Kanwaljit Soin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give a response to an exclusion in clause 2 (b) which amends section 10 to deem any maintenance payment received by a parent or a child under a maintenance order not to be income subject to tax.”
“Clarification, Sir. I realise that. But I would like to know what is the policy, what is the thinking, that you can allow a parent who gets maintenance not to have to pay income tax. A parent is an adult. But you do not give the same privilege or right, I would say, to a wife who gets a maintenance ordered by the court.”
“My point is no income tax is charged for maintenance payments received by parents. That is what the Minister said about clause 2. But yet when wives receive maintenance from their husbands, those maintenance payments are subject to income tax. Why is there a discrepancy?”
“So I would like to ask what is the Minister's thinking. Why is it that the maintenance of a parent is not considered income, because it is for the subsistence of the parent, while the maintenance for a wife which is for her subsistence is considered as income?”
“If the letter of authority is not stampable, then this may become a recourse of getting around the stamp duty and income tax rules affecting sub-sales. Another issue to be considered is the timing of the payment of stamp duty. With the amendment, this has to be paid at the time of the signing of the sale and purchase agreement.”
“Would the Minister have, in hand, figures to show how many Singaporeans who go abroad to study medicine come back to do their housemanship in Singapore for the last three years? Dr Aline Wong: I do not have the figures on Singaporeans who come back to do housemanship for the last three years.”
The complete record
Every one of 549 lines we hold for Kanwaljit Soin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 11.
“Sir, in 1990, the fifth leading cause of death in Singapore was accidents. Right now, the cost of safety features of cars, like the Anti-Break System (ABS), are included in the open market value of the car, which is then subject to the 150% ARF. Because of this, dealers have an unhealthy but understandable tendency to bring in cars without ABS and other safety features, especially in the lower models of cars. As a result, the provision of safety features is being compromised. Taking into consideration the tremendous cost benefit analysis of saving life and limb, would the Minister consider excluding accepted safety features of cars from the OMV so that they are not subject to the ARF?”
“Sir, the Employment Act, Part IX, covers all female employees, except domestic servants, and those employed in a managerial, executive or confidential position. Those that are covered by the Act get maternity benefits amounting to eight weeks of paid leave for the first two children. I would like to urge the Minister that this section of the Employment Act should have no exceptions and should cover all female employees for the first two children. I would especially like to draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly in the implementation of this part of the Employment Act. There are many female secretaries who do not do any confidential work. However, by virtue of being classified as secretaries, these unfortunate women are not covered by the Act. Some uncaring employers are exploiting this situation and denying paid maternity leave to their secretaries because of this seeming loophole. Rightfully, these women should be covered as their work is not confidential in nature. So I am, therefore, asking the Minister for statutory paid maternity leave of eight weeks for all female employees without exception. Failing this (and I am hoping that the Minister is generous), the Minister is urged to grant this leave to all secretaries because they are not in a position to negotiate a contract with their employers, unlike executive or managerial females.”
“Finally, a recent survey carried out by the National Productivity Board and Singapore Institute of Labour Study involving 300 private sector companies showed that 60% of the employers think that childcare facilities will improve workers' commitment and increase productivity. But only 2% of the firms have childcare facilities. Obviously, the employers need Government support to put thinking into action and here the Ministry of Finance will have to come in with fiscal incentives for employers. The last point is that there is no priority given to childcare arrangements before the age of 2 and after the age of 6. Last year, 16,000 women left the workforce citing childcare as the main reason and we have latchkey children. To alleviate this problem, there was an attempt made to have full-day school, but this scheme did not work because of the lack of adequate facilities and infrastructure to meet the children's needs. I realise that this subject of full-day school comes under the Ministry of Education. But it illustrates my earlier point that childcare arrangements must be seen as an integrated whole. Thus, we can see that the problems and challenges of childcare arrangements span the purview of more than one Ministry. Could the Minister please respond on how this issue can be dealt with in a holistic manner? 3.48 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) in the Chair]”
“Sir, the issue of childcare arrangements must be seen as a whole. For working parents, care of children is needed soon after their birth to the age of 12 years old. Unfortunately, in Singapore, we do not have an inclusive overall plan for this need. To formulate plans for this pressing need, we need an integrated approach with cooperation between the Ministry of Community Development, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Finance. I will now quickly highlight the problem areas in childcare arrangements. Right now, there are 21,000 places available in childcare centres. Most of these cater only to children between the ages of 2 and 6. Out of 21,000, 19,000 places have been taken up and yet parents complain of the lack of places. One reason for this is the uneven geographical distribution of childcare centres with certain areas being under-serviced. Would the Minister look into this deficiency and would he consider that one possible solution is to allow commercial operators to lease HDB void decks at reasonable prices? The second point is the review of childcare subsidies which has already been touched upon by the hon. Member before me. I just want to stress that there are 195,000 households who earn less than $1,500 per month. We cannot afford to ignore this large group as these households need the dual income of both working parents to survive. From the statistics of the SCSS in 1991, there were only 200 low cost childcare places available while the need is for 6,000 places. So I am wondering whether the Minister would consider converting the 2,000 places not taken up in regular childcare centres into low cost places to make up for the deficiency in the low cost childcare places.”
