Lee Hsien Loong
Singapore
“Yes, of course, every time I sell the land, I put money into the Reserves, but I am not putting the money into the Reserves all today. I am putting it in a stream of payments, 30 years apart.”
“Speaker, Sir, I do not think it was a very difficult question to figure out, that when I spoke to MTI, I spoke to the Minister, because Mr Gan Kim Yong is the Minister for Trade and Industry.”
“" I think that would have been unjust because he has not been charged. If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever. I cannot prejudge a case based on an incomplete investigation – started recently, or a partial investigation, just entered into the formal phase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Mr Leong is quibbling over words. In February, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin told me, "I offer to resign". I said, "Yes, sort out your constituency first". In other words, decision taken. The moment to execute it, I will decide. So, it is quite clear. Legally, he has not resigned.”
“Sorry, Mr Speaker, to respond to Ms Poa on why not no pay leave. It is my judgement to make. The Civil Service works in one way; their basis is if you have been convicted, then you are on zero pay and other consequences will follow.”
“I am very happy to note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appreciates the second key and is seeking a third. And I hope that it portends a change in your attitude towards the Elected President and his custodial powers. But I think the Brazil example is a very interesting one.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,557 lines we hold for Lee Hsien Loong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 32.
“SingTel now has two main hubs - in Singapore and Australia - providing a wide range of communications services and diverse sources of revenue. Where it makes commercial sense, GLCs have also teamed up with local enterprises to compete abroad or to complement their local operations. Temasek, for example, bought into some SMEs in their growing phase, such as Osim and Hyflux. GLCs also use SMEs extensively as contractors or sub-contractors. For example, SIA has been working with home-grown advertising agency Batey Ads for many years to establish SIA's brand internationally. GLCs and their investments help to build and nurture internationally competitive businesses. This in turn enhances Singapore’s economic resilience. Singaporeans and our local enterprises ultimately get to benefit as more business and employment opportunities are created in the economy. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Removal of 30 months' moratorium to purchase new flat) 10. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for National Development in view of the large stock of unallocated new Housing and Development Board flats and a considerable number of retrenched and unemployed persons, will his Ministry consider removing the present 30 months' moratorium on a person for selling his HDB flat or private property to enable him to purchase a new HDB flat.”
“I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the Ministers follow the civil service rules. GOVERNMENT-LINKED COMPANIES (Financial status of overseas and local investments) 9. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the diversified overseas and local investments of Government-linked companies, (a) what is the financial status of these investments; and (b) how are these investments benefiting (i) Singaporeans who are seeking employment and (ii) Singaporean entrepreneurs seeking to grow their enterprises. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, many of our larger GLCs have invested in overseas markets to grow beyond the confines of the Singapore economy and to take advantage of regional and global opportunities. In this respect, GLCs’ overseas investments are no different from those by non-GLCs. GLC investments are guided purely by financial considerations and are subject to market discipline and scrutiny, as is the case with investments by any other commercial entity. The Government does not seek to guide or influence these investment decisions. This is one reason why our GLCs have generally performed well against their industry peers regionally and globally. Leaving the GLCs free to operate on a commercial basis has helped to maximise their benefits to the Singapore economy and Singaporeans. The GLCs’ overseas investments have generally sought to complement their core businesses and strategies. For instance, SingTel acquired Optus - a key player in Australia's telecommunications market - as part of its overall strategy to become a leading regional telecommunications operator.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member's implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them. As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers. Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before the House seeks to amend the International Development Association (IDA) Act to enable the Government to make future contributions to IDA beyond membership subscriptions. This amendment to the IDA Act will require a consequential amendment to the Constitution which the House has just debated and passed. Currently, the IDA Act is only concerned with membership matters and is silent on the Minister's power to contribute to IDA Replenishments. Therefore, the Government has been relying on the Financial Procedures Act, instead of the IDA Act, to contribute to the IDA-13 Replenishment that we had pledged in 2002. This is not efficient. To streamline the process, we should amend the IDA Act to standardise our procedures for contributing to IDA with those existing for other international organisations ("IOs"). For example, the ADB Act is used to contribute to the Asian Development Fund (ADF). Similarly, the IDA Act should be used for making IDA contributions. After the amendments to the IDA Act and the Constitution, contributions to future IDA replenishments will be made using the IDA Act. The Minister, with the concurrence of the President under Article 144(1)(b) of the Constitution, will then be able to raise loans under section 6 on behalf of the Government (by the creation and issue of securities) to provide the sums required for making such contributions to the Association. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Hsien Loong].”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Among those women who are marrying overseas and to whom this will apply, I am sure the word will spread. Anyway, Contact Singapore will be available to spread the word. As for medical benefits which Mdm Ho asked about, this is a subject for another speech on another day.”
