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 2 of 2.
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I would like to start by expressing my support for the Bill in widening the scope of the Act in its coverage of maternity leave, adoption leave, parental leave, paternity leave and childcare leave. I think these amendments and extensions are steps in the right direction, but I think we need a more critical review of our social policies to create a total environment that makes Singapore one of the best places in the world to bring up children. Specifically, we must love and support all our children and their families, without discrimination. I am not disagreeing with the state being involved in buttressing parental efforts in raising their children. In fact, I was part of the team in the then Ministry of Community Development and Sports that developed the pro-natalist policies that were implemented in 2001. What I believe differently is that the Government's primary objective should not be a paternalistic one, one in cajoling Singaporeans to marry and have more children. These are highly personal decisions, and Singaporeans increasingly baulk at exhortations to have one more for the nation. Moreover, the state probably does not have enough credibility to speak on pro-natal matters. For more than two decades since 1959, the Government had in place aggressive population control policies that heavily discriminated against large families. So, when the state goes from saying that a third child is a bane to saying that the child is a boon, citizens would be quick to note that having children, to the Government, seems only a means to an end, which is, economic prosperity. Citizens would not desire to have children who are treated as mere factors of production.”
“Political leaders must lead by stepping back. And it is when citizens share a common purpose and experience – enhanced through continuous actions and many successes, that an enduring common identity and a sense of togetherness are forged.”
“I suggest that we allow bold experiments in community development to build social capital and engaged communities. Developing empowered communities may be inefficient in the short run, but are highly efficient in the long run. Imagine if neighbourhood improvements are continually made through collective community decisions and actions, and not through bureaucratic interventions. We should experiment with how the work of the Residents' Committee (RC) can be done differently, or even outside the RC structure, especially in new estates. In these communities, we should mobilise residents with an authentic pro-community mindset, and allow the residents to design their own selection process to choose their own leaders, to set the agenda and decision-making processes, and to drive the organising of community events. The starting point should be the passions, strengths, and abilities of the residents. MCCY should invest in community facilitators to catalyse the work of residents and connect them to others to work together. These new RCs can also work with other community stakeholders, like schools, non-profit organisations (NPOs) and informal community-based groups. MCCY can also consider providing small seed grants for community projects. A good model is Seattle's "Neighborhood Matching Fund", which provides neighbourhood groups with resources for community-driven projects to enhance their neigbourhoods. All projects are initiated, planned and implemented by community members in partnership with the city. Eventually, I also see Community Foundations sprouting up in different parts of Singapore, Page: 37 mobilising grassroots philanthropy. Ultimately, community development is about empowering citizens to take greater ownership within their communities.”
“Madam, I declare my interest as Head of an agency partly funded by MCCY and doing community development. Madam, in Singapore, we talk about creating a society with a greater sense of togetherness. But try as we do, we at best see sparks of a kampung spirit, but never the bonfire that we desire. I think there are three ingredients of community development that are critical success factors. One, we must strongly believe in the strengths of people in the community to initiate positive action, without depending on state help or external resources. We must believe that an entirely bottom-up engagement approach can work and foster a sense of agency in individuals and ownership in the community. Two, we must genuinely empower. Empowerment goes beyond consultation which retains power at the highest level. Empowerment means growing and sharing power. We have to strengthen people's confidence in their own capacities and inspire them to take action. They must be constantly encouraged, even if they make mistakes. This evocation must arise from a Page: 36 community vision that is positively shared, and driven by the community itself. Three, we need good community leadership and facilitation. Leadership should emerge from within the community. External expertise can be brought in, but only as facilitators and not leaders. Outside facilitators can help build capacity in the residents to make good decisions for the common good. What are the issues in Singapore? Our agencies, whether from the public or people sector, do not know how to lead by stepping back. There is low tolerance for messiness and perceived inefficiencies. Concerns abound over the uncertainty of an unstructured, ground-up approach. These are accentuated by a lack of community facilitation skills.”
“One critical way is for employers to have a mindset shift towards employee ownership and engagement. They must increase the stake that employees have in their company. More employers can develop and consider employee share ownership schemes to reward loyal, contributing employees. They should also consider profit-sharing or gain sharing. The Government can consider ways to incentivise such schemes. But quite apart from extrinsic rewards, many employers must overhaul their human resource systems, and MOM must place much more emphasis on upgrading HR practices throughout the nation. Employers need to leverage and grow the strengths and assets from within their workers, and empower them to make their companies more dynamic. 2.15 pm Enlightened employers must step forward and lead others. Top employers awards in Singapore tend to focus on the large companies. It is time to highlight good SMEs as role models. We also need stronger industry associations that lead in the upgrading of practices in their sector. Special attention has to be paid to those occupations with persistently low productivity and wages, like cleaners, labourers and service workers. Many of these workers are discouraged and have low self-esteem. We need comprehensive plans to build up their self-esteem, working with social workers, for example, so that the low-wage workers stay competitive and constantly upgrade. All in, all employers must treat employees as more than just a unit of production and tap into the intrinsic motivation of workers so that they see their work as more than just a job. They would care about doing the right thing more, be more loyal and collaborative, and they will also then become much more Page: 75 creative, enterprising and productive. Productivity for Better Wages and Jobs”
“Mdm Chair, in recent times, wage increases have lagged cost increases for many Singaporeans. This is extremely worrying. I analysed MOM's statistics and found, disturbingly, that gross real median wages across the common occupations listed fell in all nine occupation categories from 2007 to 2011. In fact, gross real median wages also fell in every occupation category from 2000 to 2011 except for two – managers and professionals. Last year, real median gross monthly income, excluding employer CPF, also fell by 1.9% from 2011 to 2012. Hence, we need to focus on the adequacy of wage increases not just for the low income, but also for a broader group of Singaporeans. The question then is how to do this sustainably. We already know jobs need to be restructured. Technology, work redesign, economies of scale, cross-training and skills upgrading, can all help to improve value created and productivity. What I believe is most fundamental, is we need more engaged employees. The level of job engagement in Singapore is very low. A 2012 Accenture survey showed that Singapore ranks the second lowest globally in terms of career Page: 74 satisfaction, with 76% of respondents dissatisfied with their jobs. A 2012 Hay Group global study also showed that 52% of employees in Singapore intended to leave their employers within five years, higher than the global average of 44%. We seem trapped in a vicious circle. Employees are assumed to lack loyalty and, hence, little is invested by employers in developing and paying them adequately. They become less engaged and loyal. Employers invest even less in them, and they indeed resign, go on to another job, and the cycle repeats. How do we turn this around?”
