Kwek Hian Chuan Henry
Singapore
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for this comprehensive response. I would like to check whether MND is open to providing more funding to AVS. Ten years ago, I made a speech on NParks, and I noted then that NParks' annual budget is less than half of that of an acute care hospital.”
“Chairman, I have three short clarifications. Given that condominium prices and wages have risen over time, can MND share a timeframe or timeline when the income ceiling review will be concluded? Is it in a matter of months, or is it when some threshold conditions are met?”
“Chairman, I thank MND for responding to our cuts and I seek leave to withdraw my amendments. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $8,640,058,800 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“Our Public Service Media companies are our national assets. I hope MDDI can share how it plans to secure our future. I notice I have 18 more seconds, so I want to add in a final point. I noted we are asking MDDI to do a lot of cybersecurity, national Public Service Media on IT services and AI development.”
“As the Bill empowers OSC to identify users and disclose that information to purported victims, what safeguards are there to prevent misuse of that disclosed data for reverse doxxing? In closing, Speaker, Sir, this Bill makes our online space safer, especially for our youths.”
“Mr Speaker, I support this Bill and the suite of changes it makes. Given its breadth, I will focus my remarks on three areas: one, tackling global scams and online crimes while protecting innovation; two, a calibrated approach to accountability for 14-to-17-year-olds; and three, improving proportionality by resolving the inflexibility of…”
The complete record
Every one of 459 lines we hold for Kwek Hian Chuan Henry, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have been speaking to many Singaporeans, not just in my constituency, about how they feel about the scheduled maintenance. So far, the feedback has been that it is a reasonable tradeoff. Of course, maintenance is difficult, but if it is scheduled over the weekends or on public holidays, it is manageable. My question is, in view of the excellent progress we have made, would the Ministry continue with this approach or even increase the frequency, so that we can upgrade our system even faster?”
“Well noted, Deputy Speaker. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)] [(proc text) "That this House recognises that seniors are a gift to our society, contributing to a wise and resilient Singapore, and calls on the Government to continue strengthening support for seniors to age with dignity and spearhead community efforts to create a society where they can thrive." (proc text)]”
“Now that we have comfortably crossed our first 50 years, we have passed a milestone. Singapore must continue to be future-oriented and continue to carry the torch that our founding fathers have passed on to them. Like the seniors before us, we owe it to our children a duty to build a bright future, sparkling with possibilities. But we should also grow a deeper sense, an appreciation of legacy. We must build a Nation for All Ages with a healthy respect for legacy and experience, where our seniors age successfully, and in dignity. Only then, when we have done all these, can we say to our caring seniors, who built Singapore, "Do not worry. We got this covered. And we have you in our hearts." [Applause.]”
“I am also heartened by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's point about confident ageing, and her progress update on the Action Plan for Successful Ageing. In many of the areas raised by my fellow MPs, MOH is either already piloting or is scaling up their existing programme. As the Action Plan continues to roll out, I appreciate Senior of Minister Amy Khor's openness to new ideas. I also appreciate MOH's openness to explore strengthening CNS in the coming Budget and to conduct regular reviews of excellent healthcare financial programmes, such as CHAS. I would also like to thank Minister Gan Kim Yong and Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for the Action Plan for Successful Ageing. It is a remarkable plan, the result of painstaking consultation involving more than 4,000 people. I hope the ideas discussed today will help strengthen our plan. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now conclude our Motion. Some say that Singapore is too forward oriented from Day 1. Our founding Prime Minister was all of 36 when he steered a big ship called Singapore. And he was not the youngest one. Since Day 1, we forced the future onto ourselves, in every dimension we can think of. When we were still a developing country, international experts said we could not afford the MRT system. But we went ahead anyway. We built whole industrial estates, before companies were interested in coming in. We were one of the few countries that invested in turning salt water to fresh water and used water to drinking water, in anticipation of our future water needs. Often, our Pioneers made sacrifices to afford these projects. I think I understand why. Just like their personal sacrifices for their children, this is our seniors' way of saying to us, "we care for you, and we do the best for you”.”
“At the same time, I would like to remind our seniors that their fate is largely in their own hands. There is no legal limit on when we can stop working, as long as there is demand for us. If seniors can ensure that their skillsets stay relevant, they will be prized for both their skills and wisdom over time. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary and Senior Minister of State Amy Khor have shared excellent examples of how we can apply technologies to help our seniors. I look forward to continuous innovation from our Government. I also deeply appreciate Minister Desmond Lee's promise to relook at the Urban Redevelopment Authority's developmental controls. More flexibility there can do wonders to provide much needed housing options, especially for our seniors living in private estates. Having said that, it is clear that the Ministry of National Development has done much to create new models of housing, especially for the public estates. That is well noted by the public. I thank MSF for its progressive attitude towards encouraging companies to be family-friendly and pushing through the Tripartite Standard of FWA and for leveraging the workplace grant. I take MSF's point that companies need time to adjust and adapt before we can pursue further moves. Until then, I appeal for more companies to apply FWAs to their employees who are caregivers. Loyalty goes both ways. When a company treats employees with compassion, the employees usually respond with passion. On reverse mortgages, I take the point that companies have stopped offering this service and this is precisely why there is a gap, and this gap will grow. I hope that the private sector and the social sector can think hard about meeting this need.”
“Dr Lily Neo and Mr Leon Perera asked all of us to focus on bringing out the best of our seniors, focus on the Silver Dividends, rather than worry about the demographic time bomb. They are right. We are a decisive country, and we think long term. If we come together as a society, we can get on the right side of ageing. The stakes are high for us because all Singaporeans, every member of this Chamber, own this challenge together. Let me quote Ms Rahayu Mahzam, "We shall also remember that we will all grow old one day. We will all be that statistic, that group that would tap on Government funds, that would add to the healthcare cost, that would need to be cared for." But beyond Government programmes, we must also step as a society by creating and participating in community initiatives. And specifically for Members in this Chamber, we have an added responsibility as the local leaders capable of pulling together hearts, minds, and hands, in our own respective areas. And so, we, in this Chamber, must all step up. Actions speak when words cannot. As Ms Pei Ling puts it, "a caring and inclusive society cannot be one when citizens only talk about and expect somebody else to do it. We all have a duty to do it". And when we discharge our duties to our families and seniors, we, like Mr Kok Heng Leun, who cared for his father, can see the world through his eyes, and discover empathy in ourselves and in our society. I would also like to thank the Government for providing such a comprehensive response across five Ministries. I am glad to hear from Minister of State Sam Tan about our Government's progressive take towards retirement and re-employment. I take his point that the private sector needs time to get used to the recent changes.”
