of the Examinations and Assessment Board, such that the Examinations and Assessment Board does not get out of touch? The Minister has mentioned that the Ministry will have oversight and control of the Board via Board members. The question still remains as to how the process of relevance is to be established. It further begs the question: if the Ministry's oversight involves Board members, who are officials of the MOE, then why is there this need for separation? It raises the value-add question what improvements or cost savings will the new Board bring. Sir, what will be the nature of such a Board? Is this a step towards localising the assessment of the GCE 'O' and 'A' levels? And will such a move also lead to the possibility of the local syndicate getting involved eventually? By taking a step to evolve a process to establish Singapore's own trademark and credentials in testing and assessment for the 'O' and 'A' level examinations is indeed a laudable move. It is a demonstration that we have the competencies and capabilities to be able to validate and certify our very own GCE 'O' and 'A' level examinations. This will afford us the opportunity to spin and nurture a new enterprise in test and assessment services, adding vibrancy and new business and job opportunities to our economy. We can envisage Singapore becoming, first, a regional test and assessement service centre for GCE 'O' and 'A' level examinations and, gradually, finding its place in the international arena. With such possibilities, Singaporeans will be offered further options in their search for jobs and business opportunities.”
“Sir, like my colleagues before me, I applaud the intent of this Bill, which is to put the Singapore education trademark in the international education front. I would like to thank the Minister for his preamble on this Bill. Sir, like my hon. colleagues before me, I too have pondered on the rationale and impetus for spinning off another autonomous agency, as if it is fashionable to do so nowadays. It begs the question as to whether indeed an autonomous agency will render a more effective service and outcome than the existing arrangement. If we could recall, in 2001, the Health Ministry's existing function of health promotion and healthcare product regulation were hived off to two new statutory boards. This resulted in two new CEO positions and two additional sets of staff, ie, personnel, finance and public affairs, with each handling one-third of the previous workload. That same year, another new statutory board, the Civil Service College, was formed to coordinate training courses for civil servants. Soon after, a Public Relations Academy, headed by a Managing Director who was formerly a Public Affairs Manager at ENV, was set up to provide public relations courses for civil servants. Sir, I am concerned with duplication of resources. So long as structures and resources deployed are designed in the most efficient manner, I think we have no concerns. It is necessary to ensure that the new statutory board will have enough on its plate to be spun off as an autonomous entity. Sir, I have some observations to make. First, it is important to note that there is a need to sustain an on-going relationship between the Curriculum Development Division and the Examinations Division.”
“In a typical structure in a ministry, is it right to say that we normally have a divisional director, a deputy director, a senior manager, followed by a manager and assistant manager? Can the Minister enlighten what would be the distinction between the areas of responsibilities and the scope of authority of these various positions in the hierarchy?”
“I have mentioned very briefly just now that we have done this. In 1998, we amended and beefed up the Act, putting in new sections and also giving the Police more investigative powers. But we will still look at the Act all the time and, if need be, we will further beef it up. Finally, Mr Steve Chia has mentioned spamming, and asked whether we can introduce laws to make spamming an offence. MITA and IDA are currently reviewing the position with AGC. They are studying how other countries deal with the problem of spamming. We note that in many of these countries, for example, United States, Australia, United Kingdom, a multi-pronged approach is adopted that encompasses, besides legislation, consumer awareness and education, consumer opting-in or opting-out to receive unsolicited mail, anti-spam technical solutions and industry's self-regulation as well. For those countries which have introduced laws against spamming, we are monitoring the efficacy of these laws. Indeed, there are reports that countries with laws against spamming have found that these laws are not entirely effective in eliminating spamming. Thus, in the US, for example, despite the laws, successful suits against spammers are rare and the instances of spamming have not decreased. Therefore, we will study and then choose the way forward that is best suited for Singapore. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“In such a case, parties may subpoena documents as evidence in a civil suit which may inadvertently disclose the identity of the informer. As I have just mentioned, it is highly unlikely that private parties in civil proceedings will be in possession of sensitive information leading to the discovery of informers. Hence, Prof. Chin's suggestion that pre-trial discovery can be used to ask questions relating to the identity of the informer, whilst technically possible, is, in practice, highly unlikely. But let me assure him that we will consider how this works in practice and fine-tune it, if necessary. Mdm Ho asked whether the composition fine limit of $3,000 is too low. To put things in context, I think those of you in this House, at this year's Committee of Supply debate, will know that the Ministry of Law is working with other Ministries to see how we can decriminalise minor offences, in particular, regulatory ones. So this is part of this process. Where we can, we will enable the authorities administering Acts to impose composition fines. Sir, I think all of us will agree with this approach, because there will be more flexibility given to the agencies and, definitely, on a case-by-case basis, eg, if a young offender is involved and it is only a minor offence under the Act, to impose a composition fine. But, as Mdm Ho has mentioned, if an adult is behind that minor's defalcation, then he cannot hide behind that veil. He possibly can be charged for abetting. So, there is no automatic application of this process. This composition fine will also not be used for the new situation that is covered under section 15A. It is for existing offences in the Computer Misuse Act and the less serious ones. Mdm Ho also suggested beefing up the Act to cover other non-security offences.”
