Laurence Lien
Singapore
“Madam, I would like to ask the Minister for Manpower how the Government assesses the adequacy of the Minimum Sum. I know the Minister said that it produces a stream of income of about $1,200 a month but is this sufficient for those it is targeted at? How is it working on the ground?”
“Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to just point out an example in the UK, where in 2008, they introduced the Dormant Bank and Building Society Act which gives the government the right to collect and distribute unclaimed money from dormant accounts after 15 years for the benefit of the community while pr…”
“The numbers may continue to be small in the next 10 years. But does MND anticipate the programme would have to be stepped up? SERS residents receive compensation at market values.”
“Some teachers are already doing this; but on the whole, I think we can do better. To be fair, not all schools also have the same approach towards students who are different. Some schools do a better job. For example, some may have more experimental curriculum and a few may even deploy shadow teachers.”
“We can work towards 2015, with our 50th birthday as the backdrop, being the year where everyone works together, to not just celebrate, but also to create change in all sectors.”
“In conclusion, I am of the view that the Minister should defer this Bill till after the COI completes its review and that, concurrently, the authorities should continue to actively engage all the relevant stakeholders to come up with new solutions, which may or may not involve new laws. 5.56 pm”
The complete record
Every one of 95 lines we hold for Laurence Lien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Madam, I would like to ask the Minister for Manpower how the Government assesses the adequacy of the Minimum Sum. I know the Minister said that it produces a stream of income of about $1,200 a month but is this sufficient for those it is targeted at? How is it working on the ground? A concern is that for those where the Minimum Sum is adequate, they do not accumulate enough to have the Minimum Sum at 55 years old. While for those who can meet the Minimum Sum, it is not adequate. So, how do you assess and consider as you move ahead and plan for future increases of the Minimum Sum?”
“Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to just point out an example in the UK, where in 2008, they introduced the Dormant Bank and Building Society Act which gives the government the right to collect and distribute unclaimed money from dormant accounts after 15 years for the benefit of the community while protecting the rights of customers to reclaim the money by setting aside a pot of funds in case these account holders come forward to claim their money back. They have implemented this over the last six years to great success, releasing a lot of funds, more than £600 million, to the Reclaim Fund Limited, which funds charitable causes and is still able to fulfil account holders who step forward after 15 years to claim back their monies. So, would the Government consider a similar legislation for Singapore?”
“To facilitate this, there must also be more support for social entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs within existing institutions, whether in terms of funding, capability building or infrastructural support. Civil society members also critically need to play their part by stepping up to the plate. They need to demonstrate that they can be worthy co-equal partners at the table. There needs to be a stronger appreciation of the common good; there needs to be a deeper desire to move upstream to tackle root causes, to be impact-driven, not programme-driven, to take risks to experiment with new models and to mobilise community resources. Discourse needs to be civil and the focus should be on the issue on the table and not on persons. Mdm Speaker, what I am arguing is that constructive politics is not just about debating, deciding on specific policies and then moving ahead as one united people to implement the programmes. Increasingly, politics is also about engendering co-ownership so that the creative energies of people are harnessed, even if they have a few sharp edges. It is about encouraging that passion of leadership at all levels of society so that we can more swiftly, Page: 21 adapt and respond to the demanding and fast-changing challenges confronting us. It is about nurturing mutually-trusting relationships so that everyone has a stake in creating a home that they love and continually care for. What is critical is, hence, not only what we do, but how we do it. We are not part of different teams, we are all part of Team Singapore seeking to build the only home we have. 2.09 pm”
“But this is only because they have never been engaged properly to think about the Page: 20 larger good. People respond in self-fulfilling ways. We must trust that citizens – when facilitated well – can be empowered to come up with appropriate solutions for the broader community. Thirdly, there need to be concrete actions on the part of the Government to allow citizens to grow and become fully contributing members of our society. For sure, civil society also has to improve the way that they engage the Government. But the Government has more to do because the power equation is unequal since the Government holds substantial legal, regulatory, financial and information powers. Specifically, the Government needs to involve civil society and non-public leaders as valid partners and co-creators. There should be regular strategic dialogues to discuss critical social problems. Co-ownership also means more transparency in sharing data and research, greater willingness to accommodate diverse viewpoints. Some academics, like Harvard Prof Cass Sunstein, have written how nations are far more likely to prosper if they welcome dissent and promote a culture of candour and disclosure. I also believe we can embrace a more deliberative form of democracy, with authentic deliberations among representatives, meeting as equals, who propose and justify decisions that are generally acceptable and accessible. Deliberative democracy requires safe environments to speak and debate, mutual respect for each other's positions and freedom for participants to deviate from original positions held. The Government sometimes speaks of co-creation. Co-creation must involve a real meeting of equals coming together to create new inventions.”
“Sometimes, authority figures are too quick to judge these people who passionately espouse differing views as being against the interests of Singapore and having their own agendas. When threatened by a person or a group, the official response may be to act decisively to neutralise the perceived threat. Madam, I strongly suggest that the Government re-evaluate its stand on how it engages and empowers citizens. In this regard, I believe that strengthening our civil society is in our long-term national interest. We need all our engines, not just the Government‘s and private sectors' engines, firing. There is a misconception that civil society is about anti-Government bashing and about navel-gazing. We must get rid of such thinking. Civil society should just be about citizenship – ordinary citizens doing their part to help with the social and economic progress of our nation. I have faith in the capacity of citizens to cater to the needs of fellow citizens in ways that the Government may not be able to be involved. I believe in the ability of citizens to innovate if they are allowed to and given the support. What must change? Let me just highlight a few proposals. First, I think the Government needs to acknowledge the potential contributions of civil society and show willingness to co-own social issues. I am afraid that, sometimes, the Government may end up disfranchising the very people who can be their best partners because they bring the peace of complexity of the problem to the table and care deeply about the problem and are willing to act to make things happen. Secondly, civil society groups can be engaged to think about the national interest. It is understandably natural for citizens to first think and advocate for their own narrow interest first.”