“Fourthly, we under-estimate the strengths of the poor and the community around them. The way we view the poor is often patronising and demeaning. The poor are no different from the rest of us. They want the best for themselves and their families. And most want to count on themselves and their hard work. 7.00 pm We must redesign our interventions systems to take a strengths-based perspective that uses personal strengths to aid in the recovery and empowerment of each poor person. The poor do not want to be stigmatised as helpless victims. Those of us working with them are partners, journeying with them. We aim to put the power back to each individual and family, and make them experts in their lives. We should consult them as to what they want for themselves, and give them a voice so that they can speak for themselves. Partnering the poor would also require mobilising the assets in the community to support the work. We need greater community ownership for poverty and build up the social capital of the poor, because studies have shown that their networks are typically weaker than most. In short, we need new paradigms to tackle poverty and to improve inter-generational social mobility. These new paradigms will help the poor get out of poverty, and not just to get by. Enabling Master Plan for the Disabled”
“We need much better data on the state of poverty, including how poor households cope or do not cope with limited resources, and how aid is perceived and used. We need to establish poverty thresholds for households with different circumstances in order to be more targeted in our interventions. These thresholds should be based on what constitutes a full basket of essentials, plus additional expenditure that will help families get out of poverty. We need proper evaluation on what schemes work and do not work. If we care enough, we would want to know more. Secondly, we tend to take away the dignity of the person in helping families in need. We treat the poor's problems like medical ones, to be treated by professionals. Inadvertently, we reinforce the inadequacies of the poor. The aid application process makes getting aid difficult – with many documents to complete and families often having to deplete their savings first. Too often, help is "too little, too late". Dignity also prevents genuine cases from coming forward, while those stepping forward feel they have to beg for small amounts. The latter Page: 176 lose their dignity, which once lost, simply makes them resigned to gaming the system. We must do more to preserve the self-esteem, dignity and confidence of the poor. Thirdly, we are not holistic in our approach. The poor often require continued emotional support and healing in the midst of their many stressors. They need help on multiple fronts at home and at work. They need a comprehensive plan that conceptualises how they could be more self-reliant and how they can break their cycle of poverty. Our aid schemes look at income levels as a cut-off; but we also have to look at needs. Above all, we must deal with the root causes of poverty, and not just the symptoms.”
“Mr Chair, poverty is growing in Singapore. There is a widening income gap. And there are many who are in fact getting poorer, and struggling to get by. Page: 175 According to my analysis of MOM's statistics, real median wages of the cleaners and labourers declined by 35% from 2000 to 2011; while those of service and sales workers declined by 15%. When some people are so poor that they and their children cannot have three decent meals a day, it is a scandal because, at the same time, Singapore has one of the highest density of millionaires in the world –188,000 millionaire households by one estimate. If one listens to stories of the poor, one would find that in an overwhelming number of cases, the poor do not deserve their plight. Life's circumstances seem to conspire to make their lives so hard that it is near impossible to get by. Many poor families face multiple challenges, including father in jail, children with disabilities and numerous health issues, often quite serious. What then is our response? Do we not have plenty of Government schemes and charities to help these people? Yes, we do. In fact, we can qualify as a welfare state by the number of schemes we have. But in outcomes and impact, that is where we are falling very short. Our schemes are a bit like Panadol – a painkiller that just helps to numb the pain a little, but does not help solve the root issues. Let me list four issues. First, we do not know the size of the problem. We lack in-depth studies on the ground realities of the poor. We tend to only have information on incomes, aggregated and cross-sectional, which masks differences in circumstances, changes across time and clarity on needs.”
“Patients should only register with one practice at a time, so that they can develop a personal relationship with their GP and access a continuity of care. Day and night, they should be able to call one telephone number to access services. It will take us some time to get to the ideal state. As a start, Government should provide the incentives for both patients and GPs so that they develop good relationships. For example, Government should start networking GPs willing to change. Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) could also give more subsidies, or insurance companies give greater premium discounts, to patients each time they keep going back to the same GP. Alternatively, there could be a CHAS loyalty scheme, where higher subsidies and free health screening are given, if a patient is prepared to stick to one GP. Overall, out-of-pocket payment must be minimised for community-based and primary care services, as these are much cheaper than institutional care later on. Page: 60 GPs themselves must be incentivised, for example, to tap into the regional and national infrastructure. GPs that function well as care nodes should be recognised, for example, with Practice Accreditation or a Quality Service Award. Some GPs can be paid by the Government directly or be even on the Government's employment, so that GPs can focus on the public good aspects like preventative health. In addition, family, caregivers and the community must be mobilised such that the primary care ecosystem is fully functioning. It is through mobilising the larger community network that good practices, such as screening on schedule and medication compliance, are reinforced in patients. In short, we do need to slaughter a few sacred cows. But that is necessary if we really desire a healthy nation.”
“There is too much choice for uninformed patients and too much individualism among providers. This hinders interagency cooperation, and the building of relationships and a social network support that is integral to delivering effective healthcare that Page: 59 keeps people in good health and out of hospital. A relationship-centred approach, which is different from the transaction-based model we have today, focuses on improving the relationships of the whole person in his or her own life context – between healthcare professionals and patient, and between the community and patient. There must also be stronger relationships among healthcare professionals and institutions. Primary care should be delivered through a team-based multi-disciplinary approach – including home nurses, tele-carers, therapists, other allied health professionals, social workers and counsellors – who can sit in different centres, rather than through a system that depends on individual doctors. Collectively, these professionals can better understand the patient's full needs, provide comprehensive healthcare services and help them navigate the complex healthcare system to get the care they need, when and where they need it. Government should invest significantly in developing such a regional primary healthcare ecosystem. Scandinavia and UK have examples of such cost-effective systems. Professionals need to come together to form a dense network. We cannot have lone rangers. As a proper system, holistic end-to-end care can be provided. Multi-agency integration through community groups is especially critical for preventative healthcare. Care must be patient-focused.”
