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 4 of 18.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the history of the Singapore Government, we have had the happy situation where we operate on a balanced budget and have not needed to borrow funds through the issuance of government bonds to finance expenditures. However, we must make plans to withstand another financial tsunami like the sub-prime crisis which rocked us in September 2008. Singapore may survive another round but at what expense, we do not know. To prepare for the odd chance that there is another financial tsunami, the Singapore Government would do well to fortify its financial arsenal, and the Government Securities (Amendment) Bill is indeed timely. However, I would add a cautionary note in relation to the power of the Government to borrow money by issuing securities. A recent example is that of Dubai, where its overleveraged Sovereign Wealth Fund was unable to meet its interest payments, resulting in a crisis for Dubai. Dubai was fortunate that its neighbour Abu Dhabi bailed it out; and this is a reminder for the rest of us that when we issue securities, we must be mindful to do so prudently and not over-reach ourselves. Singapore has come a long way in building up our capability as a sovereign debtor, and we must be careful not to mar this reputation by excessive borrowing. The Bill provides MAS with the authority to appoint financial institutions as primary dealers of Government securities. Singapore Government Securities provide a sound investment opportunity with little or no risk of default, for both individual and institutional investors. To meet demand from investors, the appointment of primary dealers allows Government securities to be more easily distributed, and helps the Government reach a greater pool of counterparties.”
“I would like to ask the Minister to provide some insights on MAS' policy towards the relatively low interest rates offered by banks and whether this has an impact on the recent spree of property shopping by investors or buyers in Singapore in recent months.”
“Examples include the Design for Efficiency (DfE) Scheme, which aims to encourage investors in new facilities to design their facilities to be as energy efficient as possible, and the Grant for Energy Efficient Technologies (GREET) which co-funds the cost of energy efficient equipment with owners and operators of industrial facilities. The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint will evolve as we work towards our sustainable development goals which will be fine-tuned to take into account factors such as improvements in technology, changes in cost and, of course, public response.”
“Our approach is therefore to invest early in solar technology by test-bedding projects to prepare to use solar technology on a larger scale when the cost of solar energy falls closer to that of conventional energy. HDB is embarking on an island-wide test-bed to deploy solar technology within 30 public housing precincts by 2015. Building new environmental and technological capabilities is one of the key strategies in the blueprint. This not only provides solutions to Singapore's sustainability challenges, but helps our companies to tap the economic opportunities from sustainable development. The Government has further set aside $680 million to build new capabilities in Clean Energy and Water Technologies. This is on top of the $1 billion sustainable development budget, and supports research and test-bedding programmes as well as manpower development programmes. The Clean Energy and Water Technology sectors can potentially create an economic value-add of $3.4 billion and generate employment of 18,000 by 2015. In addition, my Ministry has launched a $15 million Environment Technology Research Programme (ETRP) to build up technological competencies in waste management. The ETRP provides funding support for companies and researchers to develop, pilot and commercialise advanced technologies for waste management. The first round of applications ended on 31st August last year. Evaluations of the proposals are underway and we expect to award funding to a number of good proposals. Various incentive schemes have also been implemented for the business sectors to improve resource efficiency.”
“Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint is a comprehensive plan to improve resource efficiency, enhance our environment, develop capabilities and build an environmentally responsible community. We will adopt a multi-pronged approach to achieve these goals, including public education, incentives and legislation. As a start, $1 billion has been set aside over five years to support the implementation of the plans in the blueprint. Since the launch of the blueprint in April last year, various incentive schemes and other investments in sustainable development have been announced, including $100 million to improve the energy efficiency of our existing buildings, $43 million to implement cycling infrastructure in some HDB towns and $31 million to test-bed solar technology. There are also separately funded initiatives that contribute to sustainable development, such as the budget for the expansion of the rail network, park space and ABC Waters. The Member asked about electric cars. A multi-agency taskforce, co-chaired by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA), is spearheading the test-bedding of electric vehicles in Singapore, with $20 million set aside to support infrastructure development and test-bedding activities. The taskforce is working with various automotive manufacturers and electric vehicle charging infrastructure providers on their plans to test their solutions in Singapore from 2010. This project will enable the taskforce to evaluate the scope for larger-scale adoption of electric vehicles in future. Moving to solar, the cost of solar-generated electricity at the moment is still about twice that of grid electricity generated from fossil fuels. The technology is evolving and the price gap may narrow over time.”
“At the end of the day, whatever that we do, as mentioned earlier, it must not impact our economic growth. So, the various agencies have been working together and ensuring that industries understand where we are coming from, so that whatever we do or whatever we want them to do, they do it in a manner which is to preserve jobs, preserve our economic growth, and switch over to more efficient technologies which are available in the market. Sir, let me just give Members some examples. We have worked with some companies within the pharmaceutical sectors where they have moved towards tri-generation where within their own premises they have generated electricity, water and steam for their own purposes. By doing so, they reap greater efficiency, and reduce our carbon footprint. So, these are the things in which we should do with the industries and find ways in which they can continue to do business in Singapore in a cost-effective manner, yet at the same time reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. As I mentioned earlier, this has to be balanced carefully. I want to assure the House that the various agencies are working very closely with the industries so that we can meet our 16% target, if there is a global agreement. SINGAPORE'S SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (Update on blueprint) 3. Mrs Mildred Tan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if he will give an update on the $1 billion blueprint for Singapore's sustainable development that was unveiled in April 2009, in particular the incentives for greener options such as electric cars and solar energy; and (b) whether his Ministry has any future plans or undertaken any measures to stimulate green businesses in Singapore. Assoc. Prof.”
“I would like to ask the Minister two questions: one, what are the industries in Singapore that actually emit the most greenhouse gases and what steps are being taken to reduce these emissions? Related to this, of course, would be to what extent will the reduction of these emissions affect our economic growth? Second question: Indeed, if our coastal areas were to be submerged, what is the time-frame if such a calamity should occur, and what steps are being taken to remedy this scenario? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Let me first answer the second question. Frankly, nobody knows and the timeline is very long. As I mentioned in my earlier response to the supplementary question, our initial study showed that we should not be concerned. But the various agencies are taking measures and studying this very carefully. For example, we know that there is some soil erosion on the East Coast and, I believe, URA, together with NParks, is working on how to strengthen this. But, at the end of the day, the most important thing is for us to continue to upgrade our understanding of the phenomenon. As more data and studies become available, I think it should put us in a better position. I would just like to assure the House that within the Government and within NEA, there is a unit that studies this very carefully across various agencies, so that we also build up our own capacity and our capability in terms of understanding the impact of climate change on Singapore. To the Member's first question – which industries emit most of the greenhouse gases. We know that there is a large petrochemical sector in Singapore. But the most important thing is that we work with the industry very closely.”
“Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the key achievements of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference; (b) what are the implications for ASEAN and Singapore; and (c) whether there are plans to advance environment-friendly practices in Singapore.”
“The issue on everyone's mind is whether the recovery of the economy will be "W"-shaped or otherwise. I wonder if the Minister could provide some insight on this. Second question is, what is the Ministry's stand with regard to our own industries and their capability and capacity to withstand an increasingly global protectionistic environment? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I believe I mentioned in my speech at least on three occasions that a "W"-shaped or a double-dip recession is not likely. That is our assessment at this moment. Of course, if you followed the literature and analyses, there are some people out there who give higher probability to a double-dip recession, some giving as high as 30% or 40% probability. Our assessment is that it will not happen for us but we must expect a slower growth in the second half compared to the first half. On the performance of our industries – first of all, fortunately, the protectionist tendencies as mentioned, are lower today than at the depth of the recession in early 2009. So for that, we should be grateful. Secondly, many countries, together with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva have put a spotlight on this and are tracking this very, very stringently. Every trade measure that countries put up, WTO tracks this and broadcasts it so that everybody knows which countries are putting up additional barriers and which countries are opening up. There is a lot of peer pressure at the WTO and the APEC levels, and within the regional groupings. So I think the risk of very high levels of protectionism has receded more so now than in 2009. COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE (Key achievements and implications) 2. Assoc. Prof.”
“Sir, under the new section 105E(4), notice need not be served on a person if it could impede effective exchange of information or be prejudicial to investigations in the foreign country. Furthermore, even if the Comptroller applies to the High Court for an order for the disclosure of protected information, it appears that this application is intended to be made ex parte (ie, only one party appears before the court, and it is the Comptroller in this case). Sir, therefore, the person whose information is at stake may never get to hear about it, even though he can appeal against the order, if by some stroke of luck he gets wind of the order. Sir, I understand the rationale for this seemingly harsh approach, which is to prevent surreptitious efforts to hide the request information but I am glad to note that the harshness of this approach is ameliorated by the fact that an order to produce information, otherwise protected under our laws, has to be issued by the High Court and not just the Subordinate Courts; and also that there is a right to apply for the order to be discharged or varied. On this note, I support the Bill.”
“I would like to clarify if "public interest" under the new section 105J(3) is meant to have the same meaning as public policy as defined by the OECD, such that (a) it is wide enough to encapsulate national security interests, and (b) it is wide enough to allow the High Court to refuse to grant the order on the grounds that the request for information is rooted in reasons that are not bona fide. My last query relates to the status of information protected by legal privilege. Sir, I note the deliberate exclusion of information subject to legal privilege from the new section 105J(1)(b) that allows the Comptroller to apply to the High Court for an order to produce information, and the new section 105K(3)(4)(a) which explicitly states that information, subject to legal privilege, need not be disclosed as a result of the court order obtained under section 105J(2). However, the new section 105K(3) and section 105K(4)(b) appear to take the opposite position – that information is to be disclosed even if it is protected by law or otherwise. I would like to ask the Minister for a clarification on the status of information protected by legal privilege, where an order has been issued for the production of that information under the new section 105J(2). Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to applaud the safeguards put in place to ensure a rigorous processing of the request for information before sensitive, confidential information is provided to foreign authorities, especially when no notice is given to the person against whom the information is required, and I also note the limited extent to which a person can lodge a protest against the exchange of information to the foreign authorities.”
“In Article 9 of the Eighth Schedule, another piece of vital information required is, "the details of the period within which that country wishes the request to be met". Does "the period" refer to the time frame that includes the relevant tax positions, or does it refer to how soon that country wishes the request to be met by the Comptroller? I would also repeat my earlier query about the definition of "the country" in regard to this Article. Sir, my second query relates to the new section 105G, which empowers the Comptroller to request for information in the possession of other local tax authorities in order to comply with a request for information by a foreign authority. Sir, I would like to clarify if the other local tax authorities have a duty to actively procure the information from the persons concerned, or is "information in his possession" to be read narrowly to only apply to information that the other local tax authorities may already have. My third query relates to the new section 105J(3), which lists as one of the conditions of the High Court must be satisfied before issuing an order to disclose protected information is that the disclosure not be "contrary to the public interest". Sir, I note that the EOI provision in some of our double taxation agreements, as well as the OECD recommendations on the exchange of information, uses the phrase "public policy" rather than "public interest". The OECD has also mentioned that "public policy" generally refers to the vital interests of a country, for instance, where information requested relates to a state secret. Sir, a case of "public policy" may also arise, for example, where a tax investigation in another country was motivated by racial or political persecution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the amendment tabled to facilitate the exchange of information under double taxation agreements. It clearly shows Singapore’s strong commitment to the eradication of tax evasion, and tax authorities worldwide will see this as a reassuring move on our part. However, in this era of globalisation where security considerations are of paramount importance, good intentions could be read wrongly and I do have a number of clarifications regarding this Amendment Bill. First, to protect the privacy of persons affected by the request of information by foreign tax authorities, we must be sure that the request is bona fide and is not a "fishing" exercise to extract and store the persons’ personal details and other relevant information. To this end, the new section 105D(2) requires that the foreign authorities provide in their request certain information as prescribed in the new Eighth Schedule. While detailed, I feel that some clarity is required in the terms used. In Article 8, one of the required pieces of information is "[a] statement that the country has pursued all means available in its own territory to obtain the information including getting the information directly from the person in relation to whom the information is requested". My question is, Sir, does "the country" refer to all relevant authorities in the country (ie, tax authorities, police, any other relevant regulatory agencies), or just the "competent authority" as defined under the Income Tax Act? If we want to prevent information extracting exercises, it should be stipulated that the requesting country exhausts all possible means within its means and authority before approaching Singapore for information.”
“Three supplementary questions. One is, which sector in particular, has seen the greatest drop in productivity and what are the reasons. Second question is with respect to the foreign labour force. In what way are we inducting the foreign labour into our productivity-drive programme? The third question has to do with the availability of schemes. In particular, to the SMEs to enhance soft skills that are quite hard to grapple with, especially like HR management skills. Are there any special incentive schemes or awards that are targeted at the SMEs?”
“The public should also continue to stay alert for any suspicious persons or activities, and report such observations to the authorities so that we can take preventive action.”
