Josephine Teo
Singapore
“The Government's risk-calibrated approach to data security in artificial intelligence (AI) systems was explained in a written reply, given on 9 January 2024, to related questions asked by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Gerald Giam.”
“Access to frontier models is helpful for specific use cases, such as advanced research and cybersecurity. However, these form a small proportion of artificial intelligence (AI) demand. For most industry, Government and research uses, capable models are already available.”
“The Government tracks the development of technical standards for identifying artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content, including watermarking and digital provenance approaches, as part of broader efforts to manage AI-related risks.”
“Upon receiving a valid report of intimate image abuse, the Commissioner of Online Safety is empowered by law to direct Online Service Providers (OSPs) to disable access by Singapore users to the specified harmful online material. This direction may be extended to cover identical copies found on the platform.”
“The Government is committed to keeping children safe online. We have announced plans to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services, including requiring platforms to keep users under 13 off their services.”
“Under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025, the Commissioner of Online Safety is empowered to issue directions to platforms to remove specified harmful content, including intimate image abuse.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,900 lines we hold for Josephine Teo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 56 of 58.
“If the concern is over-regulation, could the line be drawn for self-developed courses costing more than, say, $5,000 or lasting longer than six months? This will provide better protection for students. I hope that the Senior Minister of State could comment on this point. On the point of fee protection, I note that the new fee protection measure under the EduTrust Certification Scheme will now be extended to both local and foreign students. This is a good development. We should not assume that only foreign students are at risk of being left high and dry. In fact, given the high trust level that Singaporeans have of the MOE, the mere mention that a school is MOE-registered often gives potential students and parents a misplaced sense of confidence. They think it means that the school must have somehow passed the gold standards of the MOE! Hence, I am concerned to note that even with the new law in place, there are PEIs who can continue to offer programmes to locals without coverage under the Student Protection Scheme. This is because the Student Protection Scheme is a feature of the EduTrust Certification programme, which is a voluntary programme. Only the PEIs that wish to enrol foreign students must be EduTrust certified, in order that student passes can be issued to their foreign students. PEIs which enrol only local students do not need EduTrust Certification and, hence, do not automatically offer the Student Protection Scheme. Can the Senior Minister of State explain why the Student Protection Scheme is not a registration requirement for all PEIs? Notwithstanding the above, I am glad that the Bill requires PEIs to participate in a dispute resolution scheme. In the event of a dispute between the student and his PEI, the relationship between them is an uneven one.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. As explained by the Senior Minister of State, the light-touch regulatory approach for the private education sector needs to be updated. In the past year alone, there have been several instances of closures and these closures have left many students stranded. Sadly, they have also tarnished Singapore’s reputation as a global education hub. There is clearly a need for tighter regulation. Therefore, I welcome the move by the Ministry of Education to establish the Council for Private Education (CPE) as the regulator for the private education sector as well as the Enhanced Registration Framework and EduTrust Certification Scheme. Sir, I believe that the Bill should address three key areas of concern: first is the protection of students; second is the protection of bona fide private education institutions; and third, the protection of the Singapore brand. Let me touch on the protection of students. More stringent measures are needed to protect the interests of students. When Brookes Business School was closed recently, students were left stranded with fake qualifications. Their fees were also not covered or inadequately covered by insurance. Under the new regulatory framework, PEIs will also be required to seek the Council's approval before offering their external degree programmes. This is certainly a move in the right direction. With more stringent checks and quality criteria imposed on external degree programmes, we can be confident that degree mills and worthless degrees are less likely to find their way in. However, the approval is not extended to cover diploma or certificate programmes, which are self-developed by the institutions. These diploma and certificate courses can be quite costly and also last quite long.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware of a recent survey that reported more companies indicating their intention to increase hiring. I would like to ask if the Minister could comment on this and whether he expected the unemployment rate to be reduced anytime soon.”
“" Sir, I submit that in this new era of uncertainty, this pioneering spirit remains relevant to all of us in this House today, the custodians of Singapore's future. Sir, on that note, I support the motion. *Cols. 403-404. 2.56 pm”
“He has argued that we must grow an opposition to be a back-up, in case the PAP fails or becomes corrupt. I have pointed out in my Mandarin speech that there are few examples in the world where non-corrupt parties are able to win elections to flush out corrupt parties, and then to clean up a corrupt system. More often than not, the opposite happens, ie, an opposition wins against a corrupt incumbent, and then becomes corrupt in government. The better strategy therefore is to work assiduously to preserve a corruption-free political system, and to keep up a political culture where there is zero-tolerance for corrupt persons, corrupt organisations and corrupt political parties. That is our assurance. To the people of Singapore, I hope they will think seriously about this issue. Is it better for Singapore to support an opposition, even if it is not up to mark, in the hope that it could govern well when it overthrows a corrupt PAP, or is it better to make sure that the PAP does not fail Singaporeans, that it has the strongest team to serve Singaporeans? Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, I would like to thank the President for his timely reminder that this is the 50th year of Singapore's self-government. To end, I would like to quote Minister Mentor Lee who wrote in his memoirs "The Singapore Story", and I quote: "For my cabinet colleagues and me, our families were at the heart of our team efforts to build a nation from scratch. We wanted a Singapore that our children and those of our fellow citizens would be proud of, a Singapore that would offer all citizens equal and ample opportunities for a fulfilling future. It was this drive in an immigrant Asian society that spurred us on to fight and win against all odds.”
“Mr Low also said that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) may not be effective in checking corruption in Government as the Prime Minister, to which it reports, could prevent it from carrying out its duty. Mr Low has not told the House the whole story. He must surely be aware that the CPIB can apply directly to the Elected President for permission to investigate any individual or organisation, and the Prime Minister would not be able to stand in the way. Is this not a kind of check and balance that the ruling party has imposed on itself? Mr Low also referred to the policy of remunerating Ministers well to avoid corruption. While he did not negate the effectiveness of such a policy, he expressed some doubt that it would always work. Mr Low is a senior MP and he must have read in the papers that in the UK, many MPs from both the ruling Labour Party and the opposition Conservative Party were involved in the scandal on MPs' allowances. Does he believe that a system of low remuneration would better promote incorrruptability? Mr Low reiterated that the Government must be people-centric in its approach. I agree completely. But how does one determine if a Government is indeed people-centric? In certain Parliaments where members from the ruling and opposition parties are equally well represented, there are many interesting verbal battles, rebuttals and retorts. On the face of it, the people’s voices have been heard. And yet these governments fail to improve standards of living. Unemployment rates far exceed the 3.2% in Singapore today. Would such governments be considered people-centric? (In English ): Sir, Mr Low has raised valid concerns. What if the PAP fails? What if the PAP cannot remain clean and honest?”
