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 2 of 18.
“However, I urge MOE to continue to ensure the accessibility and affordability of its quality pre-school education for all in Singapore. On this note, I support the amended motion. 4.25 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this opportunity to share my thoughts on an important issue – the education of our children. I would also like to thank my fellow NMP, Mr Viswa Sadasivan, for tabling the motion, thus facilitating this important debate. Central to Mr Sadasivan’s argument is the significance of pre-school education in levelling inequality in our society. His concern is with the small group of children who are not receiving pre-school education, and who may be disadvantaged when they start formal education in Primary 1. To resolve this inequality, he proposes that a comprehensive review of pre-school education to ensure that there is some form of standardisation of delivery. Inherent in his arguments is the move to make pre-school education compulsory to ensure equal opportunities for all children. Mr Sadasivan has raised a very important issue which centres on the intergenerational transfer of disadvantages. Like Mr Sadasivan, I am also concerned about the gap between children from different social class backgrounds and I strongly support the principle of equal opportunities. However, unlike Mr Sadasivan, I do not believe that making pre-school education compulsory or standardising pre-school curriculum will necessarily be effective in levelling the starting point for children in the pursuit of education. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to elaborate on three reasons why I disagree with Mr Sadasivan. The first is framed on the responsibility of the State in the provision of education for the young.”
“At KidzHaven, there is a diversity of programmes offered, which include speech and drama, gymnastics, music and dance, art and science, carpentry and even domestic science. The whole emphasis is to enable each child to discover his aptitude and introduce him to a variety of other possibilities. I would like to assure Mr Viswa and Ms Audrey Wong that no child has been turned away because he could not afford the fees for these enrichment programmes. There is an array of financial assistance available. For those children who need to catch up with their learning, we have special coaching classes to help them. Financial assistance is made known through our Befriender Programme where we match needy households to volunteers whose focus is on the pre-school education of the needy children. There are eight pre-school education centres in Boon Lay and beyond the base-line quality curriculum, each centre offers a variety of programmes, or specialised programmes, to cater to the needs of the children and parents. The providers include PCF and First Campus. For closer integration with the community, both First Campus and PCF centres work closely with the community leaders so that hardship cases can be addressed by grassroots organisations and self-help groups. Sir, education is an ever evolving process and the Government’s inter-agency efforts have always fine-tuned the process, be it for pre-school education or tertiary education. The learning processes are in place and safety nets are lowered to ensure that no one falls through the cracks. Therefore, I believe that pre-school education process in Singapore is adequate and it does fulfil the various needs of the larger population.”
“In particular, children from lower-income households receive targeted support through financial assistance programmes such as KiFAS and Headstart Fund as well as community-based support from grassroots organisations, self-help groups and PCF kindergartens. We have also increased pre-school participation by partnering community agencies to reach out to children from lower-income families. Sir, I applaud MOE for launching SPARK yesterday. SPARK, as mentioned earlier, is a new quality rating system to allow parents to make informed choices about the kindergartens and childcare centres. Our pre-school sector, as it stands, is vibrant and diverse. This should be the case given that there is no strong educational evidence to promote a single school programme. And, most importantly, we should offer choices and not restrict the options available to parents or even to impose a maximum fee that they should pay. We should trust that parents are discerning and will make their pre-school choices based on their needs. Sir, two major pre-school education providers in Singapore reaching out to the low-income households are PCF and First Campus. They have been transforming themselves in recent years and they have excellent pre-school programmes and facilities that outshine many private school education centres. In my ward Boon Lay, made up mainly of rental flats and 3-room flats, with the support of MOE, PCF together with NIE, set up the first of a series of experiential kindergartens. Children from the lower-income households are not deprived of the latest state-of-the-art pre-school education. I invite both Mr Viswa and Ms Audrey Wong to visit KidzHaven@PCF Boon Lay as seeing is believing. Ms Wong will realise that programmes at PCF are contrary to the feedback that she has.”
“Sir, our pre-schools emphasise social skills whereby our young learn to work and relate to others and slowly realise that there is a whole new world out there and that it does not just end with papa and mama. Indeed, a one-mould pre-school sector, that Mr Viswa suggests, would tend towards conformity which is not ideal. An analogy is the Chinese steamed cake ang ku kueh which is red, as the name suggests, but even ang ku kueh today have a variety of colours and fillings – the pandan green-coloured skin with peanut is selling for 60 cents whereas the red colour with peanut is selling for 40 cents. And all these are to make sure that we are able to cater to the varying appetites of our consumers. Sir, the broad parameters prescribed by the Ministry and the wide choice of pre-school operators available allow parents to make uniformed choices when it comes to selecting pre-schools for their children based upon their needs and budgets. By standardising pre-school curriculum, the losers in the long run will be the child himself and, by a larger extension, the country due to misguided policy. Sir, quality pre-school education hinges on quality teachers, facilities and programmes that constitute sound foundation as well as key guiding principles of affordability, accessibility and choice. Although the impact of pre-school education is not established, education experts recommend that pre-school education focuses on teaching children social skills such as learning to work and relate with others, expressing their thoughts and ideas, and building confidence in order to give these kids a head start. The Government ensures that pre-school remains accessible and affordable to all.”
“Of the 40,000-odd pre-schoolers, I understand that about 100-odd are neither registered nor traceable. Sir, this is actually a very small number to warrant instituting compulsory education for pre-school. Hon. MP Mrs Josephine Teo had elaborated the different categories in this small number, so I will not belabour on this point. Sir, the Ministry, as recently as January 2010, emphasised the rationale for not promoting a single pre-school programme. As it is, it is a common sight, especially over the weekends, to see overly concerned parents shuttling their young children to several enrichment classes. The poor child is clueless as to what is required of him as the child is trying to fulfil the aspirations of the parents. There is no joy in learning for the child. I am glad to note that Mr Viswa is not proposing for a one-shoe-size-that-fits-all approach. I would like to reiterate that promoting a single programme is not viable. As I always tell my children, education is a marathon and not a 100-metre sprint. We would only be placing undue pressure on the child and serve to crimp his developmental learning process if we are too hung up about the academic performance and even the knowledge of the child at a young age. An over-emphasis on academic excellence at a young age, in fact, may lead to a lack of motivation in the long run. I never attended pre-school and neither did Mr Viswa, and both of us have not turned out for the worse. I think what is important is that there are excellent primary and secondary school programmes to allow late bloomers or those who had missed out on pre-school education to catch up later on in life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amended motion. The tenets of the amended motion are two-fold: first, in support of the Government’s effort to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education; and, second, that the Government continues to review, monitor and improve pre-school education to ensure equal opportunities for all. This is in contrast to the prescriptive approach taken by both hon. NMPs, Mr Viswa Sadasivan and Ms Audrey Wong where they advocate a standardisation of curriculum and fees as well as compulsory pre-school education as a way of ensuring equal opportunities. Sir, the intent of the Government is to give every Singaporean child the same head start in life and be taught the foundational knowledge and skills that will enable the child to further his or her education and training later on. The Committee on Compulsory Education in 2000 headed by the then Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Aline Wong, recommended that compulsory education should be between Primary 1 and Primary 6. The duration of compulsory education defines the minimum period of education for all Singaporean children rather than the ideal duration from an educational perspective. This is in recognition of the wishes and aspirations of the different communities which make up the Singapore society. Sir, as mentioned by hon. Member Mr Masagos, MOE and MCYS have made the extra effort to track down the families whose children have not registered for pre-school. In fact, when necessary, advisers of grassroots organisations and grassroots leaders follow up with visits to these families at their last known addresses, and most of these visits are conducted in the evenings to maximise chances of meeting the parents.”