“The Police will, separately, still need to gather the necessary evidence, such as particulars of the hacking, particulars of the victims and any loss or damage suffered. What will be protected from disclosure is the fact that the security agency alerted the Police to the Internet banking hacking offence in the course of taking preventive measures authorised by the Minister. In any case, section 15A(3) is not new. I am sure Prof. Chin knows that there are parallel provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Prof. Chin also asked whether section 15A(3)(b) will allow a witness to voluntarily disclose the identity of the informer. Sir, the intention behind this provision is that a witness cannot be compelled to answer any question which may lead to the disclosure of sensitive information or the identity of the informer. The witness in such circumstances is likely to be the investigation officer who received the first information report from the security agency. The investigation officer will be instructed not to disclose the information unless he is authorised to do so by the relevant authority after consulting the security agency. So no other witness is likely, in practice, to be in possession of the sensitive information in question, unless it is received in contravention of the Official Secrets Act. Prof. Chin also asked whether in civil proceedings the identity of the informer could, in fact, be revealed in pre-trial discovery, thus circumventing section 15A(4). Sir, let me, first, explain that civil proceedings are included, because there is a possibility of the victim in a criminal prosecution commencing a civil suit against the offender for loss and damage suffered as a result of the offence.”
“And this is indeed no different from the current situation where our law enforcement officers abide by their code of professionalism, and do not reveal or make use of any private information obtained in the course of their duties. Let me now address the points Prof. Chin mentioned on section 15(3). He referred to that subsection and asked what are the objections to providing the defendant with a first information report when we are dealing with civil as well as criminal proceedings. Sir, this subsection will be invoked when civil or criminal proceedings ensue in relation to an offence disclosed by any measure taken under section 15A. This is intended to protect the identity of the informer and, more importantly, the circumstances in which the measures were invoked. Information on the threat and the specific measures taken cannot be disclosed for obvious reasons, as it will hinder or even jeopardise the very operations taken to neutralise the threat. We may even unwittingly alert the perpetrator or attacker and he could change his plan, divert his tactics or even frustrate the efforts of our agencies. He could also take steps to cover his tracks. We will then have to start afresh, something we can ill afford to do in such dire circumstances of an imminent threat to our national interests. Having said this, let me assure Prof. Chin that section 15A(3) does not absolve the Police from conducting proper investigations and gathering sufficient evidence to prove all the elements of the offence. I am sure he is aware of that. For example, the first information report might alert Police to the fact that a certain offender has been hacking into the Internet banking account of bank customers.”
“But unlike the ISA where the liberty of a person is at stake, here it is not quite so. And given the nature of the threat, I think it is better to move fast and decisively, because the threats can also be changing all the time. Indeed, if the threat is imminent, I think the Minister must have the latitude to act decisively and in the best interest of Singapore; of course, supported by the professionalism and objectivity of his security officers. Hence, ultimately, the safeguard must be the judgment of the Minister and the professionalism and integrity of the entire system and especially of the players, the actors, the people working the system. Prof. Chin and Mdm Ho asked what measures are contemplated. Sir, the measures could be technical, operational and procedural in nature. They could include, for example, perimeter defence devices such as firewalls, vulnerability scanning tools, real time intrusion detection systems as well as systems designed to combat computer viruses, worms and trojan horse programmes. All these form part of the multi-layered defence we have against cyber attacks. These measures will be non-intrusive in nature. For example, any scanning programme deployed would not intrude a subscriber's PC. It would only scan the Internet passively to determine vulnerabilities in the affected network. Let me assure Mr Ravindran that it has never been our intention to intrude into the privacy of law-abiding citizens. So law-abiding citizens should have no fear. If at all our security agencies come across any private information in the course of taking measures under this new section, such information is protected under the Official Secrets Act. The security agencies do not reveal such private information.”