“He said when people cast their votes for PAP, they must also consider what would happen in the event that the PAP failed to self-regulate, faced obstacles in leadership renewal or became corrupt in spite of Ministers being well-remunerated. He said that the preferred strategy was to strengthen external checks and balances. In other words, he is saying that if one day the PAP were to fail or become corrupt, Singaporeans should at least be able to depend on another political party to take over the Government. Mr Low’s concerns are not invalid. The continued stable development of Singapore cannot be taken for granted and as such, every citizen should take an interest in our political system. The key question, however, is whether the strategy articulated by Mr Low will indeed be an effective one. In actual fact, there are few examples that would affirm Mr Low’s proposition. On the contrary, there are many examples in the world where the opposition party, after flushing out a corrupt incumbent, in turn becomes corrupt in Government. We need not look much further than in our neighbouring countries. Voters in these countries were led to believe that a multi-party system would lead to a better and more disciplined administration, and that the people’s interests would be better protected. However, there is no absolute guarantee. When the politics of a country is corrupted, talented individuals who are genuine in wanting to serve the people may not be able to win political power. Those who can wrestle political power from their opponents are sadly, not always talented individuals with a genuine desire to serve the people. The people become gravely disappointed by such outcomes.”
“The biggest strength of Singapore lies not in military equipment we possess, not in the tallest towers we have in the city, nor even in the skills and capabilities of our workforce. Singapore's biggest strength, in my humble view, is the people's willingness to stand together as one. Ironically, as we become more developed as a nation, as the dangers to our survival appear less acute, and as our people become more accustomed to success, it is harder and harder for people to accept that they may get less while others get more, to accept that they need to make more adjustments than others, or that they need to make sacrifices for the larger good. When "me" becomes more important than "us", our social cohesion becomes weakened. The sixth deadly failure is the failure to inspire. Sir, at 50 years old, Singapore faces a perception problem. No matter how successful we have become, we have also thought of as being quite predictable. While that is considered a virtue by some quarters, we must be mindful that a younger generation of Singapore aspires to build a Singapore that is perhaps different from what we have passed on to them. We must inspire them to take ownership of Singapore and build a future they are proud to call home. The final possible failure is the failure to stay clean and honest. Sir, on staying clean and honest, the hon. Member Mr Low Thia Khiang had some views on this yesterday and I would like to comment on his views, please. I will do so in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Yesterday, Mr Low Thia Khiang commented on our political system and pointed what he considered to be flaws.”
“If we had not been prudent and grown our reserves, we would not have been able to mount an impactful $20.5 billion Resilience Package to help businesses and workers in the current downturn. The third possible failure is the failure to reinvent ourselves. At the birth of our nation, we depended heavily on entrepot trade to make a living. Today, our economy is much more diversified, with capabilities in high-end manufacturing, financial services, research and development. Building up resources is not just to overcome crises. Government's job is also to allocate resources to areas that will position the country strongly for the future. Singapore must anticipate trends and be ahead of the curve. Only by staying nimble and reinventing ourselves can we hope to thrive against the intense competition. The fourth possible failure is the failure to excel. At a personal level, I know and appreciate how one can feel tired by the relentless drive to excel, to do better and better to be number one or two. And yet at an organisational level, there can be no substitute for excellence. No company or business is interested to invest in Singapore because we are "nice people". No foreign government will treat Singapore seriously if we are mediocre. No visitor will call on our shores if our attractions are sub-standard and our services of poor quality. Andy Grove, founder of Intel famously said that "only the paranoid survive". Sir, we do not need to be paranoid but we do need to have a deep passion for excellence. The fifth possible failure is the failure to unite. Sir, I see this as a big threat to Singapore's existence.”
“It is not hubris to think of ourselves as such because every Bill that passes into law in this House and every policy that is agreed to has a significant impact on the lives of Singaporeans and, more importantly, the shape of Singapore's future. If we decide poorly, it is Singapore's future which we gamble with. As custodians of Singapore's future, even as we keep an eye on overcoming present difficulties, we must not lose sight of the better future we hope to create for Singaporeans. What will our nation be like 50 years from now in the year 2059? Will it still exist? Will our city be beautiful? Will our people be gracious? Will our economy be dynamic and will our workers live a better and more meaningful life? Sir, my esteemed colleagues have talked about what needs to be done, I would like to outline the potential failures that the Government must avoid. Perhaps I could call them the "seven deadly failures". The first is the failure to respond quickly and decisively in the face of crisis. In this era of uncertainty, we must not expect the journey to be smooth-sailing. We can have the best plans but these are useless unless we overcome the problems as they emerge. A good example is how the Government responded to the SARS crisis of 2003, and how we have again demonstrated capabilities to manage another pandemic if it occurs. Also to be commended is the swift introduction of SPUR and Jobs Credit Scheme which have helped Singapore keep unemployment to 3.2% and kept many Singaporeans working. This leads me to a possible second failure and that is the failure to build up resources for a rainy day. If there is anything to learn from this crisis, it is that having deep pockets help.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. As I listened to the President's Address, I reflected on the events of the last two years that left an imprint on me. One event came to mind. This happened about a month ago when the Overseas Singaporean Unit hosted a major gathering for 12,000 in London's Hampton Court. Singaporeans, living in the UK and other parts of Europe, had made the effort to attend the day-long event, together with friends and family. As they enjoyed the sumptuous selection of local favorites like laksa, chilli crab and roti prata, they were entertained by artistes like Jack Neo, Dim Sum Dollies and Taufik Batisah. It was, by all accounts, a very happy and proud occasion. But, for me, the occasion left an imprint because, 50 years ago, as Singapore was about to achieve self-government, no one could have imagined that we would one day host a big party for overseas Singaporeans on the lawns of the palace of our former colonial masters. That year, in 1959, my father was just 20 years old. My grandmother was newly widowed. Broken by the war and with nine children in tow, the entire family faced a future as uncertain as that of Singapore. Standing there on the grounds of Hampton Court, together with the thousands of happy Singaporeans, I could not but feel a deep sense of gratitude to our founding fathers. Thanks to their undying commitment and dogged persistence in rallying all Singaporeans towards a common vision, we have a Singapore today we can be justifiably proud of. In that moment, it occurred to me that more than any other role expected of us in the House, we are expected to be custodians of Singapore's future.”