“I agree that a settlement procedure is the best way to reconcile a parent and his adult children through this "many-helping-hands" approach. Family issues are sensitive and this Bill aptly recognises that. With that, I support the Bill. 4.04 pm”
“Could I seek clarification on how this will work such that there will not be a drastic increase in the amount of manpower and resources required in pressing for prompt payments? How would these costs be defrayed? Sir, I understand that the usual practice is a monthly maintenance payment rather than a lump sum. Considering the financial background of children, it is a fair thing to do, but I am afraid that this might result in an abuse of the system by children. Every now and then, after the settlement process has ended, those who want to shirk responsibility may try to worm their way out by citing a lack of financial ability to make the maintenance payments. How do we ensure that there is no such disruption and what recourse is available for the claimants? How do we enforce the monthly payments in an expeditious way? Sir, as much as this Bill is meant to preserve family ties, there could be a possible breakdown of the relationship between the parent and the child or the children when such maintenance applications are made. We cannot eradicate the possibility of violence or ill will on both sides. Are there further measures to ensure the safety of parents who have made such maintenance applications? Would there be a close monitoring of such cases and intervention in the form of counselling for the affected parties? Sir, I would like to check whether the Workgroup would have figures on parents who were abused by their children following the application for maintenance. These further measures are necessary to promote the legislative intent of the Bill such that parents are not afraid to make such maintenance applications when necessary. Once again, I would like to commend the Workgroup for putting together this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend Mr Seah Kian Peng for taking this initiative and the MPA group for strengthening the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill (MPA). Although this Bill is not meant to legislate filial piety or to place a price upon filial piety, it allows the Government to emphasise that filial piety, underpinned by Asian moral values, is still relevant to a modern society like ours. Our parents cared for us and brought us up, and it is only our duty to look after their well-being when they are no longer independent. Sir, currently, the Tribunal and Commissioner have very limited powers in terms of accessing data and information about the adult children. This significantly hinders the operation of the MPA. Clause 8 inserts a new section 14A to empower the Tribunal or the Commissioner to obtain information, records, documents or articles from officers of the necessary authorities. Sir, this is a positive step towards enhancing the operation of the MPA in serving its original purpose as the Tribunal and Commissioner are now able to better assess the ability of the parent and his children to maintain him. Sir, I am all for the spirit of the MPA, but I would like to seek clarifications on certain proposed amendments in the Bill. Sir, the Bill seeks to emphasise that the financial ability of children will be a huge factor in considering the monthly maintenance payment to the parent. I am concerned about the increase in manpower and resources that this will bring. I understand from the Workgroup’s consultation paper that offices will be adequately resourced to ensure prompt payments by children. Sir, clause 9 allows information to be had by the Tribunal.”
“Sir, at my Meet-the-People Sessions, I see cases where residents have engaged a legal representative for their work-related issues, but somehow the residents are still being advised by these legal representatives to seek advice and assistance from the Member of Parliament. In such cases relating to work, can the employee then, whose legal representative has really not been representative or left him in a lurch, seek assistance from the Tripartite Mediation Committee? Also, Sir, why is it that only finance- and salary-related cases can be heard in the Labour Court? In specialised industries, can the Minister please elaborate on the possibility of giving consideration to inputs from experts and specialists? Can specific requests be made for them to sit on the mediation panel and will the employees have to sort these out themselves or can MOM assist? Next, Sir, I hope the Minister can also comment on the use of collective or group mediation in specific circumstances as they may arise. Finally, I also support the amendment to increase the range of penalties stipulated for all the different sections. In conclusion, I support this Amendment Bill. 5.59 pm”
“Sir, as much as we want PMEs to make use of the new scheme, we also hope that an agreement between PMEs and their employers may be reached harmoniously in the event of a dispute with as little damage to their relationship as possible. Hence, a settlement out of court should always be the top priority, with litigation being the very last resort. In this, I look forward to TAFEP playing an effective role. On this note, I support the Bill. 5.56 pm Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef: Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I welcome the fine-tuning proposed and especially with regard to clarification of certain definitions. Tripartite mediation is indeed a positive step but as there are eligibility guidelines, can I enquire what options are then available for the cases that are not eligible for tripartite mediation? What other forms of recourse do these employees have? Why do we use a salary cut-off at the $4,500 mark? With this cut-off limit, the number of executives accessible to mediation would be reduced significantly (approximately, as quoted in the media, for 46,000 based on estimates when there are actually about 500,000 of PMETs earning up to $4,500 a month in Singapore). Also, what other forms of mediation between employer and employee, eg, community mediation or mediation through other sources, can these employees seek? If an employee decided on these other options, are there criteria that require them to keep their employers updated? What happens if the employee has a legal representative which he appoints? Will there be any specific differences to the approach?”
