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 57 of 58.
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry would consider giving priority to the housing estates which are affected by the new ERP gantry as a result of the outer-cordoned concept for their feeder-bus services to be improved at a faster rate because they are truly the ones who are being affected most.”
“(2) I would also like to suggest that the Ministry improve the convenience of the park-and-ride set. Currently, at $70 per month, it is actually quite attractive. But a driver has to top up the card if it exceeds the $40 usage. I would like the Ministry to consider if it can make it easier for people to use the set. Taxi Drivers”
“So it is not surprising that the low occupancy rates were observed – 36% in Tampines, with about 18% using park-and-ride coupons. Sir, these are results of an informal study. It is not comprehensive, but I was curious enough to ask for it because, in fact, I did not personally own a car until May 2006, after I became an MP. I was a reasonably happy user of public transport, relying mostly on MRT and taxis and, even today, on days that I can avoid driving, I car-pool with my husband, whose office is also in the city. I have been wondering about the Park-and-Ride Scheme because it seems to make very good sense to car owners who live further away from the city and whose homes are not within walking distance of a bus or MRT station. Yet, the scheme does not seem to have taken off. So, I would appreciate it if the MOT could give it a more holistic assessment of the effectiveness of the scheme after 17 years. I would also like to know whether MOT has plans to improve the scheme so that it can become an integral part of our land transport system. In any case, may I offer two suggestions to the Minister: (1) The park-and-ride sites should be better linked to bus interchanges and MRT stations. For it to be effective, the transfer time between one mode of transport to another should not exceed five minutes. So, from the time a driver gets into the carpark, finds a lot, transfers to a bus or MRT station, ideally it should take just about five minutes, making it a very attractive option. Perhaps the MOT could consider this as new lines, such as the Circle Line and Thomson Line, are being built. For existing park-and-ride sites further away from the interchange or MRT, perhaps a premium bus service is a more viable alternative.”
“Sir, in the recent Land Transport Review, the central question asked was: what will it take for Singaporeans to choose public transport over the car? Actually, I thought it was not always the case of "either-or". We have decided to make car ownership more affordable, helping more Singaporeans to feel a sense of upward progression. But as the car is still a relatively expensive purchase in Singapore, it is only realistic to expect that car owners would want to use it - if not all of the time, then at least some of the time. Otherwise, why buy a car? For example, car owners may be persuaded to use their cars only on weekends and to fetch their children from school on weekdays, but to use public transport to get to the workplace or shopping centres in the city, thus easing city congestion. This is where the Park-and-Ride Scheme is supposed to help. But there was no mention of it in the review, which leads me to question whether the Ministry sees it as a viable third option to either driving all the time or taking public transport all the time. Introduced in 1990, the 36 park-and-ride sites are located as far out as Tampines and Yishun, while closest to the city are carparks at Toa Payoh and Bishan. Over the past week, my assistant conducted an informal field study at five park-and-ride sites during the morning peak hours. Well-located sites, like Toa Payoh and Bishan, were not very well utilised, with 52% and 62% of the lots occupied respectively. Those using the park-and-ride monthly coupons, of all those cars that were parked there, were only about 39% in Toa Payoh and 15% in Bishan. For other sites, there is a problem of the location. In the Tampines site, for example, a person would have to walk 15 to 20 minutes or a four-bus-stop trip to the Tampines MRT station.”
“Sir, let us not offer Singaporeans a false hope that a job guaranteed programme or minimum wage will solve the problems of low-wage casual and contract workers. But let us hold out the hope that we will refine our policies so that businesses do not take the easy way out of continuous investments in skills upgrading and job recreation. In this way, we would provide a more sustainable basis for the continued presence of foreign workers and also enable Singaporeans at all levels to move ahead as one.”
“In sharp contrast, some of its competitors do not make any attempt at improving job worth so that they are also attractive to Singaporeans. Their message to Singaporeans is, take it or leave it, because they can always hire a foreign worker to replace him. At the same time, service buyers have an indifferent attitude as long as the contract prices are driven down. This is why I believe we should refine our approach in managing foreign workers' quota to provide greater incentive to upgrade jobs or at least not to allow it to become an impediment. If foreign workers help businesses to moderate costs, then the result should be improved productivity levels. While it may be difficult and inefficient to control quotas at the company level, based on the productivity data, should we try to link the quotas to productivity levels of industry sectors? If we have limited foreign worker quotas, do we allocate them to sectors with declining productivity or those with improving productivity? If foreign workers help businesses to cut short opportunities while the local workforce is being ramped up, then should the quota be time limited? For example, in the hospitality sector where there is a manpower crunch until the supply of trained service staff comes on stream. It makes sense to give the industry a breathing space of two to three years and to enable the players to capture the business opportunities. But the quotas cannot go on forever. If it is clear that the quotas will be phased out or reduced over time, it will provide added incentives for the employers to think seriously of how they will fill the jobs vacated by the temporary supply of foreign workers. This will help to prevent over-dependence on foreign manpower and encourage continuous upgrading.”
“Instead, we must persevere in the painstaking and unglamorous task of skills upgrading and job recreation. In this regard, we have made some progress. Our achievements include the Skills Redevelopment Programme which has helped more than 300,000 workers reskill and remain relevant and the Job Recreation Programme which has helped to transform the jobs of about 30,000 workers, helping them earn better wages. MOM is also to be commended for putting in place a CET Masterplan. My question is whether these efforts are enough. Specifically, I have argued during the Budget debate that there is an unintended consequence from the easy access to foreign workers in that they could undermine the upgrading efforts. Let me share an example from the cleaning industry. We have a strong supporter of the Job Recreation Programme. To implement the JR Programme, seven senior staff from cleaning supervisors to the Managing Director himself are involved. Their workers will go through over 2,000 man hours of training, costing some $36,000. Eight workers will be trained for supervisory positions, another 20 will have their job scopes expanded. So besides routine cleaning, they will also undertake maintenance work such as unclogging choked pipes. With the job expansion, the workers can earn more. The company will buy equipment that are easier for older workers to operate, costing some $78,000. The company also employs foreign workers. But because of its upgrading efforts, it is expected that by the end of the year, 67 of its workers will be re-employed on reaching the legal requirement age. But it takes tremendous commitment and companies wonder why they should continue trying.”