“The dependency on the Government to fix every problem, big and small, real and imagined, is also coupled with some degree of learnt hopelessness amongst citizens that prevents them from having the confidence to contribute to the solutions. The crux of the matter is that it is not just about doing things for the people, but also about doing things with the people. Citizens need to be stirred to take greater responsibility for the problem-solving work in the community. The Government needs to involve and entrust citizens more proactively in the hard and messy but creative and opportunity-enhancing work that produces societal progress. Apart from developing a sense of agency, this ensures increased commitment to the implementation of the solutions and policies adopted. Page: 19 The good news is that there are hopeful signs that citizens want to step forward to act and to contribute. These passionate citizens can be seen volunteering, donating, mobilising, initiating and advocating. Last year, I was involved in a poverty awareness initiative in Singapore. The intent of the campaign was not to highlight policy adequacies. Rather, it was to get Singaporeans to understand the plight of struggling families. By this measure, it was a successful campaign because it elicited a broad range of responses from big-hearted Singaporeans which showed that many cared deeply about the disadvantaged amongst us and are, indeed, acting to do something about it through numerous ground-up initiatives. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that when committed Singaporeans care passionately about an issue, they may sometimes disagree with the authorities, or with one another.”
“Instead, leadership is often about mobilising people to confront and deal with problematic realities for the purpose of making progress. It requires people to be part of the solution and to be part of doing the work that generates progress. For example, in healthcare, we cannot just build great hospitals and institutions, we need to get people to re-examine the diets and lifestyles. Another example is working with vulnerable families – it is not mere financial assistance schemes that we need, as these may end up undermining the dignity of the human person and lay the seeds for long-term dependency. We must also address the social structure, systems and policies that are likely to make these people vulnerable in the first place. Much leadership work is hard because it invariably involves people confronting losses – losses from modifying habits which give stability, values which give identity and meaning, and lifestyles which give comfort. The danger of placing all the burden on the Government to solve all problems is the Government eventually breeding over-reliance, promising too much and not being able to deliver to satisfy escalating demands from citizens. Inevitably, certain promises by the Government would be perceived to have been broken. The President's Address shows the seriousness and commitment on the Government's part to deal with the current challenges, for example, to keeping pathways open to all, strengthening social safety nets and enhancing retirement adequacy. I am encouraged by the Government's full and active policy agenda. Yet, there continues to be an unhealthy dynamic in the Government-people relationship. Scepticism persists as to whether the Government really empathises with the plight of the average person.”
“And we should not just have a competent and trustworthy Government, but also a trusting Government that believes in its own people, whose abilities and desires can be harnessed. For my speech today, I will focus just on this last social compact challenge – the need to improve the relationship between the Government and the people. I think this is a critical issue to address because there seems to be some breakdown in mutual trust – not just between the Government and the people, but also among the populace ourselves. How does the Government lead, given the current realities? Madam, today we face complex economic and social opportunities and challenges, which the Government, competent as it is, cannot work on alone. We all know that global realities are changing. Globalisation and technological advancement – and their impact on job obsolescence and income inequality – mean that we have to continually adapt our economic interventions. At the same time, the domestic environment is rapidly evolving, too. Citizens have widening interests and heightened expectations. They are also much more expressive of their opinions and desires. It is an illusion, in this dynamic environment, that mere technical fixes, developed by the Government alone, can resolve the messy and interconnected problems we face today and in the future. Leadership then is not just about intelligent and committed national leaders having good answers and good policies. Because half the time, we may not even be clear what the Page: 18 real problem is, beneath all the layers of presenting symptoms. And the other half of the time, we may not be sure which proposed solution works best.”
“Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion and I thank the President for his Address. As we celebrate our Jubilee next year, I believe that Singapore is at a critical inflection point in our nationhood. In ancient Judaic tradition, the Jubilee was not just a year of joyful celebration, but also a year of rest, during which slaves were set free, alienated property restored to their former owners, and lands left untilled. This tradition appears to be of no relevance to us. But there is something worthwhile about resting, in the sense of taking a step back to reflect and ponder: what do we wish to become? How do we want to get there? Page: 17 Yes, we have gone through an entire exercise of a National Conversation to talk about the future we want. That was a useful exercise, distilling core aspirations of Singaporeans. I regard the 12 perspectives presented as foundational pieces for the future. But I believe we need something extra. Something more aspirational – to excite the imagination, to enliven the spirit and to energise the mind and body into action. Hence, we should not just have diverse definitions of success in terms of outcomes, but also welcome purpose and passion in the journey itself, whatever the outcome. We should not just want a more fulfilling pace of life, but also a high level of meaning and engagement in both work and life, so that they become a false dichotomy. We should not just be a society that takes care of the disadvantaged, but also one that partners the disadvantaged so that they use their own strengths to transcend their current state. We should not just be a society with a greater sense of togetherness, but also one where every citizen has ownership of his or her community and acts to improve the common good.”
“Back then, there was an internal joke saying that the Ministry should be called the Ministry of Everything Else because it seemed to receive so many diverse, downstream pieces of work. I am glad that the new Ministry has progressed well and been given new importance, delivering many critical functions of social policies and programmes. MSF continues to grow very substantially. For instance, it had 1,100 staff in FY2012 and is growing to an estimated 1,750 in FY2014. But the nagging concern that continues in my mind is whether MSF has sufficient tools and resources to do its work optimally and tackle each issue at its root cause. Would MSF not be able to do its work much better if there was more of a whole-of-Government approach to solving important social problems? There has been good progress in regulating all early childhood agencies with the establishment of ECDA. But what if we had an agency looking after vulnerable families and the issues they face? Even better than the whole-of-Government approach, are we able to take a truly whole-of-society approach by involving the community even more deeply? Let me just end by commending Minister Chan and his team for their dedication and commitment to developing the social sector. None of what I have just said should be taken as criticism in any way of any of his MSF officers. Social Enterprise”
“There are the issues of low wages, employment and training – which are tackled by MOM and the Ministries implementing the Progressive Wage Model – and the issue of educating the young from less advantaged backgrounds, which is handled by MOE. Again, is MSF also having to deal with the issues downstream, where the tools are focused on financial assistance, which itself is not the most ideal type of help in the long term for these families? In addition, is the help that we give too fragmented? The kueh lapis approach of 18 assistance schemes – perhaps more now – shows the extent of Government support and actions on the issue. But does this approach also create silos where more holistic interventions are needed? 6.30 pm Again, let us look at an alternative example. Hong Kong established a Commission on Poverty in December 2012, chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration. The Commission has a very broad mandate. This includes six focused areas like social security and retirement protection; education, employment and training; societal engagement; special needs; the Community Care Fund; and the Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Fund. Page: 154 I am not here to debate about the adequacy and effectiveness of anti-gambling or anti-poverty measures in Singapore – that is for another time. I am also not suggesting today that Singapore should have a gaming authority like Norway's or a poverty commission like Hong Kong's. Norway does not even have casinos. I am just using these as examples to ask whether we have a structural issue in the way our Government organises itself to tackle social issues. More than 10 years ago, I was once a Director in the then Ministry of Community Development and Sports, many parts of which are now in MSF.”