“It is also troublesome and confusing even for PMEs to have to turn to different channels to resolve different types of disputes. Should there not be a one-stop shop for all employment disputes as opposed to separating between basic employment breaches and employment discrimination? Sir, often there could be a combination of disputes from both categories occurring concurrently. After all, the purpose of this Bill is for PMEs to gain access to a low-cost settlement mechanism and there is not a substantial reason for distinguishing between basic employment breaches and employment discrimination. I would like to raise a suggestion concerning the issue of speeding up the settlement process. I understand that if tripartite mediation fails to reach an amicable settlement, the respective claims will be adjudicated by MOM through the Labour Court. Sir, could there be a system of adverse cost implications which will further facilitate and encourage settlement? To illustrate, if the offeror offers a certain settlement sum but this is not accepted by the offeree, and the offeror subsequently obtains a judgement which is more favourable than the settlement sum, the offeree (who previously refused to accept the settlement sum offered by the offeror) may be penalised as the court deems fit. Sir, this system of adverse cost implications will deter parties from trying their luck in arriving at unrealistic settlement sums during mediation process. In fact, this system of adverse implications has been applied in normal litigation procedures and has proven to be effective in speeding up settlement out of court.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to commend the Ministry for raising the salary limit of employees termed "executives" to $4,500. This will allow for a wider range of representation of executives and PMEs applaud that they now have a proper recourse to grievances. Currently, disputes between PMEs and their employers are settled through civil litigation which can be protracted, painful and a costly process. The new mediation scheme will allow parties to settle their employment disputes in a more productive way. Sir, I would like to seek clarification on the limited list of disputes that are subject to this proposed tripartite mediation scheme. I understand that only disputes relating to breaches of employment contract, salary disputes and disputes involving retrenchment benefits are subject to this new scheme. However, disputes involving employment discrimination (ie, racial, disability or medical conditions) are not subject to this new scheme. In fact, discrimination-related disputes were raised during the public consultation for this Bill, and the Ministry recommended that PMEs who face discrimination-related grievances should raise the issues to the attention of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). There is no doubt that the establishment of TAFEP is a step in the right direction to help PMEs but unless TAFEP is able to bite harder, shed its baby teeth and grow its permanent teeth quickly, PMEs would still need legislated representation on discrimination-related grievances. Sir, to strengthen TAFEP, we need to engage more employers with TAFEP. I would like to ask whether we have statistics on the growth of TAFEP employer membership to date. Sir, I note that employment discrimination in Singapore is not adequately dealt with.”
“If the intention of this new measure is to address the issue of speculative bubbles in the property market, this new measure should equally apply to both foreign and local property developers because the latter is also capable of playing the property market. On this note, I support the Bill. 4.54 pm”
“Managing the exit of Singaporeans is no different from managing attrition in a company. We need to take stock. Sir, on inheritance, the reduction from 10 years to five years serves as a stern deterrence. The question is: how do we leverage this stern measure to woo ex-Singaporeans to return? The very fact that they are named as beneficiaries signals the desire of their benefactors to keep the ties with them with Singapore. Would the Ministry consider the five-year period as a general rule, but grant flexibility on a case-by-case basis when there is strong evidence that we can win over the ex-Singaporeans to return? Sir, the other significant change is the tightening of rules for foreign property developers. Currently, the RPA mandates that foreign housing developers must complete residential developments within five years. They must also sell all units within two years from the time the project receives its Temporary Occupation Permit. With this Bill, the Ministry of Law is now proposing that developers who fail to complete and sell their developments within the stipulated period will be subject to a new extension charge framework where they will pay for the extension of time beyond the original completion framework. Sir, I would like to commend the Ministry for introducing such a measure as this will deter foreign property developers from hoarding some units for speculation. Singapore’s property market underwent several speculative bubbles and the Government’s latest cooling measures are meant to prevent overheating in the property market. Sir, I would like to seek a clarification at this point. Will this new measure also apply to local property developers?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to focus on three issues in the Residential Property (Amendment) Bill. On individuals who give up their Singaporean citizenship or PR status, Sir, I understand that it is fair that ex-Singaporeans should be treated just like foreigners and they will no longer be entitled to property ownership in a land-scarce country like Singapore. This is in line with the Government’s intention to continually emphasise that the status of a Singaporean citizenship is a matter of honour and pride and comes with many privileges. We must constantly show that Singaporeans come first, especially on matters pertaining to property and housing. I would like to raise some suggestions for consideration. First, in recent years, more and more Singaporeans are venturing to live and work abroad in major cities in the world, such as Shanghai and London. Many local firms also have partnerships and overseas offices in these major cities. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, during his US trip in April 2010, called upon overseas Singaporeans to return to help in the country’s next phase of development. Just as Singapore seeks out foreign talents to take root in Singapore, overseas Singaporeans are also being courted by these overseas’ local authorities to sink their roots in these countries. The proposed measure will force Singaporeans, especially those on the brink of giving up their citizenship to rethink their decision. In the interim two years, what other softer approach are we considering to convince them to stay? Would the Government be prepared to carry out an exit interview to find out the reasons why Singaporeans are leaving the country and take the opportunity clarify these people’s misgivings.”
“Sir, I was actually going to ask whether there will be any monitoring and counselling programmes for the family. I think that was asked by Mdm Halimah.”
“The Internet platform, while convenient, is vulnerable, for example, to power-outage, hacking and denial of service attacks. Without a printed voting slip, auditing the voting results in the event of a petition to the Election Judge can be problematic. As regards postal voting, there is no guarantee of voting secrecy, as we do not know who marked the ballot paper. It is also difficult to ensure that all ballots will be mailed back to the Elections Department on time to be counted. Missing votes will also cast doubt on the integrity of the process. In the UK where postal voting is permitted, there had been reports of electoral fraud. For now, the paper ballot is still the simplest and most transparent method of voting that can ensure the integrity and secrecy of the voting process.”
“Apart from meeting the conditions that eligible voters must be Singaporeans aged 21 and above, and must be listed on the current register of electors of a constituency, overseas Singaporeans also have to reside in Singapore for a cumulative period of 30 days within three years before the cut-off date of electoral registers, before they are considered eligible to register to vote overseas. Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked whether there are plans to modify this eligibility criterion of residence. There are no such plans as the residential requirement was shortened only in August 2008 after the last General Election. Previously, overseas Singaporeans who wish to register as overseas voters must have resided in Singapore for a cumulative period of two years within five years immediately before a prescribed cut-off date which is the cut-off date for the registers of electors. Additionally, before the change of residential requirement, overseas Singaporeans had only 21 days to register. Now, the registration period has been extended up to the time when the Writ of Election is issued. Furthermore, the Elections Department has also introduced an online facility to make it more convenient for eligible overseas voters to register, and to apply to change their allotted overseas polling station or cancel their registration subsequently should they leave the city or country where they first registered as overseas voters. To allow more overseas Singaporeans access to overseas voting, New York City has been included as a polling station, making a total of nine. Elections Department has studied other methods of voting, such as Internet voting and postal voting but found that these are not as robust and reliable as the tried and tested methods of marking a ballot paper.”