“Sir, under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act which the Indian Parliament passed in 2005, anyone who wants will be given 100 days of manual labour in the countryside for a minimum day wage of 60 rupees. We do not have such a policy in Singapore. Though Singapore has very low unemployment and high employment rates, there are Singaporeans who still have difficulty getting jobs and keeping their jobs, especially the older and low wage workers? Therefore, one is sometimes tempted to ask whether Singapore should also have a minimum wage or job guaranteed programme. In thinking about this question, I found an interesting observation about the Indian job guaranteed programme in a book written by Edward Luce, the Financial Times Bureau Chief in Washington DC who was based in Delhi from 2001 and 2005. Here is what he said about the kind of work that is guaranteed: "The work is almost entirely physical consisting of the type of manual labour India's poor has been requisitioned to do for thousands of years, filling in potholes, digging landfills, manning river embankments and clearing irrigation channels. The quality of the work is not the priority. All of it could be done more efficiently and to a higher standard with modern machines. Unskilled and hungry labourers cannot build good roads with their bare hands." Luce said that "the policy prompts no investment in upgrading the skills of the people it is designed to help and it is thus unlikely to create lasting employment for the rural poor". While the Singapore situation is not quite comparable to that of India, but Luce's observation reaffirmed my conviction that we must avoid populist but questionable measures like a job guaranteed programme on minimum wages.”
“Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the SPS on the quality assurance framework. I believe the SPS said that this framework will take effect from 2011. I would like to find out from him what are the considerations why we have to wait until 2011 for this framework to be introduced and what happens between now and then.”
“Among other things, the survey showed that parents ranked staff quality as the second most important consideration after distance for choosing a pre-school provider. Given the importance that parents place on staff quality, I would like to ask the MOE what plans it has to further improve the quality of teachers in our pre-schools. I urge the MOE to move decisively on consistency and quality of pre-school education. The reason is that the children soon grow up. There is not a day more that we can afford to lose to give them the best possible headstart in life. My third area of concern was also brought up last year. In terms of affordability, pre-school education costs a lot more than primary or even secondary school education. At PCF kindergartens where fees are amongst the most affordable, the monthly cost of around $100 is still more than 15 times that of fess at most primary schools. I understand that improving quality will require further investments, and this could put further pressure on the fees to be adjusted upwards. May I ask the MOE what plans it has to improve affordability and, at the same time, enhance the consistency and quality of pre-school education?”
“Sir, like several parliamentary colleagues, I had also spoken during last year's COS to call on the Ministry of Education to improve the consistency of quality among pre-school providers in Singapore. I had argued that the current standards for kindergartens, which the MOE had put in place, was insufficient. This was because many parents do not know that the standards exist. Even if the standards are good enough, and even if they did, it is not realistic to expect parents to be able to assess pre-school providers according to the standards. Parents would welcome a quicker and simpler way to help them assess the quality of pre-school education providers. I had argued also that the MOE was best placed to provide the quality assurance as it had the people with the relevant knowledge, expertise and credibility. If MOE is concerned that having a quality assurance programme would drive providers out of business, why not make it voluntary? This will also give parents a choice to decide if they are willing to pay more for a provider that makes the effort to meet the standards of a quality assurance programme. I would like to ask the MOE if it could give an update on the possibility of a quality assurance programme being put in place. And if yes, when could parents expect its introduction? In addition to a quality assurance programme, I would also like to suggest that the MOE consider ways to improve further the teacher quality among pre-schools in Singapore. Last year, as part of an effort to gain insights into the expectations of parents, a small task force was formed by the PAP Community Foundation Executive Committee. The task force conducted a survey involving some 1,600 parents of kindergarten and childcare students.”
“I also would like to ask the MOE to take steps to ensure that the relevant pages on the Ministry's websites are hyperlinked so that anyone doing an online research on CET options in Singapore will get a holistic picture. Another important step is to equip career counsellors, whether they are at the universities, polytechnics and ITEs with the necessary information. They should be familiar with the CET master plan and how degree-level CET fits in the bigger picture. So it is critical that proper advice and counselling is given to potential students, especially if these students are working adults for whom this is a very important second chance. I call on the MOE to take on this task seriously and to aim to help all aspiring graduands make well-informed choices.”
“I asked her whether she had considered other options, such as courses offered by the Singapore Institute of Retail Studies. She said she did not know that it existed. I am not sure what sort of a degree the young lady would be getting and whether her career prospects would improve. It certainly makes me wonder whether she and others like her had received proper counselling before paying her deposit for a degree course. Did anyone help her to assess her strengths and inform her of the various options available to her? It would be a poor use of resources when Singaporeans start a part-time degree programme lured by attractive marketing and now a substantial subsidy, only to realise a few years later that there were other options that might have been more suited to him or her. Therefore, I would like to ask the MOE if its role in degree level and continuing education and training extends to ensuring the improved employability of graduands. How does it intend to fulfill this role and what kind of career opportunities does it see opening up for such graduands? In addition, I would like to ask the MOE if it plans to coordinate with the MOM to provide proper career counselling to potential students on part-time degree programmes. For example, if a potential student approaches any of the universities to apply for a part-time degree course, could MOE please ensure that there be career counsellors on hand to inform the students on the alternative CET options, leading to other qualifications besides a degree. Likewise, the MOM-funded training providers should also have a good working knowledge of part-time degree options. Sir, I would like to ask how the MOE can help to make this happen.”
“Sir, the Minister for Finance announced in the Budget speech that the MOE will subsidise part-time undergraduate degree programmes offered by the NUS, NTU, SMU and UniSIM starting from academic year 2008. This is a welcomed move. It will enable working Singaporeans who did not have a chance to fulfill their aspirations of getting a university degree to do so with greater financial support. Sir, a working person has to make significant investments of time and effort to acquire formal qualifications, whether these are skill certificates or degree programmes. However, typically, degree level courses are going to be more costly and of longer duration than skill-based courses. For example, a three-year part-time degree programme in Business at the UniSim costs around $24,000. In contrast, a eight-week programme leading to a certificate in Real Estate Management and Maintenance costs $5,130, so there is a great difference. While we recognise that there are some who just want to get a degree, most working adults do hope that their degree qualifications will open up career development opportunities that will lead to better jobs and better lives. In other words, it should not be just a paper chase. However, in some cases, the pursuit of a degree turns out, in fact, to have been just a paper chase with no real returns. On one of my house visits in Toa Payoh, I came across a young resident in her early 20s. When I asked her what work she did, she told me she was studying for a degree on a part-time basis. When I asked her what she has been doing before this, she said that she had been working as a sales person after dropping out from ITE without finishing her Nitec course.”