“By doing so, such ideas would have limited space to spread in the population. Otherwise, we will continue to see new generations of radicals and terrorists develop. There have also been signs that international terrorists like Al-Qaeda may be re-establishing ties with regional terrorist elements. Previous collaborations between Al-Qaeda and the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) had resulted in major regional attacks like the 2002 Bali bombings, the Marriott Hotel attack in Jakarta in 2003 and the Australian Embassy attack in Jakarta in 2004; Al-Qaeda had also previously collaborated with the Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah to plot attacks here. Sir in short, the threat of terrorism to Singapore and Southeast Asia remains a major challenge despite the recent successful operations. We have a long way to go before this threat can be considered eliminated or reduced. In Singapore, MHA has been meticulously investigating and tracking down Singaporeans and others involved in terrorism. Over the years, we have also undertaken many measures aimed at countering terrorist ideas and hardening our defences. However, we know that we remain on the terrorists’ radar. They will continue to look for opportunities to attack us, hoping that we will let down our guard. They may also try to take advantage of high profile events hosted by Singapore to maximise publicity. The Home Team will continue to work in concert with our local and regional partners to try to prevent terrorist attacks in Singapore. Some of the measures we take will cause inconvenience to the public. However, I hope that Singaporeans will continue to be understanding and render their full cooperation. Security is everyone’s business, not just the responsibility of the Government and security agencies.”
“Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the local terrorism threat level after the recent successful operations against terrorist cells in the region; (b) whether such operations have made Singapore and Southeast Asia safer; and (c) what measures Singaporeans can take to maintain our heightened vigilance against terrorist attacks. The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, security operations undertaken by the Indonesian authorities following the attacks against two Jakarta hotels on 17th July 2009, and by the Malaysian and Philippine authorities in recent months, have led to the capture and death of several terrorists, including Noordin Top. These counter-terrorism successes have improved the security situation in the region. However, the elimination of several terrorist leaders does not remove this threat. We must remember that other terrorists are still at large and individuals continue to be recruited to become terrorist operatives. The recent security operations also uncovered terrorist plots, and surfaced weapons and explosives. These confirm that terrorist elements remain intent on and are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. One concern is that terrorist elements might even be driven to launch more attacks out of desperation or revenge. We should also not underestimate their capability to regroup and the possibility that a new charismatic, and equally violent, leader will emerge to take Noordin’s place. The key challenge against terrorism is the violent jihadist ideology. Societies and governments need to take a firm and unequivocal stand against such radical and violent ideology.”
“Thank you, Minister, for the reassuring response. I am just wondering how many of those applicants were from the wet markets earmarked for closure and what would be the likely success rate in obtaining alternative stalls at markets managed by NEA? Question two – judging from the reports and comments from the public, wet markets have a special place in the heart of Singaporeans and foreigners alike as a place for community bonding. What are NEA's plans in ensuring that wet markets will continue to function because the hygiene standards are well taken care of by NEA? And how could NEA ensure that the wet markets with its smell, sights and sounds will remain alongside the supermarkets, and continue to be preserved as part of our heritage? Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, to the second question, as I mentioned in my reply, we have no plans to change on how we manage the 82 Government-owned wet markets. For now, they will remain as what we know, with the smell, the sound and the sights. As to the Member's first question of whether I can ascertain what is the success rate for the take-up, it really depends on the stallholders themselves and the location of the centre, some of which are more popular than others, and these will attract higher bids. For those that are less popular, obviously they will attract lower bids. So it is really up to the individual stallholders to decide which market they want to tender for. VIGILANCE AGAINST TERRORIST ATTACKS 15.”
“I would like to ask the Minister – would the eventual cessation of the Jobs Credit Scheme cause employers to stop making new hires? Would it also lead to less emphasis on training and productivity? How would the relevant agencies help to overcome these concerns or challenges? And related to this, how could we ensure that the mature employees, especially those 45 years and above, are efficiently, effectively and gainfully employed, and that they are not disadvantaged in anyway by this discontinuation of the scheme? The next question is related to what the Prime Minister has announced with regard to the need for companies to restructure their operations for higher productivity. I would like to ask two questions related to this – are there any specific plans to help these companies restructure their operations? I fear the impact on our next generation if they have parents who are chronically unemployed because the economy cannot restructure fast enough to absorb the numbers and the numbers cannot be upgraded fast enough to be capable of working in the restructured economy. What plans does the Government have for this group of people?”
“The amendments clarified that (i) profits earned from games where casino is a party to the wager are taxable, and (ii) moneys received from games where casino merely conducts the game are taxable. In practice, how will the taxman know how much the casino earns through either method? If false declarations are made, will the taxman be able to find out? While there is a deterrent found in the current legislation – allowing for the collection of up to four times of the underpaid tax – is this sufficient to prevent deliberate under-declaration of income, especially when it is so easy to do so? At the same time, is it too harsh to impose personal criminal liability on those who make incorrect returns or give any incorrect information in relation to any matter affecting a casino operator’s liability to pay tax? Sir, first of all, this offence does not require any guilty intent – instead, the moment the person makes an incorrect return or gives any incorrect information, he is guilty, whether he intended to evade tax or not. Second, is it fair to hold individuals criminally responsible? Would it be better instead to hold the casino operator company criminally responsible? Yes, there is a stronger deterrent effect in holding individuals criminally responsible but we must remember who benefits the most at the end of the day. If there is tax evasion – it is the company rather than the individuals running it. The two points coupled together make it especially harsh to hold individuals criminally liable – they do not benefit directly, and yet can be held criminally liable even if they were merely negligent (rather than actively trying to evade tax) in preparing tax returns. Sir, on this note, I support the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill. 3.20 pm”
“These amendments make it administratively easier, as well as send a strong message across that gambling is not for those who cannot afford to do so and this approach is to be commended. However, the question is: how is the casino going to implement this on the ground? Will they be doing ID checks on all patrons? Sir, this is not the normal kind of ID checks that clubs would do, ie, that of checking age, but this would probably require a computer database and an efficient checking process. Extra effort must be taken by the authorities to ensure that the list of those excluded is regularly and thoroughly maintained to prevent misunderstanding. A person who is no longer a bankrupt or on Public Assistance may wish to explore the casino but if a non-updated list prevents him or her from entering, the negative effects on the casino, our tourism sector and our much-vaunted efficiency would be far greater. Casinos overseas do not have such stringent checks. Would it be a deterrent, albeit a small one, to tourists if the checks are slow and hamper entry into the casino? Also, how is "poor credit record" under the existing section 165(1)(c) defined? This is the only instance in which the Committee has discretion in making an exclusion order against a person, but it is not clearly defined under the Act. Would the Minister consider clarifying what "poor credit record" means, so as to promote transparency in making exclusion orders? Sir, the amendments on the casino tax provide a more nuanced approach to taxation of gaming profits. Previously, profits were taxed without regard to whether the casino was a party to the wager.”