“I would like to ask the Minister, as a matter of prudence, how would the Government consider fine-tuning the procedure of declaration of assets by civil servants and what checks are made to ensure that declarations filed in by the civil servants are true. In the case of the two SLA employees, what assets did they declare in their declarations? Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: On the last part of the Member's question, I would rather not get into the matter because investigations are proceeding on the two employees – what they did and did not do. On the declaration of assets by civil servants: actually the system is in place and it is quite robust. Whether someone lies or fails to declare his/her assets is a separate matter and, in this instance, the matter is being investigated. OVERSEAS VOTERS 8. Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked the Prime Minister (a) how many Singaporeans residing overseas are eligible voters in the next General Election (GE); (b) whether there are plans to modify the eligibility criteria to encourage more Singaporeans living abroad to participate in their country's GE; and (c) whether there have been modifications to the rules and modalities (eg, use of technology) to make it easier for those eligible to cast their votes. The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Wong Kan Seng) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, t he National Population Secretariat estimates that there are about 180,000 Singaporeans residing overseas. But we are not sure how many amongst them are eligible to vote as overseas voters.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions. One is: has Singapore considered cloud-seeding as a solution to the haze problem and, if it has, would it offer the same expertise to Indonesia? Secondly, during the haze Singaporeans tended to stay indoors, shut their windows and for better ventilation, Singaporeans would switch on fans and air-conditioners. I wonder whether a study has been undertaken to ascertain whether there is a spike in electricity bills during the haze situation? Will the Government consider giving electricity rebates to cope with higher electricity bills when the haze prevails in Singapore? Thirdly, what legal rights do average Singaporeans have against transboundary pollution like the haze situation? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, to answer the last question first: as neighbours in the region, we have a right and that is why there is an agreement – the Transboundary Haze Pollution Agreement – which all the nine countries of ASEAN except Indonesia have signed and ratified. If Indonesia were to ratify the haze agreement, which has already come into force, it can be fully implemented and therefore, we can monitor the situation. Cloud-seeding is normally used whenever you want to have rain. In this particular instance, of course, if there is rain it would help in terms of easing the haze. We have done our internal studies and have found that cloud-seeding is not very effective even for rain-making purposes in Singapore. As for electricity bills, we have not really monitored it. And as for the rebates, I think the Member knows the answer – it is a flat "no" [Laughter]. The most important thing is that Singaporeans must continue to prepare for this eventuality and make the necessary adjustments.”
“Taking a similar stance, we should institutionalise systematic feedback in training programmes that include indicators on the quality of trainer and materials covered, and if the training had imparted practical skills that could be applied in the workplace to level up productivity. The feedback will give employees a voice in shaping the quality and nature of their work-based training programmes, and encourage employees to be active stakeholders in the quest to improve productivity. Concurrently, it will also serve to ensure that only quality training programmes can sustain. Related to this, I have a second query. Before an enterprise receives tax exemption under the PIC Scheme provisions, will the claims, for example, on equipment and software have to be rationalised on how productivity would be raised through these investments? Personally, I think they should be rationalised as the tax exemptions are specifically for investment in raising productivity. However, my proposal does flag certain concerns. For example, how will productivity be measured? And how will the claims be audited? I do not have the answers. Thank you, Sir, for your patience.”
“On behalf of all women, I would like to commend the Ministry for taking this step in light of the increasing number of female breadwinners in Singaporean households. With that, I support the Bill. 3.16 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Sir, for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this important Bill. At the Budget debate, I had raised my concerns on the implications of the stress on productivity on family life. While I fully support the drive towards improving our productivity at the workplace, I am also mindful that this strategy of national growth will only work if Singapore workers feel empowered as active stakeholders in this endeavor, and when a healthy worklife balance is maintained. Specifically, I am concerned that with this call to raise productivity, the workplace may be proliferated with training programmes and as employees are subjected to increased demands from training to level up their skills, little attention will be placed on monitoring the quality of the various productivity skills enhancement programmes. In this regard, I would like to share a suggestion on how we can leverage on the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme provisions in the Bill to promote more effective training. Clause 17, section 6, details the various training schemes that qualify for tax exemptions. May I suggest that instead of giving out tax exemptions indiscriminately, training expenditure will only be eligible for tax exemption if the employee feedback on the respective programme is positive. It is not unusual in education that incentives will only be given to instructors if the student feedback, for example, for the module conducted achieves at least a "satisfactory" rating.”
“Sir, the next issue is on the increase in the income threshold of dependants for dependant-related reliefs. Currently, the income of the dependant cannot exceed $2,000 in the preceding year if a taxpayer wishes to claim for dependant-related reliefs. With the amendments, the income threshold of $2,000 will be increased to $4,000. Further, this income threshold condition will be removed for handicapped dependant-related reliefs. Accordingly, taxpayers would be able to claim handicapped dependant-related reliefs regardless of the income of the handicapped dependants, if other conditions are satisfied. Sir, I understand that the purpose of removing this income threshold for handicapped dependant-related relief is to recognise the extra resources and attention needed in providing care for the disabled. On this note, may I seek clarification on why this income threshold was not removed in respect of parent relief in general? Likewise, extra resources and attention will be needed in providing care for the elderly, even if they are not disabled. I am positive that the Government can do more to enhance the incentives for children to care for their parents, and this will be in line with the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill proposed by the hon. Member Mr Seah Kian Peng. After all, an all-round approach should be adopted to address this and tax relief would definitely be one incentive. Fourth, is expansion of wife relief to spouse relief. Sir, the current wife relief is a $2,000 relief granted to male taxpayers who take care of their wives, subject to the income threshold for dependants. With the amendments, female taxpayers will now be allowed to claim relief of $2,000 if their husbands meet the same qualifying conditions of the current wife relief.”