“Free public talks, roadshows, TV commercials inviting members of public to try out estimating their payouts by going to the CPF portal - as I did a few days back - lunchtime talks at organisations, and exhibitions in all languages are some recommendations. (2) A hotline could be set up to answer enquiries on this scheme for at least a year so that people have a person to talk to if they have some queries. (3) Alternatives need to be created for the vulnerable populations who are excluded from CPF LIFE so that in old age Singaporeans have some sense of dignity. This will help Singapore to live up to the position of a developed country in the world. The mark of a successful nation is not only its GDP growth but also how it designs and implements its safety nets to be effective, universal and relevant to its people. The Minister for Finance has focused on building a resilient community. I would add that we should work towards an inclusive, resilient community. With that, Sir, I support the Budget, and I sincerely hope that my views will be given due consideration. 4.23 pm”
“When ElderShield insurance was introduced, one criticism that members of the public raised was the higher premium for females versus males. It was one of the reasons for its unattractiveness to the public and we have seen the consequences. Let us learn policy lessons from the past. Yesterday, Mr Heng Chee How talked about the importance of proper implementation in order to help people benefit from new schemes, as the success depends on the participation of Singaporeans in these schemes. Similarly, with CPF LIFE, I echo Mr Heng's words. I would like to suggest to the Ministry of Manpower to set itself time targets to carry out creative campaigns to expand the CPF safety net. If 25% of the first cohort is predicted to have less than $40,000 in 2013, this could be reduced to 15% with the cooperation of grassroots leaders, NGOs and the NTUC leaders. The husbands of the housewives who are non-CPF members should be targeted and sent personal letters to remind them of the $7,000 tax relief offered if they top up their wives' account or set up an account and then top it up to benefit from the tax relief. The real success of CPF LIFE will be when more than 80% of Singaporeans are covered and women receive equitable payouts similar to men. I conclude with some suggestions for improved implementation of CPF LIFE. (1) I would like to reiterate that public education of the CPF LIFE scheme is critical, as even educated members of the society are confused by the 12 options and how the old Minimum Sum scheme and the new one are being merged.”
“From the actuary's perspective, the difference of $60 per month is logical for the scheme to be sustainable. But from the social policy perspective wherein "equity" is held to be of high value in a government's handling of its citizens, the discrimination of females in this instance is unacceptable. For the older woman, who has the same needs as the older man, for example, to pay medical bills, rent, food and so on, the difference of $60 a month is a significant amount. Sir, I would like to find out why the "risk pooling" principle enshrined in CPF LIFE scheme cannot be carried out without segregation of the two sexes. What are the impediments of going down this route? I would like the CPF Board to consider alternative ways to structure the payouts so that they can be equal, ie, maintain gender equity without increasing premiums. I do understand that the principle of insurance business has guided the committee to adopt this approach. But if we consider the CPF to be a social protection mechanism for Singaporeans, then all citizens need to feel that the Government treats them equally. If necessary, the Government could top up the Retirement Accounts of the female members during good years, or even use some of the interest gained from our Singapore reserves. It is said that women hold up half the sky, by reproduction, caring for their children and elderly parents, so a small gesture such as this is not likely to deplete the nation's resources. In fact, it will rectify the misconception that older women in Singapore are prone to becoming victims of poverty. I would add that such policies, in addition to the income divide of the country, add another layer, which is the gender divide, and I am sure we do not want that to occur over time.”
“These incentives are good, but whether they will receive a "buy-in" on the ground is doubtful. This is especially in view of the current economic conditions of rising inflation and a general sense of economic insecurity experienced by Singaporeans about their future. The reality on the ground is that the vulnerable populations and the informal workers are often the lowest 20% of households economically. So their relatives are not likely to have the spare cash to top up the Minimum Sums. The kinds of jobs they work in are at the low end, so the employers would not find it worthwhile to top up the Minimum Sums of temporary or ad-hoc workers. The key point to remember in this incentive of tax relief is that in a lower-income family, personal tax is not applicable as they do not fall in the taxable category. So how relevant is tax relief as an incentive? Before moving on to my next major point, I would like to sum up at this juncture that the lack of universal coverage of CPF LIFE has strong implications for the total safety net for poor and vulnerable populations in Singapore. The Government cannot abdicate its responsibility towards the citizens who belong to these categories. The next point is regarding the lower payouts for females in the CPF LIFE, based on, I quote, "actuarial advice", as their life expectancy is higher than males. Although two individuals, one male and one female, have the same amount in the Minimum Sum at age 55 in 2013, eg, $67,000 in cash, the payout would be $60 less per month for the female. I refer to Annex B of the NLIC report which states that a male would receive $650 per month while the woman would receive $590 per month at age 65. Under the old system, both would have received perhaps about $600 per month for 20 years.”
“Even if the number has been slightly reduced after the efforts of the NTUC leaders to persuade the employers to pay the CPF contributions in 2007, at least 110,000 would be still toiling without the CPF safety net. To sum up, three categories of Singaporeans consisting of those without CPF accounts or those with inadequate amounts in their CPF accounts are excluded, in addition to the "vulnerable" types of Singaporeans. Let us pause for a minute. It is extremely important for us to reflect on the main thrust of CPF LIFE scheme to make provisions for those who are likely to outlive their financial resources. In my view, this would be the lower income class, housewives who outlive their husbands, and the physically and mentally handicapped. If a large proportion of this group is not drawn into the CPF LIFE scheme, in my view, the main aim of the scheme would be defeated. Presumably, the middle and upper income groups will already have other streams of income, so this small sum of perhaps $600, or more, would be just "pocket money" for them. The recent Budget Statement has included ideas such as L-Bonus, a one-off bonus for those who sign up at age 50 for CPF LIFE. The maximum paid out is $4,000 and the minimum is $2,200. Thinking aloud, I wonder how much of a difference this makes to someone who has only $5,000, or $10,000, in his or her Retirement Account. Additional L-Bonuses are also offered to those above 50 years. The other incentives given in the Budget was the tax relief of up to $7,000 for employers as well as family members if they top up the Minimum Sum of their employees or relatives respectively. This is regardless of the age of the recipient when the top-up is made.”
“Take the hypothetical case of a clerk, Ms Ho, who has to shift from full-time to part-time work due to her filial obligation to care for her father who had dementia and her mother who was bedridden. Now, Ms Ho is 50 years old, so she will turn 55 years in 2013. If her Retirement Account has perhaps $25,000 or even $30,000 and none of her family members are able or willing to top up her account, even the L-Bonus will not help her to reach the $40,000 minimum required. I have spoken to such family caregivers who are working, who have used part of their Medisave for their dependent parents and are sometimes the only child in the family. Caregivers like her worry how will they manage in their old age. Such caregivers need a little helping hand. They are people who do not want handouts. We move on to the next categories that are excluded from the CPF LIFE scheme. These are the housewives, alluded earlier by some of my fellow parliamentarians. Mdm Halimah has spoken about this. It was reported that there are approximately 200,000 housewives who do not have Medisave accounts. This figure was reported in the Straits Times when the means testing subject was being discussed by the Health Minister. I presume that they have no CPF accounts and therefore they would be automatically excluded from the CPF LIFE scheme. Another big category of Singaporeans who will not benefit from CPF LIFE are the informal workers like contract workers, casual or part-time workers like hawker assistants, odd job labourers who are not CPF members. This group is estimated to be around 120,000.”