“45 pm All these cases illustrate, Sir, that we have to look at how our immigration laws and rules affect the near and dear ones of Singapore citizens. Strict rules and regulations were formulated during the time when Singapore's economic growth was uncertain and immigration of outsiders was strictly controlled. Now we have changed our thinking and are allowing PR status quite liberally. We had 4,700 people from Hong Kong in Singapore with PR status. And in the years 1991 and 1992, PR status was given to about 20,000 people each year. In view of this, we must relax and rationalise our policy to allow spouses and children of Singapore citizens to have PR status. I would like the Minister to respond to this important issue. Finally, the immigration officers are unable to deal with many of the cases and they end up at the doors of MPs' offices. The policy and the rules should be spelt out and not dealt with on a case by case basis. Because of the ambiguity, there is a great deal of worry, uncertainty and unnecessary suffering on the part of our Singapore citizens who are married to foreigners with children and those with children born outside Singapore. Even lawyers, social workers and MPs are unable to give clear and consistent advice to these unfortunate citizens and what is going to happen to their relatives. Would the Minister please respond to this? Could he also let the House know how many female citizens have left Singapore because they were unable to get PR status for their husbands and children?”
“These four young people will make admirable permanent residents of Singapore. They have gone to local schools for many years and are doing well academically and have one Singaporean parent, even though it is the mother. They eat local food, they have imbibed local culture and values and they interact with the local extended families of their mother. They are Singaporeans in most respects except immigration status and, yet, we are not thinking of making them permanent residents. We are not exploiting the advantage of retaining these young people. Many of the permanent residents we are taking from other countries can barely hold a candle to these four young people. Case four. Widowed Indian woman - was married to Singapore male citizen who died after the birth of the first child. Before his death, he did not apply for PR status for his wife. The child is now eight years old and goes to a local school but the mother is only granted social visit pass. She is not granted PR status. Now who is going to look after her school-going eight year old son? Case five, and this is the last case, Sir. Singaporean woman, production operator, earning $800 per month. Husband is a Malaysian and on work permit, earning just over $1,000. They have three children. The older two are nine and eight years old and born in Malaysia. The youngest one is six years old and born in Singapore. The youngest is in school but the two older children are only on social visit passes. They have been refused PR and are not even given a student visa. As a result, no local school is willing to take them and the eight and nine year old children are therefore not in any school. 1.”
“Sir, I would like to join my colleague, Dr Arthur Beng, in making an appeal to the Minister that we have to regularise, clarify and make more transparent the criteria for awarding PR status to spouses and children of Singapore citizens. I would like to illustrate some of the inequities and anomalies and a few uncompassionate practices that occur when PR status is applied for. I will do this by giving examples of real cases. Case one. Singaporean woman who is a senior accounts executive in her late 30s. She earns $2,700 per month. Her husband is British and is 53 years old. He is on a monthly pension of o367. The couple have no children. The husband is unable to get PR status, even though he has the means to look after himself and the wife is earning a high salary. Case two. Singaporean woman aged 48 and is working as a production operator, earning $900 per month. She has two children who have Malaysian nationality but studying in Singapore for the last 10 years in local schools. One is 18 years old and is doing 'A' levels, and the other is 15 years old and doing 'O' levels. These children are not given PR status. Case three. Singaporean woman working in a family business. Has a British husband who is in Singapore earning $2,000 per month. However, their two children were born in the UK but have been in Singapore for 10 years and studying in local schools. Daughter is 19 years old and doing 'A' levels, son is 16 and doing 'O' levels. Sir, in the last two cases, the Singaporean mothers are very worried about what is going to happen to their children when they finish their studies. As they have no local identity cards, the boys will not be enroled for National Service and the girls will not be able to find employment.”
“Sir, I am not convinced and I will try again next year. But I will withdraw my amendment this year. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister a query? If he thinks that one Medisave account is enough for the needs of the whole family, then by that argument, if two spouses are working, the second spouse should not have his or her own Medisave account. Secondly, I am not convinced that one account can look after the needs of the family. The amount is $15,000. Children do get sick from the age of 12 to 21. One account of $15,000 cannot cater to the needs of four or five people. The $15,000 was calculated at that time for C Class ward hospitalisation of only once or twice in 10 years. What happens if there is hospitalisation of the whole family? I am afraid I am not convinced by the argument.”