“May I clarify with the Minister on how the Government is planning to make up for this reduction in tax revenue, especially since there is a whole slew of tax incentive schemes in this Bill? Sir, sections 37 and 37K will be amended to provide for the tax incentive for qualifying investments by angel investors, which is introduced to encourage eligible individuals to invest in start-up companies and to help these companies grow and succeed. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a positive step because it provides incentives for these eligible investors to take up mentoring roles and contribute through their management expertise and business networks. This new scheme would also provide a source of entrepreneurial expertise to help nurture start-ups as they kick-off their businesses. However, I note that angel investors who put in a minimum of $100,000 in eligible start-ups over a year, will enjoy the 50% tax deduction only at the end of a two-year holding period. I understand that the purpose of this holding period is to ensure that the investor is committed to the start-up. However, considering the many mandatory requirements for angel investors to qualify for this tax scheme, is it necessary to impose such a stringent two-year holding period? The minimum required sum of $100,000 is already a huge sum and will be sufficient to ensure that angel investors are committed to the start-up. Hence, would the imposition of a further two-year holding period backfire and deter angel investors from investing? If so, this will not be in accordance with the original intention behind this tax incentive scheme. After all, there are already many mandatory requirements in place under the criteria to qualify for this scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill seeks to implement the tax changes announced in the Government’s 2010 Budget Statement. I would like to focus on four issues relating to the proposed amendments. Sir, clause 48 amends section 43P to provide that Structured Commodity Financing (SCF) activities will now be able to qualify for tax concessions. I understand that this move is to increase the competitiveness of Singapore's trading environment. As Asia continues to grow as the centre of the world’s trade flow, Singapore should similarly take this opportunity to build up our trading environment. Reports have shown that the total revenue for companies under the Global Trader Programme (GTP) grew at a compounded annual growth rate of 14% over the last five years to US$465 billion. However, the total revenue of US$465 billion recorded last year was 30% lower than that of 2008. Sir, under the enhanced GTP and SCF incentive, a concessionary tax rate of 5% or 10% will be granted on qualifying income derived by an approved company from qualifying SCF activities. I understand that this GTP enhancement is expected to contribute to higher trade volumes and to make up for the 30% reduction between 2008 and 2009. Sir, will this concessionary tax rate enjoy flexibility such that the percentage is adjusted to suit each year’s performance of companies under the GTP? Or will it be a fixed percentage? It is important to remind ourselves that tax rates are but one factor in ensuring a competitive trading environment as well as the performance of such companies. Hence, much as we want to maintain competitive tax rates compared to other countries, we should not be unnecessarily liberal with these concessions.”
“Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister, besides the imposition of the seller's stamp duty, what other criteria are applied to PRs and foreigners purchasing private residential properties in order for the Government to ensure that we have a better differentiation of citizens and PRs that can be achieved through rights to landed properties in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Senior Minister of State, for the response. I have two supplementary questions: firstly, what are the strategies in place and how prepared are we to meet such an eventuality of a declined growth in Singapore; and secondly, how will the United States plan to deflate its economy and boost its exports impact the global economy, in particular Singapore's?”
“In fact, should the Board be involved in the consultancy and training business if it were to play a governance role? Sir, during the Budget debate on this, it was not clearly spelt out but now that it has been defined, I would like to ask what is the Board’s role vis-a-vis CET centres and, more importantly, WDA? Will there be duplication and are we creating another one-stop Government business centre but this time one that specialises in productivity growth? On this, I support the Bill. 3.13 pm”
“The high standard will include quality courseware, quality courseware providers, quality training materials, quality training environment, visibility of learning support and continuous courseware enhancement. Is it not a waste of resources and being very unproductive to repeat screenings for the same criteria? We should be more pragmatic and look at other ways of strengthening the CET system. I propose therefore that this governance role be included as an extended proviso under the Second Schedule, clause 1, to read as, "To ensure that high standard prevails in the CET centres through the provision of quality courseware, quality trainers, quality courseware authors, quality training materials, quality training environment, visibility of learning support and continuous courseware enhancement." Sir, the Board can carry out this role by reviewing evidence pertaining to the above stipulations in the CET centres on a regular basis. Sir, it is also wise that the Board allows itself a linkage with the industry through a double loop feedback channel that will allow it to focus on growing productivity possibilities. After all, if we examine carefully, the Second Schedule, clauses 9, 12 and 13, the Board is operating almost like an enterprise. For an enterprise to thrive, it needs to gather feedback. It is therefore useful to reflect such a mechanism in the Constitution. Sir, there may be concern that such powers, as stipulated in clauses 8, 10 and 12 may position the Board on an unequal playing field. It is therefore important to define clearly what the Board will and will not do in its consultancy and training businesses and how it differentiates itself from other training providers in these common areas?”
“In the words of one agency: "… by which time we would not only have lost the momentum but also the productivity of everyone." Yes, there can be a waiver for tender or a close tender exercise replacing the normal process, but, again, the time savings is maybe two weeks at most, which does not enhance the spirit and essence of productivity. This is most starkly felt by CET centres and, in the case of courseware provided by national CET centres, it would appear strange when the very criteria governing the CET centres are even more stringent than the GeBiz tendering process. Some of these criteria include: (i) Courseware to be developed as per standards specified by the Workforce Development Agency (WDA), another agency of the Government; (ii) Courseware to be reviewed and rubber stamped as approved by WDA before being rolled out; (iii) Courseware to be provided by approved CETs appointed by WDA; and (iv) CET centre being subject to stringent internal audit on a regular basis to ascertain its suitability to remain as a CET centre. Here we ask, what is the purpose of appointing CET centres? Its original purpose is really to aggregate supply under appointed training providers who meet with the stringent criteria stipulated by WDA, including the fee structure. If that were the case, why is there a need for such CET centres to be subject to such procurement rules when the fee structure is already in place? Is it not timely that we review all this red tape? We should instead stipulate a high standard of governance in the courseware provided by the CET centre, where its role to the Board would be to ensure that high standard prevails in the CET centres.”
“After all, the purpose of the Fund is to raise Singapore’s productivity. It would not bode us well to be caught in a compromising situation, where productivity takes a back seat and gains come to the fore. Sir, I also note that the Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure. May I ask the Ministry whether a rough estimate could be provided? Sir, I see the National Productivity Fund Administration Board as an enabler and supervisor to strengthen the CET system, and growing possibilities for enhancing our productivity. With the set up of the Board, I would like to propose for the need of CET centres to be subject to the GeBiz procurement rules to be waived, as CET centres have already been subject to a stringent set of criteria that satisfies best sourcing practices. After all, best sourcing is not just about pricing alone. Sir, the principle of procurement subjects vendors to tender for work belonging to the Government and its related agencies. But to subject CET centres to similar tendering process is not only not meaningful but could also be very unproductive. The GeBiz formula stipulates that for any training that works out to $3,000 at any one time, a tender is necessary. Ministries, statutory boards and their agencies embarking on company-wide training in order to achieve a common mindset change, find themselves in a fix when pursuing courseware provided by CET centres. Their training budget will definitely bust the $3,000 ceiling. Once they go through the GeBiz, the following ensues: (i) Call for tender, which works out to a minimum of four weeks; and (ii) Process and award, which is easily another four weeks, since internally the tender committee has to seek Management or Board's approval.”