“Sir, three supplementary questions. Could I ask the Minister to share with us the incidence of foreign students dropping out of our local universities and how they compare to dropout rates for Singapore students? The second question is, in light of the two recent incidents involving the apparent suicides of an undergraduate and a recent graduate, both of whom were foreigners, whether the criteria for admitting foreign students ought to include their adaptability in a foreign environment. And is the Ministry satisfied with the current levels of support and care made available to foreign students?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would just like to clarify that I am not suggesting that we target non-Singaporeans for redundancies and tweak our foreign manpower policy in such way as to discriminate against companies who legitimately bring talents to grow their businesses. The Minister did say that the growth in the S Pass holders is slowing down, which suggests that it is still positive growth. In this economic climate, may I ask the Minister, would this not be a cause for concern?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his explanation. Non-Singaporeans comprise about one-third of our workforce and as the Minister has acknowledged, job losses have mainly come from the manufacturing sector where the proportion of non-Singaporeans in the workforce is proportionally higher, so I would have expected that redundancies attributed to non-Singaporeans would be proportionally higher than one-third. This does not appear to be the case. Could the Minister please explain why? Just two more questions. One is on the tightening of the S Pass criteria. Could I ask the Minister whether he would also consider not just tightening the criteria but also looking at the level? In other words, looking at the quota that is being allowed under S Passes, I would like to know whether the number of S Pass holders in Singapore has been lowered proportionally as our economy has shrunk.”
“I thank the Minister for his positive responses to my suggestions. In the previous downturns, the number of non-Singaporeans in our workforce had shrunk and, anecdotally, in the unionised sector, we know that companies are not renewing the contracts of some of their foreign workers. Would it be possible for MOM to share with us at this point in time how the non-Singaporean workforce has changed in terms of numbers, since the last quarter of 2008? I think this would provide some reassurance to Singaporeans that, indeed, the number ebbs and flows according to the economic conditions.”
“For companies, besides relieving their manpower crunch, foreign-sourced manpower helps to smooth out their employment costs in Singapore. However, beyond the factory floors, what the employer may not see is the social cost of a large foreign workforce. Foreign workers who have few other recreation options congregate in open public spaces. Though it may not be intentional, some end up littering. Our enlarged population also puts a strain on public resources, such as transport. We have to make extraordinary efforts to house foreign workers. Until the downturn, it was also worrying that many companies tended to be unconcerned about skills upgrading and productivity improvements. It was simply faster and easier to apply for foreign workers. This unhealthy attitude erodes our long-term efforts to raise productivity gains. Has the Ministry conducted detailed studies on which sectors have over-depended on low-wage, low-skilled foreign workers? Should such sectors be expected to raise their productivity before being allowed to import more foreign- workers in future? How else can we raise productivity in such sectors to give local workers a chance to improve their wages? All things considered, foreign-workers may be low-cost to companies. But we must be careful to make sure that they do not become high-cost to society. While our efforts are now focused on upturning the downturn, I hope the MOM can consider these views in refining our foreign-manpower policy, both in the short term and long term.”
“There should be a more coordinated effort to promote awareness of such opportunities to graduating students and recent graduates. May I suggest that the MOM looks into it? May I also suggest that MOM consolidates information on all hiring positions, ie, something like a jobs counter to make it available and present a holistic picture to the public regularly, at least for this year. This will complement the decentralised information dissemination by e2i, the CDCs and the self-help groups that are already in place and serve to reassure Singaporeans that jobs are still available despite the downturn. At the same time, there is concern about the large number of foreign-sourced manpower in Singapore. This subject crops up often during face-to-face dialogue sessions and e-Townhall web-chats. This is understandable. It was reported in Parliament in 1994 that there were 200,000 foreign workers in the 1.6 million workforce then, ie, one in eight employees in 1994 was non-Singaporeans. In 2008, non-Singaporeans comprise roughly one in three of our workforce. Sir, allowing businesses to have access to foreign-sourced manpower has enabled the Singapore economy to grow beyond our natural limits. Singaporeans too have benefited from the growth. From 2005 to mid-2008, before the sharp economic downturn, the job market was tight. Because of this, companies competing to attract and retain talents improved on their salary offers and other benefits. Many Singaporeans saw steady wage increases. Nevertheless, since the objective of foreign-manpower policies is to augment Singapore's workforce, is the current level of dependence on foreign-sourced manpower sustainable or desirable? How has the number of foreign-sourced manpower shrunk since the downturn?”
“First, I would like to thank the Ministry for its timely introduction of the SPUR programme in December 2008. Since SPUR was launched, WDA has responded quickly to feedback and fine-tuned the programme. It has also intensified efforts to promote awareness of SPUR. As a result, our unions have meaningful ways of engaging companies. On behalf my union and the workers we represent, I thank MOM and WDA for their good work. Sir, as the job market contracts, there is increased anxiety on the availability of jobs. Besides workers who lose their jobs, new job entrants to the jobs market are also concerned about their employment prospects. I was, therefore, very heartened when I met a final year student from NTU two weeks ago, who told me he had not only secured a job with a multi-national corporation, his starting pay was well above $3,000. While he acknowledged that he was lucky, his is not an isolated success story. For example, 11 or about one-quarter of the Government workers from my union found jobs while they were still attending the Employability Plus Training Camp at e2i, just about two weeks after they were retrenched. In other words, the jobs market is down but not out. Several economic agencies have launched initiatives to help companies and businesses weather the downturn. Some of these initiatives can benefit graduating students in the form training and attachment opportunities. For example, A*STAR's Graduate Attachment Programme provides valuable research training and experience to recent graduates who are interested in R&D, but who cannot secure such jobs now because companies are trimming research headcounts. These are very good initiatives. However, job-seekers including graduating students do not seem to be familiar with them.”
“Who maintains the standards and accredits the providers so that we have quality assurance? I urge the MOE to coordinate efforts to level-up standards in early childhood education holistically, systematically and urgently.”
“Which agency is the NIE-equivalent for early childhood education? Can we create a Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) framework for their continuous professional upgrading? The Government has announced plans to open many more new childcare centres. Yet, we are facing great shortages in the numbers of early childhood educators. Can we attract good people to the sector by looking into these factors? MOE's advertisements to attract talents to the teaching profession do not include early childhood educators. Individual schools would not have the means to mount such a strong campaign to attract teachers. Neither could kindergartens or childcare centres on their own. Could MOE coordinate a campaign for all early childhood education providers, much like STB has done to promote tourism careers on behalf of all tourism businesses, and MOH has done for the nursing profession? Sir, the second point is on going into education centre accreditation. For primary and secondary schools, there is a curriculum to be covered, and schools today are given much more flexibility in deciding how to cover the curriculum. However, quality is assured by the MOE. For early childhood education, how does a parent know whether the child is getting a quality early childhood education? The intent is not to have tests, eg, PSLE to assess if the children have "passed" or "failed", nor should we impose rigid timetables or requirements on preschool educators. But, surely, there must be a way for parents to know whether the centre they send their children to "pass" or "fail". We can get no such information today. This is not satisfactory. As I said last year, we need a way for parents to be able to ascertain if the early childhood educator is meeting some minimum standards of quality in education.”