“The Committee has seriously considered feedback from ordinary Singaporeans as well as experts, such as actuaries, social security policy and retirement experts. As we know, 12 options will be available under the compulsory CPF LIFE scheme which has been accepted by the Singapore Government. It will affect Singaporeans who are working and actively contributing to their CPF accounts upon reaching age 55 in 2013. The following categories of CPF members will be exempted from the scheme: (1) Those physically and mentally unable to work; (2) Those of unsound mind; (3) Those suffering from a mental condition leading to a severely impaired life expectancy; (4) Those who are suffering from a terminal illness or disease; and, (5) Those who will receive a pension, annuity or other benefit which will provide him or her with payouts equivalent to the LI scheme and which cannot be changed or recovered by CPF if terminated. Apart from the last category, the previous four categories are classified as "vulnerable population" in this speech. Three additional categories are exempted from this scheme. Firstly, those having less than $40,000 in their CPF accounts when they turn 55 in 2013. According to the Report of the NLIC, posted on the CPF website, 25% of the first cohort that turn 55 in 2013 will belong to this exempted category. This amounts to about 8,750 Singaporeans. This number will accumulate over the years and many of them may not have family members to depend on if they are single, married but childless, divorced or separated, or widowed. They would need to continue working for as long as their health permits.”
“But we have no control over whether the business booms or busts because much of that lies in the hands of the leadership, nearer the top, the people who take care of marketing, the people who take care of finance. What about them? What are they going to do?" So the Finance Minister can at best help to create the conditions where workers will help themselves, businesses will help themselves, communities and families will come together to support one another. And I think that if we are able to set aside enough with this type of mindset in place, then we will be able to create a better future for all Singaporeans. From that perspective, I believe this is a well-balanced Budget, which I support. 4.05 pm Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, my fellow parliamentarians have elaborated at length yesterday and today on the issues of rising inflation, challenges of globalisation and the stiff higher costs faced by businesses in Singapore. Amidst all these gloomy predictions for the year ahead, how do we build a resilient community to combat the negative effects? All the goodies that have been addressed in the Budget Statement 2008 are comprehensive. The Finance Minister has to be commended for looking at the nation's economic situation in a holistic fashion, across all ages, sectors, classes and across the lifespan, as he has squashed the "death" duty permanently! Today, my speech will focus on CPF LIFE scheme and its implications because of its lack of inclusivity. The National Longevity Insurance Committee, or NLIC, has to be applauded for designing a flexible and yet sustainable scheme that aims to cover the basic needs of the majority of Singaporeans for life.”
“And in that regard, I rather like what my colleague, Ms Lee Bee Wah had talked about. She gave a quote from the author of the little prince - cannot pronounce his French name very well - but I remember the quote which says something to this effect, "Don't worry about foreseeing the future. Your job is to enable the future." And I think that exactly describes what the job of the Finance Minister should be. I am not trying to describe his job. I am not determining his job description. But I think that is what the Finance Minister needs to do and, that is, to create the conditions to enable each one of us to be able to do our part. In this regard, I am also reminded, in the old days, in the dynastic China, the Emperor would ask the Imperial physician, "Can you give me better longevity? Can you cure this disease of mine? Can you do this? Can you do that?" And the poor Imperial physician would say, like the Finance Minister, "How can I promise you all of this? It is quite difficult." So going back to what Ms Lee Bee Wah has talked about, I think what the Finance Minister can best do for us, through the Budget, is to create the conditions and to enable us to be able to come together to do our part. So workers must help themselves. The NTUC will put all our resources, whatever is necessary. We have set up the Employment and Employability Institute. We have spared no effort in job recreation. We have spared no effort in putting more people back to work after retirement. We have spared no effort in bringing women back to the workforce, and we will continue to do so to help our workers. At the same time, we hope that businesses will also help themselves to upgrade. Sometimes, workers have asked us, "You keep telling us that we have to do this.”
“Whatever the baby's gender turns out to be, some people will be right, and some people will be wrong. So there would be people who guessed that we would exceed our budget, there would be people who guessed that we would not have enough, and whatever the situation may be, some would be right and some would be wrong. So, I think we should not spend too much time arguing about the Budget Marksmanship because, at the end of the day, it is better that we are prudent and not overly optimistic. So, that leads me to my final point which is that, as we think about this Budget, what are some of the pressing questions that we must bear in mind. Mr Speaker, Sir, I confess that, yesterday and today, I have heard of many requests. Many have asked the Finance Minister to set aside more for this, more for that, and it leads me to question: what is the basic ethic that we hope to promote in our society? Is it one where there is a mighty Finance Minister who will dish out ever increasing goodies to all of us? When we ask the Government to do more of this and more of that, what it has, to me, is that there must be bigger budget provisions for the Ministries, otherwise, how are they going to carry out their work. And if it is going to require bigger provisions for the Ministries, how are we going to pay for all of these provisions? And by logical extension, does it mean that our taxes will have to be further reviewed in order to provide for sufficient budget to take on more and more of these programmes and initiatives that we want to do? That, I think, is something that we need to reflect on which, as I said right at the beginning of the Budget, is a time for reflection: where do we put our scarce resources?”
“Having said that, I think it is also important for us to recognise that we never know when the economy may turn. In TODAY's front page news, like nobody expected it to come back so early, the haze is with us again. Perhaps, when we least expect it, poorer economic conditions may be upon us. So, we do not know. In that context, I would like to encourage the Government to think through the cost benefits of further relaxing the foreign worker quota or reducing the foreign workers levy. I hope this is something that the Ministry of Manpower would consider and how we can further refine our approach in managing foreign workers. I think our goal should be that foreign workers can be an instrument to help businesses to catch the growth. At the same time, it should allow the businesses to have a breathing room for them to press on with their upgrading efforts instead of substituting for their upgrading. So, on the one hand, have a manpower augmentation for foreign sources boost the growth but, at the same time, invest in training and upgrading. That is what I think we should endeavour to achieve. Mr Speaker, Sir, my final point is on contingency planning. What is it that we are going to put in place, in case our assumptions for this Budget do not bear out. I would like to note that no plan can be perfect and so the Budget must be based on some assumptions. In this regard, when I heard Ms Sylvia Lim talk about the poor Budget marksmanship or there were some criticisms of the Budget marksmanship last year, it reminded me of the days where people were not able to tell the gender of the child they were bearing. So, you would be asked, "Is that a boy?". I do not know. Some will guess it is a boy; some will guess it is a girl.”