“How would the Government encourage industry players to be more proactively involved in the productivity drive and in what ways? And, most importantly, how would the Board track and measure the productivity growth of organisations that have benefited from the funds? Sir, not only must individuals work towards raising productivity. SMEs have to play a part as well, and are under pressure to become more efficient and productive so as to survive in a changing economy. They are often encouraged to abandon old-fashioned ways of operation and to adopt new technologies. The Government is providing grants to adopt technology and improve service levels and human resource practices as well as organising overseas study trips. However, many SMEs do not know how to access these grants and lament the complexity of form filling. How could the application process for grants be simplified and made more user-friendly and productive? After all, these grants are meant to help SMEs and not to add extra burden through a complicated and complex application process. Sir, on a separate note, Part lV, clause 20 of the Bill provides that the Board may invest the Fund in "such manner as it thinks fit". I have my reservations regarding this "blank check" to the Board. I have full faith and trust in the Government that it would have chosen only men of exceptional integrity to sit on the National Productivity Fund (NPF) Administration Board. But $2 billion of taxpayers’ money is no small change and I am sure the Government will prudently manage its funds, given the recent minibonds episode. However, I am for a more prescriptive approach towards enforcing the guidelines relating to investment of the Fund. Could I ask for more details and guidelines on the types of investments to be included?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am associated with Human Capital Singapore, a CET centre. I welcome the proposed Bill but I do have a few clarifications and one proposal to make. I would also like to focus on the injection of funds into selected industries as well as the power of the Board to invest and, most importantly, the parameters of the Board. Sir, Singapore overcame the recession in double-quick time and the economy is going strong at the moment, hitting record growth figures. But is it sustainable? To achieve a high growth through high productivity, a new mindset is needed by all – employers, employees and the Government. How do we change the mindset of employers and employees? By making it a point to set aside funds, the Ministry makes it clear that the Government is committed to providing long-term support for productivity improvements, irrespective of the state of the economy. We applaud the Government for taking the step towards this mindset change. Sir, during the 2010 Budget debate, it was stated that $2 billion will be injected into the Fund – with the first billion being given this year. Two hundred and fifty million dollars from the first $1 billion will be used for raising productivity in the construction industry which the Finance Minister described as a sector which needs to improve. Sir, may I clarify with the Ministry as to how it would determine the industries, which are deserving of the funds, the quantum and duration for which the funds would be disbursed to? How diverse would the disbursement be and how setting aside $250 million or one-eighth of the fund to one industry, namely, the construction industry, be a step in the right direction?”
“Does this mean that for foreign properties, foreign estate agents and salespersons could be allowed into Singapore to conduct such transactions or would such transactions be solely restricted to Singaporeans? If the former was the case, how would this impact the local estate agents and salespersons? How do we ensure that these foreigners will be well prepared in our laws to do a professional job? Sir, the Bill contains many strict requirements of agents and salespersons as well as inspectorate, investigation and disciplinary bodies. It is important that estate agents and salespersons understand such requirements and the powers of the enforcement bodies. There would be concerns on the capability of members of enforcement bodies, especially with regard to enforcing new rules of such nature. How does the CEA intend to communicate and educate both the estate agents and salespersons the contents and proceedings of this Bill? Sir, HDB must be commended for its daring move to do what is right for the real estate industry following closely the passage of the Moneylender Act. This Bill will reinforce HDB's determination to evolve the professional real estate industry in Singapore. With that, I support the Bill. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.56 pm”
“Sir, what would be this fee amount, in particular the renewal fee, considering a regular three-year renewal? What benefits or value-add would the renewal of such licences extend to the incumbents? Sir, we must avoid collection of renewal fees deemed as a source of revenue collection. Related to this is the situation where a salesperson may decide to leave an estate agent to work under another estate agent. Can the Bill consider the first registration to be portable to the new estate agent so that there is no need for another registration and fee payment? There are situations where the two parties – the agent and the salesperson – just cannot get along, and this has nothing to do with their professional ethics. So a separation of ways may be a win-win solution for the two parties concerned. However, another registration and fee payment deter a speedy and amicable solution because of the cost involved. Section 35(5) states that the Council may require applicants to furnish security as may be prescribed before granting or renewal of licence. I would like to ask, Sir, under what circumstances would the Council require the applicant to provide security and what would likely be such a security? Section 34(7) states the liability for conviction for false declaration for a salesperson seeking registration. I would like to clarify, if in such an ensuing case, the estate agent is equally liable, since application or renewal of registration is accompanied by a certification by the estate agent. Sir, the Bill covers for both Singapore and foreign properties marketed, sold or leased in Singapore.”
“In this regard, MND may like to note that there are many salespersons with a full-time job and moonlighting at the same time as a salesperson. This is usually okay if the employment contracts are silent with regard to taking on jobs outside office hours or if the moonlighting job is not in direct conflict with the full-time job. Usually, for these part-timers, the salaries from their full-time jobs may not be enough for their families. Hence, they take on jobs as part-time property salespersons to help supplement their family income. Sir, the proposed Bill provides that there will be a public register listing all registered salespersons. This has raised some concerns that the moment the salesperson goes into this public registry, the salesperson's employer may know about the moonlighting and the salesperson may have to give up either the full-time job or the part-time job. I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to address this phenomenon. What is the intent of section 32 with regard to part-time employment as a salesperson? Sir, the Bill also restricts salespersons from working for more than one agent. With the proposed changes, salespersons who hold a licence to operate their own firm will no longer be allowed to be employed by real estate agents. This raises some concerns. For instance, a real estate agent, the Dennis Wee Group (DWG), has said it has a handful of such salespersons who tend to be better and more reliable performers. I would like to ask the Ministry if there could be exceptions to the general rule that salespersons cannot work for more than one agency, based on the merit of each case. Section 33(1) states an accompanying prescribed fee for application or renewal of the salesperson’s licence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to commend the Ministry for initiating the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), which is also in-line with the recent HDB Amendment Bill aimed at stopping rogue practices between moneylenders and real estate agents where HDB flats are involved. The establishment of the CEA is to be welcomed, as it is time that the real estate agents industry is regulated, especially since there had been an increase in complaints against such agents and their salespersons in recent years. The new measures emphasise the professional standards and ethics of agents and salespersons, and represent a step in levelling up the capabilities of this industry. Sir, there have been concerns, however, that the proposed framework only seems to be protective of consumers, neglecting the interest of salespersons. Some salespersons have voiced the fact that real estate agents offer little or no support to their salespersons. It has been reported that real estate agents take a cut of 10% to 30% from each transaction closed by salespersons even though they are responsible only for issuing invoices after a successful sale or rental transaction. This does not justify the cut they take from their salespersons' commissions. Accordingly, many affected salespersons may turn to other rogue practices to earn more, hence, perpetuating the increase in complaints against them in the industry. This is likely to be the root of all the problems discussed. Therefore, I would like to ask whether the Bill could and would provide salespersons with more protection? This will also indirectly reduce rogue practices in the industry. Sir, with the proposed Bill, an estimated 30% of salespersons may be affected. These are mainly the part-timers and those who are moonlighting as salespersons.”