“5 years, the mean years of schooling has remained at about 12 years since 2003. While we have done very well to build up our educational institutions, do we have a concerted effort to keep these youths in post-secondary education so that their life-long prospects are improved? Pre-school Education Sir, my second cut is on pre-school education. We have a world-class system for primary, secondary and tertiary-level education. Even our technical education system has won international accolades. May I ask the MOE if we can say the same for early childhood or pre-school education in Singapore? Last year, related to pre-school education, I spoke on the need for quality assurance of early childhood education providers and the need to keep fees as affordable as for primary school education. This year, I renew my call to the MOE to place priority on improving quality of pre-school education. Specifically, I would like to suggest that the Ministry look into the following areas. First, on attracting and developing talents for early childhood education, one significant change announced last year was the raising of minimum qualifications of pre-school teachers. While I applaud the effort, I cannot help but notice the vast difference in the scale and depth of efforts when compared to investments in a quality teaching force for primary schools. The PERI Committee has raised the bar even higher through more stringent recruitment, budget for additional manpower, introducing allied educators, training of more PE, art and music teachers. When can we do the same for early childhood education? Raising minimum qualifications is one step. What about the training, career development and salary progression pathways of early childhood educators?”
“Depending on whether the academic studying the phenomenon is pessimistic or extremely pessimistic, the world's largest economy faces a daunting 9.8% to 25% dropout rate. This is often cited as a reason for the high youth unemployment rate in the US, which for 2008 hit an all time high of 14%. This stands in contrast to our own youth unemployment rate of 4.1%. Though our school dropout and youth unemployment rates are low, participation in education after the first 10 years of education could be better. In the 2007 edition of Statistics Singapore, it is reported that in 2005, 63.2% of our youths aged 16-17 were enrolled in post- secondary education, either in pre-university courses or ITEs. From past years' figures, vast majority of these students then progressed to tertiary education in polytechnics and universities. Sir, I would like to know what is the number of youths who do not progress to post-secondary education in the first place? Given their lower educational attainment, it it likely that this group contributes to the 17,000 jobless Singaporeans under the age of 30. They are also likely to fall in and out of unemployment continuously. I thank the Minister who had earlier announced the additional financial assistance to enrolled students. This will ensure that youths in our ITEs, polytechnics and universities can remain in education, even if their families fall into financial difficulties. At the same time, I would like to ask MOE if there are ways to further improve the rate of participation of youths in post-secondary education. 10 years of education is good but insufficient in today's competitive labour market. The mean years of schooling among youths in Singapore has also stagnated. While in the early 1990s, we witnessed an increase from 9.3 years to 11.”
“Sir, in China this year, six million new graduates will join the workforce. Together with the 1.5 million graduates from last year's batch who are still unemployed, there are a whopping 7.5 million graduates looking for jobs in China this year. This prompted the China Youth League to ask what strategies Singapore used to find employment for Singapore youths. The question was directed to me. As I reflected on it, I offered a view of what, I believe, have been our strategies. The first strategy is to keep youths in school. Our system channels them by aptitude to relevant institutions and makes use of their years in education to prepare them to be job-ready. The second strategy is to incorporate industry input in course curriculum. Many academic departments or faculties have industry advisory councils. This helps to ensure that fresh graduates have business-relevant skills. The third strategy is to tap the Continuing Education and Training (CET) framework to keep the skills of youths current. From 2000-2008, about 20% of workers retrenched in the unionised sector were under 30 years old. Youths are not immune to job losses and the solution is to continue to up-skill and re-skill them. Sir, the CET framework that we have put in place will be helpful in reducing youth unemployment. In the event of a downturn, a fourth strategy has been used. Government agencies like EDB and A*STAR, have programmes to help foot the salaries of fresh or recent graduates employed in industries of strategic importance to Singapore, but which are temporarily not hiring. Let me return to the fundamental strategy, ie, keeping youths in education. As of 2008, only 1.6% of students in each cohort do not complete a full 10 years of formal education. Compare this to the US.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reassurances on Medifund. I would also like to seek a point of clarification. Does the Ministry have a target within which to cap medical inflation, for example, no more than 5% above general inflation? To what extent do the various initiatives, undertaken by the Ministry of Health, keep medical inflation in check?”
“In some cases, these Singaporeans may be in negative equity. And when they are hit with big medical bills for their dependants, it could be very burdensome for them. I would like to urge the Ministry that rather than to look for reasons to reject the Medifund applications, at least for this period, please look for reasons to approve the applications. Healthcare Financing”
“Most patients seek overseas treatment because of the lower costs of doing so. In 2007, a Reader's Digest Asian Health Survey across seven Asian cities found that some 36% of 2,000 Singapore respondents would consider going overseas for medical treatment. Madam, I am aware that the Ministry of Health already approves the use of Medisave for overseas hospitalisation in cases of emergency. I would like to ask if the Ministry could consider allowing Medisave to be used for medical treatments in overseas hospitals on a regular basis so that this will allow Singaporeans more choice to stretch their Medisave dollars. Second, on MediShield. In a downturn, Singaporeans who lose their jobs or experience wage cuts often overlook the issue of medical coverage. They may be unable or simply forget to service their insurance premiums. When they most need the insurance coverage, they find that they are no longer covered. What steps can the Ministry take to minimise such instances, especially since there are no Medisave top-ups this year and we may see more policy lapses? For example, besides CPF Board notifying the member of insufficient funds, can the CPF Board include ways that the member could seek help? Could Medifund consider paying for premiums of those in genuine financial distress? Could it also be an automatic application for 2009? Madam, lastly, on Medifund. I am glad that Medifund will receive a top-up of $100 million this year. I thank the Ministry for that. I would also like to urge the Minister to extend a helping hand to workers who may be retrenched during this downturn. Also, for those who are not retrenched but are affected by wage reductions, they may have other assets, eg, homes, but they could also be committed to loan repayments.”