“Sir, MSF sometimes appears to be laden with dealing with the downstream consequences of social problems – like poverty, debt, juvenile delinquency, homelessness and suicides – which may be generated by root causes that come under the purview of other Ministries. How does the Ministry tackle problems holistically when it often may not have the upstream tools? For example, dealing with gambling has three elements – industry, crime and social issues. MTI and STB have been the key proponents of welcoming casinos on our shores with its attendant tourist dollars. Page: 153 Most of the regulatory powers are in the Casino Control Act and they rest with MHA and the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA). I do not doubt the CRA officers are trying their best to take a whole-of-Government approach, but they are ultimately accountable to their parent Ministry and crime would probably be its focus. And this seems to leave the downstream social issues to MSF and the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG). NCPG has some powers from the Casino Control Act and these pertain to exclusion orders and visit limits. But would using these be too little and too late? Let us compare this with what happens in Norway. The Norwegian Gaming Authority, which is under the Ministry of Culture, regulates all forms and aspects of gambling and lotteries. This authority was established in 2001, taking over the gambling regulation once handled piecemeal by 54 different Norwegian bureaucracies. The Authority is considered an active regulator and may even appear to be a bit of a nanny state in their anti-gambling measures. For example, they banned slot machines in 2007. Or let us take poverty as another issue. Tackling poverty and income inequality requires a strong cross-sector approach.”
“But I just want Page: 45 to re-emphasise that we need to spend smart and align incentives in the right way on the right things. Medical Cost Increases”
“Would this lead to a sudden surge in excess demand and price? Minister Gan had mentioned in public that one of the strategies that MOH will be adopting is "proper gatekeeping to ensure that access to high-end acute care is on a needs basis, assessed by medical professionals". What would this gatekeeping look like? How would needs be assessed? Would this harm doctor-patient relations? I am certain co-payment will continue to be an important tool to incentivise co-responsibility and guard against over-consumption. But healthcare is very complex, as we all know. We do not want to reduce consumption on everything. While we hope to moderate demand for acute care, we actually want, relatively, over-consumption on merit goods, including preventative efforts, like eating healthily and exercising, and upstream chronic disease management. These will reduce the burden on acute care in the longer term. So, can we reduce the out-of pocket co-payment component to incentivise people to seek help for important chronic diseases early, using a revitalised primary care system that is a functioning ecosystem and community partnership of GPs, community healthcare workers, grassroots agencies and neighbours? Can we incentivise proper compliance with medication and the achievement of treatment targets as part of chronic disease management? Can we also incentivise the use of community and step-down care in a way that increases the use of proper rehabilitation and recovery of patients from acute episodes to reduce the incidence of future permanent disabilities and multiple acute-care episodes? I know these things are easy to ask for and difficult to do. I commend the extraordinary efforts that are going into improving healthcare.”
“Mdm Chair, if I were 90 years old and had lived a good life, and I suddenly discovered I had cancer, I would probably refuse any curative treatment. In fact, I would want to do extreme sports. If I get an acute heart attack while bungee jumping at 90, I would die happy. Do we not all wish for this – to be fully functional all the way and then, one day, God takes us away suddenly and painlessly? Longevity per se is not the issue. Whether one dies at 60 or 100 years old, the issue is how long that terminal sickness period is, how much pain the patient and family have to go through and the effort taken to try to cure that illness. A disproportionately large amount of healthcare resources is spent on the last weeks and months of one's life. Hence, end-of-life care becomes an important discipline. How can we encourage the thinking and practice of end-of-life as a phase in healthcare? A phase where doctors see themselves as having the responsibility for recommending when medical science is no longer going to Page: 44 help patients recover. A phase where healthcare professionals take on the responsibility to respectfully help older patients and their families make informed choices, when the goal of care is more appropriately comfort than cure. This is the difficulty of healthcare planning. We deal with life and death issues, and unlimited wants and limited resources. To ration scarce resources in Singapore, the ability and willingness to pay both have played important roles. Price is a market-clearing mechanism, with co-payment an important guard against over-consumption. A lot of resources, through the Pioneer Generation Package and MediShield Life, are being poured into healthcare to increase affordability and accessibility.”
“The numbers may continue to be small in the next 10 years. But does MND anticipate the programme would have to be stepped up? SERS residents receive compensation at market values. The SERS expenditure is extremely low now, but do we have to set aside more Page: 103 funding for SERS in the future if we have to substantially step up the programme? And would the average cost of SERS per block go up significantly in the future because we already would have intensified the use of land for new estates? If, on the other hand, SERS continues to be highly selective, what would happen to the value of these old flats that are not selected for SERS? I would be grateful for MND's views on that. HDB Flats Approaching End of Lease”
“For the small number of very old HDB flats, we have the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) for some of them and, for older private condominiums, we have encouraged en bloc redevelopment, too. In future, the situation may change quite dramatically and I am concerned about this. Economic growth is slowing, population is still growing but at a decreasing rate, the population is ageing, the demand for homes may also slow. At the same time, more homes may be sold as some older people may cash out on their homes and more would pass on. In addition, the interest rate environment is currently extremely benign. Many of us would remember the 1997/1998 Asian Financial Crisis and the adverse effects of high interest rates on property prices. So, my concern is that should property prices stagnate and start falling, how would we make sure that a potential downward spiral does not happen? This is especially important for leasehold property owners. As I mentioned earlier, the Government has started SERS as a programme to rejuvenate estates and to allow SERS residents an opportunity to move from their old flats to new and better flats with fresh 99-year leases, and HDB survey results show strong support for SERS. My concern is whether there may come a time when HDB has to dramatically expand the SERS programme. We have more than 900,000 HDB flats – I do not know the age profile of the flats – but if we offer SERS to everyone, every flat that, say, reaches 50 years, this would mean SERS for an average of nearly 20,000 flats per year. We are in a very comfortable position now and probably for the next decade because SERS has only been used for 18,000 flats and there are only about 31,000 flats which are more than 40 years old.”