“Supplementary questions for the Minister. How would the Ministry handle cases where the applicants' income grew, slightly above the $8,000 income ceiling while waiting for a flat? Are these borderline sandwich class applicants denied HDB concessionary loan? Is it possible to extend HDB concessionary loans to this sandwich class, especially to the young Singaporeans who are first-timers and applying a flat as a family unit?”
“I understand that the conditions under which Medisave can be invoked are kept stringent to minimise risk of premature depletion of the account. However, in the case of the deceased, I think we can afford to be more generous in our definition of eligibility so that faithful caregivers will be fairly compensated for their services. The second aspect of this Bill I would like to draw attention to is the amendments to the CFP LIFE scheme. Once again, I am reminded that only those with active CPF accounts stand to benefit from this important scheme. The group that stands out as being at risk for omission is the ageing homemakers. In my very first debate in this House last July, the Minister had assured us that there are processes in place to facilitate regular contributions to CPF accounts of loved ones. I would like to ask the Minister to share with us the data on the proportion of Singaporeans who are still without active CPF accounts as well as the number of Singaporeans who are nearing 55 years old but do not have the minimum sum required in their CPF Retirement Account. What is the profile of this group and what efforts have been made to help them meet the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the CPF LIFE scheme?”
“Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Madam, for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this important Bill. Over the years, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) has evolved into a comprehensive social security scheme that provides for, among others, retirement, healthcare and home-ownership needs of Singaporeans. This Amendment Bill, as with previous amendments, serves to further refine the provisions in the CPF to better meet the needs of Singaporeans. On behalf of all Singaporeans, I would like to thank the Minister and his staff for their hard work in sustaining this important scheme that we have come to depend on for economic and social security. There are two aspects of this Bill which I would like to highlight. The first relates to clause 7 which amends section 16A(1) to allow withdrawal from a deceased member's Medisave account to pay for "psychiatric or other treatment or services" rendered to the deceased before his demise. This serves to expand the eligibility of Medisave beyond just "medical treatment". On this note, I would like to ask the Minister what "other treatment or services" covers. Does the expansion include all health and care-related services rendered to the deceased before his death or only to what was originally authorised to be deducted through Medisave? Given the fast greying Singapore population where healthcare costs for elder care are of primary concern, will the Minister consider extending Medisave coverage for palliative care, step-down home care services for example, as well as institutional care services for the elderly? If so, this will certainly ease the financial constraints on caregivers, and render Medisave a more robust and comprehensive healthcare savings scheme.”
“Madam, I would like to seek clarification on how this permanence is to be tested and defined. According to section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act, it does not matter whether the impairment or disturbance is permanent or temporary. Would it be too strict for the CPF Act to exclude, for example, severe impairment in the functioning of the brain, which lasts for a period of time but with a chance of recovery? How will it ensure that the monies paid out will reach the intended member, who has been deemed to lack mental capacity? I welcome the new sections, 26A to 26D, where the distribution and disposal of shares of members who died before 1st January 1996 is addressed. Automatically disbursing monies to the nominees is welcome but the issue of dormant CPF accounts raises concerns. If a member is found to be still alive, the monies due will be paid by the CPF Board. In a modernised and automated environment, how does this misinformation come about? How does such a situation arise and how many such "orphaned" cases does the Board handle per year? What has been the payout and what are the causes for such lapses or rather situations? Madam, the number of unclaimed monies is a cause for concern. I would like to know if the public outreach programmes by CPF are sufficient and that if they are, how could we further fine-tune the outreach to ensure that the message reaches the CPF members and the public at large that nominations are necessary to ensure that monies due to members will reach their loved ones. And as a matter of concern, is it possible for the CPF Board to provide the figures for the amount of unclaimed CPF monies over the past 10 years, the causes and how has the Board gone about in settling the unclaimed monies due? With that, I support the Bill. 5.27 pm Assoc.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to commend the Ministry for improving the clarity of the provisions in the CPF Act. I would also be focusing on a few of the proposed amendments. Currently, CPF LIFE will apply automatically to those who turn 55 from 2013 and have at least $40,000 balance in their CPF Retirement Account. Those without that amount are left out. With this second auto-inclusion point, this group will now be included automatically, should their CPF savings increase to $60,000 by the time they turn 65. I would like to commend the Ministry as this amendment addresses the problem for which CPF LIFE was intended to be in the first place – which is to provide for those who may not have enough funds after their retirement. Many CPF members have been invited to join this scheme. However, I would like to suggest that more specific guidelines be given on how to select one of the four CPF LIFE options available. This is because members cannot change it once they join the scheme, nor are they able to withdraw except under certain conditions. It is also important to emphasise and educate members that they should not depend entirely on CPF LIFE to meet all their retirement needs as the payouts may be insufficient. An all-encompassing approach should be adopted to help Singaporeans plan for retirement and this includes education on other options other than relying purely on this scheme. Clause 2(g) amends section 2 by inserting a new subsection (5) to clarify that where a reference is made to the Board being satisfied that a person lacks capacity within the meaning of section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act, the Board must be satisfied that the person’s lack of capacity is likely to be permanent.”
“Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive response. Sir, newspapers reported that the Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) will be retiring at the age of 56. In many countries, many careers are launched at this age or even later. Benjamin Franklin at 70 helped to draft the Declaration of Independence; Albert Einstein at the age of 59 advanced major achievements in the General Theory of Relativity. Sir, how do we ensure that these capable and knowledgeable people stay past this artificial expiry date to contribute to the nation especially in the private sector? How can the Government facilitate such germination in the private sector?”