“We must not forget that the cyber world is a fast moving one where threat scenarios can change rapidly. I think that is a very basic point. And terrorists are also thinking of new ways to launch attacks. Hence, our security agencies should be given the latitude to take the most appropriate and effective means to mitigate and counter any cyber attack. Having said this, there are safeguards, and that is the point of Mr Ravindran's speech. I am sure all of us in the House want to know what are these safeguards. Mdm Ho asked whether wild talk could lead to the invoking of section 15A. Essentially, she wants to know when the section will be invoked. Here is where the professionalism and objectivity of our security agencies come into play, and on this, they stand on their record. They must first submit a report to the Minister to convince him that there is an imminent threat to a particular computer system or network that would endanger the national security, essential services, defence or foreign relations of Singapore. The report would have to spell out in detail how and why they came to such a conclusion, and specify the measures they would require. The Minister will then have to, by a certificate under his hand, authorise these measures which must be practical and reasonable, and he will do this only after careful scrutiny and evaluation. As part of this process, relevant industry and security experts would be consulted on the implications of taking these measures before the Minister makes his decision. So it is a very considered process. Therefore, I think it is not necessary for a supervisory committee that Mr Ravindran suggests. Perhaps he took a leaf from the ISA. I think Mdm Ho does say that there is some parallel there.”
“This Bill and the powers enumerated in this Bill will be welcomed not just by this House but all our constituents and residents living in Singapore. Sir, let me take this opportunity to also assure the House that the powers under this new section 15A will not be invoked lightly or indiscriminately. The section itself circumscribes its use to situations where national security, essential services, defence or foreign relations are threatened. And under section 15(5), essential services are further defined. So the focus is very clear. Hence, these are possible threats at the highest level affecting our national interest, not fanciful or imagined threats and certainly not just threats against the Government. I think Prof. Chin captures this very well in his speech when he says that the keyboard has become mightier than the pen. How true that is. So it is better to be forewarned and prepared, as we are now doing to gear up. The situation that Mdm Ho mentions are lower level criminal offences which, in fact, can already be dealt with under our existing laws, including existing provisions in the Computer Misuse Act. In fact, in 1998, we beefed up the provisions to tackle some of the offences Mdm Ho mentioned. Indeed, any criminal offence that is disclosed in the course of taking measures under the new section15A will be prosecuted separately. Prof. Chin asked whether the powers are too wide, and can the measures not be specified. Let me say this. Given the nature of the threats we are facing, I think it is a better approach for the section to be crafted to be as broad as possible without prescribing specific measures or setting out guidelines, as suggested by Prof. Chin. Indeed, what we say in this House will already be guidelines in interpreting the provisions of the Act.”
“As I have mentioned earlier in my speech, we need also to be able to take pre- emptive steps to prevent a cyber attack on our system to safeguard Singapore's national interests. And we do this when we have information of an imminent cyber attack. Mdm Ho asked what constitutes an imminent attack. Essentially, it is an attack which is coming and likely to take place if steps are not taken to avert it. In this very globalised interconnected world, our security agencies are in touch with Interpol and their counterparts in other countries. This is something which all countries face. And as I have mentioned earlier, many other countries have, in fact, enacted laws which are similar to and, indeed, some wider than ours. Sir, Prof. Chin is indeed correct. The powers are wide. In fact, he asked why the persons who may be asked to take measures should not be prescribed or mentioned. We need a wide approach because it is necessary to take pre-emptive steps. And when these steps are taken, they may be directed not only at law enforcement agencies such as the Police or the Internal Security Department but also regulatory ones such as the MAS, the IDA or indeed also directed at systems and infrastructure owners, such as our banks, the stock exchange, the power supply or our transport operators. I think it is better to give the latitude to the Minister, by certificate under his hand, to set out what the measures are. But the bottom line will be that before the Minister authorises this, there must be grounds to believe that such systems, if attacked successfully, would result in a disruption of Singapore's critical infrastructure and essential services. So that is the focus, and I am sure we will keep this focus in mind.”