“This worry is reinforced by, I think, a lack of recognition of what the Government has done and its continuing efforts to create excellent conditions for businesses. These excellent conditions include very favourable hiring labour market practices, promoting a very flexible labour market, removing rigidities everywhere and also, increasingly, undertaking more and more of the continuing education and training costs, increasing our investments to improve the skill level of our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that this is not to remove or diminish the contributions that foreign workers have made to growth in Singapore. I think we fully recognise that our current policy in Singapore has benefited Singaporeans. It has created the conditions for growth and this growth has created a situation where Singaporeans experienced increased income, the lowest unemployment in many years, lowest retrenchment. So, in this regard, I was quite interested to hear Mr Siew Kum Hong mentioned earlier. He asked the question, "Is the growth for Singaporeans or for the foreigners?" I think he asked the question, "Who gains more?" I did not think that it was a question of who gains more. I think it is a question of, "Can we make this win- win?" There is no reason for us to deny a foreign worker or foreign workers the opportunity to gain from this if we ourselves are able to gain from this. I think we need not be foreign-worker centric in the way we look at this issue. We should really look at the issue and say, "Are we able to make the best use of the situation, enable our own Singaporeans to grow along with it?" So, I think, the approach is not who gains more, but it should be how can we make this win-win.”
“We are doing very much on continuing education and training and what these CET plans will do are to improve the supply of skills and improve the supply of skilled manpower, but this increased supply of skilled manpower must find an increased demand by the industry or the people who have gone for the training will not find it very meaningful. It must translate into better demand for their skills which also means that it must translate into better pay and that can only come if industry spends effort and time to think about moving to higher standards, instead of accepting all the business that lands at their doorstep. Sir, in fact, when I heard the response of businesses to this Budget, I was, to be honest, somewhat disturbed. Whenever I have participated in dialogue sessions or radio shows following the Budget, there has been rather lukewarm response to the innovation and R&D incentives that were announced in the Budget. In fact, we hear more of claims that not enough is being done to help businesses contain costs. So, if you take this from the worker's perspective, the natural extension of this argument then is that businesses very soon will ask, if they have not already done so, for more foreign workers to relieve them of this pressure on the manpower shortages. And there have also been reports that businesses would like Government to review the foreign workers levy, ie, whether this could be reduced. Sir, the workers' perspective is that here are the good times, here are the opportunities and they hope to be able to gain from this, but if there is not enough time for them to gain from it, then they are squeezed out even when the going is good. So that is concern.”
“So, in a certain sense, my observation is that this Budget is, if I could use the term "proactively reactive", it has decided not to do anything to further stimulate the economy but that is a decision that was thought through. So it is "proactively reactive", not going to do anything until we require. From my perspective, it is important that we do not over stimulate the economy. So, with this in mind, in fact, I have a question for the Finance Minister. We are going to put 12.5% more into Government spending and in Economics 101, we learn that income is equal to consumption plus Government spending plus investments, plus exports minus imports. The formula reads Y= (C+G+I+X)-M. All economics students at 101 learn this. So, what this means is that when you increase Government spending by 12.5%, this will, in fact, have an expansionary effect on the economy and my question to the Finance Minister, Sir, is whether he can explain to us why he thinks this 12.5% increase in G (Government spending) is not excessive. Or is he anticipating some kind of a slowdown and therefore he sees the need for us to put in more in Government spending? Also, I think the more important question is: in what way is the increased Government spending not just consumption, but rather it builds capacity and enhances Singapore's longer-term competitiveness? That is the question that I hope the Minister can help us to achieve a better understanding of it. The fourth challenge that I see for ourselves is that in this very tight labour market where companies are really finding it difficult to take all the businesses that they have, upgrading will not be their priority. This is a concern.”
“The second question of concern is that although the manpower market is tight, and the future is not very clear, some enterprises still hope that by employing short-term contract workers, they can overcome the shortage of manpower. This short-term measure is particularly noticeable in the financial sector. The wages are going up, the contract value is high but it is still a contract. Perhaps a year later, he loses his job. So what we can see now is that the wage has increased but there is no job security for the workers. If the economy continues to do well, then it is not a problem. But if the economy does not do well, if the economy continues its downslide, these workers will be affected. This is a risk. It is a challenge that we are concerned about. *Cols. 909-912. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now continue my speech in English. The third challenge that I see for us is that the economy may overheat. Sir, in this regard, I hear many of my colleagues feeding back businesses' concerns that companies are not being helped enough in ameliorating their business costs. But my reflection is that in a healthy and a functioning market economy, this is exactly what should happen. There must be some self-correction. When resources are scarce, prices go up, and profitability will be affected. Companies must then assess where to prioritise, what businesses to pursue, and what businesses they want to scale back. And in those areas that they scale back their investments or their businesses, they pool their resources and the requirements and the tension will be reduced, and that is exactly what should happen.”
“The Minister for Finance has given our enterprises very attractive tax measures to encourage them to be more innovative and creative, especially on R&D. Through this initiative, we can take our economy to the next level. From this Budget, we can see that the Government has put aside a lot of resources to help us forge a better future. Next, I would like to talk about some of the challenges and risks that we face. The first challenge is the increase in the cost of living. Many of my Parliamentary colleagues have touched upon this, so I do not have to talk about it again. But overall, the reaction of workers is positive. They feel that the Government, through the distribution of surplus, has helped the people to compensate for the increase in the cost of living and has alleviated some of the pressures. For those who are above 50 years old, the Medisave account has received a top-up which is a sizeable amount. The second challenge is that our manpower market is very tight. In this very tight manpower market, wage increase is inevitable. But what we have to be concerned about is whether these companies can continue to raise the wages. We can see that when some employers adjust their salaries and wages, they increase the fixed wage portion but not the variable component. If the employers continue to increase the fixed wage portion in its monthly wage, it will be able to attract more workers to join the company. But in the long term, it may not be sustainable. So I hope the employers would consider allocating a greater part of the increase to the monthly variable component, and this can be better sustained.”