“Ms Joan Pereira, Dr Lily Neo and Miss Cheryl Chan asked for more support for community healthcare programmes with more emphasis on disease prevention. Ms Tin Pei Ling, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Leon Perera also asked the Government to accelerate our local pace of digital eldercare innovation. Mr Gan Thiam Poh called for more increases in home care medical services, and Ms Joan Pereira asked for more dementia friendly communities as well as getting the review of ElderShield right. Beyond finance and health, Members also believe about emotional well-being. We believe that our seniors, even if they retire, should stay active. As Ms Tin Pei Ling hopes, "we can continue to contribute because we want to. It brings meaning to life, it helps us look forward to every new day. Is it not wonderful?" As such, Ms Joan Pereira proposed the innovative idea of encouraging time-banking, which is not just to encourage seniors to volunteer, but also to spur bartering of services among seniors. Dr Lily Neo also suggested a one-stop for volunteer advisory. But sometimes, our seniors also need community support, especially on the emotional front. As such, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheng Li Hui called for a nationwide rollout of the successful CNS programme. I fully agree. Getting Government support for coordination through CNS will give our community efforts a major push. Ms Tin Pei Ling also contributed the refreshing idea to get all Singaporeans conscripted as volunteers to support seniors two days a month, with real vocations, real roles and responsibilities. Members of this House also spoke about fighting misperceptions. Ms Tin Pei Ling asked us to "stamp out ageism". In fact, I think we must go beyond stemming out ageism.”
“Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Tin Pei Ling also asked us to tap on the full possibilities of digital eldercare and call for the Government to limit the downside of embracing everything digital to our parents. We also spoke about senior housing and monetisation of assets. Dr Lily Neo, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Leon Perera spoke about encouraging and teaching good designs, building housing close to necessities. Ms Cheryl Chan suggested auditing all towns for such. Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke about encouraging more reverse mortgages and extending it beyond 4-Room HDB flats. I also spoke about more options for private developers in assisted living and nursing home, as well as catalysing more reverse mortgages for private estates. On the financial side, our speakers have acknowledged that the Government has done much. But there is always a little bit more room to do more, especially if we can continue to grow our economy and keep our medical costs low. The first line of financial support is actually for our seniors to stay employed and self-reliant. In terms of senior employability, both Dr Lily Neo and Dr Intan Mokhtar asked that we relook at employment and re-employment ages. Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Government to take the lead in senior employment and spearhead new designs and job designs and work environment. Mr Leon Perera spoke about using technology and innovation to expand on employability of seniors. I concur on his points and I spoke previously on using the shared economy to create micro-jobs for our seniors. Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Joan Pereira asked for us to do more for Baby Boomers through more CHAS discounts, and for a broader group of seniors. I fully agree on the necessity.”
“We must all be filial, however, because, as Dr Intan Mokhtar mentioned, "it is the right thing to do". Ms Chia Yong Yong also shared that we have obligations even if there is no love. And as Mr Kok Heng Leun shared, being a dutiful caregiver to our parents is not just a responsibility, but it can also be one we derive joy from. Helping our ailing parents is an intimate process. It promises the possibilities of transforming and deepening our precious relationships with those closest to us. Therefore, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Intan Mokhtar and Ms Rahayu Mahzam calls for all of us – Government, society, community – to do what is necessary to promote the right values of filial piety. I fully concur. Just this year, at my constituency, we started teaching filial piety through Confucian Dizi Gui. And I look forward to encouraging similar classes through other cultural lenses. Today, we also talked about more support for caregivers. Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Kok Heng Leun and myself spoke about caregiver leave, so that our seniors will not be facing the trauma of sickness and hospital visits alone. This will also provide some comfort to caregivers. Mr Kok Heng Leun also suggested more tax relief for caregivers, and Miss Cheryl Chan suggested more generous subsidies for caregiver services. Next, we must also ensure that seniors are on the right side of the digital divide. Ms Tin Pei Ling mentioned that we should strive to ensure that both "hardware and heartware are elderly-friendly" and we should not just be talking about technology but also processes. I would like to add to Ms Tin Pei Ling's point that a Smart Nation will not leave its wisest residents behind.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, it is beyond eight o'clock. We have worked hard and deserve to be tired. But fatigue aside, hearing the insights from my colleagues here remind me why Parliament inspires. The scale and scope of these ideas today can only be described as breathtaking. Let me sum up the debate. Ageing is universal. Mr Leon Perera described it as an inescapable part of the human condition. Therefore, the Members of this House believe that dealing with ageing starts with ourselves. Miss Cheryl Chan called for seniors to cultivate the "undefeated mind", one filled with hope, will and imagination. Miss Cheryl Chan and Dr Lily Neo pointed out that we are personally responsible for our own health. Otherwise, we will not enjoy our long life. Ms Chia Yong Yong cautioned us to be wise in estate planning. Better for our seniors to make wills and, therefore, have more control over their fates. At the same time, we must plan for unexpected situations, and that is why Miss Cheryl Chan encourages seniors over 55 to sign up for LPAs. Many of my colleagues here believe that after the individual, the next line of responsibility lies clearly with the families. Both Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Chia Yong Yong suggest that the Tribunal for Maintenance of Family can do more and move into education and counselling as well as to be bolder in enforcement. Ms Chia Yong Yong also came up with an excellent idea, which is, to make children who benefit from transfer of property responsible for their parents. Dr Intan Mokhtar made a similar idea. But as Ms Chia Yong Yong said, while the Government can work harder to ensure that families step up, we must "do not and must not abrogate the basic human values of filial piety." After all, one cannot legislate filial piety.”
“" It is a place where we can live with dignity, no matter our age; where we can rest assured that we can take care of our families; where the community does right by those who sacrificed their best years for us. Because only when we have done that, can we say this is home, truly. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“They are also working with the Police to share the workload. Through the Hope Collective, we can also take a comprehensive view and plug in the gaps. For example, we have a pool of lawyers who can educate and advise on legal matters for the seniors, such as Limited Powers of Attorney (LPAs). We also want to move towards dementia readiness. Overall, our vision is to build a culture of respect, love and care for our seniors. We want to build "a Kampung for All Ages". I am looking forward to learning more ideas from my colleagues in this session. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me wrap up my opening speech. Some medical professionals say our elder care has to catch up with First World standards. I say we should and then go beyond that. Just as our seniors have built a world-beating economy for us, we can be the world leader in building a senior-friendly society for them. It seems like a tall order, until we remember that everybody has parents and everybody will grow old. So, everybody has a vested interest in getting this sorted out. If the Government can provide the right structure, it will unleash the society’s energy to do so. In fact, the three ideas I have laid out today will do precisely that. Of course, ageing presents serious challenges, even for a nation as united and organised as Singapore. But we should not shy away from meeting these challenges. As Prime Minister Lee said in his 2014 National Day Rally speech, "At the heart of the Singapore Story is our belief in Singapore; a belief that we can turn vulnerability and despair into confidence and hope; belief that out of the trauma of Separation, we can build a modern metropolis and a beautiful home." What I would like to ask this Chamber today is, "What is a beautiful home?”