“Encourage voluntary contributions. Parents could contribute for their children, husbands for non-working wives, and working adults for aged parents. A public awareness programme would be necessary. 2. We could have an enhanced tax relief for dependants and this could be granted to those taxpayers who contributed to the Medisave accounts of their dependants. This would be over and above the present tax relief for dependants. This would be the enhanced tax relief. To discourage demand driven increased medical spending as a result of the many individual Medisave accounts, I suggest that claims from Medisave accounts should include a co-sharing component. This component should be tied to claims for ward charges. If a patient chooses ward A or B1 or a ward in a private hospital, there should be a 50% co-sharing component for ward charges. This would discourage the use of ward A or B1 or a private ward if the patient cannot afford the co-sharing component. This mechanism would also discourage patients from staying too long as inpatients and also encourage outpatient procedures and will help ultimately in cost containment of health care. I would urge the Minister to consider my proposals. 12.45 pm”
“Sir, yesterday, I made the suggestion that every citizen and permanent resident over the age of 12 should have an individual Medisave account. The reasons and advantages for each individual having his or her own Medisave account are as follows: 1. At the present time, only one or two working adults in each household have a Medisave account. These have to cater for the medical needs of the whole family, including the children, the aged parents and the non-working spouse. This arrangement is often inadequate for the medical needs of the whole family as the amount in one Medisave account may soon be depleted. Medisave withdrawals increased by 11.3% from 1990 to 1991. 2. With longer life spans and falling birth rates, the number of the aged dependants is increasing. If each aged person has an individual Medisave account, their health care costs will not fall completely on the state even though the Government is the provider of last resort through the Medifund. Sir, also according to a well-known psychiatrist, Dr Kok Lee Peng, making provision for Medisave for the elderly may help to reduce the number of suicides among the aged. At the present time, only about 13% of elderly males and 2% of elderly females have Medisave accounts. 3. We will inculcate into everybody the idea of personal responsibility for medical care and having to make provision for it without undue burden on the state. Now that every Singaporean over the age of 21 can start a CPF account for asset enhancement purposes, there is already a mechanism and precedent for asking everyone to start his or her own Medisave account. In my opinion, health is even more important than asset enhancement. Contributions to the Medisave accounts of all those over the age of 12 can be encouraged by the following methods: 1.”
“I am so sorry. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code PA 1500. At the end of 1991, there were just over one million employees with CPF and Medisave accounts. From 1st July, 1992, the Medisave scheme has been extended to self-employed persons earning more than $2,400 per year. However, this leaves a few groups of people who have no Medisave accounts. One, children and young people who have not entered the labour force. Two, female home-makers who do not work outside the home. Three, the self-employed who earn less than $2,400 per year and, four, the elderly. I would like to forward the suggestion that every citizen and permanent resident over the age of 12 (ie, all those with identity cards) should have an individual Medisave account. The reasons and advantages for each individual having his or her own Medisave account are as follows: a) At the present time, only one or two working adults in each household have Medisave accounts. These have to cater for the medical needs of the whole family including the children, the aged parents and the non-working spouse.”
“Sir, I would like to declare that I am a medical practitioner in private practice. At the end of 1991 ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just wondering whether it is very prudent to let our CPF members to have so much leeway in buying shares of Singapore Incorporated to increase their retirement nest-egg, because my fear is that some of them may get themselves burnt. I am wondering whether a better and more prudent way would be for the CPF to start some sort of unit trusts whereby fund managers could then advise them which unit trust to buy where the returns are more predictable so that we do not have many people losing their CPF money. I know they have $50,000 but beyond that they may get their fingers burnt, and that is my concern.”
“Therefore, from their participation in the workforce, we can see that the productivity of female doctors is about the same as male doctors, and thus we can see that there is no economic reason to impose the quota on females. Secondly, I am sure that the Minister knows that the practice of favouring male students over female students for admission into the Medical Faculty offends against our Constitution which is predicated on equality and equal protection of the law. Equality in education must mean equality of opportunity and equal treatment to all citizens in the matter of admission to educational institutions maintained by the State. The only test of admission is merit, merit and merit. If a female entrant has a qualification which is equal or superior to that of a male aspirant, she must be judged by those qualifications. Her sex has no place in the test to be applied for admission. I would therefore urge the Minister to abolish this anachronistic quota on female medical students.”
“Sir, since 1979, the intake of female students into the Faculty of Medicine has been restricted to one-third of the total intake of medical students. Two reasons have been given for the female intake quota. (1) Female doctors shun speciality training and prefer outpatient work and are thus considered less productive than male doctors; (2) Female doctors do not continue working after graduation and thus are wasting taxpayers' subsidy on medical education. Both these reasons are faulty and inaccurate, as I will show. At this stage, I would like the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a Table I have prepared. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.] Firstly, women doctors are concentrated in primary health care. For example, they are general practitioners, outpatient doctors, maternal and child health clinic and polyclinic doctors. These medical practitioners deal with disease prevention and promotion of health, besides treating illness. And surely I do not need to remind the House that the most cost effective strategy that provides the maximum returns for investments on health is the practice of disease prevention and promotion of health. Secondly, there is hardly any difference in the total number of male and female doctors who continue to work in the medical field, as Members can see from the chart that has been distributed. If you look at the total number of male and female doctors working, the figure is pretty close. It varies between 94% and 97%. The only difference is that about 10% more female doctors work part time as compared to male doctors. And this occurs because some married female doctors have child care reasons. Furthermore, from a total of more than 1,000 female doctors, only about 2% take no-pay leave for child care.”
“' I would like to ask the Minister what plans he has for potential school drop-outs. I would like to raise the second point about the ITE and VITB. From what I understand, the VITB has become incorporated into the ITE. ITE has become a post-secondary training institute with which I have no quarrel. But the VITB used to admit 10,000 students annually even if they did not complete their secondary education and it used to train them. But from next year, the ITE will be taking in only 6,000 post-secondary students. What is going to happen to the other 4,000 students who would have got a place in the VITB under the old system? I would appreciate the response from the Minister.”