“Even for the lower income workers, whether they are casual labourers or contract workers, they too can look forward to better protection for their jobs. For the older Singaporeans, they too have the opportunities to be re-employed, because many companies feel that there is a shortage of manpower, and they are more willing to consider the employment of older workers, and retain them. Similarly, for our housewives, there are more employers who are willing to provide jobs which are suitable to them, so that they can be brought back to the working environment. So, the prospects are good. The second problem is: how do we forge a better future for Singaporeans? About a month ago, our Prime Minister announced that there is a continuing education blueprint. In this blueprint for continuing education, we are going to include more workers, from 20,000 to 80,000 workers, under the continuing education scheme. In his Budget speech, the Minister for Finance has provided a considerable amount of $800 million for the lifelong learning fund. This confirms the Government's intention to do more for continuing education. In addition, I notice that in the provision for the Ministry of Manpower, there was an increase from $2.6 billion last year to $7.2 billion this year, an almost three-fold increase. I think the Ministry of Manpower must have some specific schemes to share with us and how they are going to use these resources more systematically to help our workers, so that they are better able to face the opportunities brought about by a prospering economy. Furthermore, the Government has made provision for better and higher bursaries for university and polytechnic students. The Post Secondary Education Account has been given a sizeable provision.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share how these four questions look like from the workers' perspective, and for the next couple of minutes, I will speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to speak from the perspective of the workers on four different areas. Firstly, looking at the future, what is the future of Singapore? What kind of opportunities will Singaporean workers have? Secondly, what kind of process and the ways in which we can forge a better future? Thirdly, and this is the main theme that I am going to touch on, at the moment, what kind of challenges do we see? What kind of crisis and risks do we face? Lastly, and most importantly, how are we going to meet these challenges? Firstly, let me touch on the future. As far as the works are concerned, what kind of opportunities are there? The present economy is prospering. The manpower market is strong and vibrant. All sectors are doing well. As a worker, there are many opportunities. They can work in the same company. If your company is doing well, you should be able to get better wages. Not only in your own company, perhaps among your competitors, business is doing better and better, and more opportunities present themselves. So, for the employed, he can consider changing his job, looking for better opportunities elsewhere. This means that they have more opportunities to get better jobs, better income, and a better future for their family. For professionals, managers, executives and technical staff, they are particularly in demand during this period. They enjoy the fruits of a prosperous economy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this Budget debate. No matter how I look at it, I think it is very hard to quarrel with this year's Budget. The Government has decided that we are in a financial position to raise the overall Budget by 12.5%, or a very significant $7 billion. What this means is that every Ministry will be provided with better resources, and this ranges from 2% in one case to 184% more budget than the year before. Our higher than expected budget surplus has also enabled us to share this with the people, and the give-aways are worth more than $1.8 billion. So, in many ways, this is an excellent Budget - a wonderful position to be in. But I think the Budget is really a check point. It is a time for reflection. It is also a time for us to chart the Government's workplan, and then to find ways to provide the necessary resources for executing that workplan. And during the Committee of Supply, each Ministry will explain how they are going to make better use of the enhanced resource provisions. But before we get to the COS, at the Budget debate, it is my view that we should look at the bigger picture. And when looking at the bigger picture, essentially, I think there are four questions we have to address. The first question is: what are the opportunities for Singapore right now, in the next one year, two years, three years? The second question is: how can we help to create a better Singapore for ourselves, Singaporeans? The third question, and an area which I will spend considerably more time on, I think it is also prudent to ask what are the challenges and the risks that we face in thinking about the year ahead for Singapore. Finally, in any planning process, we should have a contingency worked out.”
“And this can only come from better awareness and a relentless effort to improve workplace safety which I would like to urge the Ministry to continue to step up efforts on. Sir, on this note, I would like to thank the Ministry for the amendments and I support the Bill. 4.46 pm”
“It also spells out the circumstances under which a worker who failed in a claim under the Act can commence action in court. These amendments that help to ensure more timely processing are most welcome. I understand that in Denmark, a 1993 legislation known as the Act on Insurance Against Consequences of Industrial Injuries also laid down time limits for case processing by the National Board of Industrial Injuries which is probably the equivalent of Singapore's Workmen's Compensation Medical Board. In other words, in the case of Denmark, not only the worker and the employer must take action within certain stipulated times so as not to cause unnecessary delays, the government body that processes the claim must also act in a timely manner. May I ask the Minister of State if there is similar provision under the Act for the Workmen's Compensation Medical Board to complete its processing within a certain timeframe. I think this will help to fulfil the goal of fair and prompt compensation. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that the Bill is welcomed as the amendments to the Act better safeguard the interests of our workers. I would also like to take the opportunity to remind this House that there are, on average, 15,000 cases of workmen's compensation each year of varying severity. I think, in the more serious cases, there is often loss of life and limb, leading to potentially severe hardships for the families involved. It is indeed a sober reminder that while it is good that we have well-defined measures for compensation, prevention is indeed better than cure. So it is far better to have fewer injuries in the first place.”
“This $15,000 difference is quite a substantial amount for a family in need. And this is the reason for me raising this point so that, in future, as we introduce re-employment legislation and as we encourage more women to re-enter the workforce, I believe it is reasonable to expect that there will be many more employees in part-time work arrangements. Since the compensation is already based on a person's monthly income, the minimum and maximum limits need not be set in such a way as to disadvantage full-time employees. So this is something that I would like the Minister of State to perhaps take a look at. Arguably, the contributions of full-time employees are even more important to their families and, hence, any loss of income, more severe. I note that, in the amended Act, the Minister is empowered to update all Schedules in the Act by Gazette. This is good news. As Madam Halimah has mentioned earlier, the Act was last amended more than 10 years ago in 1995. So I would like to suggest that the Ministry review the Schedule much more regularly in light of the new empowerment that the Minister is vested with, and I would like to suggest specifically that the Schedule be reviewed at no more than three-year intervals, and it is in the workers' interest that the Schedule is updated on a regular basis. I would specifically also like to suggest that, by the next review, the Ministry could consider using the median income of full-time employees instead of all employees. My second point has to do with timely processing. The Act has been amended to be clearer on how and by what deadline a worker can withdraw his claim under the Act to commence civil action against his employer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, like my esteemed colleagues before me, I support the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I shall not repeat the reasons for supporting this amendment Bill but suffice to say that they are pro-worker and that the labour movement thanks the Ministry for this Bill. I have two suggestions for the Ministry which I hope the Minister of State would consider for the future. The first has to do with compensation limits. In deciding how much to adjust the maximum and minimum compensation limits, I notice that the Ministry has used the median income of Singaporean employees as $2,040. According to the Labour Force Survey of Singapore, $2,040 is the median income of all employees in 2006, and the definition of "all employees" include those working on part-time basis as well. If we look only at full-time employees and exclude those who work on a part-time basis, the median income of Singaporean employees in 2006 is about 6% higher, at $2,170. In fact, in 1996, the median income of all employees was the same as those of full-time employees, at $1,630. But the difference has opened up over the last 10 years. What this means is that the minimum and maximum levels would have been slightly higher if MOM had used the $2,170 as the median income. Let me give an example. The maximum limit for permanent incapacity is now set at $147,000 after the amendment. This is 90 times the 1996 median employment income, or seven-and-a-half years' worth. If we maintain the 90 times compensation maximum but use instead the median income of $2,170 for full-time employees instead of the $2,040 median income of all employees, including part-time workers, the maximum limit would be $195,000 instead of the $180,000 that is now in the amendment.”