“Mdm Chair, housing is a major asset for most families in Singapore. The majority of these homes sit on leasehold land. These should be depreciating assets but have not been because general property prices have risen substantially over the years, propping up the value of all homes. I am not a property expert, but let me try to illustrate with a simple model. If I buy an HDB flat for a quarter of a million dollars and, say, it has a 99-year lease, if we use straight-line depreciation for building and land, the flat's value will fall about 1% per year till it hits zero at the end of the lease period. For the flat to keep its nominal value, the cost of new and similar flats in future years must keep on going up. In my simple model, if we assume that any appreciation in property prices results in the same percentage of appreciation in similar types of properties, then in my initial years of owning my leasehold property, property prices would need to go up at an increasing rate for my flat to keep its initial nominal value – very slowly at first, but accelerating as my flat becomes older. This does not even take into account the need to cater for inflation. If we want our leasehold Page: 102 properties to keep their real value at a 2% inflation rate, the nominal market value would need to double in 35 years; and at a 2.5% inflation rate, it would need to double in 28 years. We have had no issues for the past decades because of a confluence of very favourable factors. In our 50 years of nation-building, we have had high economic growth, high population growth, a young population, high demand for homes and a relatively young housing stock. Property prices have also risen dramatically over the years, and this may mask any future issues we will face.”
“Some teachers are already doing this; but on the whole, I think we can do better. To be fair, not all schools also have the same approach towards students who are different. Some schools do a better job. For example, some may have more experimental curriculum and a few may even deploy shadow teachers. But it is still quite common to hear of parents having very contrasting experiences with each of their children in the school system, even if they go to the same school. Same family, same school, but one may thrive and soar, while another would struggle and under-fulfil his or her potential. It can be quite heart-breaking for the parent who knows this but feels helpless to do anything. So, overall, I hope MOE can clarify its stand on how it expects schools to cater to kids with different needs in mainstream schools. Page: 182 Mother Tongue Education”
“While there have been great efforts to create different pathways and more school niches, teaching pedagogy can still be too homogeneous. Are we able to evolve our system to cater to differences and to truly achieve inclusiveness? Can schools develop more inclusive practice and curriculum? This means teaching programmes designed to fit the needs of all children, rather than Page: 181 having the children adjusting to the programme. This also means more differentiated teaching in the classroom such that as many children as possible are learning in an optimal way, bringing out the best in every child, as the Minister said just now. Educators should try to understand children as individual human beings. There should be proper and continuous dialogue between educators and the student so that there is better awareness about the unique personality, identity, strengths and challenges of each child. Perhaps, schools can have access to roving multi-disciplinary teams, like educational psychologists and therapists, who can train teachers and parents to detect and intervene, both in the school and home settings. Parents with resources can pay for help to enable their kids to cope better. But not many people have this sort of resources. There could also be better partnership between the teachers and parents. Parents are the first educators of the child. Teachers should dialogue with parents more often as parents often know a lot more about the special circumstances that their child face and may be able to make the teacher aware of important facts about the child, and provide good suggestions on more optimal interventions in the classroom to help that child cope. Educators can be trained to be empathetic and respectful of these parents' needs and challenges.”
“Sir, children are all different. They all learn differently. They have different interests, strengths and challenges. I am glad to hear Minister Heng talk about building an open and inclusive system. But we now have a system that still tends to be more curriculum-centric than child-centric. This is often unavoidable because the class size is large. Schools may be varied but, in the classroom, the teacher would typically use one type of teaching pedagogy. The downside then is that the system is too one-size-fits-all and does not fit the learning styles of many children. As we know, auditory learners would like to talk things through, visual learners would like to write things down or see graphs and charts, and kinaesthetic learners learn best through moving, doing and touching. If teaching methods only cater to one type of student, the learning of other students may get compromised. Some may even be disadvantaged for their entire school-life. In addition, there seems to be increasingly more children who are diagnosed with a form of learning disability or disorder, like dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), sensory integration disorder and so on. The increase in incidence could be because of more testing and better understanding of the various difficulties. Most of these children continue to be in mainstream schools. And quite a few may not do badly, because they have other compensatory factors, like having a higher than average IQ. These students, hence, fly under the radar of the educators. But many of their parents would tell you that they wished the system could cater to their kids better. They know that their kids could do so much better with more child-centric teaching and classroom management that was better tailored for their child.”
“We can work towards 2015, with our 50th birthday as the backdrop, being the year where everyone works together, to not just celebrate, but also to create change in all sectors. And maybe we would have arrived if this House can one day debate an item in the Budget that is not just for a Pioneer Generation of the past, but from a Pioneer Generation of the present. Can we imagine that Page: 59 possibility? With this, I support the Budget. 2.13 pm”
“But we have a lot of strengths which we, too, must acknowledge thankfully and overtly, and leverage on them. We need to move beyond co-creation, to open innovation. It requires a change in culture and disruption in mindset. It is also more about instituting a new way of governance, rather than new programmes. Each new generation must develop its own pioneering spirit and its own agenda. They need to be trained as leaders and to engage one another to discuss the future. And, collectively, we need to move from vertical relationships to more horizontal relationships. Government agencies need to genuinely empower. Benjamin Zander, a maestro conductor in his generation, reflects in his book "The Art of Possibility" that a conductor's "true power derives from his ability to make other people powerful". We must similarly move away from a zero-sum perspective of power. We need to invest in individuals' dreams, passions and journeys. We need to invest in the community. Here, people of all ages need to discuss strategic issues and immerse themselves in the target issues, so that possibilities may emerge. The end is to engender community ownership among citizens. The Government, too, must participate, by releasing non-financial assets it controls like data, knowledge and policy insights. What is one concrete step that we can take to further this project? I think we can begin by extending Our Singapore Conversation into a permanent platform, where the dialogue has purpose and meaning, where dialogue turns into activities that are generative, and activities turn into an entire movement that harnesses the creative energies of the community to spawn programmes, policies, experiments and enterprises. A renaissance, indeed.”
“The language of a renaissance is different from the language of today. It is not just about restructuring, supporting and mitigating. It is more about reinventing, empowering and unleashing. We need a more positive narrative that is grounded in optimism and trust in the people, away from one that focuses on scarcity, our vulnerabilities and deficiencies. A one-sided negative view often induces discouragement, cynicism and disengagement. Instead, we need to look further into the future and start envisioning possibilities. We talk of opportunities in the Budget, but opportunities are different from possibilities. Opportunities are favourable options that come knocking; once you see them, you recognise the benefits and grab them. Possibilities are unstructured and ambiguous; they exist because of our imagination. It is like seeing every block of marble having a beautiful sculpture inside waiting for a sculptor to come to chip away the excess marble. To see possibilities, we cannot afford to think in a limited way. If we think of Singapore as a sampan, we will not think of possibilities. We cannot go out to explore and conquer the world in a sampan. Since a luxury liner may give a wrong connotation of rest and leisure, maybe the metaphor is of thinking of ourselves as a large exploration vessel, always seeking to be ahead of our time. Page: 58 Singaporeans must build up more pride and self-confidence in ourselves. We may have one of the smallest populations in the world, ranked around 116th, but we are ranked 35th in the world and 8th in Asia in nominal GDP terms, and ranked 22nd in the world on military expenditure. Yes, we have problems, and we must acknowledge them honestly and openly.”