“Sir, I am concerned about the problem of school drop-outs and our plans for this group of people. And with your permission here, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a Table on the educational profile. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.] From the statistics on the educational profile of Singapore's workforce by age group, we can see that 45% of the working population below the age of 20 has less than lower secondary education. I think this should worry all of us. We will not be prepared for the high-tech era with this sort of an educational profile of our young people. Secondly, the National Council of Social Service gives a figure of 57,000 disadvantaged youths in Singapore who require direct intervention. The community organisations only helped 5% of them in 1990. It is therefore essential that we must monitor what happens to our youth from the age of six to 16 years. At present, the premature school drop-outs and their parents are counselled and if this does not work, there is no system of follow-up and monitoring by the MOE or any other agency. Every year, the number of disadvantaged youths is building up and the social and economic costs to society will be enormous if we do not confront this challenge. 2.30 pm Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to mention a recent White Paper commissioned by the Education Department in the United Kingdom to show how a cycle of criminality is triggered off by truancy and dropping out of schools. I quote from this report: `It starts with hanging around street corners, drifting into shoplifting and stealing bicycles, progresses to petty burglary, perhaps, becoming involved with drugs, before long the journey from street corner to prison cell is complete.”
“Sir, maintenance payments to the wife or ex-wife and the children are treated differently for taxation purposes if they are voluntary or by a court order. Voluntary maintenance payments made to the wife are not assessable upon the wife even if she is regarded as a single woman and dealt with for income tax purposes as a separate individual. However, when the maintenance for payment is made under a court order, these sums constitute assessable income of the wife and she has to pay income tax. This system of taxing court order maintenance payments is unfair, particularly as such payments are supposed to aid family members and not burden them. Maintenance payments are meant, theoretically, to keep family members in the standard of life they are used to but, in reality, such payments never meet that. Family members invariably experience a drop in their standard of living. On top of this, maintenance payments are taxed, resulting in family members getting even less money. The rationale behind such taxation needs to be questioned since the husband who made the maintenance payments would have already paid tax on the money. Would the Minister consider doing away with this double taxation practice?”
“Sir, the impact of new technology upon women workers is of specific relevance as women are largely concentrated in many low-skilled occupations and industries. 62% of our women workers earn less than $1,000 per month and 30% earn less than $600 per month. There are more than 200,000 women who are in the category of production and related workers. 30% of these women have no schooling or only primary education. If we look at one of the unions, the United Workers of Eletronics and Electrical Industries, the majority of workers belonging to this union are lowly-educated and low-skilled women. The Minister has quoted figures from one NPB survey that showed slightly more women than men participated in job training. This is encouraging. But my concern is about the training programmes of these lowly-educated and low-skilled women. Secondly, there is another category of women that needs to be trained, ie, the female clerical force. There are 170,000 female clerical workers and to upgrade their skills, they need the COSEC training. But in 1991, only 15,000 training places were set aside for COSEC. Thirdly, the other group is the potential entrants into the labour force. These constitute 25,000 females as compared to 7,000 males. 80% of these females had previous work experience and 60% had at least primary or secondary education. This is a large group of potential and trainable talent. Unfortunately, you cannot use the Skills Development Fund to train these women. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether he could tell us his plans for the training of these specific target groups.”
“The other stipulations of the GRC can be retained. So the spirit of the GRC will be still there. The second suggestion is the NMP scheme. This could also be used for nominating more females, at least three females and three males. A data bank with details of females likely to be suitable and willing to be appointed can be compiled by women's organisations and other bodies. At the present time, there are only three women MPs and this gives us a participation rate of 3.4%. The other day there was an interesting tally about how many MPs were from ACS, RI and St. Joseph's, but nobody ever counts how many women MPs there are compared to the male MPs. The women of Singapore are looking forward to seeing more commitment from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in taking active steps to bring more women into Parliament.”
“Sir, first, on the role of the ethnic-based self-help groups and education. We have academic under-achievers in all the three ethnic groups. This is therefore a national problem. This could be a class problem, an economic problem or an educational problem. But we are treating the symptoms of this national problem by an ethnic-based approach by giving tuition under an ethnic umbrella. Does the teaching of Mathematics or Science differ if the child is Indian, Chinese, Malay or Eurasian? Also the fact that SINDA and the Eurasians have joined hands together in their tuition programmes, it debunks the ethnic basis of division of giving tuition. Also, the Ministry of Education has a very comprehensive programme with remedial classes for under-achievers. So why are the self-help groups duplicating the work of the schools and MOE? It is also the school teachers who are best qualified to assess the students' needs and not the tutors of the self-help groups. Lastly, the parents and children are confused by the duplicated efforts of the MOE and the self-help groups. The other point is about the political participation of women. On 15th November last year, the Prime Minister said that his most urgent mission was to find men and women of ministerial calibre to renew the ranks of the Cabinet. The women of Singapore were very happy to hear this. To implement the increased political participation of women, I offer a plan and this consists of utilizing two existing mechanisms that are already in place. One is the Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) scheme and the other is the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme. For the GRC scheme, we could make an amendment that at least one of the four members of a GRC shall be a female.”