“I propose starting with four days of Senior Care Leave for a selected group of Singaporeans who are already caregivers for their parents. This would come with costs to the companies but there are ways to limit the costs to deserving situations. One, we can limit it to Singaporeans with parents aged above 70. Two, we can limit it to eligible Singaporeans who have less than 14 days of annual leave, because these Singaporeans have even less time to care for their parents compared to others. Three, at the start, focus on companies with more than 100 employees. These companies have the means to adapt. Four, adopt a tripartite process to deliberate on this. As mentioned earlier, Government programmes are only part of the equation. Our community must also step up. There are many excellent programmes throughout Singapore. There is much opportunity to share best practices. PAP.SG hopes to spur such conversations. For example, in my constituency, I have started something called The Hope Collective. It brings the do-gooders of Kebun Baru together, whether they are Government agencies, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), grassroots committees or even new groups of volunteers. We are already seeing synergies. For example, we have an elderly befriending programme called Project Starfish. Through Hope Collective, they have partnered another group called Mummy Yummy that delivers vegetarian meals to the needy. So, they have brought their strengths together and brought seniors to our Community Centre for regular meals. The seniors loved the food and the meals broke their social isolation. Now, Project Starfish and Mummy Yummy are bringing in more student volunteers through Hope Collective so that they can expand their outreach.”
“Government regulations can also ensure that the social enterprises or co-ops are properly capitalised, the reverse mortgage valuation process is proper, the fees are transparent and appropriate, and we can also push the social enterprises or co-ops to go for transparency and accountability, perhaps by getting them to declare a socially acceptable and transparent cost-plus financing model. The second solution is for the Government to encourage and regularise specialised funds for seniors to monetise their assets. We can look at the innovation happening in France. Retirees sell their assets to a fund that is based on the French concept of "Viager" property contracts. Seniors sell their asset to a fund which owns a portfolio of properties. While the property deed goes to the fund, the seniors have the right to stay in the property until they pass on one day. Based on market valuation, actuarial studies and the fund’s desired returns, the fund pays the senior an upfront payment, followed by a lifelong annuity. We can even consider adding life insurance payoffs into the housing equity to increase the amount of assets that seniors can monetise. The Government can also consider regulating how the funds are capitalised, to make sure that the funds are not over-leveraged, the transparency of the returns and the actuarial basis of the fund payoff. My third proposal is to introduce senior caregiver leave. Seniors lose dignity when their loved ones are not with them in times of need. Ageing, falling sick and one day departing from the world are a fate we all share. As we depart quietly into the night, our loved ones' presence will comfort us through that inevitable journey. Senior caregiver leave can help.”
“Monetisation options are in place for seniors living in 4-room HDB or smaller flats but not for seniors in other housing types. In my constituency, there is a private estate called Teachers’ Estate. As the name tells you, the seniors there are mostly retired teachers. But now, some of them are asset-rich and cash-poor. They do not qualify for most assistance schemes because they live in private estates. They tell me that they do have the option of downsizing but it is hard to find affordable options nearby which can also free up enough money for retirement. When they move, they are cut off from their social circles. So, we need to look into more options that enable them to age-in-place. Again, why has the market not provided such an option? Two reasons. For many retirees living in private housing, they live frugally, so they might only need tens of thousands of dollars each year in retirement. But banks are not interested in lending them secured loans in such quantum. This is because, given the razor-thin margin of reverse mortgages, the banks have limited interest in secured loans for less than $200,000-$300,000. Talking to the private and people sector, I see at least two solutions. The first is to get the Government to encourage and regulate social enterprises or co-operatives (co-ops) to undertake such reverse mortgages. Let me get this straight, I believe the numbers can work out and there is no need for the Government to co-fund or co-share the risk. The social enterprises and co-ops can also securitise their assets in the financial markets, and this can be done, given Singapore’s status as a centre for real estate investment trusts (REITS).”
“Three, the Government can embrace legislation similar to the Australian Retirement Village Act, which governs the relationship between retirement homes and the seniors staying in them. Specifically, we can look at the Retirement Village Acts in both Queensland and Victoria states. Four, the Government can provide a gross floor area (GFA) bonus to selected older condominiums that want to be partially or fully transformed into a retirement village. Pearl Bank is an excellent example. Pearl Bank is a condominium with a deep sense of community and unique architecture value. It is also very near Singapore General Hospital. There has been talk about En bloc and conservation. Many residents want to En bloc, which requires land intensification, which will allow residents of Pearl Bank to top-up their lease. And one exciting option is to intensify by building an additional 150 units of senior housing on top of their existing car park, and also building more facilities catered to seniors, while keeping the unique architectural makeup of the rest of the development. Yet, they are constrained from doing so, at least through the En bloc route, because they have maximised their GFA under the current regulations. If the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) can view them as potential retirement residential development, can these regulations be relaxed? Beyond Pearl Bank, I am sure there are other private estates that could voluntarily work with the Government to be converted into a full or partial retirement residential development. My second proposal is to help our seniors, especially those living in private estates, monetise their housing assets. Seniors lose dignity when they cannot afford to pay for their retirement years. For many Singaporeans, our most major asset is our home.”
“There is no time for us to wait for more reviews and more studies. We need these choices now." After studying the existing gaps and options, I would like to propose four ways for the Government to create a broader range of choices. One, the Government can have a separate land use category for retirement or assisted living homes. We can design it so that only properly regulated players can bid. These players, as an industry, must offer various price points. How do we make sure that there is no race to the bottom? Simple. The Government can charge property tax based on the revenue intensity of their operations, which depends on the price point of their offering. With a separate land use category, land sales could fetch a lower amount. But today we already ascribe different values to industrial parks, schools and public housing because they are important to our society. So, why not for retirement homes? We can experiment with a few projects and then finetune along the way. There are also ways to further ringfence the cost to the rest of the society through creative land use, such as allowing for usage in certain religious lands – I know a particular church that is very keen to explore doing so. We can also look at spaces on top of car parks, spaces between HDB blocks. Two, the Government can put in watertight regulations on what constitutes a retirement home, even without a separate land use category. The Government must get developers to clearly spell out what assisted services, service standards and pricing to offer. But it will be a partial solution because the existing land use category is unlikely to rule out non-seniors from buying. And there is always the temptation from speculators or shoebox apartment buyers to price genuine senior buyers out.”
“I am also glad to hear that Minister Gan Kim Yong is looking into various assisted living options for more Singaporeans, just like the options offered at Kampung Admiralty. Today, we also have many more choices in nursing homes, which I consider a partial success. There are homes where seniors have more autonomy, privacy and activities. But they cost from nearly $4,000 to $15,000 a month, obviously not affordable for the vast majority of retirees, even those staying in private estates. We must make more of such options more affordable. We also had experiments on private retirement homes or assisted living arrangements, although I feel that we have not yet discovered the right model. I have been following a site at Jurong Kechil that has been billed as a potential retirement home. But because the developer had to bid against conventional residential developments, some have questioned whether it will turn out to be more a condominium than a retirement home. In short, there are still gaps. We need to quickly assemble a full range of good options, at different price points, for our seniors. Both our seniors living in HDB and private estates must have choices to either age-in-place, right-size to a right place, live in an assisted living environment or a retirement village, or move into a nursing home. Just as important as the choices is the affordability. We must change regulations and laws to help our seniors monetise their assets to pay for them, and we must create these options now. A senior lecturer in the National University of Singapore (NUS), who was part of the group advising me on senior housing, shared this with me, "Please tell the Government that this is urgent. We are getting older and older every day.”