“In this regard, I do not think the right framing of the issue is whether the Government is moving left enough or too much. I think the main issue is that the on-the-ground realities do not gel with the collective values today or in yesteryears. Let me touch on the fiscal position to show how we can already afford getting our fundamentals right. Having used the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) formula for six years now, I think we can incorporate NIRC into our operating revenues. It has been a pretty stable source of income as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Taken together, total revenue is consistently between 17% to 18% of GDP. On the expenditure side, if we can continue the long-term trend of Page: 57 reducing security and external relations expenditure to a terminal 4% of GDP and keep economic development and Government administration to around 3%, social development expenditure can comfortably rise to 9% without major tax increases. We will still have a buffer of 1%-2% for short-term programmes to cater to economic, financial and social exigencies. Today, a lot of expenditures are in special transfers and topping-up endowment funds. These account for more than $45 billion from FY2010/FY2014, or an average of 2.6% of GDP a year. Special transfers can be reduced in the future as transitional packages get trimmed or a significant portion is turned into recurrent operating expenditure. The topping-up of endowment funds, which is a very conservative approach, can simply be ceased. Getting social fundamentals right is only foundational and the first step. We need to do something significantly more to get every generation thinking it is the Pioneer Generation. I believe we must engender a social renaissance.”
“Even though I am a strong believer of the traditional family unit, I believe we should encourage our young to achieve independence and a sense of responsibility earlier. Moving out may even motivate one to excel at the things he or she is currently seeking to do, including getting married early. Three, education. Primary and Secondary school education is essentially free in Singapore. Preschool education is receiving substantially more subsidies. Can we not simply guarantee free basic education for all between three and 18 years? For preschool, for example, a universal voucher can be provided to all children, set at the median fees charged by all operators. Tertiary education fees can be chargeable in the form of a loan whose repayment is a proportion of what the graduate actually earns in the workforce, so that those going into lower paid professions, like in the non-profit sector, can perhaps receive loan forgiveness if they are unable to make full payment at the end of their loan tenure. Four, income security. While I am a strong advocate for reducing income inequality, I am actually not a proponent for permanent financial assistance, except in cases of people being disabled and too old and unable to work, as much as they would like to. It is important to reaffirm the dignity of work as well as the dignity of the human person to be able to stand on one's own two feet. We must move to a point where, if one puts in an honest day's hard work, one is able to earn a living wage without working overtime. Increasingly, I believe we need regulation, more than subsidies. We can afford to shift more of the additional burden to employers and consumers. We cannot risk a potential emergence of a permanent underclass.”
“It is about establishing a firm base that allows a significant majority of Singaporeans to transcend being caught up in survival-thinking that leads to discouragement and to hostile behaviour. Lower costs go towards providing the minimally acceptable conditions for the lower income to get by. But it also helps to improve the hygiene factors so that more would be willing to steer themselves from the well-trodden path to start up and create something new. Hence, I spoke at length about social health last year. Social health complements economic health; hence, we need to measure it. But we must also go beyond just doing the minimum for political expediency. It is not just about getting out of the social recession I talked about two years ago. So, how does taking care of social fundamentals translate into programmes? Let me touch on a few areas concretely. One, healthcare. Can we set a target percentage of healthcare spending to be financed out-of-pocket by patients? This is currently more than 50% and I believe it can be halved, with significantly more coming out of insurance, whose premiums can be substantially paid for by Medisave, and state funding. Some rationing is required so that healthcare consumption is focused on treatments that are basic and essential, rather than merely good-to-have. But, first, we need some clarity on what constitutes basic and essential healthcare that Singaporeans should have a right of access to. Page: 56 Two, housing. Over the past few years, the Government has been doing much to provide affordable and available homes. I would only add one suggestion: to make available housing for singles across all adult ages, either for rental or purchase.”
“One way to approach this is to remind every generation that it is the first generation. So, every generation is the Pioneer Generation of their age. So, each generation must see itself as having the same power of creativity, the same capacity to re-energise itself, generate new progress and establish its own identity. But, first, for every generation to think and behave this way, I believe we must first get our social fundamentals right. I believe we are no longer in the era where economics leads the social. The old narrative is that we need to take care of the economics first, because jobs are the best social welfare, that if we are economically weak, we would not be able to afford our social programmes Page: 55 and that if social safety nets become a hammock, we erode the work ethic. I do not disagree with these points, but I disagree with the notion that economic health consistently trumps social health. They are both equally important and are inextricably linked. Their relationship is circular, not linear. In the first place, is not the end of job and wealth creation social – to provide for our loved ones and to meet human needs and aspirations? Establishing a new social compact, adopting appropriate social safety nets, enhancing social trust and reducing social inequities do not just create the political environment in which sound economic policies can be implemented, but they also directly create the conditions for sustainable economic and corporate success. Seen in this light, the need to manage high costs downwards for citizens, for example, is not about satisfying citizens' cravings for more welfare and subsidies.”
“These went into our national Reserves, and I find it quite fitting that it is the returns on investing these reserves that make it possible for us to afford the $8 billion. Maybe the only quibble left is, why do we take so long? But that is not worth spending time quibbling about. My grandfather was part of that Pioneer Generation and, actually, the pre-Pioneer Generation. This year is the 10th Anniversary of his passing on. I only recently had a chance to read through the transcripts of 13 hours of oral history he provided to the National Archives in the 1980s. I marvel at the mentality of his generation – how they were ever ready to serve the community to initiate, support and get things done; how they were creative, tenacious and self-sacrificing at the same time. Where is that pioneering spirit today? In family advisory work, there is always a concern, for wealthy families, that they would be unable to preserve human, intellectual and financial capital over generations. Hence, we have sayings like, "rice paddy to rice paddy in three generations", and many other proverbs in different cultures. The first generation – basically, as the thinking behind the saying goes – creates the wealth, the second generation maintains the status quo and the third generation spends and spends, leading to decay. These concerns apply to a nation, too, like ours, as we have developed so fast. When we look at inequality, we often focus on the issue of poverty, which I also have a strong interest in. But, sometimes, we forget to think about the dangers of excess wealth and its potential impact, like the collective loss of drive and the lack of boldness to try new things. What would be a way out? Let me borrow an idea from James E Hughes Jr, who has advised families for decades.”