“Mr Speaker, what has happened to all these proposals? Is anyone following up on them? Or are the reports just gathering dust on Ministers' and civil servants' shelves? Mr Speaker, it is time for us to stop making these half-hearted attempts to solve what is a national problem. We are now at a stage of our development when we need to bring our economic and social lives into closer harmony. We want Singaporeans to be efficient, productive workers; we also want them to be better-rounded, able to appreciate the arts, hobbies, sporting activities. And we want them to be good parents, to build secure and happy families. The Government runs advertisements in the media encouraging young Singaporeans to marry early and start families. We have the Social Development Unit, the Social Development Section, the Social Promotion Section, all busily trying to get young Singaporeans married. This is all very well, but are we doing enough to ensure that the young women we are pushing into marriage will not be saddled with the double burden of work and home responsibilities? And are our attitudes and policies changing in such a way that our young men will enter marriage ready for their role as a considerate husband and caring father? For it is this, Mr Speaker, that young women today expect in a marriage. Mr Speaker, I believe that the time has come for the Prime Minister himself to take ownership of the task of finding ways to bring Singaporeans' work and family lives into closer harmony and balance. The integration of work and family responsibilities requires a national strategy, and the clout of someone at the very top to ensure that recommendations are implemented fully and sincerely at all levels to make up for a generation of lost time. And that someone should be the Prime Minister.”
“Among the many papers generated by the Committee was one on manpower, and this again emphasised the need to get more women to work. The report acknowledged that many women stopped working because of child care and household responsibilities. The Committee suggested this problem be tackled in two ways: (a) Modify the attitudes and behaviour of society; and (b) Reconcile home and work responsibilities. The Committee also proposed several steps that could be taken, and I have summarised these along with the recommendations of the NPB Task Force. They are: (1) a public awareness programme; (2) changes in the education system to promote the virtues of sharing of housework as well as equality of the sexes; (3) professional associations, trade unions, and employers should work towards the elimination of sexual discrimination; (4) quality and affordable child care arrangements, including pre-school and before and after-school centres; (5) leave schemes and work schedules tailored to working mother's needs; (6) training and retraining of women. Since then, other committees have made similar proposals. For instance, in 1989, the Advisory Council on Youth called for: (1) schools to teach children the importance of preparing for their future roles as spouses and responsible parents; (2) more child care centres to be located within high-density housing estates, and in large corporations, Government ministries and statutory boards; (3) an intensifying and upgrading of training and child care staff. And then the Advisory Council on Family and Community Life, also in 1989, called for: (1) the special sick child care leave scheme to be extended to fathers; (2) employers to be more family-friendly; (3) a five-day work week to allow workers more time for their families.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to recall the words of our then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, back in 1975 when he spoke at the occasion to mark International Woman's Year - this was organised by NTUC. Mr Lee said, and I quote: `Societies which do not educate and use half their potential because they are women are those which will be worse off. Those that do and face up to the problems of new social and family relationships to help working wives to bring up the next generation are those most likely to provide better lives for their people.' These words, Mr Speaker, were spoken almost 20 years ago. They are even more relevant today. Have we, since then, faced up to these problems? I submit, Sir, that we have not. We have merely tinkered with policies here, taken half-hearted steps towards change there. We have tackled the very real problems of new social and family relationships in an incomplete, fragmented, and unsatisfactory way. Over the years, we have had a string of committees and task forces which have, in one way or another, put their minds to the matter of women in the workforce, and the attendant adjustments needed in policies, attitudes, and facilities. Some of their recommendations have been implemented, but too many have either been forgotten or have received mere lip service. Let me refresh Members' memories. In 1985, the National Productivity Board published the report of the Task Force on Female Participation in the Labour Force. The report emphasised the need to draw more women into the workforce and retain them there. In 1986, we had the far-reaching Economic Committee, whose report laid out the steps Singapore would have to take to get out of the recession and which also looked at the longer-term policies needed for the nation's economic progress.”
“Worries about whether she is becoming a huang lian po ( ) (or yellow-faced hag). Mr Speaker, perhaps some of the Members in this House agree with the husband. Perhaps they too feel it would be better for this woman to stop work because then she would be a better wife and mother. And the truth is, Mr Speaker, many women do leave the workforce in order to concentrate on their work in the home. In 1991, 16,000 women quit their jobs because of the demands of child care and housework. Unlike in many of the developed countries, most of these women never return to the workforce. Some of these women are happy to stay at home and raise families. Others quit work reluctantly. They fear they will lose touch with the world of work, they wonder whether they will one day regret the personal sacrifices they are making for the benefit of their families. At the back of their minds, in the depths of their hearts, they may feel they are being trapped into doing something they do not really want. For the country, meanwhile, there is the loss on the investment in the education and training of these women. There are today more than 400,000 women whose full-time work is in the home. This figure does not include retirees, and those too old or too ill to work, and those who are full-time students. Some 30%, or 130,000, of these 400,000 women have at least secondary education. They could be mobilised for full or part-time work in our labour-short economy. But they will need help in managing the dual-burden of the demands of a job and of a home and family. They will need help from their husbands, from their employers, from the Government, from our society as a whole. And it is time that we here in this highest policy-making body in Singapore paid attention to this need.”