“The number of low income earners, those earning up to $2,000 monthly, gamble more and the numbers are increasing, according to the survey. Sir, these are worrisome facts and figures. We decided to go ahead with the casino project to give a fillip to our economy and in particular our tourism sector but what about those poor, weak-willed, easily-led, misguided individuals amongst us who are unable to resist temptation? What are we going to do about them? How are we going to rein them in? Sir, my views on the Integrated Resorts (IRs) are known but I welcome the further tightening of the screws to filter out the "Exclusives." They might not realise the good "fortune" that we are bringing upon them by restricting their presence at the IRs. Sir, persons on Public Assistance, undischarged bankrupts and those who make a voluntary application for exclusion are excluded from the casinos, but now with the doing away of the Committee of Assessors for the issuance of the exclusion order, makes life easier and hassle-free for them. Singapore has come a long way over the past 50 years. The hard-earned wealth that Singapore painstakingly accumulated over the years helps to pay for several social programmes like Public Assistance. We do not want to have instances where our ComCare and other Public Assistance programme beneficiaries, instead of using the money given to alleviate their hardship, blow it on chips, blackjack and the one-armed bandit. Sir, these amendments allow for automatic exclusion of undischarged bankrupts and persons on Government social assistance. The concept itself is good, since undischarged bankrupts and persons on Government social assistance really should not be gambling at casinos.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Second Reading of the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill and I am glad that this Bill is being tightened further. Sir, who could have forgotten the TV advertisement, where a father pleads with his daughter to break into her piggy bank to fuel his gambling addiction. Very touching but, at the same time, extremely disturbing. It shows the abysmal depth to which a gambler might descend, to feed his perverse and insatiable addiction to gambling. According to a 2007 survey by the National Council on Problem Gambling, nearly all the respondents welcomed the casino exclusion order and said that they would apply for casino expulsion orders to ban family members having gambling problems. That is the good piece of news. On the flip side, the survey indicates that the number of people who felt that gambling could lead to an unhappy family life, has decreased. There is a new-found acceptance towards gambling. Many more gamblers believed that having the right gambling skills could lead to a large payoff and the number of gamblers, with a dogged determination to recover what they lost, had doubled according to the survey. Therefore the $100 entry levy or $2,000 annual membership might have little impact on gamblers, and you do not even have to be hardcore addicts, to try to "cheong " as much as you can. Sir, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports did a survey on Participation in Gambling activities among Singapore Residents in the year 2008. The Chinese are well known for their fondness for gambling but what is disturbing is that, over the span of three years, between 2005 and 2008, the number of Malay and Indian gamblers has increased from 12% to 22% and 30% to 36% respectively.”
“Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to ask two questions. What is actually the response rate of companies on the take-up of this scheme, especially in a non-unionised sector? To what extent is the Tripartite Committee prepared to have a statement in the appointment letters that Flexi-Works! Scheme is an available option should the employee require it?”
“I would like to thank Minister for the very comprehensive response and the measures the Government is embarking on to ensure we balance the overly positive sentiment of Singaporeans in this property buying spree. Supplementary questions for Minister. Could the Minister kindly comment on the observation that the valuation gap between new launches and completed units in the same locale, same tenure and similar size is growing wider? Question two – with regard to foreigners with deep pockets who also seem to be snapping up real estate and pushing up property prices, besides making cash purchases, how are these foreigners funding their property purchases? I am wondering whether any of these foreigners have been caught for speculative activities. Are there measures in place to ensure that foreigners buying properties here do not just dump their properties and disappear without a trace? Are there any who have done so and what action has been taken against them?”
“Amongst them are those whose only preoccupation is aspiring to move to the next level of contentment. Sir, to these people, including Mr Low Thia Khiang and the Nominated MP, I would say to them that I am not sure that such an utopian state could happen anywhere in this world. Sir, allow me to end with an analogy that encapsulates the main points of my speech. Sir, most profitable firms apply the principle of non-discrimination in their hiring and compensation process, and what binds their staff together is therefore equal access to the opportunity of making money. Great companies, however, also have a vision shared by their employees. Apple is one of the most innovative and dynamic firms in the world because it combines non-discrimination with a vision that all its employees share. Japanese companies combine profit-making principles with a sense of community, so when the going gets tough, the employees stand united behind the company. We have to do the same in Singapore. Sir, the importance of remembering the nation building tenets should therefore not just be focused on economic policies but rather what Singapore has progressed to and for what makes us tick as Singapore and as Singaporeans, it is not just our economic progress, but also we are – as a country, as various communities within the country, and as individuals – proud to call ourselves Singaporeans. On this note, I support the amended motion.”
“We will therefore have to put in place social policies or education policies which will encourage equality for all but not at the expense of meritocracy. In this aspect, the PAP Government has been living the tenets of the National Pledge and much has been done to alleviate the distress of the lower income groups and to provide opportunities for the poor to break out of the poverty trap through a well-placed meritocratic system that provides equal opportunities to all. Sir, I will like to share a conversation I had with an American recently. Sir, two US visitors from Ideo, a design company from US met me recently. One of them, based in Shanghai has been working in Singapore on a business re-engineering project. He told me that to be in a world class city, is not about the hardware but software. Compared to Shanghai with its big and modern skyscrapers, Singapore may lag behind but in his opinion, Singapore has a higher value proposition to offer. He explained that Singapore’s value proposition lies in its software or human capital which has evolved as an important strategic asset giving Singapore that brand of success. This is possible because we have not just invested in educating our young but we also invest heavily in continual education and training for our workforce, to level up our human capabilities and strengthen our value system. Sir, indeed it is sad to say that some Singaporeans cannot seem to appreciate what we have and they continue to ask, "what more is there for me?". Our challenge really is addressing the expectations of such people. There is no end to fulfilling expectations but we can count ourselves lucky that a majority of Singaporeans have moved from basic sustenance level to arrive at the state of self actualisation.”