“(a) Changing regulations to enable affordable, dignified living options for all seniors; (b) introducing regulations to help our seniors, especially our private estate residents, to monetise their housing assets; and (c) introducing caregiver leave. My first proposal is to strengthen affordable, dignified living options for our seniors. Some nursing homes that are built long ago still have many seniors sharing a room. At some homes, overworked staff do not have time to say "Hi" or chat. The lack of autonomy, meaning and privacy in many nursing and retirement homes is a huge factor why eight in 10 Singaporeans worry about getting old, and why many of us still view these homes as "dumping" our parents there. But when Singaporeans genuinely cannot take care of their parents at home, they should not have to feel that they are unfilial. We should have better options. Fortunately, we are beginning to see new types of nursing homes and seniors housing. So, with regard to nursing homes, I believe that we are making an important transition and there had been some solid success. For example, we have created the new Kampung Admiralty for HDB dwellers who want a comfortable assisted living home option. Kampung Admiralty has senior housing built on top of a common community plaza with a hawker centre and medical facilities. The designers also wisely put the senior activity centre next to the kindergarten. I visited Kampung Admiralty with some of my architect friends to study the layout. We went away very impressed. I hope that we can build many more Kampung Admiraltys. They can serve as our mothership to surrounding blocks of conventional flats and be the anchor to our Kampung for All Ages.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, for my speech today, I will focus on maintaining the dignity of our elderly. We will all grow old one day. Even now, many of us are seeing our parents age. When I speak to my peers, a common theme emerges. Dad once carried us on his shoulders, but he is looking so frail recently. Mum used to nag us not to forget this or that, but now she is also forgetting things. And we start wondering what we would do when they can no longer take care of themselves. We would all like to take care of them at home. But sometimes it is not possible for medical, financial or family reasons. A friend told me that he looked into some nursing homes, but the seniors there looked so sad that he could not bear to. They were given basic care but could not pursue their own interests or social life. Nobody cared about what they wanted or what makes them unique and what gets them out of bed every day. In other words, they are okay but they have lost their dignity. This is not the only way seniors have lost their dignity. Seniors lose their dignity when they cannot pay for their retirement years; when they have to move to somewhere more affordable and leave their social circles. Seniors lose dignity when they are viewed as burdens to society. Our seniors deserve their dignity. Many seniors feel that if they lose dignity, a longer life is not a blessing. Mother Teresa said, "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." I am sure none of us want our parents and our nation's Pioneers to be in this state, and we certainly do not want to be in this state one day. With that in mind, I would like to propose three policy changes.”
“Two, we have set aside many billions for our Pioneer Generation Package and are spending a lot more for our Silver Support Scheme. Three, we have strengthened MediShield Life and are reviewing ElderShield Life. Four, we have improved retirement adequacy through higher Central Provident Fund (CPF) payouts. Five, we have introduced lease buy-back for seniors living in many Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats through the enhanced Silver Housing Bonus. Six, we have set aside $3 billion for the Action Plan for Successful Ageing, a remarkable plan, which called for Singapore to be a kampung and city for all ages, with vast opportunities for our seniors. But as we frequently say in this Chamber, we are not done building Singapore. Much has been done, but there is much more to do. It is in this spirit that my fellow PAP.SG Members and I would like to put forward additional ideas for consideration. Today, we will talk about retirement adequacy, retirement housing, seniors’ employability, volunteerism, the digital divide, digital medicine and caregiver support. We are fully aware that meeting the challenge of ageing is expensive. In fact, some of us worry deeply about how to pay for meeting our promises to our seniors while still creating a bright future for our children. So, whatever we do today or put in place tomorrow must be prudent and sustainable. Otherwise, we will be loading an unfair burden on future generations. Fortunately, the key to success requires more than Government dollars. It requires society to come together to create community initiatives to support our seniors. As such, my fellow PAP.SG Members and I will speak about our community initiatives for seniors. We believe in these initiatives and we want them to spread across Singapore.”
“An ageing population presents major challenges to an unprepared society: less economic vitality, higher tax burden on the young, and an intergenerational fight for resources between the young and old. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair] But we, at PAP.SG, believe that we must and we will meet these serious challenges and then go beyond. Besides the challenges, we should also focus on the positives. More and more of our seniors are highly-skilled and experienced, with a stronger ability to retire productively and to contribute to society. And this is what we believe to be the Silver Dividend. But creating this Silver Dividend requires a lot of work. We need to stretch our minds, stretch our hearts and stretch our hands. If we are successful, our seniors can shine brightly in their autumn years. They can reflect on their lifelong experiences, in comfort and dignity. They can pass down their very special spark to the next generation. And that is how we can build a wise and resilient Singapore ‒ through values and experiences passed down by each generation. On what basis does PAP.SG have this confidence? Well, Singapore is not the first or the only society dealing with the challenge of ageing. Successful preparations require decisive actions and long-term planning. And these are precisely our strengths. Our long-term planning has already borne fruit. Before this Silver Tsunami has hit Singapore, we have assembled the major policy pieces. Let me give a few examples. One, in five short years, we have tripled our healthcare spending. In percentages, I believe we have undergone the most aggressive healthcare expansion in recent memory in any developed country.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, "That this House recognises that seniors are a gift to our society, contributing to a wise and resilient Singapore, and calls on the Government to continue strengthening support for seniors to age with dignity and spearhead community efforts to create a society where they can thrive." *The Motion also stood in the names of Miss Cheng Li Hui, Dr Lily Neo, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Tin Pei Ling. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am moving this Motion on behalf of a group of Parliamentarians called the People's Action Party (PAP) Senior Group or PAP.SG. I would like to start my chat today by talking about two seniors in my constituency, Kebun Baru. Saraj, aged 72, spent his entire life keeping Singapore safe. He was one of our chief hostage negotiators for both Singapore Airlines (SQ) highjacks. After he retired, he continues to volunteer to pass down his wisdom. Today, he is a cornerstone of Kebun Baru’s Yellow Ribbon outreach. Alice, aged 70, spent her entire life as a nurse. From 1986 to 2000, she built the modern ambulance service that we know. She then served for 30 more years. Today, she still leads our community emergency responders. All of us here within this Chamber have met incredible seniors, their stories etched in our minds. Some have done great things; some have lead simple but meaningful lives. Their wisdom and resilience had built Singapore. Our Pioneers, soon to be followed by our Baby Boomers, are now growing old. They have been described as the coming Silver Tsunami. Last December, a United Overseas Bank (UOB) analyst even declared that Singapore’s demographic time bomb will start ticking, right this year.”