“Wonders whether to scoot from work. But better not, because already taken two days emergency leave this month. 2.00 pm: Heavy rain starts. Wonders whether children are safely back from school. Did they take in the clothes before the rain came? Are they doing their homework? Resists urge to call children. Calls baby-sitter instead. Baby is having a nap, thankfully. Son calls. Settles fight between him and his sister. Turns back to her typing. Husband calls. Reminds her to buy toothpaste. She reminds him to go to POSB. 5.00 pm: First bus is packed. Second bus has standing room. Long ride to the baby-sitter's flat. Sitter complains that she is late again in picking up baby. Goes to provision shop. Buys toothpaste, cooking oil, and other items. Heavy shopping bag in one hand, heavy baby in another, walks to bus stop. Luckily bus is early. Squeezes in, arms aching from her loads. Gets home. Husband is back already and is reading the papers. Children are fighting again. She shouts at them. Asks daughter to look after baby. Daughter grumbles. Cooks dinner. Baby cries. Husband picks up baby. She tells daughter to set table. Calls husband and children to come and eat. But no time to eat. Baby cries again. Takes baby to room and puts him to sleep. Husband washes dishes. She mops floor, checks children's homework and school bags. Tells them to stop watching TV and get to bed. Children are asleep. Husband watches TV. She watches too while ironing clothes. Too tired to finish ironing. Joins husband in front of the TV. They cuddle. Husband wants sex. Too tired. They fight. It is the same old argument. He tells her to stop working. She says they need her income. And she does not want to have to ask him for every cent she needs. They go to bed. She cannot sleep immediately.”
“The 1987/88 Household Expenditure Survey showed that households with less than $1,000 in monthly income usually spent more than they earned. So, many of the 630,000 women in our workforce are there out of sheer necessity - their families need the extra income. And for the vast majority of these women, a foreign maid to help look after the home and the children is totally unaffordable. We have some 700,000 households in Singapore, while there were - at last count made public by the Government - about 65,000 foreign maids. That means 90% of our households do not have the luxury of paid domestic help. Which means that, in many, if not all of these households, it is the women who must look after the home and the family. And, all too often, she must also go out to work in order to boost the household income. Our female labour force participation rate is 51%, and half of these women are married. Let me try, Mr Speaker, Sir, to give the House an idea of what an average day in the lives of such women is like. 6.00 am: Wakes up. Let the others sleep on a bit while she prepares breakfast. Wakes husband, wakes children. Feeds baby, feeds children, feeds husband. Makes beds. 6.30 am: Takes children down to school bus. Goes back to her kitchen to prepare children's lunch when they return from school. Tidies house, washes dishes, hangs out clothes to dry, prepares bag of nappies and toys for baby. It's getting late. Baby cries, changes nappy. Locks up the flat and, carrying baby, walks to bus stop with husband. Bus comes, husband settles in for a long ride to work. Wife gets off two stops away near baby-sitter's flat. Tells sitter about baby's medication. Goes back to bus stop and head for work. 11.00 am: Baby-sitter calls to check about medication.”
“In our competitive and demanding world, a warm, strong family life provides security and stability for children; emotional support for wives and husbands, care and comfort for aged relatives in the twilight of their lives. As a nation, we have declared the sanctity of the family as a matter of primary importance: one of our five core values states that the family is the basic unit of society. Just as the continued prosperity of our nation depends on the productivity of each of us, the strength of our social fabric lies in Singapore having happy, healthy families which give support and strength to the individual. Why then do we continue to see family responsibilities as peripheral to our economic life? Why do so many women have to struggle with the double-burden of earning an income and keeping a family together? Why is it still the women who have to shoulder the bulk of the task of raising children and making a home? Why have we, as a society, been so slow in making those changes in attitudes, in behaviour, and in policies which will allow Singaporeans - and especially women - to find a better balance between the demands of the workplace and of the home? Women of the earlier generations may have been happy to play home maker. They mostly had little education and were content to be wives and mothers. But women today are in a very different situation. Labour-scarce Singapore needs women in the workforce. And many Singapore women need to work because their husbands cannot earn enough for the family. Government statistics show that 40% of working men earn less than $1,000 a month. In most cases, this is not enough for a household's needs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to join in the debate. I congratulate the Finance Minister on his budget proposals, which this year were wide-ranging and, in the case of the GST-related package, showed a lot of careful thought and care for the impact of the new tax system on the poor. The Minister is also to be commended for the innovative scheme of enlarging the assets of Singaporeans by topping up their CPF accounts to allow them to buy shares. Home makers, the majority of whom are women, welcome this news as their contribution to the GDP often goes unrecognised. Now they can also participate directly in the prosperity of the country. In his budget speech, the Minister pointed out that for Singapore to maintain strong economic growth in the long term, new policy directions would be necessary. I want to seize this point and ask the Minister, indeed the Prime Minister and his entire Cabinet, to give new thought to a matter which has till now been treated in a fragmented, unsatisfactory way. And this is the question of how we are to bring into balance our economic and social needs. How we can pursue both economic growth rates and full and happy family lives? It is a matter that is crying out for new policy directions. Mr Speaker, I surely do not need to explain why good family life must go hand in hand with good economic growth. Why do we work so hard but to provide more for our families? Why are we as a nation seeking strong economic growth but to ensure greater prosperity, an ever improving quality of life for our children and their children? Each of us in this House knows the value of a happy family.”