“Madam, over the last few years, medical inflation has outstripped general inflation. Medical inflation rate was 7.4% in 2007, more than three times the national inflation rate of 2.1%. Medical inflation has averaged 2.4% per annum during the preceding five-year period (2002-2006), still much higher than general inflation during the same period of 0.66%. Could the Ministry update the House on the medical inflation in 2008, and what more is being done to contain the rising costs of healthcare? Also, in the spirit of continuous improvement, could the Ministry consider further refinements to strengthen the 3M framework? First, on Medisave. The use of Medisave has been liberalised to include outpatient treatment of chronic diseases. As the first liberalisation, to cover diabetes treatment, it has been in effect since October 2006. What is the Ministry's assessment of the effectiveness of the scheme? Are the annual limits adequate? Madam, the trend for more workers to be put on contract terms will continue, and even be accelerated in these uncertain economic times. For contract workers earning more than $2,000 per month, there is no legal requirement for the employer to provide medical benefits. For those earning below $2,000 per month, if they have worked more than three months, they can claim for consultation but not treatment fees. While MediShield covers these workers for hospitalisation expenses, they have little coverage for outpatient medical expenses. Will the Ministry expand the scope of outpatient services which Medisave can cover for the benefit of the growing number of contract workers? The intended use of Medisave, however, is really for hospitalisation bills. And Singaporeans have been heading to places, such as Thailand and Malaysia, for various treatments.”
“I believe these claims. I believe that we will see more business failures and as a result, more job losses. I believe that things will get worse before they can get better. The road ahead will indeed be bumpy. And I also believe that Singapore is uniquely positioned to overcome these challenges. This is not blind faith. My confidence is derived from the sensible responses from union leaders and workers to the Budget. Even those who are retrenched, when we take them to the e2i, have kept their spirits up. They have chosen to look at the bright side of things. My confidence is based on the many business leaders who have shared with me on what they are going to do to keep their businesses going and how they intend to reposition themselves for longer-term competitiveness. Sir, in conclusion, it is probably true that for the global economy, the worst is yet to come. But for all of us in Singapore, we have every reason to believe that the best is yet to be. Sir, I support the Budget. 2.17 pm”
“If Sing Lun could still be in the streamlined list of suppliers, the company could sustain its operations through the downturn and be ready for the rebound when it comes. Mr Lee further pointed out that the ability to finance working capital was potentially the advantage of Singapore companies. In the current credit crunch, reducing the cost of inventory was a key concern of businesses. This was also where Singapore businesses could differentiate themselves from the competition. With the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative provided by the Government in its Budget, Mr Lee was hopeful that Singapore businesses could weather this downturn better than companies elsewhere. There are examples like Mr Lee who does not believe that there is zero demand. In fact, his point is that there are lots of demand. We have to go out and get them for ourselves. Mr Lee's positive orientation cheered me greatly. Mr Lee is doing all that he can to tilt the balance in his company's favour. His example is also reassuring to our workers because they want to know that the management is also doing everything they can to keep the businesses going. If Mr Lee succeeds, and I have every confidence to believe that he will, the balance will also be tilted to Singapore workers' favour, together with all the job credits and SPUR programme that we have put in place. Sir, our workers do not mind being asked to make all these adjustments because they can see when their bosses are doing it too and not giving up. Otherwise, they will wonder whether their efforts will be worth the while. Sir, in recent weeks, we have been warned that the current global economic recession will surpass all previous recessions in terms of scale, depth and impact. The newspapers headlines scream "the worst is yet to come".”
“The course was conducted in Mandarin, just 11 days after the workers were retrenched. And it took 11 days, only because there was a Chinese New Year break. It could have been faster. We expect to run more of such courses because more retrenchments in the garment industry are in the pipeline. In the last two months alone, some 700 workers have been retrenched, which is about 70% of the workforce of the three companies involved. But, Sir, although the garment manufacturing industry is under siege, not all garment manufacturers have given up. Mr Patrick Lee, Chairman of Sing Lun Garments told me recently that he did not have plans to retrench any workers in Singapore. That might perhaps be very reassuring to Mr Low, because he told me that the Jobs Credit Scheme will help him very directly and so he does not want to consider any retrenchments right now. In fact, he is working actively with customers to use the US-FTA provisions that we have, by providing more competitive value to them. At the same time, he plans to adopt other measures to adapt and respond to the crisis, such as implementing Lean Manufacturing in a bid to reduce costs. I asked Mr Patrick Lee, "How is it that you can avoid the fate that other garment manufacturers cannot?" Mr Lee told me that while orders had declined sharply, there were still opportunities. For example, Singapore companies have a strong track record of delivering products with consistent quality. Our strength in the areas of social compliance have established our reputation as reliable suppliers. This puts our companies in good stead with buyers seeking to reduce the number of suppliers in order to reduce their procurement overheads.”
“Such a strong dose of support for Singapore workers deserves our full-hearted support. Although I was initially concerned about the need to dip into our past reserves for the first time, I have no doubt now that it will be money well spent. Sir, at the same time, union leaders hope to see more businesses responding positively and energetically to upturning the downturn. Their sentiments could be summed up as follows: "The labour movement stands ready to do our part to help Singapore be the most pro-business economy in the world. What about our employers? Are you ready to do your part to help Singapore be the most pro-worker nation in the world?" Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in these very difficult times, the union leaders have seen very clearly the Government is taking resolute action to help the people tide over this crisis. We want to be a pro-business labour movement that helps the companies to survive. However, our workers need to see management taking leadership and making positive moves to overcome this crisis. Employees also want to know how they can contribute business turnaround, thereby saving their own jobs. Employers should demonstrate how they look after the welfare of the workers. Only then can Singapore be the most pro-worker nation in the world. *Col. 1581-1582. (In English): Not only will workers do their part to tilt the balance in their own favour, we call on business leaders to do their part to improve their prospects in this downturn. Yesterday morning, a group of 45 retrenched garment workers were at e2i undergoing training to help them get a new job. They belonged to the same garment manufacturer that notified all its workers that they would be retrenched.”
“Sir, I think with the Jobs Credit in place, what we are really telling employers also, of all these 11,000 immediate vacancies, is that if you choose to hire a Singaporean, there is a 12% wage advantage immediately because he is eligible for a jobs credit. I think that that serves as a powerful incentive for the companies to think about in their hiring decisions. Sir, I mentioned earlier that although some wage cuts may still be necessary, I would also like to point out that for low-wage workers, the Workfare Income Supplement Special Payment in cash, helps to cushion the cuts. As my colleague, Mdm Halimah has pointed out, the SPUR funding would further help the companies through taking up absentee payroll thereby reducing their wage bills further. So the important thing is, in this crisis, we must tilt the balance in favour of the Singapore worker; give the companies reasons to keep and hire Singapore workers. Sir, a company's participation in SPUR gives its workers the motivation to support the company through the downturn. Although it was launched only two months ago, there are nearly 200 companies and 10,000 workers committed to SPUR already. The faster the momentum builds up, the more we can tilt the balance in favour of our Singapore workers. Union leaders that I have spoken to did not begrudge the fact that the Jobs Credit Scheme puts cash into the hands of employers. They took the view that it was far better to help as many Singaporeans as possible keep their jobs, than to give them cash handouts, which could at best provide temporary relief. In fact, many showed me the thumbs-up to indicate their approval of the Budget measures. Some $5.1 billion would be needed to fund the Jobs for Singapore programme in the Budget. This is one-quarter of the entire Budget.”