“Madam, Singapore has done very well in a number of health areas. However, there are some areas that we struggle with. Singaporeans on average spend seven to eight years in poor health prior to death. The prevalence of risk factors such as obesity and chronic diseases like diabetes are increasing. High prevalence of these conditions reflects poor health prevention and sub-optimal lifestyle. Even with recent improvements, we must do much better in preventive health, primary care and chronic disease management. We are investing a lot in new healthcare infrastructure and improving affordability. But our software still lags our hardware development. There needs to bolder innovations in healthcare service delivery. Today, our model of care focuses resources on keeping people alive, not necessarily keeping them well. Downstream services, like acute care, are world-class in quality, even if there are issues in affordability, availability and accessibility. But an inordinate amount of resources is spent when the person is already unwell and in their last stages of life; too little is spent upfront to keep the person healthy. Care is fragmented and compartmentalised, with people often getting episodic care from organ specialists. We need to focus on providing holistic care, that is whole person care and end-to-end service delivery that joins the dots so that people do not fall through the cracks. We need to move towards a relationship-centred approach, particularly in primary care. Key attributes of primary care must include comprehensive care, coordination of care and a personal relationship over time. We have more than 2,000 private GPs in what is essentially a cottage industry serving 80% of the primary healthcare demand.”
“This benefits Singaporeans ultimately; and (c) Singapore has benefited from external aid in our history and has a duty to help other countries. Lastly, paying GST on donated goods is a bug-bear for many donors, leaving a bitter taste in their mouth. Can MOF exempt GST on donated goods, or at least set up a fund to reimburse charities for the GST payable? Page: 126”
“Mdm Chair, Singapore's giving has been on a slightly increasing trend as a percentage of GDP. I think we can do more to foster generosity through encouraging giving of all kinds. Here are three proposals for MOF. One, tax deduction for a wider list of gifts-in-kind. Many companies have new products that they are willing to give away to charity. This is particularly since Singapore is home to many MNCs with export/import functions. Currently, the 250% tax deduction is only given for a very limited number of products. Why computers and not other products? MOF should consider applying the tax deduction to a wider range of donated goods. One way to prevent abuse on the valuation is to allow deductions only if the value is significant, and there is an intermediary to ensure an audited trail of calculation of the fair market value. An even more conservative approach to value the donated inventory is to take the lower of fair market value or the cost of the goods. Two, MOF should allow single tax deduction for overseas giving through Singapore-registered charities. MOF's stance is that allowing a tax deduction and lifting the 80:20 rule would mean more resources being channelled overseas, which could otherwise be used to strengthen charitable activities in Singapore and improve the well-being of Singaporeans. But this thinking is flawed, because: (a) NVPC's Individual Giving Survey shows that donors who donate overseas are bigger givers in Singapore than those who donate locally only; (b) Helping our neighbours will help Singapore improve our image and gain us friends and soft power. Direct people-to-people help can be more effective than Government aid in improving foreign relations.”
“I think it makes little sense to take investment income from an endowment fund, the National Reserves, to start another endowment fund; (b) Government itself going on a productivity and cost savings drive to model behaviour to the rest of the nation. Cutting Expenditure on Manpower and Development Expenditure by 5% will save nearly $1 billion; Page: 75 (c) Reducing Government's share in subsidising the wages of workers; and (d) Increasing defence expenditure only at the rate of inflation. Two, increase revenues by: (e) Taking in an increased amount of proceeds from land lease sales, as leasehold land is a renewable resource; (f) Reviewing the Net Investment Returns Contribution formula, which is still quite conservative in approach; and (g) Then, when all else is insufficient, increasing taxes on the higher income and wealthier. In conclusion, I have kept my speech focused on one main point – we need to carry out a social and economic reset. What underpins this work is the building of a new social contract among the public, private and people sectors. I repeat a point I made last year, we need a more radical review. More critically, we need good leadership – not just from Government, but also from the private sector and civic community. This is a dynamic process. We have a valuable chance now to bring our National Conversation to a different level. The work ahead would be much tougher because for real progress to happen there needs to be cultural and mindset shifts from all parties, and we will be engaging each other in a way that is unfamiliar. I am confident that the outcome will be worth it. But we must take a leap of faith first. 3.11 pm”
“Page: 74 Entrepreneurs need to want to create new value and make a difference. Second, we must create a culture. We need to celebrate all entrepreneurs, not just the successful ones. It must be respected as a legitimate profession. How can the Government help then? One, I would suggest revamp the education system. MOE's desired outcomes – of nurturing each child to be future-ready is fine but the problem is in the strategies and execution. There must be a lot more diversity in our education system. Our young should be learning more about the Asian countries around us, including picking up Asian languages. Two, we must encourage our young to try and experiment early. I see a lot of hope in our young. If you visit The Hub at the National Youth Council Academy, you would find many young people in a co-working space using entrepreneurial ideas to create sustainable impact. We need to nurture the ecosystem to support our young entrepreneurs. If we want to make a significant improvement in productivity, I believe it must be also through an entrepreneurial approach. Automation and skills-upgrading would only make us do the same old things more efficiently. What we need are new ways of creating value. Lastly, I will talk about balancing the Budget. I expect a social reset will increase expenditure on social development fairly significantly to pay for stronger social safety nets, education and healthcare. Here are some ideas on how to generate more space in the Budget to accommodate this. One, reduce expenditure by: (a) Stopping the top-up of endowment funds.”