“Chin asked whether these can be specified. In particular, Prof. Chin also mentioned the existing section 15, saying that the powers there are quite wide already. So why do we need this new section 15A? Then Mr Ravindran asked about safeguards under this new section. These are the broad strokes. Specifically, Prof. Chin, Mdm Ho and Mr Steve Chia made specific points - Prof. Chin about section 15(3), in particular, the evidentiary process. Mdm Ho asked about the new section 12, in particular, description of composition fines, and Mr Steve Chia asked whether we would introduce laws on spamming. First, let me address Prof. Chin's point on the new section 15. Sir, the powers under the new section 15A are indeed much wider than the existing powers under section 15. Really the focus of the two sections are different. The powers under section 15A are narrower because they are basically investigative powers. They can only be exercised by a police officer or a person authorised by the Commissioner of Police and only for the purpose of criminal investigations, subsequent to the commission of an offence. This is more the traditional approach to crime solving. Moreover, the powers are limited as they can only be applied to a computer that is reasonably suspected or has been used in connection with an offence under the Act or any other criminal offence. Hence, contrary to what Mdm Ho thinks and I am sure Prof. Chin will agree by now, the existing powers that we have, both under the Computer Misuse Act and also other legislation, are definitely inadequate to deal with cyber threats against our national interests. That is why we need this new section.”
“Given that the scale and destructive powers of these attacks are often-times vast and extensive, one wonders if $3,000 is too low a level of deterrence. Besides the power of composition, would the Minister consider other measures that may be adopted to rehabilitate and caution minor offenders against such anti-social acts? Sir, on my third point, I would like to submit that the proposed Bill include a proviso that specifically defines both the acts of those adults who support, train, as well as fund minor offenders, and the stipulated punitive measures that would be meted out against these adults should such an incident occur. On the fourth point, Sir, I would like to know how does the Minister propose to deal with an act against violations of non-security criminal offences. Would the Bill incorporate a proviso to empower the relevant authorities to act against violations of non-security criminal offences? Many of us would recall that about a year or so ago, a hacker tried to disable the website of MediaCorp. That act alone cost MediaCorp a few million dollars worth of advertising revenue. Perhaps the Bill should empower the relevant authorities to act against such offences. I urge the Minister to re-look at such non-security criminal offences and beef up the legislation against such offences as well. On this note, I support the amendment in this Bill. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the various speakers for speaking up in support of the Bill, many of whom strongly supported the Bill. Sir, the points raised fall roughly into this matrix. First, the broad strokes. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked what situations the powers under the Bill may be invoked. Mdm Ho and Prof. Chin asked what measures are contemplated under the new provision and, indeed, Prof.”
“I support the amendments in this Bill but I would like to raise four points with regard to the Bill. First, I refer to the new section15A of the proposed Bill. Indeed it sounds very much like the cyber-space equivalent of the Internal Security Act. As in the ISA, the Minister is empowered to act pre-emptively against imminent attacks on our telecommunications infrastructure and those parts of our networks that may compromise our national security. While the intent behind this Bill is to be lauded, there are a number of questions that immediately come to mind. Like my hon. colleagues before me, I seek clarifications on how far "far back" would the Minister's power extend and what constitutes an imminent attack. In other words, how does the police cyber crime unit intend to differentiate between a real intent to compromise our national computer networks from those that are merely "wild" talk? I am inclined to think that perhaps there is other recourse besides the proposed Bill. For example, we could pass a piece of legislation which obligates our enforcement officers to seek warrants of arrest against potential mischief makers or those who harbour a malicious intent to disable or compromise our national computer databases or our telecommunications networks. Could the Minister also clarify what "proactive preventive" measures mean in the context of the amendment? Does it extend to the powers of arrest? Or is it merely confined to measures like denying potential criminals access to the networks? Sir, my second point refers to section 12A(1). The proposed power of composition for prescribed minor computer offenders provides for an amount of up to $3,000.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply. I would just like to comment here that Singapore's data on trade shares was also not impressive.”
“Sir, it was reported in the newspapers that it was very difficult for the WMI to justify on a commercial basis initially. I would like to check with the Minister on what basis was it very difficult for the WMI to justify on a commercial basis initially such that the Government has to pump in millions of dollars into this project.”