“This seems very unfair and arbitrary to me and this practice should be stopped. If there is no immediate public purpose for acquiring a piece of land, then it must not be acquired at that time. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the philosophy of the marketplace has been the motivating factor of most of our economic and other decisions. We should, therefore, not shirk to apply the same philosophy to land acquisition. Principles of equity and the free market demand that when land is acquired by the Government, the compensation must be at market rate and not at some value of the past which may be lower. If one's property is acquired by the Government at market rate, that in itself can be a traumatic experience if one does not wish to part with one's property for whatever reason, but imagine the added injury if the value paid is below the market rate. Thankfully, due to the hard work of our people, and the honesty, prudence and foresight of our Government, we have a country with no budget deficit and, in fact, we have consistent budget surpluses. There is, therefore, no moral or economic justification for taking land away from our people and not paying them their rightful due at the market rate. I, therefore, urge the Minister to provide that the compensation payable for any property acquired shall be pegged at its market value as at the date of the notice of acquisition. The other matter that I want to draw the Minister's attention to is section 5 in the Land Acquisition Act. Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are reasonable. The need for the acquisition is stated as public purpose, public benefit, public utility or in the public interest. However, subsection (1)(c) states that land can be acquired for any residential, commercial or industrial purposes. It does not indicate any public purpose. There have been instances of land being acquired and then sold to other private developers at commercial rates for commercial purposes.”
“Some police officers are already running boys' clubs in HDB estates, and this mechanism could be expanded and modified to be used for attendance centre orders. The attendance centre order is both deterrent and reformative in aim. The deterrent aspect arises from being punished by having the offenders' normal Saturday leisure activities interfered with. Also, attendance at an attendance centre should benefit the offender by bringing him under the influence of representatives of the authority of the State and teaching him something of the constructive use of leisure. Counselling, especially on health hazards of smoking, firm discipline, periods of strenuous physical training and constructive hobbies can be programmes at the attendance centre. This type of community order will be much more effective than a fine of $50 to $100 to teach our young to smoke. With that, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the main objectives of this Bill is to discourage and control smoking in young people below the age of 18 years. We have heard that this is a very laudable social objective as we all know the health hazards of smoking and the potential of addiction. However, if you look at clause 11(1), the penalties spelt out for possession of cigarettes or for smoking by young persons are woefully inappropriate and will prove to be ineffective. Many young people under 18 years of age are not in the labour force and are financially dependent on their parents. As a result of this, two scenarios may occur. If the young person comes from a wealthy family, and if he or she has access to a lot of money, then a fine of up to $50 or $100 is "no big deal", if I may express it in the jargon of the young. If the young person comes from a poor family and cannot pay the fine himself or herself, then the parents will have to pay even if they have financial difficulties, as they will not want their child to serve a sentence of imprisonment in default. So, therefore, who are we trying to punish? The young offenders or their parents? Hence, if we wish to stop the habit of smoking in our youth, then the penalty provided must be meaningfully directed at the offenders. And here I think we should think of instituting community orders. These could be prescribed in the form of an attendance centre order. By an attendance centre, I mean a place at which the young offenders are required to attend and be given appropriate instruction. The offender has to go to the centre for between six and twelve two or three-hour sessions on Saturdays or at any other time that does not interfere with school or work.”
“Sir, does the Minister not agree that there is a need to have a structured mechanism to follow up on these drop-outs? What the Minister has mentioned is what happens at the initial stage, but there is no structured mechanism to follow up on what these drop-outs do and then to fit them into maybe apprentice systems or some other system. From the figure of the National Council of Social Service, is the Minister aware that there were 57,000 disadvantaged youths in 1990, most of whom dropped out from school?”
“Sir, would the Minister then agree that there is a relationship between early school drop-outs and youths at risk? The Minister has not convinced me that there is no need for compulsory education.”
“Does the Minister not agree with the wish expressed in the Next Lap that every Singaporean should have at least 10 years of education? The third supplementary question is: With the new organisation of the ITE, you can only get in if you have at least 10 years of basic education. So the school drop-outs would not have an opportunity to join this institution.”
“Would the Minister agree with the Advisory Council for Youths' figure that 6.8% of the young have less than PSLE education? That is one supplementary question. Can I go on to the second supplementary question, Sir?”
“Why is the Minister not willing to make 10 years of education compulsory for every child? Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, whether a pupil benefits from being in school and whether he learns and progresses depends on his interest and motivation. We feel that if we just force the pupils to remain in school, it will not really solve the problem. There are cases, for example, where pupils, because of family problems, have to leave school. The principal and teachers will counsel these pupils and their parents and persuade them to stay on. Our drop-out rate from school is very low compared to other countries. On balance, we feel there is no need for us to introduce compulsory education.”
“It is perhaps necessary that a minimal sum be set based on the level of subsidy that is thought desirable and pegged to the consumer price indices below which income from Medifund should not be used for topping up capital under clause 4(4). As it stands, the scheme is too open. Sir, with these reservations, I support the Bill.”