“In Parliament last month, the Prime Minister said that we must talk further on the economy, among three issues he highlighted. I agree with him. But I do not think it is simply about how we balance having a vibrant economy with other objectives. There is a more fundamental issue. We seem to be in a classic stuck-in-the-middle situation. We have pursued both low-cost strategies and differentiation strategies. I think we need to strengthen our differentiation strategy. Let me emphasise that a low-cost strategy does not mean low-end industry. But any low-cost strategy can easily be copied by other cities. One area that we must pay much greater attention to is the promotion of entrepreneurship and new indigenous businesses that have the possibility of becoming local and regional champions. We have been promoting entrepreneurship for many years now. But things have not changed. Why? I sought out Xu Hongwei, an Asst Prof of Entrepreneurship at INSEAD, based in Singapore, on this matter. He has researched intensively on the entrepreneur's motivation and the creation of an entrepreneurial culture. His research finding shows that non-pecuniary motivations are more important than monetary motivations for people to start a business. The desire to make a lot money is not the most important motivation. What then are the reasons that people want to be entrepreneurs? One is autonomy: People want to be their own boss. The other is identity fulfillment, which is more about people having a vision about a product or a service, or to pursue a particular passion, or lifestyle. How do we encourage more entrepreneurship? First, we must promote the right values. We must be driven by intrinsic, even transcendent, motivations.”
“For example, if we set the Minimum Wage at $1,500 for a full time resident employee, the total additional cost to the country, whether it is borne by employers or Government is at most 0.5% of GDP, by my estimation. Of course, I do not wish to downplay the painful business adjustments that many companies are having to carry out today. They have to cope with high real estate prices, high levies, a tight labour market and, consequently, wage inflation. This is part of the new reality because we cannot run an economy that is primarily based on high labour force growth, with the bulk of it low-skilled, and low productivity. But I also think that we cannot throw money at the problem. The measures that slowly constrict the foreign labour supply to all will eventually work. But this is like chemotherapy; there is collateral damage to good parts of the economy. I think we need to do more surgical-like work to encourage specific industries and companies to restructure, relocate or close. We need industry-specific, microeconomic policies and programmes to deal with the unique context of each industry. Page: 73 Next, I will make a short comment on the Wage Credit Scheme. The intention of the scheme is good but I believe the theory of change is flawed. There is no guarantee that productivity will increase; or that it will make any difference to wages, which may simply increase on their own steam. The deadweight loss of this expensive exercise is potentially enormous, unless of course the main objective all along is to find some innovative way to give monies back to the companies. Obviously, I hope to be proven wrong. I shall move onto the need for a new economic model for Singapore.”
“The well-to-do are not stepping up sufficiently on the giving front either. Donations to Institutions of Public Character as a percentage of GDP have only risen marginally from 0.25% in the year 2000 to 0.27% in 2011, even while tax benefits from donations were increased. Government has introduced the Workfare Income Supplement. It has been enhanced further this year. This measure definitely helps the low-income, Page: 72 although I would add that the cash component can be increased, as the previous speaker just mentioned, and workers under the age of 35 also need encouragement and confidence-building too. But the question is: why is it the Government's role to subsidise wages? This brings me to the second problem. Even if benefits are properly redistributed, an economically efficient outcome may not be a socially efficient one. In this particular case, we need to consider the impact of redistribution on the psyche, esteem and dignity of the worker. Few people feel good getting hand-outs. It demoralises them because they are reminded that they are not good enough to earn enough for their family. It is better for them to perceive that they can earn a just living wage on their steam, even if at the backend there are regulations to protect them from the vagaries of the market place. One way to help the less skilled is to consider implementing the minimum wage. As a first step, the minimum wage can be considered for certain vocations. For example, in Germany, there is a minimum wage for construction workers, janitors, among a few chosen vocations. Government can continue to help companies for a period of time. This is not an expensive gap to fix.”
“Four, education: how do we provide the right educational environment that caters to a diversity of abilities and learning styles among our children and that focuses on nurturing the love for learning, being curious and creative, and being lifelong learners; and the list goes on. Sometimes questions are more important than answers, especially when we want to generate new thinking. Next, I move to the need to press the economic reset button. The reality is that businesses in Singapore have had it good for a long time. We have had only four recession years in 47 years. GDP has risen from just under $3 billion in today's prices in 1965 to about $350 billion in 2012. At the same time, our corporate income tax rate was cut progressively from 40% in 1986 to 17% in 2010. In the process, both companies and residents have relied directly or indirectly on cheap, low-skilled, foreign labour. We enjoy a first world environment, but pay third world prices for many "blue collar" services, like cleaning and security. We probably allowed ourselves to be somewhat complacent. Our high GDP growth hid the fact that we were rather far off from our productivity targets. Income inequality has risen, and real incomes have stagnated for the less-skilled. A major cause was lowly-paid foreign workers suppressing their wages. Economists may say that the influx of cheap foreign labour is an economically efficient outcome, and that society will gain, after we redistribute the gross economic benefits to everyone such that everyone gains. But there are two problems. One, are the benefits being redistributed? Yes, I would say but not enough. In fact, as this is happening, the companies and high income earners have been experiencing lower taxes.”
“We care about social justice and about social mobility; we do not wish for an unequal society where Singaporeans are left behind. We build up the esteem and confidence of each Singaporean, so that they know that they count; we support them as they pursue their passions. We do not judge them for what they can or cannot achieve. We partner the less advantaged, empowering them to use their strengths to help themselves. They are not a problem to be fixed. Three – vibrant and engaged communities. We want Singaporeans not just to have a giving spirit, but also to be civic minded and to have a greater community ownership, initiating action to help us all progress as a society. We do not over-depend on the Government to solve all problems but are empowered to act in a way that expresses the aspirations of ours and of the communities we belong. Singapore would then be a rich community of communities. Bearing these in mind, we should ask fundamental questions for each of the social domains that I mentioned. Now, I will just give a few examples: One, individual well-being: how do we strengthen individual resilience, and provide opportunities for Singaporeans to lead happy and fulfilling lives, while being highly engaged in our work? Two, income security: how can we revamp our income security system, so that lower income Singaporeans do not just get by, but feel that their children have a good chance of enjoying social mobility, and so that all Singaporeans are adequately prepared for old age and contingencies? Three, family: how do we nurture marriages and families to be healthy and functioning, and support those coping with multiple needs, not just single needs, at the same time, so that they do not feel they have to drain their life- Page: 71 savings to cater to their needs?”