“Keeping to its promise to restore CPF to 36%, when in prosperous times, is a commitment that we must not fail our Singaporeans. There has been much talk that there is no longer trust and loyalty in organisations today with the shift to bottom-line driven objectives. I would argue that the pursuit of such commercial objectives does not mean doing away with loyalty and trust. Sir, I am heartened by what DPM Tony Tan has said, as reported in the newspapers, that we should start looking at companies like Walmart whose corporate culture has bred trust and loyalty. As MOS Cedric Foo has reinforced, productivity and preparedness of employers to review their operations through work redesign will facilitate value-add contributions of employees, and convince employers to look at their employees as an asset and not as a cost of doing business. Sir, man sacrifices for his belief when he can see and experience the trust and loyalty. On these fundamentals, in the last 38 years, our political leadership has nurtured a nation that is imbued with the motivation to overcome challenges and set ourselves ahead in every competition. Sir, the Singapore spirit has pulled us through several crises in the last 38 years and we have found that the formula was going through thick and thin as a team. I believe Singaporeans will have the resolve to support the Government's move to regain our competitiveness through this same formula of going through thick and thin as a team. Trimming the CPF waistline down from 36% is a healthy exercise. And, on this note, I support the motion.”
“Their financial burden would require a bit of a lifting by extending the scope of some of the assistance schemes to them. Sir, the Government's relief package on accelerating the infrastructure projects to the tune of $600 million is the largest item of the $1 billion package. Would this translate into jobs and more business opportunities for Singaporeans? How can the Government and the relevant agencies ensure that unemployed Singaporeans are targeted at? I am encouraged by Minister Mah's assurance that many of the projects would be eligible to local contractors based on the scale of the projects. I would also urge that for the bigger scale projects where foreign contractors' expertise is necessary, then we should facilitate a local partnership so that local partners will continue to have a place. Sir, it would be beneficial to put in place a tracking of the numbers and types of jobs created and of the numbers of unemployed Singaporeans taking up the jobs and the issues encountered in the process. This should similarly be done for the tourism industry where the Government will be pumping in $100 million in the Tourism Recovery Fund. Sir, we are indeed encouraged by PM's compassion and understanding of the need to restore the cut CPF to Singaporeans during better times. This is important as we must never look at this round's CPF cut as a permanent cut. Singaporeans have already accepted the fact that going back to the 40% contribution rate, which the Government had supported in the past, is a foregone conclusion. We have, in our midst, realistic Singaporeans who are flexible and prepared to sacrifice for the long term good of the country and cost competitiveness of the economy. Giving up the 40% CPF contribution is a gesture of sacrifice on the part of the employees.”
“An important consideration is streamlining and integrating job creation and employment opportunities with the relief package and needs of the SMEs respectively, as well as that of the GLCs. Besides the impact of a double-whammy CPF cut for those who reach 51, gainfully employed PMETs, with outstanding mortgage loans, could be sitting on two potentially possible financial time-bombs. The first potential financial time-bomb is their job security and pay package. If ever retrenched, these PMETs face the prospect of being unemployed with no pay or re-employed at a lower pay. When that happens, their ability to service their mortgage and other family commitments would be further eroded. No doubt, Sir, Minister Mah Bow Tan has assured that assistance schemes are available from HDB for mortgagors, but the fact is that the financial ability of these PMETs is eroded. The second financial time-bomb is the prospect of future increase in mortgage rates. Interest rates are at their all-time low and the prospect of increase is real. Those vulnerable to an increase in mortgage rate would be those who have maximum financial commitment to a mortgage loan based on the current low mortgage rate and are at their best ability to service the loan. The illustration that follows clarifies this. For example, for every 1% increase in mortgage rate, the home owners who take a 25-year $360,000 mortgage loan would have to incur an additional monthly cash payment of about $200 in interest payment. Sir, there may be nothing much that HDB could do here except again to further extend its assistance scheme. Sir, from these two illustrations, we recognise that the financial plight of the PMETs cannot be glossed over.”
“I also urge for more assistance to be extended to not-for-profit outfits, like SPEC, that was the first to champion the cause of PMEBS when it first encountered symptoms of their challenges and plights. SPEC had, since 1997, been engaged in facilitating the employability and addressing the concerns of PMEBS, together with MOM. Of the several schemes announced by DPM Lee, there is only one that has direct bearing on PMETs, and that is the People-for-Jobs Traineeship Programme. For the others, it is unclear how PMETs can benefit. Sir, another scheme that throws hope for the PMEBS is the $90 million International Enterprise Incentive Scheme to help Singaporean businesses venture abroad. These businesses would need expertise and experienced PMEBS. I would like to urge the SMEs, together with IE Singapore and the SWDA, to explore jointly setting up a scheme to encourage and facilitate the employment of the unemployed PMEBS in these operations overseas or locally. Besides the SMEs, I understand that many of our GLCs are also considering investments in overseas operations and I urge that they too would draw on the pool of unemployed PMETs for their overseas operations. Sir, this scheme could be like the Training for Employment Scheme (TFES). As it stands, TFES is silent on its applicability to convert unemployed PMEBS for expert contribution and gainful employment. Sir, I have been told that CareerLink at SPEC has a database of some 5,000 PMETs registered, looking for job opportunities, and this could be the starting point for SMEs and GLCs to offer jobs and tap on their expertise and experience.”