“There are lessons to take home from what happened to Wall Street head honchos whose focus was on getting the big bucks at the expense of all other considerations. Look at some of our transport operators. They are going the way of Wall Street. What happens? Local people are not served to satisfaction. More and more space in MRT stations have been converted to income-generating commercial space at the expense of the comfort of commuters. Fares continue to increase though the company makes more money and pays out fat bonuses to the top brass. After securing a stable home-based customer to guarantee regular revenue, they begin to lose sight of their original mandate. Anyone would, too, if this is the way to earn big bonuses and pay cheques. Yes, there are Singapore companies that have ventured abroad though they originally started as local enterprises. Perhaps PSA is one good example; SATS is the other; but these are different entities. Their basis is not to serve the Singapore population as HDB is required to do so. What was the original intention of shedding a big chunk of HDB staff to set up Surbana Consultants? Can Surbana not do the job of providing international consultancy? If HDB is so keen to share its expertise and experience, then why not transfer its knowledge to local engineers and architects who are bidding for overseas projects? This, I think, would be a better way for HDB to impart its know-how to help local professionals venture abroad. At least we know at the same time HDB is helping to build a talent pool in public housing and township management. I would like to seriously urge HDB to be focused in providing a roof to all Singaporeans and to do it well, without the leaking roofs. 5.53 pm”
“This can help shorten the waiting time for applicants. From the public standpoint, it is an irony to see foreign workers happily tucked into HDB blocks which have been turned into foreign workers dormitories, but Singaporeans are left hanging out on the waiting list. I know there is a difference between foreign workers’ dormitories and HDB rental flats. However, it is the public’s perception of HDB policy that I am concerned about. From the public standpoint, why are flats turned into dormitories when HDB says it does not have enough units for Singaporeans? Why did HDB not, in the first instance, turn these blocks, for example in Toa Payoh, into rental flats to provide shelter to those Singaporeans who genuinely need them? Why can the Ministry not consider converting some other old buildings into temporary HDB rental housing for Singaporeans, if it can respond so swiftly to convert disused school buildings into offices when there was a demand? On the move to allow HDB to offer its technical and consultancy services abroad and locally and take on commercial jobs, I must register my concern on this point. I will first declare my interest as a professional engineer. I think for HDB to take this journey is to side step its original noble mission to build and provide Singaporeans with affordable housing, and to build townships for the people. The "people" here refers to Singaporeans. If HDB is allowed to move away from its core responsibilities, then what is there to stop every Government or statutory agency to go into commercial business? Ultimately, the focus of the top brass will be on generating income which will pay them fat bonuses, rather than in channelling their minds to seeking solutions for local residents. This is inevitable.”
“I would like to ask if there are any plans for HDB to collaborate with our local SMEs in the construction and other related industries, which wish to internationalise. Such partnerships would enhance the competitiveness and status of our SMEs and may also help create a local MNC by levelling up the expertise, as set forth in the ESC recommendation. On this, Sir, I support the Bill. 5.46 pm Er Lee Bee Wah: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I endorse the move by the Minister to plug the holes so as to suffocate these loan sharks from their wicked activities. It is commendable that the Minister is moving the Bill on a certificate of urgency. I applaud the Minister and his team. We can see there is a certain level of sophistication by these illegal moneylenders and they know where to look for the jugular veins to satisfy their needs. The damage inflicted by these loansharks hurt more than just the borrowers. The injury is inflicted on innocent neighbours as well. Hence, I am all for the Government’s action to weaken these syndicates and their henchmen. As I stand here to speak in support of the Bill, I would also like to ask HDB to do more to help residents who are in dire needs by taking a more generous stance to request for rental flats. HDB should look through its policy and see how to allow more applicants to qualify for such flats, particularly those who are in urgent need, such as those whose marriages have broken up and are saddled with many children. Another suggestion is for HDB to review its current list of occupiers of rental flats and get those who no longer require their flats, perhaps because their financial or social circumstances have improved, to move on so as to create more units available for more urgent cases.”
“These flats are certainly not meant for short-term profit, nor to be used as security for any debt, obligation or claim. Rather, HDB flats are built to provide affordable homes to Singaporeans and to provide for them in their old age. Sir, with reference to clause 4 of the proposed amendments, the current penalties for illegal subletting of public rental flats, I support the move to take more stringent measures against lessees who abuse heavily subsidised public rental housing. But I would like the Minister to enlighten us on what these more stringent measures are all about. Sir, I would like to also ask Minister how many cases of illegal subletting public rental flats is HDB dealing with to date and how many lessees have been evicted? For those evicted or to be evicted and who are not able to find another affordable lodging, how is HDB helping them? Other than evicting, are there any other measures that HDB is taking with regard to counselling and educating them on their responsibilities? Very often, we see these evicted cases at MPS where they threaten to bring the family to sleep at the beach or at the void decks, giving the impression that HDB is heartless when in actual fact HDB has compassion for those in need. Perhaps HDB should not shy away from doing more PR work of what it has been doing to help the homeless in need of public housing. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill allow HDB to provide its much sought-after technical and consultancy services internationally. I applaud the Ministry’s move to allow HDB to foray into the international markets. This is a remarkable achievement which all Singaporeans should be proud of.”
“Sir, I am sure that no HDB owner would want to put a flat down as security for such debts unless there is no other way out and that there is an extremely urgent need for cash, in some cases. Save for the compulsive gamblers and those with unnecessary credit-card debts, some may actually have a valid and urgent reason to borrow cash. For instance, this may include the need to pay for an expensive operation or medical treatment. Of course, there could be a million endless possible reasons for borrowing cash, such as loss of jobs or death of the sole bread winner but the bottom line is whether there are other avenues for thrift loans to help these people who are in genuine financial need. Accordingly, would it be necessary to first find out how many such HDB owners have actually borrowed from moneylenders and the reasons for borrowing? Would HDB extend beyond the current practice of two concessionary loans for hardship cases? Sir, I would like to ask Minister what time frame is given to honour the existing contracts between the flat owners and moneylenders and for the group that is affected after the time period, how would the Ministry be helping the flat owners in fulfilling the payment of their outstanding loans to the moneylenders, especially in cases where they have borrowed because of financial circumstances and not so much as to support lifestyle choices. Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, this is not a one-dimensional problem. A proper solution should involve many parties, namely the moneylending industry, the real estate industry, HDB home owners and HDB itself. Sir, the proposed changes are to be welcomed, as they are in line with the policy concerns and purpose behind HDB flats.”
“Hence, it is obviously a win-win situation for both the moneylender and the estate agent but what of the poor home owner who may stand to lose all. I agree with Dr Tan Tee Khoon, CEO of the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies that estate agents have to satisfy several duties, one of which is to help HDB sellers work out their estimated sales proceeds before selling, a practice prevalent among financial planners. Agents also have the duty to advise sellers to plan for their next home before selling the flat. Sir, the amendment emphasises the need for flat owners to be responsible and prudent in their financial planning and well-being which otherwise would become a burden for society. Very often, flat owners resort to moneylenders and go on credit with credit cards, handphone subscriptions and hire purchases to service a highend life style with scant consideration for their housing loan obligations. Once heavily in debt, they turn to the moneylenders resulting in the predicament that many face today. Also, house owners should be cautioned against joining the bandwagon in this hot property market to make profits from the sale of their HDB flats. They then find themselves landing up in interim public rental housing or private rental flats, which quickly deplete the gains made from the sale of their HDB flats. They then join the queue at the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) to ask for heavily subsidised public rental flats. On this note, I would like to draw the Ministry's attention to the root of this entire moneylending issue. We ask ourselves, why were the moneylenders able to attract these voluntary HDB sellers?”