“Therefore, we must get as many Singaporeans who are staffing our SMEs, who are business owners, as possible to think about doing things differently all the time. I have full confidence that Enterprise Singapore will do a good job catalysing widespread and deep industry ownership of the ITMs and level up our companies. With that, I fully support the Bill.”
“Reaching out to SMEs through Lianhe Zaobao may not be sufficient. Some of them read evening dailies, like Shin Min Daily or Wanbao. The problem is that many of our SME leaders are not plugged into the national newspapers and simply do not have the luxury of time to flip through the newspapers every day. Hence, we should encourage and explore all forms of media communication, including radio and the media from the Malay and Tamil languages. We could discuss on industry-specific transformation on these news channels and do so in the language of the everyday Singaporean. For example, we can have a programme talking about the fate of the prata makers, something that will gel with the everyday Singaporean and make people aware of the issues. This is important because many SME owners and workers, especially from micro-SMEs, are everyday Singaporeans. One might wonder whether it is possible to capture the imagination of everyday Singaporeans, especially on this seemingly technical subject of industry transformation. But I would argue otherwise. Many Singaporeans, especially those above 45 who consume these news channels, are deeply aware of the implication of the ongoing business transformation, because they live through it every day. And many of them have a deep anxiety about what is next and how to adjust to the changing world. Therefore, using the mass communication channel to talk about the fate of different industries will not just focus everybody on these industries, but getting everyday Singaporeans to think about how to do things differently. When we talk about industry 4.0, technical terms get thrown around liberally. Digital, data, disruptions are big words. But all it means is trying to do things differently.”
“For now, SME Centres spend a large proportion of their time in bringing the Government grants and incentive schemes to companies, and they have been effective in reaching out to more than 200,000 companies annually. However, with the launch of the Business Grant Portal (BGP), companies here, especially those which are savvy, will be able to self-help for Government schemes. As such, there is scope for SME Centres to play a dual role, which is to drive the ITMs. They can drive ITMs by encouraging geographical or industry collaborations. For example, the SME Centres can provide the industries within the same location with the advantage of the use of common facilities, shared services and shared marketing resources. This will especially help the smaller companies and industries. The SME Centres can also develop industry-specific knowledge by hiring existing staff with relevant knowledge. Alternatively, Enterprise Singapore can also consider co-opting staff, preferably with industry experience, to an SME Centre so that the SME Centre can be a focal point to help specific industry ITMs. My last point is to tap on additional media channels. While we are doing all that, there is still a danger of some companies falling through the cracks. After all, we cannot force some companies to come up to the SME Centre if they are not aware of the initiatives to drive the transformation. This is a real problem. Our Singapore SME landscape is such that many of their owners may not be English-educated and may not be very familiar with many Government schemes or incentives. While I know that agencies like SPRING Singapore have made an effort in recent years to reach out to the non-English media, there is scope to do more. Take the Chinese media, for instance.”
“The accounting and law sectors are prime examples of how TACs have been professionalised. For one, they are staffed by relevant industry professionals who then bring with them the domain expertise in industry promotion or transformational work. Having people with the relevant knowledge and experience in TACs also means that they can help the TACs develop industry code of conduct, standards, benchmarking and development programmes. There is great value in getting each TAC to be staffed by people of their respective industry. Effective TACs are not just limited to firms practising professional services. SBF is another good example. Today, all Singapore-registered companies with a share capital of $500,000 and above have to join SBF. SBF thus has the capital, legitimacy and professionals who have the clout to fulfil their mandate to help the larger companies. Beyond the general business chambers, the real leadership and drive for ITM transformation must come from the specific trade associations, which have a more intimate knowledge of the industry and experience. Thus, we can look to get the trade associations to have greater ownership. We can also see how we can better resource these associations and industry bodies to have relevant professionals so that they can provide effective leadership. This can come through mandatory participation and affordable membership fees. That brings me to my second point ‒ the role of the SME Centres. It will be difficult to ensure that every sector has an effective TAC. Within any sector, there are also many smaller industries. Hence, SME Centres can help.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Our economy grew well last year. But many SMEs continue to face many challenges. SME owners know that they have to respond swiftly or risk being irrelevant. These changes are not just unique to certain companies; they are prevalent across industries. Hence, many businesses want closer collaboration within the industry and for the Government to be more involved. The Government recognises this need. Therefore, we set up coordination bodies like the National Productivity Council and the Future Economy Committee. The Government also established SME Centres under the supervision of the new Enterprise Singapore to bring policies to the doorsteps of companies. However, I am very concerned about our SMEs, especially the micro-SMEs, as they need to change fast. The change is at their door. The disruptive future we have been talking about is happening now. Despite all these efforts, we have yet to see deep participation of many SMEs and micro-SMEs in the ITMs. We need to understand why this may be so. From my understanding, I think there are two common factors that help industries be successful in following through the transformation spelt out in their respective ITMs. Firstly, they have to have industry leaders who have worked successfully with the Government and then managed to seek a buy-in from the rest of the industry. Secondly, they have to have TACs which also have strong and focused leadership that is able to steer the industry to a clear path of adoption. Driving and catalysing industry transformation will be a very important part of Enterprise Singapore. As such, I would like to propose three points for Enterprise Singapore’s consideration. First, is to professionalise the TACs.”
“But if we get this right, it can also create many opportunities for Singapore. Mr Speaker, I fully support the Bill.”
“Do these professionals, who are certified, have a vested interest in Singapore? And what if they have interests that are contradictory to Singapore's? It is certainly not a stretch of imagination that we have foreign interests among our cybersecurity professionals here who may leverage their positions in having access to secret and confidential platforms. As such, I call for three things. One, more thorough due diligence checks by our cybersecurity agencies on professionals. Two, re-examine the penalties for misuse of access to data, especially if the perpetrators are members of the cybersecurity industry who are supposed to guard the industry. Three, create a certification system that favours cyber professionals who have a vested interest in Singapore, people who have some real roots and deep roots in Singapore, rather than fly-by-night experts who drop by for ad hoc projects whom our laws have difficulty to reach and deter. In addition, cybersecurity could be promoted as an engine of growth. Singapore has emerged as a trusted business hub because of our trusted regulations, our strict regulations and because of our people's trusted reputation. Properly executed, Singapore could naturally become a premier trusted business hub for Asia and for the region with regard to cybersecurity. Can the Government share our plans to grow and internationalise the industry? Can the Government also share more about our manpower plans to prepare Singapore to take part in this exciting development? In conclusion, while this Bill helps to create a strong cybersecurity regime for Singapore, we must also ensure that we are not caught blind-sided by any unforeseen circumstances, for doing so would be a risk that could prove very costly for Singaporeans in many ways.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Members of this House have talked about the possibilities, as well as the dangers, offered by the Internet and we talk a lot about cybersecurity threats. So, I would not repeat those other than to point out the fact that Singapore is no less exposed to such threats. On the contrary, as the financial services hub and a regional hub to many global corporations, we are among some of the most exposed countries in the world, making us an attractive proposition to hackers from around the world. It is key to see how vulnerable we are. In a survey done last year by security services provider Quann of 150 senior IT professionals from Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, it showed that 40% do not have an incident response plan when they are facing cyberattacks and 67% of those who had those plans admitted to not practising their incident response plans. This stands to impact our reputation, credibility and position as a global corporate hub and a regional e-commerce platform. As Chair of ASEAN this year, Singapore has identified our aspirations to push for an ASEAN-wide e-commerce platform. For such an ambitious project, and to protect our business hub status, we need to make sure we have a strong cybersecurity framework and regime. In this regard, I am very supportive of this Bill. However, I would like to ask our Government to share more on an important issue which is: how do we keep watch on the guards? First, how about the companies we are entrusting to protect the cyber world here? While we have certification regimes to manage such companies and ensure that they meet desirable quality standards, do we know enough about the people who are working in these companies?”