“Instead, it is meant to get the public and community discussing these critical topics and taking ownership of social issues. The problem-solving must be a joint tri-sector one. The project is still work-in-progress, and NVPC will publicise our findings to solicit feedback and suggestions on how we can improve the work. We are adopting an open-source philosophy as this is a civic community project for the wider Singapore community. We aim to complete the project this year. Eventually, we will build towards a Social Health Index. And I believe in this project because we measure what we care about. Last year, I mentioned that we need a Social Review Committee to create a new shared vision and new social compact, which were missing from Budget 2012. I am glad that Our Singapore Conversation was started. The 12 perspectives coming out of the National Conversation are useful and we should use these to articulate the shared vision and values that most Singaporeans would subscribe to, and to guide our social reset. From the perspectives, I would like to boil down to just three desired outcomes that, to me, are the most critical for the social health of Singapore for the future. Let me Page: 70 give my interpretation to each of them. One – a society anchored by values. We value diversity in people, including differences in passions, values and interests. We respect the autonomy and dignity of each person. We value compassion and collaboration. We want to empower people so that they can lead meaningful and fulfilling lives, and be at the service of society. We value our families. Two – every Singaporean matters. This is something from the Singapore 21 exercise, but is still relevant.”
“Perhaps, we should also pay attention to their work in the social space. The Hong Kong Council of Social Service initiated the project of the Hong Kong Social Development Index in 1999. Through regular reporting, the index Page: 69 records and tracks progress of social development in Hong Kong, and assesses the social and economic needs of the entire society. It is an alarm system alerting the general public about social trends in Hong Kong. Let me share some brief observations on the Singapore project so far. First, my colleagues and I found many missing data items that most developed countries routinely publicise. Our Government has a penchant for data secrecy. Fundamentally, there seems to be fear that people would use data wrongly and against Government. I think this view grossly under-estimates Singaporeans. Most of us who want the data desire insights and analysis that will help us help Singapore. In fact, it is precisely because of the lack of data transparency that people speculate and make up stories that they choose to believe instead. The Prime Minister promised more data transparency in Parliament nearly 18 months ago; since we are still waiting, I await something big. Despite missing data, it is clear that Singapore is still in a social recession. We looked at nine dimensions of social health. By our assessment, Singapore has a negative trend in five dimensions – individual well-being, family, income security, healthcare, and housing and transport. We are neutral on culture and values, education, and social connectedness and community cohesion, and positive only on civil and political participation. Let me stress that this is not meant as an audit on Government.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to take part in this Budget debate. I think that some of the thinking behind the Budget is in the right direction. These include pushing for further restructuring of our economy; further increasing the income levels of the lower income; making the fiscal system more progressive; and increasing investments in preschool education. My overall reaction to the Budget is that there are many encouraging policy tweaks, but it is still insufficient. I think there needs to be a fundamental rethink of both our economic and social policies. In fact, I believe we need to press the social and economic reset buttons. The Government appears overly constrained by legacy policies and programmes. Our ingrained stereotypes and assumptions of economic and social problems can limit our ability to surface more creative ways of dealing with the challenges faced. Hence, it is timely to conduct a zero-based review of our social and economic policies so that we may generate new thinking. Of course, I understand that, ultimately, changing course is not as easy as pulling down a building and doing a complete reconstruction. There is urgency because a fair number of challenges we face as a nation are deepening. We need to make changes early, when we can still do so from a position of strength. Last year, I mentioned that Singapore was in a social recession. I do not think we are out of it yet. My staff and I at National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NPVC) have begun what we call "The Singapore Social Health Project" to assess the social health of the country. In our work, we looked at a few overseas models, including Boston and Hong Kong. We tend to watch Hong Kong carefully in economic matters.”
“And even while we argue about the exact numbers, let us make sure we continue to treat migrants well. They are persons with their dignity, too. But at the end of the day, Singaporeans also need to feel that they are truly valued as persons, with unique interests and desires, and that they are not just a factor of production. They need to feel that they are the ends. That they matter Page: 34 as a group also, with a shared set of values, shared heritage and shared experiences that build that common identity. We want to build a home, not a hotel. A hotel may be more luxurious than our home and have more services; but we could not possibly afford to stay there forever. When we live in a home that we are proud of, we can then be more welcoming of foreign guests to stay. And maybe then we will feel in a happier frame of mind to have more babies. 1.40 pm”
“In general, the Government needs to intervene more to ameliorate the effects of economic policies, which include the population policies. But, I think, well beyond the issues of income equity, costs and personal well-being, there are the issues of identity, values and belonging which many have spoken about. We might be a nation of immigrants. But the reality before and after the Independence of Singapore is quite different. Before Independence, we were a British colony and I think the issue of building a national identity did not arise. In the early days, there was preoccupation with immense social problems as immigrants flowed in. Later, after the war, the focus was on meeting basic needs and catering to the demand for more self-governance. After Independence, we are trying to forge a Singaporean identity, even as we try to meet the basic needs of all Singaporeans. We are now not yet 50 years old. And in nation-building terms, we are a mere teenager. As teenagers, we are still unsure about our own identity. It is fluid, it is evolving; and there is a lot of angst as manifested perhaps in us finding our voice and expressing our views strongly. There are also, of course, many real concerns about the stresses of living in Singapore. But just as teens find comfort in friends who are like them, Singaporeans, too, want to engage with other Singaporeans in the common purpose of building a shared identity and dealing with common problems. As a people, Singaporeans welcome diversity and have always been welcoming of foreigners, because we ourselves are diverse. But if we are mixed with too many people who are too different from us, this crucial part of identity building goes awry.”