“Mdm Speaker, in my last Budget debate, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister not just for a thoughtful Budget Speech, but also for being a champion of inclusiveness. Many of the new social initiatives introduced in the past few years would not have seen the light of these chambers without his support. I would also like to thank him for listening. Last year, I asked that a minimum wage be considered for certain vocations, as a first step. This year, the Progressive Wage Model is being mandated as licensing conditions for cleaning and security companies. Two years ago, I asked for a Social Review Committee to create a new shared vision and new social compact. We then had "Our Singapore Conversation". I also said that Singaporeans were not pooling healthcare risks enough, and too much of healthcare spending was out-of-pocket from the patients. The Deputy Prime Minister then agreed that we have to think about increasing the scope for risk-pooling, and, today, I am glad we have the review of MediShield Life. Certainly, I am not so deluded as to think that any of these initiatives were adopted just because of what I said; or that the Deputy Prime Minister is the only one listening. But the important thing is that we are moving together in the right direction. At this year's Budget, one large step we are taking together is the Pioneer Generation Package, whose generosity no one outside Government could anticipate. No one also seems to be questioning whether that generation deserves it. They do, for reasons we have heard and I am sure we will hear from Page: 54 many others, and I will just add one reason. That generation lived through periods of high personal tax rates, of up to 55%, and accumulated large Budget surpluses.”
“In conclusion, I am of the view that the Minister should defer this Bill till after the COI completes its review and that, concurrently, the authorities should continue to actively engage all the relevant stakeholders to come up with new solutions, which may or may not involve new laws. 5.56 pm”
“Three, while the trigger of riots was an unfortunate fatal accident partially caused by alcohol, it appears that there were issues with how the migrant workers responded, and perhaps with misinterpretation, to the authorities dealing with the ground situation. My concern is with law enforcement actions that may lead to the deterioration of relationships between the South Asians and the authorities, to the extent that makes policing even harder in future, both in preventing future disturbances and in restoring order should a further disturbance recur. While Page: 97 the Government has said clearly that there is no intended racial profiling here, the perception that there will be persists. Some commentators, for example, in the UK had blamed the 2011 London riots on poor relations between the police and the black community. This includes a professor from the University of London arguing that the tactical use of frequent "stop and search" of young black men, caused resentment of the police in the black community. Whether we agree with this interpretation, we must consider this possibility in Singapore too. When there is a public order situation, it is tempting and natural to turn to force to prevent, maintain and enforce. But are we, in fact, taking the easier way out, without addressing the root causes and exploring other paths? Have we engaged the target communities sufficiently to understand how they see issues? Can we not give the targeted group some degree of accountability and ownership to help design and enforce solutions on the ground? I may be overly idealistic, but I do think that this approach might lead to more sustainable, creative and robust solutions for the long term.”
“Many come with huge debts that may take up to 12 months to repay, before they can even start saving money to send home. They want to be able to work hard and make enough money quickly, so that they can return to their families. Most would, in fact, go out of their way to avoid conflict, even if it occasionally means accepting exploitation from unscrupulous employers. They know that Singapore's laws are strict and that their employer has a strong hold over them, since the latter as well as the State has unilateral rights to cancel their work permits without giving reasons. Under such conditions, which worker would seriously wish to perturb public order? At the same time, we have to remind ourselves that they are human beings, and not mere factors of production. As human beings, they have physical, social, emotional, culture, and spiritual needs. They have a natural desire to acquire familiar products that remind them of home and to socialise with people who are like themselves. For many migrant workers, Little India is that sanctuary for them to recharge and escape from their gruelling and humdrum workdays. But as a large group of people from a different culture, there could also be issues of cultural differences that could lead to miscommunication and friction. They could have values, habits and practices that could be very distinct from ours. A natural response as locals may be to marginalise and isolate them, so that we can avoid discomfort and conflict. I think this is a mistake. We need instead to seek to actively engage, understand and integrate. This would lead to a more sustainable future for all.”
“The irony might be that officers, with these additional powers, might become even less restrained in using these powers precisely because they have been specially tailored for the current situation. The scope of powers in the Bill are very wide still, even if they are more tightly scoped than POPA. The question then is whether the handling on the ground would lead to an overkill. You may ask, what is the downside of an overkill when it concerns public safety and security? I think the downside may be increased distrust and suspicion between the authorities and the groups targeted, especially if there is perceived damage to the dignity of the human person. This may result, ironically, in increasing the security risk in the future, where even more force is required to keep peace. While the COI deliberates, I think we can readily agree on a few key points. One, the Race Course Road riot was unplanned. No one entered Little India that evening expecting a riot. For many, including professionals serving migrant workers, it was a freak event. What is the risk of such an event reoccurring? This type of risk is considered idiosyncratic risk, not systemic risk like deliberate terrorist acts. In fact, the immediate likelihood of another such riot happening, say over the next 12 months, is probably at an all-time low now. As Mr Baey said, the most dangerous place becomes the safest place. Of course, we must remain vigilant of longer-term risks, which we need to approach with care and Page: 96 caution. Two, migrant workers are not in Singapore to cause trouble. Almost every foreign worker in Singapore is here for economic reasons. They have higher aspirations for their families, and the will to uproot from their home and families and transplant themselves to an unfamiliar place.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the difficulties of the Government in deciding how to calibrate its response in the aftermath of the Race Course Road riot. It is understandably facing pressure to prevent such a riot from happening again. And the authorities have a duty to protect citizens, and our image as a country. I once worked in the Joint Operations Division in MHA more than 15 years ago, and even back then, handling the Sunday crowds in Little India was already an Page: 95 issue. So, I understand the issues. Obviously, nobody disagrees with the intent to act to maintain public order. What some Members of this House have questions about is how we are going about it. Assoc Prof Tan has mentioned this. People in this House and outside have expressed their questions and concerns. Let me add mine. Let me first point out that having legal powers and using those powers are two very different things. An example is section 377A of the Penal Code. Hence, even if we invoke a wider law, such as proclaiming an area to be in a state of danger to public order under POPA, it does not mean that every provision of that Act is to be triggered. I would imagine that the SOPs for the officers on the ground would be more tightly scoped, which I presume is the case in Little India now as we speak. Hence, as some speakers have already asked, can we not use current laws rather than rush through this new one? A related concern is this: if we enact this new Act, are we then creating the expectation that the majority of the provisions will be used and this is a precursor for more permanent legislation?”
“I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the numbers. Do we have the numbers on bullying? Has it gotten better or worse?”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Ministry would consider more specific anti-bullying school policies to draw more attention to bullying in schools. Bullying should not just be one out of many disciplinary issues in schools. It should be especially called out. I also would like to ask whether there is a regular gathering of statistics on bullying in schools. If so, what are the trends? If not, is it a sign that the Ministry itself is under-estimating the extent of bullying which seems to be actually quite serious, from the reports and publications of some of the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) and from studies done previously?”