“At the same time, vested or financial interests distort their social media newsfeeds more and more each day. In the decades ahead, we have a lot of major decisions to make. And we need to collectively decide on our way forward on the basis of facts, and not rumours and, certainly, not fake news. We must do everything in our power to combat fake news to ensure that Singapore’s public deliberations continue to be enlightened because democracy dies in darkness. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in full support of the Motion. 3.49 pm”
“This includes how our society manages our multi-cultural and multi-religious fault-lines; how the Government spends its money, and how we manage our reserves; how our political and electoral process functions; how we encourage transparency in public debate among Singaporeans, but also saying no to foreign influence on our public opinion. A good way to start is to teach them in schools. Today, we already teach critical thinking in schools, and we do have social studies and national education. But more can and must be done. So, I agree with Mr Kok Heng Leun's view on strengthening media literacy. Two, we should commission detailed and prolonged studies to understand how Singaporeans gather their views, and how social media shape their views. When I meet young citizens, I sometimes ask them how do they build their world-view and what is their source of news. More and more, I am hearing that they are increasingly relying on news from social media or WhatsApp-sharing. A clear understanding on the news consumption patterns will be necessary to help us calibrate policies, so that we can create a healthy balance between healthy discourse and necessary intervention. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now conclude. Public discourse is the means for our society to reflect collectively, reflect on what values matter, reflect on whether our policies have lived up to our ideals, and reflect on whether we have pushed a logical idea to its illogical extreme. For the longest time, our mainstream media has served as an accurate mirror for our society to reflect upon. With the rise of social media and the decline of mainstream media, many Singaporeans are no longer even looking at the same mirror.”
“Psychologists have noted that for the human mind to critically examine whether an article is true or false, a person must first mentally articulate them, temporarily accepting the news as possibly true. But even if our brain subsequently rule what we read as fake, our mind has already made a subconscious note of that, and this lingers in our minds longer than we think it does. Psychologists also believe that repetition matters. Merely seeing a newsfeed headlines many times, even if they are later debunked as fake news, make it more credible than it should. In short, even if we recognise news as fake, fake news can influence us subtly. People might speculate as to the reasons for the Select Committee. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the reasons for convening this Select Committee is the petition process which was initiated by some activists in relation to Parliament’s consideration and adoption of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill in August 2016. But such speculation does not change the issue at hand. In view of the danger that certain state and non-state actors pose, by weaponising disinformation into fake news, I support the creation of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. Beyond the formation of the Selection Committee, I have two other suggestions. One, while the Committee’s work is critical, we should tackle the issue upstream by strengthening our people’s understanding of how our society works. Any country with an under-informed electorate has fertile grounds for fake news to thrive. Therefore, we must find more effective ways to keep our people well-informed about the fundamentals of how our society works.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, "Democracy Dies in Darkness". This is an insightful slogan of Washington Post, a well-regarded US newspaper. The Washington Post recognises that a democracy cannot survive and thrive without an informed public discourse informed by facts, truth and transparency. Indeed, in the past few years, leading democracies have been hacked. The long list includes the US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Italy. These nations have been hacked by foreign powers and special interest groups, who systematically inject fake news into the openness and the connectedness of many democracies, so as to further their foreign agenda or narrow interests and, in certain instances, they have succeeded. Why do such concerted efforts frequently succeed, even in mature democracies with well-informed electorates? We are beginning to benefit from new research on fake news. Dartmouth College recently analysed the real and fake news consumption of thousands of adults in the lead up to the 2016 US election. The research shows that most lies and false rumours online go nowhere. However, the key researcher, Dr Brendan, notes that social media companies have algorithms that "dangerously effective at identifying memes that are well-adapted to surviving, and these also tend to be rumours and conspiracy theories that are hardest to correct". In short, few pieces of fake news survive, but those that do, go viral. We should not be surprised by the ingenuity of these algorithms, because social media companies have an overriding financial interest to keep us entertained and connected for as many hours a day as possible, by delivering one dopamine dose, one newsfeed at a time. Fake news also thrives because of our psychological make-up.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The Income Tax Bill amendment is a timely refresh to our tax administration. In particular, I would like to support IRAS' push for strengthening regulations on related party transactions. The world is changing quickly. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries are facing tremendous fiscal and economic pressures. This pressure results in increased scrutiny over the tax policies from lower tax jurisdictions, or even existing trade agreements. Singapore today has an excellent reputation as a responsible tax jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is important that we stay vigilant. We must not give others real or perceived reasons to cast doubts on the integrity of our tax system. The new provision to strengthen related party transaction shows that IRAS is ahead of the curve, and it strengthens Singapore's reputation as a responsible tax jurisdiction. Some businesses might get affected with added regulations. But I have looked at this Bill's detailed implementation and I am satisfied that it is done in a measured and targeted way. As such, this amendment Bill is worthy of support.”