“By birth. In which case, they have a choice. But our laws are that by the time you reach 21, you have to choose. And that is something which we have looked at from time to time, and we have decided that we are not ready to change that. We will continue to look at it, but it will be a very big decision for us to decide to change that. As regards National Service by children of foreign fathers, if they are citizens and are boys, they have to do NS, just like any other citizens. Of course, they can renounce their citizenships - some may. And there are some parents who may say, "Daughters, I will register for Singapore citizenship. Sons, I may not." We all know of such cases. But I hope that when you make that argument in principle and say that we should all be a family, whether you are born overseas or in Singapore, you are still part of the family that applies to boys as well as girls. I hope that Singaporeans who are overseas and want to keep this option and keep the Singapore citizenship will also remember that it comes with a responsibility, ie, when your son reaches 18, have him do national service. I have known of people who have children - diplomats, businessmen who have been overseas - who have spent most of their childhood overseas. But when they reach the age of 18, they come back and they do National Service, and some of them have won Swords of Honour. So being born overseas, if brought up in a Singaporean household, does not prevent them from acquiring the values, the attitudes, the loyalties which will make them willing to come back and to serve and be a good citizen. On raising awareness of the new rules and so on, we will do. I think people know that we have changed the legislation.”
“There are many women who come and say that their husbands have deserted them and are not supporting them. There are very few men who come and say that their wives have deserted them and are not supporting them, and have left them carrying the children. That is still the reality. But it is shifting gradually, as Mdm Ho says, and so we are also shifting slightly less gradually. Actually, it is not so gradual because, as Ms Irene Ng says, the UK moved 20 years ago. But the UK has had a Parliament for a thousand years. Even America has been around a few hundred years. So, we are only 20 years behind them. I think we are quite all right. Because if you are absolutely up at the leading edge in matters of social change, you are never quite sure whether the leading edge has taken a wrong turn, needs to back track and make a U-turn. We need to keep a certain stability and ballast so that when we move, we have the advantage of the experience of people who have moved ahead of us. And when they have gone a strange way, we will wait and see and if after one or two generations, it still makes sense, and if yes, then we follow them. If you look at the 1960s, the way the western society went with hippies and free love, it looked like a new spring time, but the hippies are now all balding and grey. It was not such a happy environment. And I think it is good that we did not go that direction. So, similarly, with other issues, we will make haste, but we will also watch and keep some ballast. Mdm Ho asked about dual citizenship. I think children born abroad do effectively have the privilege of two choices. Because if we grant them citizenship by descent, the country where they are born often also grant them citizenship by descent or maybe by geography. An hon. Member: By birth.”
“And the purpose is that we have to bring our rules up to date and in keeping with the times and the tenor of the society we live in. The tenor of the society has changed. Ten or 20 years ago, it was the custom - she does not like it, not all of us like it - that the woman would follow the husband. And if the husband lived overseas, the woman would go and live overseas, and the husband would look after her and bring up their children, sometimes overseas. And we have to ask, in this circumstance, do we want to give their child a free option to be a Singapore citizen? Because, actually, once a woman has gone overseas, she is committed - she has cast the die. So, we said, no. But nothing is cast in stone and we have reviewed our position. Today, it is a different situation. Many of the women who go overseas are professionals. They marry foreigners. They keep their links with Singapore. They have not just opted out from Singapore society. They have families and friends on both sides, but they come back to Singapore from time to time. Sometimes, when something goes wrong - husband meets with an acci dent, passes away or something happens - they have to come back to Singapore for good. They are our people and we have to look after them. As I have suggested from the numbers that I produced just now, more and more Singaporean women are doing this. A lot of our daughters who travel overseas and study overseas marry and live overseas. But they have parents here and they keep their links back here. So, it is necessary for us to amend our Constitution to reflect this situation. Is it still a patrilinear society? I would say, yes. It is as a statement of fact. You are MPs. You know, you have seen the cases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the speakers who have spoken on this Bill. I note that the men have been outnumbered but, all the more, I thank the ladies. May I now address some of the points which they have raised. Mr Low Thia Khiang and also Mdm Ho asked about Article 135 which has to do with deprivation of citizenship for somebody who has been away for 10 years and has not come back, and whether that still applies and contradicts our amendments on according citizenships. I do not think they contradict. These are two separate problems which very likely are two different groups of people. Most Singaporeans who are overseas and have acquired citizenship by descent, have lived in Singapore for some time, but happened to be overseas when they have their children, still maintain their links with Singapore. I would say that is true for the vast majority and their children too, provided their parents have maintained their links with Singapore, should be entitled to citizenship by descent. A small number of citizens who have lost their links with Singapore, at some point, we will have to make up our minds on whether they are still Singaporeans or not and, if it is necessary, we have to decide whether to deprive them of citizenship. Article 135 does not mean they are automatically deprived of citizenship. It gives the Government the right to move if it needs to do so and it has been exercised very rarely. So I see this as two complementary provisions of our citizenship rules. I do not see a contradiction. Ms Irene Ng asked whether this is a pragmatic change or fundamental one and would like to be reassured that we are doing it for the right reason and not for some purpose. I assure her that we are doing it for the right reason, but there is a purpose.”