“Sir, I would also add that even with the Jobs Credit Scheme, there is no escaping the need to cut costs. In some cases, I think, it is realistic for us to expect that even wage costs have to be trimmed further. But the merit of the Jobs Credit Scheme is that it allows different companies to have different levels of flexibility. The companies must assess if they can avoid wage adjustments. The answer would be "yes" for some companies. For some other companies, the answer would be "no, we still have to make further adjustments". I think the Jobs Credit Scheme gives them this ability to manage at the individual company level and we must support it. It is also true that not all job losses will be avoided, that I agree with completely. But I would like to point out that the Jobs Credit Scheme directly incentivises the employers of Singaporeans to rethink before letting go of their workers. We are asking them to weigh the pros and cons of keeping the worker. And to every individual worker, this stop-pause-to-think time frame can make a critical difference to the worker, and we must not diminish its importance to the worker. The most important task at hand, I think, Sir, is that we want to tilt the balance in favour of keeping the Singapore worker in his job. And for the companies that are still hiring, we want to tilt the balance in favour of them hiring Singapore workers. Sir, I asked the Member a question – whether he knew the number of immediate vacancies available in the jobs bank of the e2i. He did not respond to my question. I would like to share with him that right now, there are 11,000 immediate vacancies. So, they are available to our job seekers whether they are retrenched or not.”
“Compared to a CPF cut, the Jobs Credit Scheme avoids these problems, does not create the same difficulties and the bluntness that the CPF cut would create. Looking at it from the employers' standpoint, it gives more flexibility for them to move around. A CPF cut would have been blunt. For some companies, a 9% rate cut would have been too much. For some other companies, a 9% cut would be too little. So, where do we find the right level? There is also an argument being put forward that Singaporeans are aware of the severity of the downturn, so they will be willing to accept the CPF cut. I do not agree with that. I think if we implemented the CPF cut, many families would be turned topsy-turvy, and this is the last thing we want to do at this point in time. Just to also point out that the savings for long-term retirement needs will be slowed down if we did anything to the CPF rates, and unless we have no other means, I think the CPF should not be tampered with. Also, given that this could be a very long-drawn downturn, cutting CPF now for the vast majority of Singaporeans who remain in jobs, would be a painful mistake. Sir, I turn my attention now to the Jobs Credit Scheme which, when we have discussed with the employers and the union leaders, is clearly a better alternative. And I was worried to hear the Member Mr Low suggest that because its effectiveness is not guaranteed, it is better for us to do away with it. I would like to place on record categorically in this House that the labour movement, our union leaders and all our workers support the Jobs Credit Scheme and do not want to see it being done away with. In fact, we fully applaud the Government for being willing to tap into our reserves to help the workers in such a difficult situation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask myself what exactly is this Budget debate about. Is it about being more pro-business or pro-worker? Is it about CPF cut versus Jobs Credit? Is it about cutting the corporate tax by 1% versus 2%? Is it a debate about the use of past reserves? Sir, I would just like to share that for the vast majority of our workers, they really have two priorities and they want to see this Budget centred around saving jobs because the best support for the family is a job. And they also want to see us finding ways to minimise the impact on wages. In this House, we should not be debating who is getting a bigger slice of the pie. To the workers, it would be much more useful and productive if we focus our minds and apply all of our energies to saving jobs by keeping businesses going. Sir, on the point of the CPF cut versus the Jobs Credit Scheme, I would just like to take the opportunity to remind the House that CPF is used by hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans to pay mortgages, support medical bills, etc. Our resident workforce is 1.8 million people. Even with rising unemployment, most Singaporeans remain at work. Let us also not forget that there are, at this point in time, 21,000 workers on shorter work-week, temporary layoffs, who are already taking some forms of wage cuts. Any reduction in the CPF rates right now, throws thousands of such families into immediate hardship. Their cash outlay to service mortgage repayments will have to go up and this will, in turn, hurt their ability to spend. At this point in time when we most want to simulate or keep consumption levels on an even keel, we can least afford to impact the consumption ability of our Singaporeans.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Member. Is he saying that because the Jobs Credit Scheme has not proven its effectiveness, it is better for us not to have the Jobs Credit Scheme and forget all about it?”
“Can I have a clarification from the Member, Sir? Is the Member aware of the number of immediate job vacancies available, for example, through the e2i, the Employment and Employability Institute? Does he agree that the Jobs Credit Scheme will help reduce joblessness in Singapore and create an incentive for employers to look at Singaporeans first, to hire? Does he not agree that the best support for families is a job for the breadwinner? And so, does he not support the Government for going all out, to save jobs for our workers, including using our past reserves?”
“I hope that we would not forget them in the kind of courses that we make available for funding support and also that we should set the grant cap appropriately to recognise the different cost of programmes relevant to mid-level staff. Sir, thirdly, in line with the adjustment to the salary ceiling of Part IV, the salary cap on absentee payroll should be reviewed and possibly increased so that companies could be motivated to include more workers in their training efforts during the downturn. Otherwise, if companies cap the payroll to mid-level staff at the funding cap, these mid-level staff will also not be motivated to go for training. It will be a lose-lose situation for all of us. Sir, I would like to conclude in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the labour law provides the regulatory framework, but not total protection. Ultimately, the best welfare for the worker is to give them a good job, and the best protection for the worker is full employment. However, during difficult times, when employers face labour shortages, they will proactively improve wages and working conditions. Therefore, the most pressing concern of the Government is how to prevent the current downturn from moving into a long and deep recession. We need to work out effective strategies to restore economic growth. So, I urge the Government to assist companies in overcoming rising costs and cash flow problems in order for them to remain competitive, and not resort to wage reduction or retrenchment as the solution to the problem. This way, we can better help workers keep their jobs. Sir, I support this amendment Bill. 5.00 pm”
“Sir, in discussions with union leaders, we have noted the raising of the salary ceiling for non-workmen, under Part IV, from $1,600 to $2,000. This means that more workers will be eligible for overtime payment. However, a concern that has been raised by union leaders is that employers may start to incorporate allowances into the workers' salaries so that they just marginally exceed the $2,000 threshold, and they do so in order to avoid having to pay overtime to such workers. In such cases, I hope to seek the MOM's assurance that it will look into the specific conditions of such cases and require the employer to act within the spirit of the law. Sir, overall, the amendments can still be expected to cost the companies, and require some adjustments by them. Recognising the challenges that the employers may face, I would like to request the Government's assistance in three areas: First, the enforcement to be done in a firm but fair manner. In this regard, smaller businesses may take time to understand the changes. In genuine cases where the businesses were unaware or misunderstood their new obligations, and if they are willing to make good in a timely manner, I propose that we need not overly penalise them as it is also not in the employees' interests to do so. Second, Sir, I believe that the companies could have excess workers during this downturn. And I take the Government's assistance to encourage the companies, instead of retrenching, to send their workers and their staff for training. To do so, training grants could be made substantially enhanced to help companies tide over their difficulties. Also, we need to recognise the pressure on mid-level staff – not only on the lower income, lower wage staff – whose salaries are higher.”