“Paul and his employer, Singapore Jamco, have the new kind of mindset that we all need to embrace. Longevity is an opportunity and the old in our society can be gold. The promises of the good life, even in old age, is possible. It can be done because, in Singapore, we have strong tripartite relationships. It is possible for employees and employers alike to embrace this new mindset. If we are going to be the fourth oldest population in the world, I say we might as well be one of the best at it too. And that starts from all of us adopting this completely different mindset. Sir, on that note, I support the changes. *Cols. 1839-1840. 3.42 pm”
“Our union leaders support this compulsory longevity insurance scheme and hope that the Government would announce the details as soon as possible. (In English): Sir, in conclusion, I would like to share the story of a 72-year-old Singaporean who is an inspiration for all of us. His name is Paul Amuruthanathan. I met Paul when I visited his employer, Singapore Jamco, located in Loyang, almost a year ago. Singapore Jamco makes the galleys and seats that most of us will see when taking a plane. Paul told me that he was already 67 years old when he approached the General Manager of Singapore Jamco, Mr Lui Choon Seng, about five years ago. At that time, Paul worked as a security guard in a nearby factory but he believed he was capable of doing more. After all, he had previously operated a small travel business quite successfully. He was not in need of money. I asked Paul why he did not choose to just take it easy after 67. Paul looked rather surprised that I should even ask such a question. He told me he has never thought that work was a chore or that he could enjoy himself only when he stopped working. In fact, he enjoyed the new challenges of becoming a technician at Singapore Jamco. He was grateful for the opportunity given to him by the company. Recently, I met Paul again at our Family Day event. As is his usual curious and thinking self, Paul alerted me to some areas which he felt safety could be improved. He gave good suggestions which we implemented right away. Paul shared with me that he was finally going to stop work at Jamco. He plans to take a holiday in India. After that, he has asked me to help him link up with a voluntary welfare organisation so that he can still apply his skills to help others less fortunate than himself.”
“Would that not be the best way to ensure that we have the widest possible coverage for longevity insurance which is in turn the best way to keep the premiums low? Sir, I would like to humbly ask the Minister to please explain this point in greater detail. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share some of the other unionists' feedback on longevity insurance in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, Sir, many union leaders have taken the lead to familiarise themselves with the longevity insurance scheme. After some careful studies of the pros and cons of the suggested scheme, they have a better understanding of the rationale and importance behind this scheme and they are convinced that the Government’s decision on the matter was appropriate and correct. However, there are a number of observations to make: Firstly, the longevity insurance should cover only the essential features and basic benefits so that the premium could be kept low. Secondly, those who volunteer to defer the draw-down age to, say, 90 years old, should be allowed to opt for minimum insurance coverage. They would like to be given the flexibility to increase or decrease their amount of insurance coverage. Thirdly, those who could afford it should consider taking up higher and better coverage. Such a compulsory insurance scheme should be administered by the CPF Board rather than leaving it to insurance companies in the private sector. Generally, the union leaders support such a compulsory longevity insurance scheme. They understand better than Mr Low Thia Khiang that this is for the benefit of our people, not only for this generation of people but also for the next generation, the need to maintain wage costs and the retirement needs of its people.”
“There is in effect a wage subsidy by the Government to employers of older Singaporeans. Hopefully, this will encourage employers to be more open to employing and re-employing older Singaporeans. So the next time we have such an advertisement, I hope there will be a list of companies that inspire hope in working people that employers are ready to embrace re-employment. The final "promise" I would like to comment on is the National Longevity Insurance Scheme. The "promise" here is that the scheme will help Singaporeans to have peace of mind, no matter how long we live. My key observation is that it is a rather new idea to Singaporeans that is not yet well understood. It will take a few years at least before there is broad understanding about its benefits. This is not surprising. I cannot be around to remember it but, if I am told correctly, it took years for Singaporeans to fully appreciate the benefits of compulsory savings through CPF. So we will need to be patient and explain it one step at a time. But to keep the "promise", again I would like to urge the Government to be extremely careful with the sums. For example, if the Government agrees that the payout starts at age 80 rather than at the proposed age 85, many more people will qualify. That seems to be good from their perspective, but would it not mean that premiums will have to go up as a result? Otherwise, how can the promised payouts be fulfilled? Sir, I know there are calls for the Government to top-up CPF accounts for those who have less, so that the compulsory insurance is more palatable. I support these calls as well. In fact, I wondered why Government chose to give higher interest rates or D-bonuses and V-bonuses, rather than just use the money to pay for the insurance directly.”
“Even as Mr Low has mentioned, some of them want to work fewer hours, some of them want to take on lower responsibilities, but more of them still want to stay in the workforce and be active and financially independent. So all they ask for from employers is the chance to prove themselves. Another feedback I have received is that some employers keep older Singaporeans on the payroll just to fulfill the minimum requirements for them to be able to hire foreign manpower. Of course, some employers tell me that it is because some of the older Singaporeans themselves know that they hold the "trump card" and hence they make unreasonable demands. In such cases, both the employers and employees have acted in bad faith and we hope that they are the exception rather than the rule. Right now, the re-employment law sounds good, but it is only the beginning. There is a lot of work to be done on the ground before the "promise" of jobs for older Singaporeans can be fulfilled. The tripartite partners have made progress with more than 200 unionised companies hiring more than 3,000 retired employees. Many more companies need to come on board before re-employment becomes a reality. Indeed, in the newspapers on Sunday and Monday, many companies with mature workers were featured. But if I put myself in the shoes of working people, I ask myself why there are so many more successful and major employers in Singapore, flagship companies included, that are still not listed. Do they support or not support re-employment? This is the question working Singaporeans would like clearer answers to. The enhanced Workfare Income Supplement is a big plus to encourage older Singaporeans in low-wage jobs to stay in work longer.”
“Our economy has consistently been able to create more jobs than we have the people to do. Having Singaporeans work longer is thus an opportunity for us to recapture more of the job creation for Singaporeans. So this is a useful law not just for dealing with an ageing population, but also because it has the potential of growing the workforce through "reclamation", much like we reclaimed land to expand our size. In my discussions with union leaders, there is good understanding that re-employment may not mean same jobs at the same pay. Our workers are generally prepared to accept this premise. Now that the timeline has been set for the deferred drawdown of the Minimum Sum, the concern on the ground is whether employers are embracing the idea quickly enough. My fellow labour MPs have raised these points earlier and shared positive examples. However, I have a negative example to share. One company that I am aware of had initially offered open-ended re-employment to three of its retired workers. In other words, there was no end-date to how long the retired workers could carry on working. After they heard more about the proposed re-employment law, they asked the workers to switch to one-year contracts instead. While there was no adjustment in other salary and benefit terms, it did not leave a good feeling with the workers. My point is that the re-employment law should be the minimum that employers do to rehire retiring employees. Employers who can do more but choose not to, stand the risk of losing good faith with their employees. It is a pity because most older persons want to remain productive and contributing members of the workforce.”