“GDP also only measures average income and, as we know, our own high GDP growth has been positively correlated with widening income disparity. We need to pay much more careful attention to this and, in this regard, I would urge the Government to reconsider the minimum wage, which has been implemented well in some economies with little adverse impact on employment. Otherwise, we would just be in the company of only a handful of countries like Yemen, Somalia and Tonga with no minimum wage. Redistributing income to low-income earners is never the same as being able to earn a fair living wage in the first place. The former affects one's sense of self-worth, while the latter preserves the dignity of the human person. For the lower income and the middle income, life continues to be a struggle. On the ground, the issues of the escalating cost of living and the physical infrastructure squeeze are well enunciated. I have argued previously that we need two Singapores in terms of costs to cater to the widening income disparity. In the past, I could say that we had cheap options in Singapore. But, nowadays, cheap options are increasingly being eliminated. The increasing on-the-ground perception among the middle and lower income is that the Government is pro-business and pro-rich. Singapore is one of the best places to live in, but only if you can afford it. We have just Page: 33 been ranked the sixth most expensive city in the world in one survey. I believe that the Government needs to do more to stabilise costs, as it is difficult for many households to deal with high and unexpected cost increases. Unfettered free markets do not produce the best outcomes. In fact, are markets really free in Singapore when actually Government intervenes and controls quite a lot of policy levers?”
“However, I do accept that, in the short term, it will take some time to adjust. Hence, I think the Workers' Party's position is too drastic and there needs to be some net foreign labour growth in the short term for companies that are still restructuring and to import people with skills that we may not have enough of. But well beyond the economic issues, there are the social concerns, which I believe are at least as critical as the economic ones. And these have not Page: 32 received sufficient attention in the paper, even if the proposal to moderate the population increase to six million is adopted. In the first place, I think we have an obsessive focus on GDP, even if it is just a tool. A recent Bloomberg editorial, reproduced in Today, makes good points about how GDP is an imperfect measure of progress. GDP only measures output which has a monetary value and makes no claims on the value of that output to the human person or society. It includes things that are profitable and not very beneficial to society, like cigarettes, and I will even say things like excessive tuition; and excludes things that are not profitable but beneficial, like the work of the homemaker or the volunteer. GDP also undervalues the work of people working so hard in the charity sector, where workers typically take a passion discount. If we are talking about what benefits Singaporeans, why are we focused mostly on economic, physical, material and financial indicators? Singaporeans are saying that they want broader measures of success. And Singaporeans are reacting strongly to the White Paper because many are questioning how the high average GDP growth over the past few years has benefited them. And I am not even talking about whether higher order needs, such as self-actualisation, are being met.”
“In the older days, I think we worked more actively, for example, with our neighbours to develop the Sijori growth triangle, and we would actively identify and negotiate the closing down and relocation of low value added manufacturing plants to our neighbours. So, what are the equivalent plans today? Because if you exit these firms, and, with them, the lower skilled foreign labour, you can bring in higher skilled foreign labour to fill the positions at higher VA companies coming in through EDB's attraction. So, why do we express great alarm today when some firms leave, when I think it should be naturally expected that some will do so and should do so? Of course, we should be alarmed if the ones that we want to stay, leave. What we must do better is to help these companies exit and adjust. Delaying would only postpone the pain, and reduce our ability to transition to a knowledge-based economy. There needs to be industry-specific micro-economic policies and programmes to deal with the unit contacts of each industry. But we also need strong safety nets and transitional programmes for workers who are dislocated in the process. SMEs must also consider merging for greater scale economies. We must also upgrade jobs, especially blue collar jobs. Such jobs should be respected and they deserve a decent living wage. This will attract more Singaporeans into such jobs. In Australia, for example, the blue collar workers are the new rich, as we read in the papers, and, in fact, I think last year, they reported that they earn more on average than those sitting behind a desk. Construction workers there earn an average of S$58,000 a year, and their total construction costs, mind you, are only marginally higher than ours.”
“Temasek Holdings, in particular, instead of just focusing on generating high financial returns from overseas investments that have no positive spin-offs for the local economy, ought to be vested with this mission. But I do think there is much to do still in other areas to maintain our competitiveness. We need a more compelling economic model that includes how we can execute well those economic strategies that promote productivity and innovation. Obviously, we need more than the Productivity and Innovation Credit. We need to reinvent how we see ourselves doing business and creating value in future. We need to invest in disruptive innovations, producing not just the highest end goods, but the lower end products and services that are demanded in emerging Asia. We must stop simply flogging the higher productivity horse, if productivity is merely about doing the same with less. What we need to do is, to do different things, and this depends on people driving innovation. We need to revamp our education system to focus on young people who are enterprising and think out of the box and have the passion and stop just focusing on high PISA scores as a target. Page: 31 In the short term, I know that many companies are suffering labour shortages which are affecting operations. I work in the non-profit sector which feels the brunt probably even more severely than the private and public sectors and have many friends who are business owners. For us to go up the value chain, we need to continually restructure. We need creative destruction, and many low value-adding businesses would need to exit.”
“7%, well below ours of 2.5% between 2000 and 2010, and that projected for the next two decades. Fundamentally, I think that the population concerns are serious but unnecessarily pessimistic. Yes, we have a low TFR, even if we can increase TFR to 1.5. And the conventional wisdom is that economic dynamism will definitely wane as citizens of prime working age shrink and the healthcare burden Page: 30 increases and the knee-jerk response hence is then to increase immigration. I think we can live with a cap of the population at six million by 2030 and still be very dynamic. In fact, many vibrant economies, as I mentioned, among the OECD countries, are already below an old-age support ratio of four and are moving towards a ratio of two as a long-term sustainable rate. In fact, I believe Singapore is very well-equipped, compared to most OECD countries, to cope with population ageing. First, Singapore is a high savings country, nationally and individually, unlike many developed countries which are mired in debt. Dissaving helps smooth out consumption over time. Economist Ryan Herzog from Gonzaga University, in a March 2012 paper, showed that the effects of population ageing on growth is weakened as saving rates decline and trade openness remains high. In other words, Singapore would need to save less and consume more, to sustain our growth rates. In Singapore, we need a deeper discussion also on an orderly and sustainable use of the nation's reserves and people's savings to maintain economic vitality. One measure is the use of reserves to invest in new strategic industries.”