“Employers in Singapore should not take this position for granted because in many other countries and even in Hong Kong, political parties have succumbed to populist sentiments to push for minimum wages so that workers can better cope with the widening income gap. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.55 pm Second, our social safety system has been established for nearly 50 years and has gone through refinements. These refinements, eg, the introduction of Medisave and MediShield, CPF LIFE have been made after careful consideration and with a eye on the long-term needs of Singaporeans. Sir, in social safety, the Singapore Government has done its part to provide subsidies for public housing, sustainable management of healthcare and advanced planning for the retirement needs of Singaporeans. This state of affairs should also not be taken for granted. In the case of China, where the social security system is at its early stage and still evolving, changes to the law have inevitably affected businesses. We are fortunate that in Singapore, employers' manpower costs are no longer subject to social safety needs, eg, when we refine the CPF to introduce CPF LIFE, we did not require additional funding by employers. It is, therefore, against this backdrop, that we consider the Employment (Amendment) Bill. While the timing is not perfect, and I think we mostly agree on that, we should test the reasonableness of the amendments in the medium to long term. In this regard, the Ministry of Manpower deserves praise for pushing ahead with the changes, despite the slowdown, and for applying a balanced approach in the consultation process, both with the unions as well as with the employers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last week in Hong Kong, I met businessmen who shared their assessment of the impact of the financial tsunami. Among other things, Hong Kong businessmen with interests in China, especially in the Pearl River Delta, highlighted that the troubles had been exacerbated by the introduction of the new Labour Contract Law in China in January this year. The new law in China protects employees with at least 10 years' service from being dismissed, except in very specific circumstances. The new law also requires employers to contribute to employees' social security accounts, set standards for employees on probation and specifies severance pay in the event of retrenchment. On paper, these measures go further than what our Employment Act in Singapore provides. Together with minimum wages already in place, the new law in China had led to an increase in compliance costs for businesses. Sir, the labour movement in Singapore is keenly aware of the potential impact of changes for our labour laws on businesses. Therefore, while we seek to strengthen protection for workers, it is not our intention to push for changes that impose unreasonable burdens on businesses, especially in a downturn. Therefore, it is important to note the significant differences between labour laws in Singapore and many other countries. First, we have not asked for minimum wages to be imposed. This is despite the downward-wage pressure faced by lower-skilled workers due to the ready access of low-skilled foreign workers. Instead, we have supported a more sustainable approach of supplementing wages of low-income workers through the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme and levelling up the workers through generous funding for job re-creation and skills upgrading.”
“But I hope that the employers can take a long-term approach. Let us take Japan as an example. Japan is currently facing a rapidly ageing population and the rate of ageing is faster than any other countries. Japan’s population has declined since last year, and the country’s labour force has also been shrinking. Japanese corporations are clearly aware of the impact that this trend can have on their business operations and activities. However, it might be too late for the Japanese government to look at increasing fertility rate now. So are we going to be like Japan? Do we want to solve the problem only when it hits us? The Singapore Government has created a pro-business environment for our companies, and it is a reliable and good place to grow their businesses. Therefore, I hope the employers consider the fact that their stay in Singapore will be over a long period of time, and so they should also support these initiatives involving marriage and procreation. When making adjustments, if employers show their sincerity to employees, then employees on their part should also cooperate with the companies in applying for maternity and childcare leave. Both parties can adopt a win-win approach and try to work out the most appropriate arrangements. So let us work together – the Government, the employers and the employees – and let us join in our common effort to build a pro-family, pro-marriage and procreation society. Sir, I support this Bill. *Cols. 671-672.”
“No doubt, it is costly to raise children. We can, and should, as a society, help to alleviate the cost of parenthood. But to expect society at large to raise our kids for us is plainly wrong. So I must urge Government not to turn M&P 2 into a monetary contract between Government and the people – "You give birth, we pay." There should be no place for such warped thinking in Singapore. In what spirit, then, should we support M&P 2? Sir, I propose that this House must support the Bill because we believe in Singapore. We believe that in Singapore, we have a past that is worth honouring and a future that is worth looking forward to. If we do not have the next generation of Singaporeans, who is there to remember us and honour our legacies? If we do not have the next generation, who is there to create the future for? So, to my fellow Singaporeans, please have children, more if you can afford it. Do not do it because the Government is giving you a baby bonus. Do not do it because anyone else says you should be obliged to. Have children because you believe in yourself, in your family and in Singapore. Have children so that, your future, our future and Singapore's future is worth creating. Sir, I would like to conclude my remarks in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Deputy Speaker, in our many public dialogue sessions, the employers have the strongest opinion regarding procreation measures. Many employers feel that the procreation policies would have negative impact on their companies. They are worried about the increasing cost of business, and difficulties faced during the implementation process. Each time a new policy is implemented, we are prepared to make any necessary adjustments as needed in the short term.”
“There is, thus, the inherent risk to our national identity whenever we replenish our ranks with new citizens. To be sure, they inject new ideas, diversity and fresh perspectives, all of which are vital to our continued survival and relevance. But new citizens also change our societal mix and we have to recognise that. So, how do we preserve the positive core of Singapore's society, our Singaporean-ness, so to speak? Sir, I think we must continue the transmission to our young. Do we want a Singapore which exists in name only, with nothing particularly unique or special about it? To put it starkly, having more babies is becoming an issue of national survival. This, then, to me, is of public interest. As representatives of the people, we have to ask if we can afford to allow a future where there are fewer and fewer Singapore-born Singaporeans to descend upon our nation, without seeking to do something about it. Maybe we have already acted too late, but better late than never. Can the Government, through its maternity and parenthood policies, reverse the declining trends of the total fertility rate? I am afraid the answer is clearly no. It will take a lot more than Government's actions to make it happen. Few young Singaporeans will be persuaded to have babies for the sake of national survival or as a matter of filial duty. In fact, some are not even persuaded that they should do it for the joy that children bring to themselves. One disturbing trend is also emerging. On one occasion, someone who was involved with the dialogue that I hosted went so far as to tell me that if the Government guarantees free education for his child up to university level, better still, raise his kids for him. I will have them. Was this person joking? Sadly, he was quite serious about it.”