“Community leaders must have, at the forefront of their decision-making process, considerations of whether their actions will have a larger impact on Singaporean society at large. As Prime Minister Lee and our leaders have mentioned, the majority of our racial and religious groups in Singapore have done very well in this respect. And indeed, it was heartening and encouraging to see religious and community leaders, in full force, at the National Day Rally. Their presence served to underscore their commitment towards Singapore’s nation building efforts. Sir, only when there is peace and harmony in society, can Singapore progress as a united nation. As the cliche goes, united we stand, divided we fall. And it is no truer when it comes to nation building and progress as a nation. For a small country with no natural resources, we are only as good as the sum of our parts. And our parts are made up of Singaporeans – Chinese, Indians, Malays, Eurasians, rich or needy – and wherever they may be physically, we hope they continue to contribute to Singapore. It is inevitable that many of our top talents will end up working overseas, but we hope that they can still contribute to Singapore in their own ways; be it by being our informal ambassadors overseas, or discovering new business opportunities overseas for future Singaporeans to follow their footsteps. In relation to the point that we have to depend on our people for progress, we have to ensure that we provide all Singaporeans with good education and training, so as to build our capacity in the changing economy. We know that certain groups in society may be lagging behind others and we must try to equalise opportunities as much as possible.”
“Constant and free-flowing communication between various ethnic groups is what will drive the development of a Singaporean identity. But for this communication to be successful it must be civil; it must be tolerant of differences; and it must accept differences. In a way, it is like a negotiation between cultures; giving and taking perhaps consensually and parties walk away from the negotiation together, in a win-win situation. What the Government can do is limited; it can only provide a conducive forum for cultural negotiations to take place by prescribing rules of engagement. It cannot take the role of cultural parties involved in deciding what and how the Singaporean identity should be. The Government can only step in when lines are crossed and social behaviours become inappropriate or destructive. However, the ideal situation will be when all stakeholders exercise self-restraint and self-regulation, and treat each other with utmost respect. It is the mark of a civilized society when we are able to disagree respectfully but then work towards an amicable resolution. Sir, as our society progresses, more thorny issues with the potential to divide Singaporeans will surface. This is especially so in the cutting edge areas of biotechnology where potential ethical, religious and moral issues will be raised, and the shift towards greater awareness of human rights. Each race or religion will have their own teachings and ideals, and will seek to promulgate their ideas on their followers. Sir, it would be appropriate at this juncture to remind our community leaders that we must preserve our common secular space for all, and proselytisation must remain within reasonable limits. Much as we enjoy our racial and religious harmony now, it cannot be taken for granted.”
“The Americans believe in their role as the bastion of democratic values and in the liberty to pursue their individual happiness; the Chinese believe in their millennia-old civilisation and share a common desire to make China great again. So, in the context of Singapore, what is our national identity? Sir, I do not have an answer. As a young nation of 44, we are still in the process of defining ourselves as a people. What will the Singaporean identity look like? Again, I do not have the answer. What I am certain of, however, is the paramount importance of involving all parties in the process of developing a uniquely Singaporean sense of identity. Our unique multicultural flavour means that our national identity must be specific enough to distinguish us as a people, while at the same time broad enough to allow for different racial groups to preserve their own identities while taking part in and contributing towards a larger identity and purpose. America is a good example of where this has occurred. Americans tend to retain their ethnic identity and refer to themselves as Asian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, and so on. But outside the United States, they all refer to themselves as Americans. So we must provide enough space for each race to preserve its own ethnic identity while creating enough common ground for all races to identify with a larger cause. What does the path towards a Singaporean identity look like? Progress must occur at a comfortable pace for all parties – we cannot force a minority which is not ready to assimilate into what the majority determines should be the Singaporean identity. The process of change must happen naturally and gradually, through dialogue and interaction and consultation with all stakeholders.”
“This should hardly surprise, for we have arrived at a state in the evolution of our history as a nation where we seek to define ourselves and to understand our place in history. So, Members who have spoken earlier, clearly are mistaken when they attempt to discredit the PAP Government’s achievements over the years, for the "unpatriotism" that we witness today is the product of the passage of time, rather than the Government’s lack of commitment towards nation building. Sir, the path forward should therefore build on the implicit trust that we have accumulated. We need to root young Singaporeans in their community by engaging them in community programmes that allow them to contribute by giving back to society-at-large. Doing so provides a sense of involvement and a stake in the community. We already have such programmes in the form of youth clubs that engage in voluntary grassroots work, but we can do more to increase the numbers of and membership in such clubs. Sir, we must also allow for greater participation in the political process. We have made progress in this area through the Feedback Unit and increasing opportunities for participation in Parliament, and we must continue to move in that direction. The upshot is that in charting our path forward, we must stay united as One People, One Nation, One Singapore. But what then defines us as One People, One Nation, One Singapore? Answering this question requires us to define our national identity. I would like to think of national identity as a shared vision, a belief in our common destiny as a people.”
“One wrong reading of a situation could spell disaster for Singapore. Prime Minister Lee recounted such an incident where two families, one Malay, another Chinese, tussling for the same spot at a void deck to hold their respective functions. It was settled amicably when the Malay family gave way, even if it had the right and necessary permit to hold the function. Sir, timely intervention helped avert an ugly situation from arising. This incident gives hope; that as a nation, as one Singaporean people, although we have yet to arrive, we are slowly but surely reaching the goal of One People, One Nation and One Singapore. Perhaps this explains why some surveys indicate that many our youths do not feel patriotic or why some express a desire to migrate. I would like to let Mr Viswa know that in fact their views do not reflect the Government’s failure to commit to the tenets of non-discrimination. Rather, they reflect the fact that we have arrived at the crossroad that I had mentioned earlier in my speech. Thrust unexpectedly into the murky waters of independence and headed towards a waterfall on a small, rickety boat with a crew that had never worked with one another before, we had little choice but to rely on trust to guide us to safety. So the citizens worked hard at rowing, believing that the Government was leading the boat with everyone’s best interests at heart. And so we averted disaster and emerged into the oasis of the first world. The youths of today are no longer content with relying solely on the implicit trust between the Government and the people. They seek a more active role in charting the path forward that Singapore will take.”