“Where companies have to reduce wages of foreign workers to cope with the painful escalating costs, they end up only being able to attract lower and lower skilled workers with a lower reservation wage, and who are less productive. Too many of our companies are addicted to cheap, less-skilled foreign labour. If we continue to feed them with cheap labour, it will only feed the addiction. These companies need restructuring, or rehabilitation, not more drugs. Apart from having immigrants to simply reduce our non-replacing population, the Government seems to go beyond that because it believes that for Singapore to be a first-tier, dynamic city like London and New York, it needs to have a large population. PWC's 2012 Report on Cities of Opportunity's ranking of the top cities of the world had smaller cities, like Toronto and Stockholm, ranked among the top five. Singapore is ranked seventh. In an increasingly virtual world, beta cities, smaller cities, like Toronto, San Francisco, Stockholm and Sydney – all with city populations smaller than Singapore – challenge the traditional cosmopolitan centres like New York, London, Paris and Tokyo. Interestingly, the same PWC report did a baseline number projection of all the cities for 2025 and it projected a 3.6 million employment and 5.7 million total population for Singapore in 2025. You may say, well, Singapore is not just a city; it is a country. But if you again look at the 2012-2013 Global Competitiveness Report, four of the top five most competitive countries, including Singapore, have populations under 10 million, and Finland is just as populous as Singapore. And four of the top five countries, apart from Singapore, had a total population annual growth rate of 0.6% from 2001-2010, which is below the OECD average of 0.”
“And with so many large infrastructure projects lined up and all the investment promotion activities going on with full force, would the large increases of foreign labour become a fait accompli? And if infrastructure is built and not fully utilised, would they not be unnecessarily wasted? These would be monies that can be better spent to address social concerns. Building excessive infrastructure will also only put more pressure on the need to bring in yet more foreign workers into the construction industry. And to clear land required to cater to a 6.9 million population, heritage and great nature reserves would be taken away at great loss to the legacy that we provide to our children, and simply wasted away for economic immigrants that we would not have. Let me suggest that the long-term policy should be to cap the total population by 2030 at six million. This will require only allowing roughly a 1% annual workforce growth between now and 2020 – which can be mostly achieved through an increase in the resident labour force growth – and around 0.5% after. We should also slow down the intake of new naturalised citizens to 10,000 to 15,000 of new births. Otherwise, the impact on social cohesion and the building of our social identity will be too adverse. Page: 29 In fact, having a lower workforce growth would have a positive impact on productivity. If labour is scarce, firms will substitute labour for capital, skills and technology. We also need to raise the wages and skill levels of foreign workers so that we can attract the more skilled ones here. In fact, the rising foreign worker levies have ironically dampened productivity.”
“Instead, we had labour force growth between 2000 and 2010 of 3.7%, almost double the upper bound target and with about two-thirds of this made up of immigration. The productivity growth of 1.8% was below the lower bound target. This target has never changed. In February 2010, exactly three years ago, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), again reaffirmed the same targets – 2% to 3% productivity growth, GDP growth of 3%-5% and, by implication, a labour Page: 28 force growth of 1% to 2%. Despite saying that we must "moderate the future growth of the foreign workforce" in the ESC report, we saw a growth of non-resident labour force of 6.3% from 2010 to 2011, and 7.4% the following year, and a total labour force growth of 3.2% and 3.9% respectively. In the Population White Paper, there is déjà vu. Exactly the same targets or projections. Why is Government saying then that the White Paper is proposing a major shift to slow down our rate of workforce and population growth, as if it were a major policy shift, when the policy and targets have actually stayed exactly the same from 2003 to 2010 to today? If the policy did not change, then the infrastructure problems today seem less because of the lack of forward planning but because the original plan was not adhered to. Is this Government now able to boost productivity and is it really able to moderate the growth of the foreign workforce, when it has failed to do so previously? I am also not sure how the 6.9 million is a "worst case scenario", and that they hope that the actual figure would turn out to be a much lower number. The Government can at least indirectly control both the demand for foreign labour and supply of the foreign population.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to commend the Government for raising a topic that is important and, quite clearly, not winning them brownie points at the moment with the general public. But I would like to say that the White Paper has some missing and wrong ingredients, and I do not agree with the population projection numbers and, hence, I am unable to endorse the paper. One key issue for me is that I am having a major disconnect. How did we go from fearing ageing and depopulation to having a potential population explosion? Where does this dependence on growing GDP through increased immigration end? If we continue the 1.4% total population growth projected for 2020-2030 in the White Paper beyond 2030, our population size will double every 50 years. This means it will hit 9.8 million in 2050 and 19.7 million by the end of the century. I hope the Government would reassure us that doubling our population every 50 years is a "no-case scenario". If the Government says, alright, they agree that we need to stop this population growth at some point, and stop relying on workforce growth as one of the key means to boost our GDP, the question then is why can that point not be brought forward? Why can we not do the adjustments earlier? On the economic front, are we really making the transition to a knowledge-based, innovation economy? Exactly 10 years ago, in February 2003, the Economic Review Committee (ERC) outlined key recommendations to remake Singapore into a creative and entrepreneurial nation. Have we failed? Seems like we might have, and we need to examine the reasons for the failure. In the ERC report, it projected a sustainable growth rate of 3%-5% per annum, with productivity growth of 2%-3% and labour force growth of 1%-2%.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. May I ask the Minister of State whether the measures she has outlined so far have in actual fact led to all or most infrastructure projects being completed with proper project management and prudent use of resources? Or in other words, is the Ministry satisfied with the progress so far? And this is given a lot of loss of project management and project planning capacity within the public service with the spin-offs of agencies like the Public Works Department and the Housing and Development Division previously, and also given that there have been some projects with quite large over-runs like the Downtown Line.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I agree that foreign workers have a choice before they come to Singapore. The issue is that, after they have come to Singapore and feel that they are locked in to an unfair contract, then they really feel they do not have a choice. This is where, as we have covered, we need adequate union representation and the proper use of existing dispute resolution mechanisms. I have two follow-up questions: one, how does the Ministry ensure that the foreign workers are adequately represented by the unions, particularly where they form a minority group within that union? Hence, the union might just represent the interest of the majority group. And two, how does the Government encourage the use of the Industrial Arbitration Court − which was not mentioned earlier − as the port of call before an industrial dispute gets out of hand, and to ensure that access to this Court is assured for aggrieved workers?”