“For example, Article 123(2) of the Constitution provides that the wife of a Singaporean must be resident in Singapore for at least two years before she may obtain Singapore citizenship. With the amendment, she can now be overseas for up to one year during the 2-year qualifying period and still be eligible for citizenship. I should stress that citizenship is a privilege that should not be taken for granted. Even with the proposed amendments, Singaporeans living and working overseas must make the effort to ensure that they and their children remain rooted and committed to Singapore. All Singaporeans, whether here or abroad, must continue to have a stake and share in the responsibility for the nation's success and future. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Sections 12 and 15 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution will be amended consequentially to bring them in line with the gender parity introduced in Article 122(1). Secondly, the amendments will allow Singaporean parents who acquired their Singapore citizenship by descent to pass on citizenship by descent to their foreign-born children, if these parents meet a residency criterion. They have to have stayed in Singapore for a total of five years or more before the birth of the child. Alternatively, they have to have stayed in Singapore for a total of at least two years out of the five years prior to the birth of the child, which is similar to the criterion used for determining Singaporean's eligibility to vote overseas. Currently, a Singaporean who was born abroad and acquired citizenship by descent, then grew up and worked in Singapore, then happened to have a child born abroad while he is temporarily overseas, cannot transmit his citizenship to the child by descent. This is unfair. The amendment overcomes this problem, but it imposes a residency requirement on the parent, so that we will not have generations of absentee Singaporeans with no real links to Singapore. Increase in absence period Next, increase in absence period. Currently, permanent residents need to meet a residential requirement before they can qualify to be citizens. Section 16 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution allows a person to be away from Singapore for up to six months when calculating the period of residence. Recognising that more of our citizens and permanent residents have to travel in the course of their work or study, the Government proposes to increase this to 12 months.”
“Between 2000 and 2002, the number of foreigners who were granted Permanent Residence under the sponsorship of their Singaporean spouse increased from about 4,000 to almost 5,800, ie, within a space of just two years. The number of foreign-born children granted citizenship has also gone up by 41% just over a decade, from about 1,900 in 1991 to about 2,700 in 2003. The Ministry of Home Affairs reviewed our citizenship laws last year. We studied the laws of other countries like the United Kingdom, which had addressed these issues. The Remaking Singapore Committee had also separately recommended that the provisions on the grant of Singapore citizenship to a foreign-born child be made gender neutral. Let me now highlight the key amendments in this Bill. Grant of citizenship by descent I shall first touch on the grant of citizenship by descent. Article 122 of the Constitution governs the grant of citizenship by descent to a child of a Singaporean, when the child is born abroad. The child is conferred citizenship by descent as a matter of right if the parent applies within one year of the child's birth. Currently, a child is entitled to citizenship by descent only when the father is a Singaporean who is a citizen by birth or registration. It does not apply when the father is a Singapore citizen by descent, or when it is the mother who is a Singaporean. Female Singaporeans can only pass on citizenship by registration to their foreign-born child, and citizenship by registration is not conferred as a matter of right. The amendments to Article 122 will, firstly, allow female Singaporeans to pass on citizenship by descent to their foreign-born child. This will make the grant of citizenship by descent gender neutral.”