“Will it be implemented immediately to all property taxpayers? Will there be an educational effort to help property taxpayers understand that? In short, is IRAS considering ways to strike a balance between efficiency and inclusiveness, not just for the Property Tax Bill's amendments today, but also for the other tax Bills put forward today? I would also like to make a broader point about our move towards a Smart Nation. While I share the Government's goal in doing so, it is important we do so in an inclusive way. By "inclusive", I hope our Government actively creates alternatives that are cheap, efficient and simple to use. Let us talk about a particular scenario. If a retiree or a low-income individual is expected to use his or her smartphone to do an electronic transaction, then, (a) he or she must be able to afford a smart phone, even if it is a second-hand one. But unfortunately, this cost is not always factored into our social assistance framework; (b) he or she must be able to afford the data-plan, because free wi-fi signal is not always present in all public places and the sign-on process is currently cumbersome. I am sure that once we implement Smart Nation, we will think through all these applications and these executional bottlenecks, but I hope that our Government can consider all these issues about digital inclusiveness because we must leave no Singaporeans behind as we move towards a digital future. One way the Government can do so is for the Smart Nation Office to closely consult the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the various voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) during the design phase while embarking on the digitisation process. Notwithstanding these concerns, I support this Bill as a necessary step to improve our tax system.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. This amendment Bill seeks to refine the appeals process and protect our tax base by strengthening enforcement and information gathering powers and digitising the communications between IRAS and our taxpayers. While I support the Bill, I would like to flag out some concerns regarding the third objective of the Bill, which is the serving of notices via electronic means. As Members of Parliament (MPs), we all know about the presence of the aged, frail and the vulnerable among our communities. They frequently do not speak English, let alone read English or access the Internet. Some of them are also in a poor state of mental health. And some of them live alone without close family support. They do not form a large part of Singapore, but they do exist. Also, as MPs, from time to time, we sometimes write appeals for residents who face legal issues because they do not pay their bills or fines to the Government in time due to their misunderstanding of the Government's communications, or their inability to use digital channels effectively. Once they get themselves into such difficulties, they face additional fines and even legal worries. Going into the details of execution, I could imagine some of my frail and vulnerable residents from Kebun Baru running into difficulties. In theory, they could continue to receive hardcopies of the bills if they opt out. But this is only if the opt-out process is properly designed. My concern is if they are asked to opt out electronically or if the opt-out instruction is buried in the small prints in the property tax notices. And worse comes to worst, if the process is not noticed by their caregivers. So, I would like to ask IRAS to clarify on their proposed framework for implementing this.”
“I am glad that the Government has chosen to respond to allegations through transparency and debate, because having a clean and honest government is what kept Singapore exceptional. Moving forward, Singaporeans want an immediate and firm reassurance that our Government integrity is beyond reproach. Singaporeans hope that all parties concerned, especially after the debate today, will try to prevent their private debate from continuing to spill over to the public arena. Singaporeans want our Government's undivided attention on pressing national matters concerning the livelihood and security of our people. After we finish the debating on this Ministerial Statement, Parliament will discuss two more important Bills: one, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Act that would keep our financial system intact when the next global financial crisis strikes; and two, the Home Team Corps Bill that would strengthen our people's support for a safe Singapore. The issues that directly affect Singaporeans' lives must always come first. Let us not keep our people waiting.”
“The public debate on what to do with the house will likely last a long time, perhaps even lasting beyond those currently involved. Therefore, it is important for us to put all the facts on the table, including the financial implications, so that from now to the point of decision, Singaporeans can have a fuller appreciation of what drives the various viewpoints. Next, I would like to ask about the Ministerial Committee. Most Singaporeans I speak to understand that Ministerial Committees are part and parcel of routine Ministerial work. Nevertheless, they can be fully reassured if they have a clear understanding of how this Ministerial Committee works and how it is organised to be exploring independently the options. Can the Government share on the following? One, who initiated the Ministerial Committee? Did the Prime Minister recuse himself, and did Deputy Prime Minister Teo, as the leader of the Cabinet in the Prime Minister's absence, propose the Ministerial Committee? Two, who selected the members of the Ministerial Committee? Was it the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Teo or somebody else? Three, what are the operating protocols? For example, were discussion and information shared on a need-to-know basis within the Committee? Are there any other operating protocols that the Ministerial Committee will abide by in the future that would provide us with additional reassurances? Next, the issue of the seventh will. Much has been said about the seventh and final will. Can the Prime Minister share comprehensively why he did not contest the seventh will? Last, I hope that Singapore can move beyond this issue after this Parliamentary debate.”
“Having listened to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, it is clear that there is nothing to argue about the house. The house and what to do about it cannot possibly be the reason why the siblings have gone public, since the Government has already said that there is nothing for the Government to do for many years, so long as Dr Lee Wei Ling continues to stay there. So, what is really behind all these? Is it attacking the Prime Minister by using the house as a proxy? Mr Lee Hsien Yang said he wants the Prime Minister down. Is that the true motive? Next, I note that over the last few weeks, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has evolved his position on what to do with 38 Oxley Road. Initially, he had stated that he had not thought through the plans beyond demolition. Subsequently, he mentioned the possibility of planting a memorial garden. And in his Facebook post yesterday, he stated that he has no current intention of redeveloping 38 Oxley Road as a luxury condo because it would be an affront to the values of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. However, a careful reading of his statement shows that this may not be definitive, because his declaration of "not inclined to apply for rezoning" does not rule out redevelopment under all circumstances. Next, it is important for Singaporeans to be fully informed of the financial implications of various options for 38 Oxley Road. The Government has highlighted various options − conservation, preservation and land acquisition. I have heard that these options are worth around $20 million. Now, if full demolition and redevelopment happen in the future, and if URA under the future government agrees to rezoning, the land could be worth a lot more. I believe a piece of land nearby was recently sold for more than $100 million.”
“Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans have seen many twists and turns in the past few weeks. We see new Facebook posts and statements every other day. Many Singaporeans are unsure of what to make of this debate. We want to know what is at the heart of this disagreement because some things just do not add up. I have three examples. One, Mr Lee Hsien Yang shared that Dr Lee Wei Ling will probably stay in the house for many more decades. The Government also confirmed that, if this is the case, the current Cabinet, minus the Prime Minister, would likely not be the ones making the final decision. Therefore, both sides agree that the decision could be decades away. So, why disagree now? Should not Mr Lee Hsien Yang, or those after him, raise the issue with the future government and the people of Singapore at that point? Two, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned the possibility of a memorial park with only the basement preserved. And recently, Mr Lee Hsien Yang suggested planting a memorial garden after the demolition of the house. Both options are not that far apart. Why can both sides not continue to talk and come to an agreement over time? Three, both sides have stressed that the Government has the right to gazette the house, because the Government has the responsibility of determining what is national interest. This means that both sides cherish the core Singaporean principles: that the rule of law must apply; that no one is above the law; and that the law must serve the people. So, are both sides really that far apart that a family dispute needs to be aired on the national stage with profound implications on Singapore's international standing and at a time of many pressing challenges? We have heard the viewpoint of Mr Lee Hsien Yang, his wife and Dr Lee Wei Ling.”
“Madam, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to see whether special attention can be given to one particular group, which is the babies who need milk for special allergies. I was told that it could cost $45 to $105 for two to three days, depending on whether there is tube-feeding needed for kids requiring milk powder for special allergies. And if the extensive plan from the Senior Minister of State can also look into coordinating with the rest of Government to ensure that the right support is available for needy parents who need expensive formulations.”