“I understand the strong support by many in Singapore for the death penalty, and that we Singaporeans are rightly proud that Singapore is a safe and secure home, relatively free from drugs and serious crime. These ought to be outcomes we need to work hard to maintain. But where it comes to the death penalty, it is not just about our criminal justice system, which we also want to be proportionate and restorative; it also about the type of society that we want to build – a society that values every person and one that does not give up on its people. Page: 1103 5.28 pm”
“Instead of a listing of acts and activities, these offenders should be defined, in my view, according to their relative roles or responsibilities in the drug syndicate. Secondly, under the MDA, a person found abetting a drug trafficking or importation offence is liable to the same punishment prescribed for the principal offence. Abetment comes in many forms and with varying degrees of culpability. I propose that the courts be given a discretion whether to consider abettors as principal offenders or not. Thirdly, I have serious concerns about the requirement of "substantive assistance" under subsection 33B(2)(b), as has been mentioned by many speakers before me. It is not well-defined and ambiguous. And if it is based on the actual results of cooperation and receiving high-quality information, there could be potential unfairness because the less culpable, quite often, have less information. This "substantive assistance" standard is too high, which was also mentioned by Mr Edwin Tong, and has a worryingly strong utilitarian element of collecting better intelligence, and using the threat of death as a bargaining chip. Simply put, whether a person gets a chance to live or not hinges on how useful the offender is to the state in achieving certain ends. I believe the life and death of an offender should not be decided based solely on their utility to the state. Hence, I urge that this subsection be removed. Sir, in conclusion, I welcome the Government's move towards more judicial discretion and prescribing sentences which are more proportionate to the culpability of the offenders. However, I urge the Government to go further and abolish the death penalty in the future.”
“But we have to ask ourselves whether the death penalty is the only possible way of effectively defending Singaporeans against drug traffickers. Is it an absolute necessity? I would say not. There are alternative tough sentences, like the life sentence, which is already a very harsh sentence. Abolishing the death penalty and having a zero tolerance on drugs can go together. In any case, I believe many serious drug traffickers may already be detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, instead of under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). As has been already pointed out, research on the deterrent effects of the death penalty is mixed. Some studies in other jurisdictions even show a decline in homicide rates even after the death penalty was abolished, like in Hong Kong, which abolished capital punishment in 1993. Page: 1102 As United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said in July this year when calling on member states to abolish the death penalty, I quote, "The taking of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process". The death penalty is too drastic a measure in our modern world, with our modern justice system. Mr Speaker, Sir, next, I will move on to specific clauses of the Bill. First, the "drug mule" requirement under the proposed subsection 33B(2)(a) is under-inclusive and may give rise to instances where offenders with similar levels of culpability being given vastly different sentences. For example, it is not clear whether an offender who performs a limited role of packing the drugs under instruction can come under this subsection.”
“Page: 1101 Fundamentally, what is the type of society that we want to live in? Do we believe in compassion and in allowing people chances to redeem themselves and be rehabilitated, even if they make bad mistakes? Do we believe in second chances? Sir, I do not condone merely pursuing a utilitarian view of justice, where the ends simply justify the means. According to this view, justice requires the maximisation of the total welfare across individuals in our nation. In sentencing, a utilitarian would focus on the deterrent and security aspects of punishment. Deterrence is to make credible the threat of severe punishment so that others would think twice about committing the offence; and the security aspect focuses on taking offenders out of circulation through incapacitation so that they can do no more harm to others. Deterrence and incapacitation are clearly well-intentioned objectives. But we cannot take them to the extreme such that the ends justify the means. We need a sense of proportionality. Society should move towards more humane ways of restorative justice, especially where there is possibility of reforming and rehabilitating the offender. In this regard, as the death penalty is being maintained, I propose that full discretion be given to the courts on the imposition of the death penalty. The courtroom, rather than the prosecutor's office, is a much more appropriate place to decide on the punishment that best fits the crime, based on the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. Understandably, people are concerned that we are on a slippery slope down away from zero tolerance on drugs. And I, too, am concerned about the increase in drug abusers arrested and the increase in drugs seized, as mentioned earlier.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I would like to start by expressing my support to the Bill in giving discretion to judges under specific circumstances for drug trafficking. Likewise, I support the same in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill for murder. I think this measure is a significant step in the right direction. However, I do not think it goes far enough. I would like to advocate for the removal of the death penalty as an ultimate goal, and for full discretion to be given to the courts on the imposition of the death penalty in the interim. I also have specific problems with the circumstances outlined in the proposed section 33B, subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), what I call the "drug mule" and "substantive assistance" requirements respectively. Sir, let me start by articulating why I think we should abolish the death penalty. My starting point is that we must believe that every human life is precious, and we need to protect every person from conception to death. Unless it is specifically to save another life, taking a life for no matter how good an intention, is wrong. For the same reasons, I would not support euthanasia. Having a culture of death has much wider implications than the removal of a burden or threat that we perceive that a particular person may bring. It damages the work that we are all trying to achieve, that is to build an inclusive society. Inclusiveness here is a sense of belonging, of being respected and valued for who you are, and, ultimately, being always treated with equal dignity and compassion, even if you have made mistakes, are terminally-ill, or are perceived as being a burden to society. To treat people otherwise is to treat them as the means, not the ends.”
“Sir, I would like to make a point of clarification. My views are a bit more nuanced. They are not clear, not so black and white. Of course, in certain instances, religion should not cross the boundaries, but my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider that, in some cases, a separation of religion from politics is not entirely reasonable.”
“Yes, Sir. Can we consider these other aspects that religion and religious institutions can offer?”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answer. I have to declare that I am a Catholic Christian and driven very much by my faith. And it is in this context that I have raised this question. I think we can understand that we live in a multi-religious society and we need to be mindful that religions do not impose their religious tenets and views on the other members of the population. Page: 802 My question is: do we see only the downsides of what religious institutions and organisations and religious people can offer? Can we not see them as a resource because most religions do look at the common good and do want to further the common good in society and work towards achieving that for the nation? Many people are religiously driven and they have views influenced by religion. Can we not harness that a lot more to help us in the work? This sometimes can be perceived to cross over to the political arena because politics is not just about the political regime, choosing political leaders and policies. It is also about shaping the political discourse, influencing the population —”