“So with this generous interest rate hike, and considering all the other major investments in education and medical infrastructure, are we possibly setting ourselves up for higher GST or other taxes in future? So I would like the Minister to please give the assurance that we have done the sums and are confident that the new interest in its current proposal is affordable, before we consider the suggestions to do even more. This is very important to our workers because they need to have certainty in the way their CPF savings are growing. Their lives depend on it. I would not want to see Singapore head in the direction of other countries where the pension programmes have basically become insolvent. It does no one any good. When people reach old age, they do not get the promised payments. If the system cannot stand unless younger people are taxed more, we actually weaken the system rather than strengthen it. So I would like to ask the Minister to please make sure that these policy changes strengthen rather than weaken the CPF system. The second promise is that of re-employment. We should change the mindset that longevity is a problem. Actually, it presents many more opportunities for the workforce - more people who can work longer, more people who can afford to go in-depth into specific fields and become experts, more time that can be set aside to start and nurture families, more people who will have the time to re-skill themselves for new industries and jobs, more chances for people to discover their strengths and passions. I think we need a new mindset to embrace the opportunities brought about by longevity. The re-employment law embraces this new mindset. It is intended to help people work longer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, many of my hon. colleagues have spoken, and my overall impression is that MPs accept the need for measures to be taken to address the potential problems of an ageing population. But they also voiced concerns and gave suggestions to assuage ground resentment over these changes. As I reflected on the ground reactions that we have heard, I asked myself what people were really bothered about. I think the key source of unhappiness is being told by the Government an inconvenient truth, ie, we have to work longer and save more. That is very tough because we are already very hardworking people, and it is somewhat discouraging to be told that we cannot relax as early as we had hoped, and cannot spend as much as we might want. So the proposal to defer the draw-down age of the CPF Minimum Sum, fully understanding it is unpopular, I think it is a necessary evil to compel more Singaporeans to extend our working lives. I applaud the Government for not having shied away from telling Singaporeans what many of us actually prefer not to hear. It has made some promises to help Singaporeans cope with the realities of an ageing population, and these are important promises. As a labour MP, I worry more than anything else that we make promises to working people that we cannot make good. So let me outline a few areas I think we must be sure to fulfil our promises on. The first is in the increased interest rates. I welcome that. It is good. I know my esteemed colleagues have asked why we limit the higher interest to the first $60,000. My bigger concern is how the Government is going to afford the extra $700 million every year. If my memory serves me right, the Government says it can raise about $700 million in additional revenues through a 1% increase in GST.”
“One supplementary question. There is some feedback from women who seek to return to the workforce that they find it difficult to secure part-time work because companies continue to be able to access foreign manpower on a full-time basis, at not very high costs, compared to what they would be required to pay the back-to-work women. So the question I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is whether this perception is valid and if anything can be done to enable the women to compete more successfully for jobs vis-a-vis foreign manpower.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his response to our questions. I am very glad to note the encouraging improvement in the re-employment figures for retiring employees of the civil service and the statutory boards. I would like to ask the Minister if the civil service will consider placing a target on the number of civil servants who will be offered re-employment ahead of the 2012 legislation, since the Minister has already mentioned that the civil service plans to introduce such measures well ahead of the legislative schedule. I would also like to ask the Minister another supplementary question in relation to the recruitment of mature Singaporeans. He mentioned that the figure was 6% in the civil service and, I think, if I heard him correctly, 4% in the statutory boards. This is 6-plus-4 percent in total. It still seems like a figure that could be improved upon. I would like to ask the Minister if specific measures will be put in place to support the recruitment of mature Singaporeans as well into the civil service.”
“However, notwithstanding that I believe we should maintain the eligibility criterion, I do think that there are cases where the members are no longer actively contributing to the CPF, and that is because they have left Singapore either because of marriage or because they have migrated. I have come across cases where there are family members who have moved overseas and they do not mind helping their siblings, parents or grandparents through the CPF monies that they still have. However, under the current regulations, they still have to meet the eligibility criterion of 1.5 times the Minimum Sum, which they do not have. Perhaps, they have maybe about $50,000 in their CPF accounts and they would like to be able to top up the accounts of their family members. I wonder if, in such cases, the Ministry could consider allowing partial transfers on a case-by-case basis. On this note, I would like to thank the Minister for the amendments. I eagerly await the Ministerial Statement on future changes to the CPF. Sir, I support the Bill. 5.41 pm”
“So, I hope that the CPF and the HDB can work together to ensure that the obligations of the ex-spouses who get to keep the marital property fully understand their obligations and fully understand that in the event of a sale, they do have to refund the monies back to the CPF, and this would be a larger sum than when they originally contributed towards the purchase of the property. In that regard, I do want to thank the Minister for the changes which, as Mdm Halimah has correctly pointed out, are pro-family, and I think it would help single parents and their children to move on in life. The second point that I would like to make is on the expansion of the Minimum Sum topping-up scheme. The Minister had earlier during Question Time, in response to a question that I had raised, pointed out that up to 40% of the active members at age 62, still do not have the Minimum Sum. In fact, the median shortfall is about $34,500, if I remember it correctly. So, what it means is that, in fact, quite a lot of people do not have what they need to prepare for retirement. Noting that the key objective of the CPF is to save for our own old age, I therefore support the idea that the eligibility criterion for topping-up is maintained at 1.5 times the prevailing Minimum Sum. This is in reference to the point that hon. Member Mr Liang had raised, where he asked whether the scheme could be made more flexible to allow members who do not necessarily have 1.5 times the prevailing Minimum Sum in his Ordinary Account and Special Account to be able to top up the Minimum Sums for their family members. Unlike Mr Liang, I do think that it is important to maintain this eligibility criterion simply because the key objective of the CPF is to save for our own old age.”
“Because so much of our assets could be tied to the marital property, it is also a great help that we are removing the need to refund the CPF money used for the property purchase when the property is transferred by a member to his ex-spouse. I support these amendments because they ensure that there is more equitable distribution of matrimonial assets in the case of a divorce. On the point of the transfer of the marital property, I note, however, that when the property is sold, the CPF for that property plus accrued interest has to be refunded to the ex-spouse's account from the proceeds of the sale of the property. I support this as it helps the ex-spouse to better plan for retirement through accumulation of the CPF savings. However, I think this point has to be made very clear to the ex-spouse who continues to live in the marital property. This is to ensure that in the event of a sale, the ex-spouse is not caught by surprise by the larger sum of money to be refunded to the CPF. In fact, when I shared this amendment with a union leader, he was very astute and he immediately said to me that if something like that were to happen and the marital property resides with the lady, it makes the lady very "marriageable", and that many men would find her very attractive because of the property she now owns. So, his point to me, which I would like to share with the House, was that immediately after a divorce, it is often true that women could find themselves in a very vulnerable state and, therefore, be open to such forms of perhaps being taken advantage of.”