“This cohort has been growing since the shift in our economy to a more knowledge-based one. The feedback from many in this group is, "Why are we always left out? Many of the schemes are targeted at the lower income groups. We are the new poor Singaporeans." From experience, we know that this group is capable of making short-term lifestyle adjustments according to their individual financial circumstances. They have managed and weathered well in the past financial crisis without much help, living largely from their savings. This time the circumstances surrounding them are different. Like all other major economies in the world, jobs are lost to comparatively lower cost countries. We agree that professionals, managers, executives, even businessmen and the self-employed should be more capable of taking care of themselves. Nonetheless, we have to take cognisance of this difference from previous downturns this time round. What recourse do professionals, managers, executives, businessmen and self-employed have besides seeing their MPs to pour out their predicament? Sir, the relief package is clear on schemes such as WAP to assist the lower income group but silent on its eligibility for PMETs in similar plight as the lower income group. The PMETs, mostly in their 40s and 50s, constitute a substantial segment of the workforce, and the remote chance of reemployment in the next 6 to 12 months spell anxiety and despair for many of them. I urge the Government to spare them a second look and specify how they can be helped and consider extending assistance schemes to the more deserving ones.”
“He has also driven home the message that it is through thick and thin that we will go through together as a team. And I agree here that we should extend beyond pre-emptive lay-off to pre-emptive motivation that DPM Tony Tan spoke about. At this point, Sir, I would like to make some observations with regard to the CPF retuning and the relief package and urge the Government to do more for Singaporeans, especially the PMETs. Sir, I have asked for permission to distribute a table to illustrate my point. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.] Prime Minister Goh spoke of the PMETs who constitute 43% of the retrenched employees. They seem to be the more vulnerable group and, for the above 40s, they also take a longer time to be re-employed. By and large, the above 40s PMETs are the ones who would be financially squeezed with prospect of no or lesser CPF contributions to service their mortgages and other mid-life commitments. The retuning exercise will hit this group most drastically and hence they are deserving of help. The illustration that ensues explains clearly. For a person aged above 50 but below 55 now, the effective CPF cut is 3% per year over the next three years. However, a person who is 48 years old now and on reaching the age of 51, will see a 6% cut in CPF on reaching 51 years of age. Sir, this group at 48 and below will face a double whammy when they reach age 51. The Government has put in place various relief packages and assistance schemes for the lower income groups. It demonstrates PM Goh's and DPM Lee's promises to assist every Singaporean affected by this major wage restructuring process. What about Singaporeans from the professionals, managers, executives and technical group (PMETs) with salary ranging from $3,000 to $6,000?”
“I would like to share that, generally, the state of human resource and industrial relation practices in Singapore is above global average index. If IR and HR practices are deemed responsible for the stories we hear, it is because the story is often told half truth, or is half told. Sir, I ask to be excused for my impertinence to cite this example as an illustration. If I were to say that I saw Mayor Heng Chee How at Desker Road last night, it tells one story. But if I were to go on to say that he was at Desker Road last night carrying out his duty as Mayor of Central CDC where Jalan Besar happens to fall under, and he was there to check out on certain complaints, it tells another story. So, it is important to tell the whole truth. Sir, our vision is to create a future where Singapore, embedding the physical, intellectual, social and spiritual spheres, continues to remain attractive to stakeholders. These stakeholders include the investors, talents, both local and foreign, as well as the old and the young in this multi-religious and multi-racial society. The Government's tenacious job is the ability to balance the Chinese weighing scale. Pull it one side higher and tip down the other side, you upset those on the bottom of the scale. In this whole debate of making it affordable for businesses and possible for the Singaporean competitiveness, the Government has shown its astute capability of striking a balance and, more importantly, its compassion and humane touch. The announcement by DPM Lee of the other cost saving measures that the Government will embark on, in particular, cost of doing business with the Government, has reinforced the gotong-royong spirit that all stakeholders must possess.”