“After the amendment, any deviation from the approved rules and any adverse decisions will continue to be considered by the entire Board and the powers of the delegated member will be limited to following the rules laid down by PSD. International Development Act Mr Speaker, Sir, I next move on to the fourth amendment, and this pertains to the International Development Act. The IDA Act is being amended to allow the Minister to make contributions other than membership subscriptions to the IDA, which is a World Bank lending facility for poverty reduction programmes. To do this, it is also necessary to amend Article 144(3) of the Constitution to add the IDA Act to the list of Acts for other international organisations, so that future IDA contributions can similarly be made using Article 144(1)(b) of the Constitution. Under Article 144(1)(b), the Government is allowed to make guarantees or raise loans, with the President's concurrence, to the list of statutes under Article 144(3). With this amendment, we will standardise our procedures for contributing to the IDA with those applicable to other international organisations. Citizenship Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, I move on to the fifth amendment. This pertains to relaxing the restrictions on grant of citizenship by descent and increasing the length of time a person may spend away from Singapore when considering the residence period for citizenship applications. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Articles in the Constitution on the grant of citizenship have largely remained unchanged since the 1960s. However, the world today is very different compared to then. Growing numbers of Singaporean men and women are travelling overseas to work, study or pursue their personal goals and starting their families abroad.”
“However, as the assigned member is only acting on behalf of the Board, the Board's covering approval is required. Consequently, each and every decision made by an assigned member on the appointment, confirmation and emplacement, promotion and transfer of an officer has to be circulated to all the other Board members for confirmation. If there are no objections after a certain timeframe set by the Board, the Board is regarded as having approved and adopted the member's decision as its own. This practice is increasingly impractical. For Personnel Boards that look after large Ministries like the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Board members receive many submissions each month on appointments, confirmations and transfers of officers, mostly straightforward, for their approval. The covering approval of the Board has become a formality and, in effect, has no material impact, as the decisions of the assigned members have consistently followed the Public Service Division's approved rules on such matters. Since 1995, no Board member has raised an objection to any decision taken by an assigned member, because there was no reason to do so as long as the rules have been followed. Article 110D of the Constitution is therefore amended to include three new clauses to empower each Personnel Board to delegate, in writing and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, its powers to any of its members. The Board's member must exercise that power in accordance with the terms of the delegation. Any act or thing done by the delegate of a Personnel Board will have the same force and effect as if it had been done by the Personnel Board.”
“The Constitution, however, has no provision to enable similar transfers of reserves from the Government to Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies, and between Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies, without such transfer being regarded as a draw on their reserves. Putting in place a more comprehensive framework for transfer of reserves between protected entities will enable more timely responses by the Government to changing economic or business conditions. For example, reserves may need to be transferred from the Government to new Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies quickly to seize opportunities in new areas of growth and existing Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies may need to be restructured, merged or corporatised to better deliver public services and manage Government assets. Article 22B and Article 22D are therefore amended, and a new article 148I is inserted to complete the framework for the different transfers of reserves between protected entities. The President has been consulted and agrees with the above amendments of the Bill. Personnel Board Mr Speaker, Sir, I move now to the third amendment. This pertains to allowing every Personnel Board to delegate its authority to any of its members. The functions of the Public Service Commission (PSC) were devolved to a system of Personnel Boards by constitutional amendments in 1994. To facilitate decision-making, Personnel Boards often assign individual members the authority to decide on the appointment, confirmation and emplacement, promotion and transfer of the public officers under the Boards' purview.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill before the House contains six amendments. The first amendment relates to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. The second amendment concerns the transfer of reserves between entities governed by the Protection of Reserves Framework. The third amendment has to do with the Personnel Boards of the Public Service Commission. The fourth amendment deals with Singapore's contribution to the International Development Association (IDA). The fifth amendment pertains to grant of citizenship by descent, and the sixth amendment, pertaining to Article 22P, is technical in nature. Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn first to the amendment pertaining to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. Currently, under Article 18, the Chairman of the Public Accountants Board is a member of the Presidential Elections Committee. As the Public Accountants Board was merged with the Registry of Companies and Businesses to form the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) on 1st April 2004, Article 18 is amended by changing the reference from the Chairman of PAB to the Chairman of ACRA. Transfer of reserves Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn now to the amendment relating to the transfer of reserves. Currently, Article 22B and Article 22D of the Constitution enable the transfer of reserves from Fifth Schedule statutory boards and Fifth Schedule Government companies to the Government, and between Fifth Schedule statutory boards, without such transfer being regarded as a draw on their past reserves.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY (FY 2003) BILL Order for Second and Third Readings read. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act 2003. The additional sum has been presented as Supplementary Estimates, which have been considered and approved by the House as Command Paper No. 2 of 2004. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Third Reading”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, Heads of Expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund, other than statutory expenditure, have to be included in a Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is therefore to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund to meet expenditures in the financial year, 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2005. The Heads of Expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each head are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year, 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2005 and appear on pages 24 and 25 of Command Paper No. 3 of 2004. The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower me to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount for each head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Third Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to. SUPPLY BILL Order for Second and Third Readings read. 3.35 pm”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. First Resolution reported - "That the sum of $23,650,794,740 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2004 to 31st March 2005, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 2004." Second Resolution reported - "That the sum of $17,101,034,550 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2004 to 31st March 2005, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 2004."”