“Sir, on social policy, we have to first navigate the dangerous waters surrounding our racial and religious harmony when it comes to social policy, which has a direct impact on the personal lives of Singaporeans. When creating social policies for Singapore, our racial and religious mix must form the backdrop of all deliberations. We have to be mindful of different viewpoints of each group on sensitive issues and to make a conscious effort to operate in the secular common space. As Prime Minister Lee emphasised in his Rally Speech, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion or status would be treated equal; no particular group would be shown any special favours. But this does not mean that the Government should shy away from adopting the approach of a particular group, provided that there are cogent reasons independent of racial or religious considerations for doing so. Sir, racial and religious harmony, as it is currently practised in Singapore, does not guarantee a homogenous Singapore society – with a single shared culture. Today, even after 50 years of nation building, a "Singaporean" ethnicity has not evolved. Although we cannot rule out that a Singaporean race would evolve in the future; such a development may just happen with the passage of time and a feeling of "Singaporean-ness". As Minister Mentor Lee pointed out at an event in July this year, the multi-racial performances at the event were a contrived effort that represented an ideal that we may never completely reach, but because of this ideal, we will continue to make progress. Although there is this ideal of promulgating a shared Singaporean identity, in trying to encourage this development, we must remain vigilant and sensitive to the feelings of individuals and of communities.”
“Our incredible journey from third world to first within a generation was made possible only through the collective effort of every citizen, each working in unity with a government dedicated towards the betterment of Singapore. Our unprecedented success against all odds in turn reflects the Government’s commitment to non-discrimination in all areas of policy and its desire to involve every citizen in the nation building process. But it is crucial to note the following: that the cooperation and unity that underlie our hitherto success stems not from a well-defined national identity, nor from a long and shared sense of history, but from an implicit trust forged between the Government and the people over the flames of adversity and the shared trials and tribulations experienced by all Singaporeans during our journey after independence. Sir, trust is by nature delicate, difficult to build up, but easy to shatter. We have arrived at a key crossroad in our history as a nation, a moment where we seek to define ourselves, to understand our place in history, and to chart the path forward that we wish to take as a people. The Member may like to know that we must at this critical junction build on the collective unity that we have taken years to achieve; any attempt by opportunistic voices to discredit the good work done by the PAP Government will create a swirl of uncertainty that will slowly but surely hammer away at the foundations of trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and, ultimately, unleash a torrent of discontent and ill-will that will dismantle all that we have achieved and deliver the coup de grace to our existence as a first-world nation.”
“Mr Rajaratnam had intended for the Pledge to stand as the beacon of hope and guidance for a new country that had just set foot onto the long and arduous path towards nationhood. When Mr Rajaratnam was tasked with writing the National Pledge in 1966, he understood that ethnicity formed the core identity of most people, especially within a multicultural setting that lacked a strong, overarching national identity, a situation in which a newly independent Singapore found herself. He correctly identified language, race and religion as potential fracture points that would immediately shatter any attempts at nation building and therefore emphasized the role of non-discrimination as the foremost principle governing our political, economic and social affairs. Wise words, Sir, stand the test of time, and his words were wise. The central tenet of non-discrimination enshrined in the Pledge still rings true to this very day. We must not mistake the calm seas that we inhabit today as proof that the tempests of yesteryears are over. The harmony and prosperity that we currently find ourselves in is not the natural state of affairs but, rather, the product of good governance and an unwavering commitment to meritocracy and to a policy of non-discrimination in all aspects of life. Our policy of non-discrimination forms the glue that gels or that seals the potential rifts of discord that constantly threaten to tear us apart. Deviate from the principles emphasised in our Pledge, and I guarantee, Sir, that all our collective years of nation building, painstakingly undertaken by the PAP Government and the people of Singapore will come to naught.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have requested for copies of the National Pledge to be disseminated as reference to my speech and as a reminder to the House the "living words" of this Government. Sir, the amended motion on nation building tenets provides a timely reminder that our society is a multi-cultural and meritocratic society, and that to progress as one Singapore, we need to work together regardless of our racial, language, religious or income differences. The amended motion reaffirms that this Government has lived and will live by all the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge and refutes the special emphasis, in the original motion, on commitment to non-discrimination in the making and conduct of economic policy. Sir, economic life is an important aspect of existence, and the original motion affirms the Government's commitment in ensuring that all Singaporeans have equal access to Government opportunities regardless of race, language or religion. The progress that this Government has made to be in the first league of nations is testimony to the vigilant adherence to the principle of non-discrimination as reflected in the Pledge, and the emphasis that the principle operates through all aspects of policies. It was not good economic policy, per se, that lifted us out of poverty but a combination of good political, economic, and social policies. The efficacy of any policy depends on other policies, so we will never realise the fruits of economic policy, whatever our effort, in the absence of social policies that stand on a solid ground of non-discrimination. Sir, one of Singapore’s founding fathers, Mr S. Rajaratnam, wrote this Pledge in the wake of the storm of racial riots that plagued our nation during the turbulent 50s and 60s.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that clause 4 of the Bill allows the Minister to make regulations to include vouchers within our GST regime. At present, the sale of vouchers is disregarded, up to its face value, at the point of sale. This is a good move, to prevent leakage of taxes through the savvy use of vouchers by vendors of goods or services. Also, it is progressive for this provision to include reference to electronic vouchers as well as physical ones. As more transactions are concluded online, it is necessary that we continue to provide for laws that apply to e-commerce as well as conventional commerce. Sir, I seek a clarification from the Minister. If a voucher provides for a percentage discount, how will the amount of GST be calculated? Similarly, if there is a cap on the value that can be redeemed with the voucher, but the consumer is not obliged to redeem the entire value, how will the amount of GST be calculated? Also, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that the amendments are technical in nature and that this Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. And that is good news. Sir, since July 2007, the GST has been fixed at 7% and the Government has been giving out sweets to overcome the bitter medicine. The Singapore economy shows signs of improvement but it is still tied to the global economy. Another round of protracted economic downturn in Singapore may necessitate a second Stimulus Package to help the lower income, a move which the Minister for Trade and Industry shot down recently. But what I would like to know from the Minister for Finance is, if the economy falters or stagnates again, will the Government consider reducing the GST rate temporarily to 5%, if no Stimulus Package is in sight? On this note, I support the Bill.”
“If we fail to do so, we may inadvertently entrench social inequality. Sir, these comments aside, I support the Bill.”
“Just as those of us who are in the workforce expect to receive regular contributions to our CPF fund from our employers for services rendered, it is only fair that homemakers can also receive regular contributions from their spouses or children for their critical domestic role. The amounts contributed will remain in the homemaker’s account, as recognition of his or her important work rendered to the family. Homemakers – be it wives or husbands – play critical roles in our society. Their domestic work, because of its altruistic nature, is often rendered invisible because they do not receive tangible financial rewards. But it is real work, and it is important work that weaves together the public and private spheres of our society. As we continue to leverage on and enhance the CPF Scheme to meet the financial and health care needs of our population, it is timely that we work conscientiously to include all segments of our community in this important Scheme. Aside from homemakers, there is another group that requires our intervention. This is the group of low-income families who may not have sufficient monies amassed in their CPF accounts to qualify for the proposed CPF Lifelong Income Scheme. To help this group of vulnerable poor, may I suggest that the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports design innovative help programmes that facilitate these families' membership in the CPF Lifelong Income Scheme. For example, instead of providing directly financial handouts, the MCYS can leverage on the CPF Lifelong Scheme and offer help to the poor through meeting annuity premiums. As we move towards a more comprehensive system of coverage for Singapore, it is even more critical for us to ensure that no group is omitted from the Lifelong Income Fund.”