“I think the retirement adequacy of these Singaporeans is just as important as those of other Singaporeans. And it should not be because of political expediency or administrative ease that we choose to exclude them. For example, in Hong Kong, self-employed persons are required to join the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme. There is no difference in the treatment of self-employed and employed persons, except that self-employed persons can opt to make their contributions monthly or annually. I would propose that the Ministry review the treatment of these persons with the view to increasing their contributions and extending this to informal workers, too. Madam, I would also propose that the Ministry review the retirement adequacy of persons who do not participate in economic activity for large proportions of their working-age periods. And this would include homemakers, caregivers and people who cannot work, for example, people with disabilities and mental illness. Overall, I think the Government needs to move beyond analysing the retirement adequacy of the modal worker who is an active CPF member all his or her working life, to focusing on the retirement adequacy of every Singaporean. With this, I support the Bill. Page: 45 3.06 pm”
“These penalties are in line with the penalties for offences of a similar nature under the Employment Act. CPF payments are really no different from wage payments, as Dr Chia mentioned yesterday. And it is unacceptable for employers to withhold CPF contributions for their employees. In line with this, I also support the expansion of the scope of inspectors' powers to conduct their investigations. Page: 44 However, I would like to sound a note of caution: it is important to distinguish between wilful behaviours and negligent or ignorant actions. As an employer in a small outfit, I know how difficult it is to know what is the right amount of CPF to pay. There are so many rules and rates to look at. This includes different rules and rates for different ages, income levels and nationalities, salary components, types of contracts and so on. And the contribution rate changes by the Government are not infrequent, and with staff turnover, it is very easy to make unintended mistakes, especially for small organisations with limited HR resources. Hence, my third point is to make some suggestions. May I suggest that the CPF Act differentiate between the act of wilful withholding and the act of negligence or honest mistakes on the part of employers? I think a jail term is entirely appropriate for the former – for this group, I would even suggest heavier penalties than those proposed – but less so for the latter. May I also suggest that beyond educating employers on their roles, that CPF Board reviews its processes such that it is easier for employers to file the right returns? In addition, I would like to take the opportunity to raise the issue of CPF not covering contributions of self-employed persons to their Ordinary and Special Accounts.”
“The Government restored the contribution rate of low-wage workers from January 2014 and enhanced the Workfare Income Supplement scheme. These are welcomed and I hope the lowering of contribution rates for the low-income does not happen again. MOM and CPF Board also launched the WorkRight campaign to educate workers about their employment rights and increased enforcement efforts to ensure that employers make CPF contributions for their employees. CPF Board has announced that it is increasing the number of enforcement inspections from 500 in 2012 to 5,000 by 2014. My question is: how effective have these increased inspections been, for example, in terms of finding more errant offenders? In CPF Board's 2012 Annual Report, it says that "the enforcement efforts of the CPF Board resulted in the recovery of $293 million in CPF contributions from 39,790 employers, benefiting more than 200,000 employees". This means out of 128,000 or so employers who paid CPF contributions as at end of 2012, enforcement efforts were targeted at one in four of them. This seems very high and does not square with the 0.57% average default rate for employers who failed to pay CPF contributions on time in 2012. Two hundred thousand is about one in nine active CPF members – again, not a small number. Perhaps, the Minister could explain this. Under the "I Know My Employment Rights, I Do It Right" publicity campaign, I would also like to know whether it has resulted in more employees stepping forward to lodge complaints against their errant employers. Secondly, let me highlight the measures that I support in the Bill before us. I support the increase in the maximum fines and the introduction of a term of imprisonment for offences under the Act for which no penalty is provided.”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I would like to express my support for the Bill, which strengthens the Act, particularly in increasing the enforcement powers of CPF Board and in providing stiffer penalties to target errant employers. CPF is critical in funding the retirement needs for most Singaporeans. A 2012 study was commissioned by MOM to show that new workers' CPF would be adequate for a comfortable retirement. However, the issue of the adequacy of CPF for retirement would not go away. The MOM study focused on analysing the 30th, 50th and 70th percentile of young workers. We know that CPF alone may not be sufficient for many outside this range of workers. And within this range, there would be people who drop out of the workforce for significant periods of time, like stay-at-home mothers. Then, there are the older workers. For the cohort that turned 55 in 2012, only 48.7% of active CPF members attained the full Minimum Sum. This number excludes inactive CPF members. Apart from these numbers, what is also important is how people feel on the ground. Many Singaporeans seem to feel that their total retirement savings, not just the CPF, is inadequate. For example, in a 2013 HSBC study on "The Future of Retirement", over half or 56% of the Singapore respondents felt that their financial preparations for a comfortable retirement were inadequate. The reasons for this predicament are numerous and complex and this is not the appropriate occasion to explore all of them. I would just focus on some limited aspects of whether enough is going into the CPF accounts of Page: 43 Singaporeans in the first place. First, let me affirm the good that is being done and ask for an update.”
“I am pleased to share that because of these findings – sharing by our users and commuters – we are able to pilot a few of the initiatives that we have currently in Marine Parade. As we move forward, as we deepen our journey into an ageing society, we will do more, and I assure the House again that accessibility is key to our public transport system as well as beyond in making places all over Singapore accessible to everyone.”
“Thank you, Madam. I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive answer. I would just like to ask whether the Ministry has considered from the user's point of view that accessibility requires an unbroken path of travel door-to-door, not just many parts of the system having accessible features – that if just one part of it Page: 30 is not accessible, it would be very difficult for that person to make the journey – and that whether in the process of coming up with this Master Plan, ethnographic studies or similar studies have been conducted to validate the experiences of commuters with accessibility issues to make sure that every single part of the system actually works for them. And in this process, whether there were involvement of voluntary welfare organisations and groups that represent these people with disabilities and elderly persons to contribute their ideas to a more accessible Land Transport Master Plan. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We also share the same concern that the Member has with regard to accessibility in Singapore. In fact, it is the focus of our attention that we look at the journey as a whole. We also meet different users of our transport network, as well as its ancillary facilities, to ensure that we have that holistic perspective. For example, I would like to share that we have the City for All Ages Project. It is a multi-agency project where we not only look at the facilities, we speak to individuals, users of such facilities, and we go down to the ground, we work with the VWOs in Marine Parade, for example, to see how the needs of our commuters and pedestrians are well taken care of.”