“Apart from the conditions for obtaining grants, clause 13 in the Bill spells out the criteria from which one could draw from Medifund. However, in clause 15(5), there is a provision that notwithstanding all this, nothing in the Act shall be construed to require approval of an application. Like speakers before me, Sir, I am worried about this. The Medical Endowment Scheme pared to the bones is a welfare scheme to help the needy. No self-respecting person would like to turn to welfare for aid if this could be avoided. I am worried that some deserving and eligible applicant may be denied because of petty bureaucracy from an approving authority as a result of clause 15(5). To safeguard against this, when an eligible applicant has been denied aid perhaps there should be recourse to an appeals committee. On interpretation, I hope, like others before me, that "approved hospital" will not be only confined to Government or restructured hospitals but include gazetted institutions where alternative medicine is sought, and also the nursing homes, the rehabilitation centres and even the hospices. Initially, Sir, we are informed that $5 million will be made available for drawing on in the first year of implementation and another $200 million will be paid in as capital money. There is no target set as to how much this capital should grow. But there is a provision for topping it up when the capital sum should be diminished for one reason or another. Theoretically, disbursements from Medifund may no longer be available as a result of this in some lean years.”
“I suggest that an opting-in scheme be devised so that each Medisave account holder is given the option to donate all or part of the Medisave account into Medifund after one's death. This will enable Medifund to grow through the altruism of Singaporeans and not only be dependent on budget surplus. Dr Toh Keng Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. Increasing cost of health care is a world-wide problem for a variety of reasons which have already been touched on by the Minister. In Singapore, we also have to contend with a huge wage bill. Our pragmatic Government has made it an avowed objective to contain health care cost so that it does not rise beyond affordability for both the country as well as the individual. One way of doing this is to discourage over consumption through excessive subsidy. The Government's health subsidy has over the years fallen from 88% in 1965 to 57% in 1990. In the last five years, it has remained at 0.7% of the GDP. This has been achieved by either reducing subsidy to those who are deemed not to need it or by increasing co-payment from those who can afford to do so when public health services are consumed. For the lower-income group using C class hospital facilities, the subsidy has remained at 80%. Despite this, there are some in this group who find it difficult to co-pay in part or in full the recoverable 20%. For them, there is a genuine fear that as costs rise and subsidies are trimmed, even basic health care may become inaccessible. To them, the Medical Endowment Scheme Bill 1993 is welcome legislation and the Scheme, when implemented, will gain political mileage for the Government as still a caring and concerned one.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this important and commendable Bill as it ensures that no Singaporean will be denied basic medical care even if he or she is unable to pay for it. Many of our senior citizens do not have adequate financial resources. 31% of the males and 74% of the females have no personal income. Only 13% of the elderly males and an abysmal 2% of the elderly females have CPF accounts. It is therefore very important that the safety net exists for these senior citizens. However, it appears to me that there is one needy group of people for whom we are not extending the safety net. Because of discriminatory immigration laws, children of Singaporean mothers and foreign fathers born outside Singapore have no right to become Singapore citizens. Many of these children live in Singapore and go to local schools and live with their mothers who are forced to become single mothers because their fathers cannot get permanent residency. Some of these women have contacted me or the Association of Women for Action and Research and told us of their plight. These children are not eligible for Medifund if clause 13 is not changed. These children would be eligible if they have chosen to have foreign mothers and local fathers, and not foreign fathers and local mothers. I therefore urge that we change the amendment so that needy children in this category will not be denied basic medical care because of unfair and outmoded immigration laws. The other point that I would like to make concerns the funding of Medifund. At present, the main CPF account can be withdrawn at 55 but the Medisave account has to stay, and what is left in this account after one's death goes to the nominees.”
“All right. Since women are being encouraged to marry down, then what the Minister has said about men being the main breadwinner is not necessarily true.”
“Yes, Sir. In the civil service, family welfarism will be promoted if the medical benefits are hitched on to the women's salary rather than the men's salary. One more point why the Minister should re-consider his decision is that women are encouraged to ---”
“No, Sir. I am pointing out that in Divisions I and II, 13.8% are females, and 21.6% are males.”
“Sir, I have the following suggestions for the Minister to reconsider his decision: (1) The principle of equal pay for equal work has been in force in the civil service since 1962, and the pay consists of salary or wage and non-wage benefits, which include medical benefits. (2) Better medical benefits, ie, Class A or B1, are granted to civil servants in Divisions I and II as compared to Divisions III and IV. In 1991, females formed 52.3% of the civil service as compared to males who comprised 47.7%. Also, on the whole, the female civil servant is more highly qualified than the male civil servant as the following statistics will show.”
“Sir, would the Minister consider the proposal that the first priority should be given to people with income ceiling of $6,000 as HDB flats are subsidised housing? Only when this demand has been satisfied and there is no waiting list for this group of people, then only those with a higher income should be considered because the latter group can buy resale HDB flats or they can buy direct from HUDC.”
“Sir, in giving this sick child leave to women in the public sector, could the Hon. Minister consider extending it to men also for the following reasons: (1) There are some single parent families which consist of the father only who has to look after the sick child; (2) Some mothers may be away or who are sick themselves and thus the fathers would then have to play the role of looking after the sick child; and (3) When a child has both the father and mother, the duty and privilege of looking after the sick child should fall on both parents, and not just the mother alone. For what can enhance family solidarity more than a concerned father taking leave to look after his sick child, and this will help to strengthen the family unit.”