“As we continue to leverage on the CPF Scheme to provide for the post-retirement needs of our ageing population, we must be cognisant of the group amongst us that continues to be excluded from the Scheme. I would like to ask the Minister if there are provisions to systematically include full-time homemakers and supplementary wage workers into the CPF Scheme. I applaud the amendments introduced on 1st November 2008, which liberalised three important aspects of the CPF that allow cash top-ups from an expanded pool of eligible contributors and allow top-ups for recipients who are now below 55 years old, and the removal of an annual cap in the amount contributed. May I suggest that we consider moving one step further – to allow regularised contributions to the CPF accounts of homemakers, either by the spouse or by adult children. I am referring to a GIRO system where standing orders can be issued to facilitate monthly top-up to the CPF account. There are two advantages to this proposal. First, it will allow the homemakers’ CPF accounts to grow gradually over their life course, as they make irreplaceable and invaluable contributions to the family. It is much easier to achieve savings by accumulating smaller amounts over a longer period of time than it is for family members to provide a lump-sum top-up at a critical point to meet the annuity premium demands. Second, in recognition that social relationships even in marriages are not always sustained throughout the life course, regular contributions will not disadvantage the homemaker should the marital union dissolve.”
“These people who helped make Singapore what it is today, surely deserve that consideration. Third, I note that the Lifelong Income Fund must be solvent before monthly income can be paid out. On the words of the proposed sections, it appears that payouts are thus not guaranteed. This is against the whole purpose of having a Lifelong Income Scheme, which aims to provide the elderly poor with a secure retirement income for life! Where is the security when payouts are not guaranteed? I urge the Minister to explain the reasons for enacting such a clause. Still, in relation to the Lifelong Income Fund, clause 14 and new sections 27K and 27L state the amount to be paid out to relevant members, with the requirement that the Lifelong Income Fund be solvent before payouts can be made, and the discretion granted to the Minister or the CPF Board to determine the amount payable to relevant members. It appears that payouts may vary over time. Perhaps this will depend on how well the Lifelong Income Fund is invested as well as the state of the markets at any point in time. Can the Minister please explain whether this will be the case in practice and, if so, will payouts be reduced when the Fund is not doing well due to economic downturns or poor investment decisions? On this note, I support the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion. I wish to raise two suggestions with regard to this amendment that is tabled. I am pleased to note that we are actively looking at means to sustain post-retirement financing for an ageing population. The proposed CPF Lifelong Income Scheme seeks to address an important gap in many Singaporeans’ retirement plans.”
“Sir, with all due respect, I do have a few queries with respect to the Lifelong Income Scheme. The queries, I hope, will only help make the scheme better. First, the Amendment Bill appears to enable the Minister wide discretionary powers to decide the premium payable by members under the Lifelong Income Scheme, as well as the monthly payouts under the Scheme. I believe that the reasons for doing so include the need to specify the plans accordingly for different types of members. This discretion can be delegated to the CPF Board for it to manage the various plans under the Lifelong Income Scheme. Sir, I worry that the public may perceive this wide discretion as a licence for the Ministry or CPF Board to change premiums and payouts at will. Sir, may I suggest that before the plans roll out, a more thorough review be done to see if changes to the premiums and payouts are really necessary? This will help reassure the public that the Government is not trying to siphon off their CPF monies, but rather trying to provide them with a lifelong monthly income. Second, I question the need for discretion for the Minister to prescribe the age at which the Scheme applies. There should not be frequent changes to the age at which the Scheme comes into force. Because retirement planning has to take place far ahead of the retirement age, it would be helpful to members if there is an element of certainty in knowing the age at which the Scheme kicks in. It will definitely help to make an educated choice and make the necessary preparations for their own secure retirement, in conjunction with the Lifelong Income Scheme, and not over- or under-prepare the money that they may require for a happy retirement.”
“Sir, the recently introduced CPF (Amendment) Bill shows a lot of effort and thought put into it. Kudos to the Minister and his team who never fail to give up trying to make life better for all Singaporeans. I would like to commend the changes to the CPF (Amendment) Bill that allow members to top up their parents’ or grandparents’ CPF special accounts even if the parent or grandparent has not yet attained the age of 55. The CPF Act has seen many changes over the years to allow for top-ups by family members, starting by gradually increasing the scope of the types of family members who are qualified to top up relatives’ accounts, and then now by removing the age requirement for the recipients. This is the right direction to go. With the introduction of the Lifelong Income Scheme, it would be prudent for family members to help senior members of the family to accumulate sufficient funds in their accounts to ensure a secure retirement through the purchase of adequate annuity plans provided under the Lifelong Income Scheme. Sir, this move to allow members to top up the CPF accounts of their family members shows that our efforts to boost a sound family structure, coupled with traditional Asian values, have paid off. Also with family size getting smaller, there is an increased need to encourage family members to support each other in times of hardship. Our CPF safety net is the way to go. The Straits Times headlined a story, "Basic care in Britain to cost retirees $48,000." Britain is trying to do what we embarked upon long ago. The Green Paper outlining the British government’s proposals may or may not see fruition but this shows that the Singapore Government was far ahead of its time and bold enough to take the right path.”
“Valuation is not done by HDB. It is done by an independent valuer based on transacted price, so this is not an instrument in moving the prices of property one way or another. It is not realistic to put a cap on prices. Someone who contributed to The Forum had recently said that it is not a bad thing for prices to be increasing over time because there are Singaporeans who have bought the property in the mid-nineties and they are waiting for the time for prices to reach the level at which they have bought their flats. We do want to see prices of property, especially HDB flats since 85% of Singaporeans own them, as a reflection of the wealth of Singaporeans and it is not such a bad idea for prices to move steadily over time. So I do not think it is realistic for us to put a cap to that. FOURTH UNIVERSITY 10. Mrs Josephine Teo asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will provide the reasons for the expected steady state enrolment of the fourth university being reduced from 12,000 to 4,000; and (b) whether the target to provide 30% of each cohort with university education opportunities by 2015 will still be met. 11. Mrs Josephine Teo asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will outline the scope of partnership between Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the fourth university; and (b) what steps are being taken to ensure that Singapore benefits from the partnership.”