“But Singapore is not just an economy, we are a nation, and so we must address the question of what it means to be a nation. First, I think, a nation must have its own citizens born and bred with unquestioned allegiance and willingness to defend it in times of need. This is not to cast doubt on our new citizens, and in no way suggests that they are disloyal or will be fleet-footed in times of trouble. But the depths of feelings will vary and are likely to be different, at least for the first few years. Second, a nation must have its own sense of identity, with a set of unspoken, implicitly held values that bind its people together. In fact, a nation's identity is often expressed most prominently by its diaspora wherever they congregate. Hence, the Greeks in Australia, the Chinese in the UK, and the Jews in America, all form tight communities, despite the fact that they have adopted new citizenships. Singaporeans are no different. We never enjoy each other's company more than when we are all stranded together faraway from home. Third, a nation must, of course, be able to sustain itself economically, or its people will perish. But economic success is a means to an end of nation-building, providing it with the resources to pursue national ideals and express society's values. In Singapore, our national ideals include that of meritocracy and multi-racialism. In recent times, we have also sought to cultivate an inclusive, gracious and giving society. Sir, I ask myself whether these national ideals can be consistently pursued if we do not produce our own babies, have our own young. Ideals survive and evolve in the transmission. Once the transmission stops, so too will the ideals fade away and morph into something unrecognisable.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after the last Marriage and Procreation (M&P) package was announced in 2004, Singapore's total fertility rate has improved very marginally from 1.26 to just 1.29. It is not clear that we can attribute any success to the 2004 package. Indeed, after the National Day Rally in which enhancements to the marriage and procreation measures were announced, I asked young Singaporeans for their responses. The responses have been mixed. Some young couples, especially those with at least one child, tell me that they feel encouraged to have more children. Sadly, a larger number have an indifferent attitude or think that our declining fertility is an irreversible trend. It makes me wonder if M&P 2 is doomed to fail from the start. Why then should we commit millions in additional spending each year to support what appears to be a failed or failing policy? It looks like we are throwing good money after bad, with no promise of any significant results. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I ask myself, what is the public interest here? After all, getting married and starting families are very personal decisions. Each year, it seems that fewer and fewer young Singaporeans are persuaded to do so. Why can we not just let nature take its own course and stop flogging a dead horse, so to speak? If we were just a collection of economic factors, grouping together only to achieve superior economic returns for our human capital, the enhanced M&P package is really irrelevant. We would ask how we can assemble the best possible team to maximise economic returns for each of our team members in Singapore. In other words, there would be no need for babies at all. It is quicker and easier to get ready-made ones from abroad.”
“Our attitude should not be to "depend on our reserves, if there are no mountains, no water". We have to depend on our intelligence, our wisdom, so that we can use our reserves sensibly, rationally and appropriately for the benefit of our nation. Only then can we hope to secure the steady development of Singapore. Sir, I support this Amendment Bill. *Cols. 473-474. 5.39 pm”
“Second, this sort of expenditure should help to keep Singapore a shining city for all. Third, it should allow Singaporeans to share in the fruits of our success, to improve substantially our quality of life, thereby generating the support for our future growth strategies. Sir, if I may, I would like to conclude my remarks in Mandarin. (In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard this saying recently: if there is a mountain, we depend on the mountain; if there is water, we depend on the water. If there are no mountains and no water, then we have to depend on our two legs. Throughout our 43 years of nation-building, we have adopted such an approach, stayed united and cultivated a society based on self-reliance. As a result, Singapore has surmounted all odds and developed steadily. We are now able to enjoy a high standard of living. However, we cannot depend on our "two legs" alone in achieving future progress. The Chinese say it is like rowing a boat against the tide – you move either forward or backward. We face intense competition and must dare to innovate. For example, oil-producing countries in the Middle East can tap their vast resources. They can plan ultra-modern cities that the world has never yet seen, they can recruit top global talents in every field, and they can set up first-class research universities. We do not have oil, but our reserves are quite substantial and can be better utilised. This Amendment Bill will indeed provide us with more revenue to spend on economic development and social infrastructure. However, we must establish the pre-condition that most of these funds will be used to break through our limits of growth, and should not be squandered on extravagant projects.”
“Or does it mean that we have to use other funding sources, eg, issuing Government bonds? It would be useful also for the Minister to share the Government's considerations in using different funding sources. Have we considered the cost effectiveness of tapping our reserves instead of these other funding options? For example, if our expected long-term real returns are 5.5% and the bond yields are 5%, is it not better for us to issue bonds instead of tapping on our reserves through the NIR? My second area of concern is what happens if the actual real returns are lower than expected real returns over a five-year period, for example. Supposing the expected real returns of 5% and if inflation exceeded expectations by 3% over a five-year period, or if our investment returns were actually poorer over the five-year period, do we still stick to the original long-term projections or do we make the necessary adjustments? What happens to the money that we have already taken into the budget and spent them all? Do we adjust the next tranche taken into the budget to recognise the over estimation? Finally, there is the question of risk. Just because we can tap more into our reserves, it should not become a licence for us to spend on extravagant projects. With the proposed amendment, Singapore's reserves will still grow but the risk is that the growth is much slower. This is unless the increased funds taken into the budget are used wisely to strengthen Singapore to generate more growth which will in turn multiply our reserves. Therefore, I propose that the following criteria be considered before committing to a large expenditure in the future: First, it should stretch Singapore's growth potential right through our limits of growth with potential multiplier effects.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, the call on Government to tap its reserves to fund spending has been made consistently. This is to avoid having to tax Singaporeans more heavily, such as through GST increases, even as we increase public spending. The proposed amendment is another step to allow Government to tap more into our reserves. I note that the Government has taken pains to ensure that the proposed amendment will preserve the real value of past reserves at minimum and allow for the reserves to continue to grow. This is important. The Finance Minister has explained that the changes are to meet our increased spending needs. The Government has estimated that these increased expenditures will cost an additional 3% of GDP within five years, whereas our increased GST will generate additional revenues of about 0.8% of GDP. Therefore, on the assumption that current revenues are just about meeting current expenditures, we will face budgetary shortfalls in the future. The Minister had earlier said that our budget had stayed neutral, on average, since 2001. However, if we look over a longer time horizon, we see a different picture. Indeed, we had budget surpluses for 14 of the last 20 years since 1988, except for the six years from 2001 to 2006. Cumulatively, in the last 20 years, we have generated over $50 billion in surpluses. What then are the reasons for the Ministry to expect that this record of performance cannot be sustained? I hope the Minister can give a more complete picture of the expectations on our current revenue sources while we are not expected to grow much further in the future. A related question is: if we do not have the Net Investment Return (NIR), does it mean that we have to forego the increased spending?”