“And let us say that this company falls in bad times and experienced cash flow issues and was eventually placed under judicial management. The company has many good ongoing prospects from across the region from which the company could continue as an ongoing concern. There are private equity investors who are interested to provide rescue funding to this company but would demand for debt-equity swap provisions in their rescue financing arrangements so as to enjoy the upside on the company's revitalisation. This would require shareholders' approval. Unfortunately, due to the unwillingness of some existing shareholders with sufficient voting rights who will veto this shareholder approval for the debt-equity share swaps, the rescue financers could not get the deal they are looking at and thus dropped out of the rescue financing. Without equity participation, rescue financing would simply be less attractive and rescue financers will not be incentivised to provide the expertise in such rescue. This example that I illustrated will, hopefully, show it might be worthwhile for MinLaw to study how shareholder cram-down provisions could be advantageous to attracting experienced distressed asset investors who bring their expertise in corporate governance, corporate restructuring and distressed company management who would often want to enjoy the upside from equity participation should such rescues be successfully executed. Mdm Speaker, with that, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Let me talk about cram-down provisions before suggesting a related refinement for MinLaw to consider for further refinement of the law. Cram-down provisions were introduced to prevent creditors from undermining a scheme of arrangement when introduced. The introduction of cram-down provisions is important to facilitate the timely rescue of a company in financial distress where time is of the essence and a long-drawn out process to resolve differences will not be in the best interests of keeping the company as a going concern. Having the Court to decide on whether a cram-down provision is to be applied against dissenting creditors to a scheme of arrangement who are not being unfairly and inequitably treated in the proposed scheme would be ideal and there is no lack of jurisprudence in the US on this and, certainly, the case law there would help form our jurisprudence in this area in time to come. What I think we could do to create a further improvement to the cram-down provisions would be to introduce some form of shareholders' cram-down. These provisions would prevent de facto shareholder veto in schemes involving debt-equity swaps where shareholder approval is required. Such provisions would encourage experienced international distressed financiers with the experience and know-how in nursing companies back to health to invest due to potential upside they can enjoy with debt-equity swaps. I believe that MinLaw considered this proposal but was not in favour of it. But let me give an example how this could help. Let us consider a hypothetical situation of a company with a good track record of commercial excellence that, as a result, experiences a strong brand equity in the market.”
“Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendments to the Companies Act is ground-breaking in at least two ways: the incorporation of elements from US Chapter 11 into our corporate insolvency regime which has English roots; and two, the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. We can all agree that this Bill would serve to bring about significant changes to our corporate insolvency regime, which will strengthen Singapore's role in debt restructuring. This could not come at a more opportune time. Why? First of all, companies in the maritime and oil and gas industries have a tough time due to the decline in oil prices from two years ago. While oil prices are creeping up, a bit slowly, several Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX)-listed oil and gas companies have already gone into insolvency proceedings or are facing impending insolvency petitions from creditors. Two, small and medium enterprises in Singapore are coping with economic challenges to maintain their competitiveness. More private funding sources would be required to make capital expenditure in order for them to improve their business models and expand their businesses beyond Singapore. Three, the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) Report proposes creating more favourable conditions to attract venture capital and private equity firms to set up shop in Singapore. With the amendments, it is now easier for companies to apply for a judicial management order. There will also be enhanced moratorium, rescue financing, cram-down and other enhancement provisions for the schemes of arrangements. The legal community whom I spoke to found this revised Companies Bill timely and appropriate. They are also appreciative of MinLaw's consultative approach in the revision of the Companies Act.”
“Mdm Chairman, when I talk to tertiary students, especially those who are about to graduate, I get a sense that some of them are worried about getting a good job. It is not easy for our youths to grapple with, especially as this is a sudden change from the very positive employment market for fresh graduates until recently. I recall my own personal experience. When I graduated from university in 2000, my peers and I graduated into a recession. It was quite disorientating for us to go into university in a boom-time, only to graduate into a bleak employment situation. We all know that the economy ebbs and flows and the future is likely more uncertain than the past. So, the answer is not to insulate our people completely from the uncertainty, because we cannot. The answer is to train our youths better to help them to be more resilient in all situations, including the employment situation. How can MCCY and the National Youth Council (NYC), in conjunction with tertiary educational institutes, help our tertiary students develop this resilience in the face of changing job realities? How can we encourage our youths to widen their career path selections, embark on internships and networking, and to pursue further studies to gather deep skills? Regardless of Race, Language or Religion”
“Mdm Chairman, generosity is written in our hearts. But work is needed to bring out this generosity. And as our young society matures, we must establish the social norms that encourage our people to take care of one another, to build a shared future together, to create ties that bind us together. Establishing such social norms is important. To reword a famous phrase by Winston Churchill, "First we build a society, thereafter the society builds us". And no one group by themselves, including the Government, has a monopoly on the ideas to build an ideal Singapore. That is why I am heartened to see MCCY's emphasis on encouraging our citizens to step forward to co-create Singapore. As such, can MCCY provide an update on how the Government is progressing to: one, encourage more Singapore Citizens to actively participate in volunteering and charity work? Two, to partner with citizens, social service organisations (SSOs) and corporations? Three, to move forward initiatives, such as Our Singapore Fund, SGCares, Champions of Good, and Company of Good Fellowship? Senior Volunteerism”
“Third, can the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) hopefully, be enhanced as well as extended by increasing the current and upcoming discount on COEs for LGVs, similar to heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), and extending the ETS to include Euro 5 through perhaps lower incentives, and not just Euro 6 vehicles? Fourth, can MOT consider delinking the COE supply contribution from commercial vehicle de-registrations to the Open Category, just like what has been announced for motorcycle COE whereby de-registrations from motorcycles will no longer contribute to Open Category COEs in the preceding quarter.”
“First of all, I would like to comment about the recent changes in motorcycle COEs. Motorcyles are the lifeblood for many of our working class. The recent effort to remove motorcycles from contributing to the Open Category COE is a good move, because it will mean more motorcycle COEs available than otherwise. Despite that, however, the recent motorcycle COE auction price continued to edge up. Therefore, would MOT consider adding COEs back to the motorcycle categories, so that we move back towards the historical percentage that motorcycles used to represent in the entire vehicle population? Next, I would like to talk about light goods vehicles. Businesses, especially SMEs operating light goods vehicles (LGVs), face many challenges today, and this contributes to high business transportation costs. In view of these challenges, I have a few clarifications. First, would MOT consider delaying the implementation of Euro 6 diesel standards by one year, from the current 1 January 2018, so as to give key LGV vendors time to ready the full range of vehicles, which includes more vehicles with manual transmission drive? Why is this necessary? At the Traffic Police department, foreign worker drivers need to prove that they have a manual Class 3 driving licence, which is a near impossibility, given the countries they come from. Otherwise, they will be issued automatic Class 3 driving licence. So, not having many manual transmission vehicles available for purchase is going to create real operational challenges for many companies. Second, would MOT consider allowing LGV owners to renew their COEs with tenures equivalent to their remaining statutory lifespan, versus the current five-year mark, so as to reduce the cost and cash flow associated with the extended COEs?”