“Yes. As such, should there be a cap to the increase in the prices of HDB resale flats? Can the Senior Minister of State clearly address this? Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: First of all, I have mentioned in my answer, the issue of the Housing Grant and AHG. In fact, Members of the House would remember that it is only in February that we have revised the AHG upwards, both in terms of quantum and the number of would-be eligible Singaporeans. We have lifted the eligible household income ceiling from $4,000 to $5,000, so that more first-timers are eligible for the AHG. It is only in February that we have made it effective and, therefore, we should really review its effectiveness later and let it work through the system. We are also monitoring the affordability and we measure that by the percentage of the income that is used to finance the flats. As I have mentioned in my answer, at the moment, we are using, on the average, 25% of our income to service the loans, which to us is an indication of its affordability. The other element that I would like to explain is that we do look at the supply of new HDB flats through our Build-to-Order (BTO) system. We will be releasing 8,000 units through the BTO system and, if necessary, we will increase the supply if we see that there is indeed some pent-up demand. But from one of the launches, Punggol Breeze, that we have seen recently in December 2008, we had some 300 units that were left without being subscribed. Everyone who has applied for a flat under that launch has been called up and yet we have 300 units left unsubscribed. So that shows that there is some demand but, perhaps, we are not seeing a real pent-up demand as the Member has described. I think there has been some misunderstanding on how valuation has played a role.”
“I have three questions for the Senior Minister of State. Granted the stability of the prices, in the event that the HDB resale flats do reach a price-level equivalent to the price of private property, which obviously goes against public housing being affordable, what can HDB do to ensure that these homes do not get priced out of reach? Also, there is in fact a concern that the prices of HDB resale flats have been artificially propped up with inflated valuations, or they are an indication of a resurgent property market –”
“Sir, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. According to the Straits Times dated 4th July, there were a total of 27,000 jobseekers registered with the Career Centres but they could not fill the 20,000 immediate vacancies in their job bank. There appears to be a mismatch of skills. How can MOM help to resolve this issue? I would like to ask the Minister: how do we account for those PMETs who are undergoing training to set up their own businesses? Do we include their businesses under the category of "employment"? How many of these PMETs have indeed moved to that category of self-employment? My second supplementary question has got to do with the Career Centres that are facilitating their outreach to offer better job-matching service to PMETs. Feedback indicates that very qualified candidates are asked to consider vacancies such as butlers, waiters, security guards. Though many of these PMETs are prepared to take up the lower-paying jobs, they balk at actually being given this kind of job offers. How can we ensure a refinement in the job-matching service that we are providing? I would also like to ask the Minister this. Apparently, there is feedback that when these PMETs do not go for job interviews referred by the Career Centres, they will be given warning that they will not be considered for future job vacancies. This has resulted in a lot of fears and concerns. I am just wondering how we can actually guide the Career Centres to do a better job.”
“We can also "anchor value in Singapore" by further developing our Malaysian and ASEAN business links. We should not only look at far-flung markets and the G8 countries for growth. Just next door in Johor is the Iskandar Malaysia development, which has already secured US$11 billion of its US$13 billion Foreign Direct Investment target for the phase ending next year. I am glad to see that Singapore is the third largest investor. But I am sure we can also do more. At this point, I would like to say that I am encouraged by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s flexible and objective-centered approach towards our relationship. I agree that we should seriously study how to improve motor traffic and trade flow between our countries. We should consider all alternatives – an eastern bridge link, expanding the causeway, maybe even have regular ferry services that can transport vehicles to different parts of Johor! Sir, in conclusion, my simple wish is that as we evolve as a society, we approach the complex challenges ahead with flexibility, fairness and compassion. Sir, I support the motion to thank the President.”
“Training at this time is about enhancing the self-reliance of our people, a fundamental value expounded by Minister Mentor Lee in the early days, which is applicable to the current investment initiative in training of our human capital. Sir, the success story of Singapore is about its human resources. We have no natural endowments and in the last 50 years, it is our human resources that have helped propel us to where we are. MOM has been relentless in its efforts to build up our human capabilities and, in the last three years, has mounted a national movement to develop the workforce skills qualifications for industries across the board. The national WSQ framework for the different industries has now been established and the next wave of change that must happen in order that our human capabilities move up the value chain is to reach out to as many as possible for the WSQ Competency training. Sir, SPUR and absentee payroll are meant to support the investment to level up the competencies of our human resources for better employability, in current jobs or for new jobs. So employers, as a whole, should band together to help themselves enhance the human resources that we have in Singapore by looking at SPUR from this long-term perspective. A well-trained potential candidate circulating in the market place will benefit all. We have to take a holistic approach and not a silo outlook in such instances when the challenge for Singapore for its long-term survival is a competent workforce. As a nation, in levelling up the human capabilities of Singapore, PMETs and fresh graduates would do well to stay ahead of the pack by acquiring the core, critical HR and people management skills. Sir, regional ties are also important to this small island state.”
“However, there may be room for the Government to help find ways to ease cashflow problems for this group of employers, so that Jobs Credit Scheme can function as intended, that is, save jobs. And for those who continue to thrive despite the storm, Jobs Credit Scheme is an encouragement to do even better, going forward. Hopefully, such companies will not simply use the whole windfall to lower their wage bill but will pass on some, or all, of the grant to their employees, as a bonus to their regular pay. This way, their workers will have more spare cash to spend than prior to the crisis. Retrenchments are grim matters for HR practitioners to handle and grimmer still for those losing their livelihoods. But we should not allow bad news to be swallowed without question. Just as the good news in the Jobs Credit Scheme has been dissected relentlessly, so too should unemployment figures, particularly when they are forecasts and not facts. Sir, it was reported that SMEs are still hesitant to embrace SPUR. Among their concerns: Whether the scheme itself is a sustainable strategy should the downturn drag on. The boss of a laundry operations catering to the hotel industry commented to me recently, "I can send my workers for training with a subsidy from SPUR but we cannot keep sending workers for training. What will they do after training and there is no recovery in sight? I will have to stop training and put staff on unpaid leave." The concern raised is not invalid but they are perceptions and paradigms that must be righted. This is where we have to appeal to employers to look beyond the short-term applications of the scheme and appreciate the long- term beneficial effects of SPUR in levelling up Singapore’s human capabilities.”