“Madam, I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister mentioned the household balance sheet at a macro level and that it looks healthy. Given that the numbers at a macro level Page: 39 may not reveal what is happening at the micro level, has the Government done more in-depth analysis of individual household balance sheets to ensure that it is not just that households will remain solvent, but that they are also saving enough for contingencies and retirement?”
“So, thank you, Mdm Speaker, for letting me speak on matters beyond the ambit of the Bill but within the intent of the Bill. On the Bill itself, I support it, but would like it to go further in future. 6.18 pm”
“In the home setting, women often continue to take on many of the traditional wife and mother duties, while also holding paid employment, resulting in fewer working women having fewer or no children. It is great to see a lot more fathers nowadays in Singapore actively involved in raising their children but, on the whole, gender expectations in Singapore still need to be discussed and refined. Fifthly, there must be strong and clear social safety nets for all families who have children facing major health problems and disabilities, regardless of their income levels. I am happy that MediShield coverage has been extended for congenital and neonatal conditions. But there are still many parents who spend too much of their limited savings on children with medium to long-term needs, be it on healthcare, or on physical, occupational, speech or other types of therapy. In conclusion, we need to create a total social environment that makes Singapore one of the best places in the world to raise children. It is not one thing that needs to be fixed, but a bunch of them, and it is not the Government's job alone to fix them. In the end, it is primarily also a matter of mindset and values. For couples and families, it is about how we value children and how we view what constitutes a good life. For the state, it is about helping all children and their families without discrimination. And any financial help from the state is welcomed as supporting parents in their efforts, but should not be seen as Page: 103 incentives. Overall, we need to be more upbeat in our efforts. Despite the improvements required, Singapore is already a good place to raise children. Things will get better. And it is because the outlook is hopeful that Singaporeans would bring new children into this world.”
“I hope it continues to do so, working closely with the private and non-profit sectors. However, currently, I think there are too many assistance schemes. So, why do we not streamline and merge all the pre-school subsidy schemes, including the co-savings component of Baby Bonus, into one standardised voucher for each child that is sufficient to provide a basic, no-frills preschool education free for the three years leading up to Primary school? Page: 102 Secondly, we have to revamp our education system, and allow a more flexible one that caters to a wide diversity of abilities and learning styles and foster a lifelong love for learning. The current highly test-based system impacts adversely on parent-child bonding time, on their well-being, on household expenditure on education enrichment and tuition, and, eventually, on the number of children desired. Thirdly, we must strengthen families. Marital instability is a major concern. Nearly a fifth of marriages result in divorce within the first 10 years, the prime time for most to have children. Couples need to work on their marriages more and be open to external help in marital counselling. As mentioned earlier, we need to give more permanent immigration status to foreign mothers with Singaporean children. Parents also need much better work-life balance, more than just having childcare leave, so that they can spend more time with their children. Fourthly, we need to strengthen gender equity. Low fertility is prevalent in countries where there is gender equity in social institutional settings, like in schools and the workplace, but gender inequality in family settings.”
“Working mothers, especially the higher income ones, are eligible for huge tax benefits through the Working Mother's Tax Relief and receive more generous infant care and childcare subsidies. Stay-at-home mothers, on the other hand, feel under-appreciated, even though they have more babies on average and try to invest more time with their children. Finally, the worst discrimination, I feel, is against all unborn children who are aborted. I understand this is a highly emotive issue, and many would defend vigorously the rights of women to choose. But who asks about the rights of the unborn children who are voiceless? If they are unloved by their mothers, there are many others in Singapore who would queue up to adopt them. Hence, the picture is quite clear. We seem to love only certain kinds of children. We favour the ones who are from intact and financially stable families, and who have both parents working and with decent income. Do not get me wrong. I am a social conservative when it comes to marital and family matters. I, too, wish for children to have parents who are married and have a strong relationship. But after the children are born, I think we should treat them equally. Like what Asst Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Gerald Giam mentioned, they should not be made to suffer for whatever their parents did or did not do. To achieve our vision to be one of the best countries in the world to raise children, we must do more than avoid discrimination. We are already excellent in some areas, like public safety and security, and healthcare. But there are some areas that I think need improvements. Firstly, we need to establish quality childcare and pre-schools for all. Government is already investing heavily in this area to improve quality and availability.”
“Yet, in many of our policies and many of our perceptions, we discriminate against children. Let me recount some of the ways. As mentioned by the two speakers before me, we discriminate against the children of single parents and unwed mothers, who struggle harder than other parents because they do not have a partnering spouse to share the load with. Unwed mothers are not eligible for Baby Bonus and a single mother receives only part of the normal entitlement of paid maternity leave and childcare leave. A single parent would also have obstacles purchasing and renting an HDB flat. We discriminate against the children of low-income parents. The co-savings component of the Baby Bonus favours higher income families who are better able to save upfront to get the matching grant. We also have the HOPE scheme, which illustrates that we value the children of less economically productive people less. And the education system increasingly favours those who can afford tuition for their children. We discriminate against children whose fathers do not have stable incomes and whose mothers are foreigners. These foreign spouses often find difficulties in procuring a Long-Term Visit Pass, let alone Permanent Residency or a Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus. I regularly learn about children whose families' financial situation is dire and their mother is not allowed to work, or not allowed to even Page: 101 stay in Singapore for the long term. These are Singaporean children who need a mother; and in making it harder for their mother, we make life hard for their children. We discriminate against the children of stay-at-home mothers.”
“Hence, financial assistance schemes that are provided to families, like the ones that are covered in the Act and Bill, should not be seen as financial incentives. Financial incentives are extrinsic motivators and nobody would or should have a kid just because of them. Instead, we must have children because they are both an enormous source of joy and also of sacrifice. However, I do believe the Government has a role in building a total social environment that supports the bringing up of children. Only the Government has the power of taxation to redistribute from those who have no or few Page: 100 dependants to those who have more and to fund and regulate crucial services that are vital to the development of children. But, fundamentally, the state is significantly involved because we, as a society, believe in strong families and loving children. We love children because they are an enormous source of joy. When the love of children is both the start and end points, the babies will eventually come. But do we really love our children? Loving here is similar to saying that we must be inclusive in our approach. Inclusiveness is primarily a mindset and value system, which both citizens and the Government must demonstrate in thought and action. Inclusiveness here means that we must respect and value each child for who he or she is, not what he or she should be. And, ultimately, each must be treated with equal dignity and compassion, and provided equal opportunities, no matter what their family backgrounds are, like how rich their families are, how intelligent the parents are and what family type they belong to. The point is all the more stark when we consider that these children could not choose who their parents are.”