“Sir, I think it is not the Government's job to help the Opposition put up more candidates. The reason for the GRCs is not to disincentivise people from fielding teams. It is to achieve a very important objective, which is to ensure minority representation in Parliament. So, the solution to this does not really lie with the Government. It is desirable to have many more GRCs contested. The last time it was less than half. But I am surprised that the Opposition should be asking the Government to help to make this happen. Remaking Singapore”
“IRAS has to make some restructuring and there may be retrenchments and job losses next year. It is a long time to work for one year and have this thing to worry about. There are a few other organisations which have to make adjustments, smaller ones. And each time there is one, we have to communicate very early with the staff, to explain to them and to make sure that they know what is happening, because if we do not tell them, and they hear of it or if a newspaper report comes out and it is not quite right, or even if it is right and they do not hear from us first, it is very bad. Restructuring is a difficult thing to do even for the private sector. For the public sector, it is harder, because we have had less experience and less practice doing it. But it is a reality of life that we have to restructure, reorganise, recruit, lose people, etc. We will try and place people in other jobs where they can still make a contribution. It is only in extremis, when we really have no alternative, then we say, "Well, it cannot be helped. We have to part. You have to go, but you have to go on fair terms, and the fair terms follow what the tripartite recommendations are." We will continue to manage this in the public sector.”
“I apologise I missed that. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked about morale of the civil service, because the civil service has been on an economy drive and we are watching the headcounts, and we have had to restructure. This is something which we monitor very carefully. Overall, there is no problem. The morale is good, because our people have a mission. They know that we are looking after them and, under pressure, we see them performing. We have had SARS. A lot of civil servants were under great pressure, eg, in the Ministries of Health, Home Affairs, Environment, and HDB, across-the-board, but they delivered. We have had the economic downturn. The economic agencies have been under great pressure, but they still delivered investments to create new jobs. But our missions have also been evolving. Our public housing programme has been at a low-key rate over the last few years. We have had to restructure the HDB, and these are changes which are not easy for people to accept. But we have tried very hard to explain to them to make sure that they are properly looked after and to hold people's hands through a difficult transition period. Overall, the civil service has done well, and I would not say that their morale is low. In the organisations which have been directly affected by change or which are concerned that there may be changes, we have had to pay particular attention because if we do not explain what we are going to do, and we do not have good communications with the staff early, then rumours spread and fears grow. HDB restructuring was a big exercise involving a few thousand people. PSA, of course, is outside the Government. But I think, in a broad sense, Mr Chew would think of them as Government too. There are other adjustments which we have had to do.”
“So, we will have to study how to do this, such as in healthcare, education, housing privileges and other areas, and make sure that we encourage them to come in, we welcome them to be PRs and, having made them PRs for some time, we ask them to consider becoming citizens. I do not think the financial incentives alone will ever be enough to make them become citizens. But it will help them to think about the matter and, if they become citizens, then we expect them to be equal, proud, committed and loyal, just like all the other citizens in Singapore. 12.00 noon”
“And we will make the sun come out again. As for setting a time limit on people being PR, it is not a practical idea. There are many reasons why people become PRs and why we might be happy to have people remain PRs. Some of them we would like to have taken up citizenship. Some of them we are happy to have them stay as PRs. They may be businessmen in other countries in the region, but they want to be PRs because maybe one day they need to come here. So why should we say after five years, you must take up Singapore citizenship? It does not mean that the PR is somebody who is about to flee Singapore. It may be somebody who wants to come to this place when there is a tight moment. And I think that we should be a haven for people of talent, of ability. He may be in Hong Kong, he may be in South East Asia, he may be in Asia, or he may even be somewhere further afield. But he wants to be associated with Singapore. That is fine. We have had PRs who have been PRs all their lives. Mr Dennis Bloodworth is a PR. He has lived here, I think, probably for about half a century. Do I want to force him to become a citizen? What for? We have to have an inclusive approach towards the Singapore family. The core are the Singapore citizens, we have the PRs, then we have the employment pass holders and others who are friends of Singapore. There must be gradations. The citizens should be treated better than the PRs, and we will make the distinction clearer. We will study how to do this without disincentivising people from becoming PRs. Because if you send the signal that you do not want people to be PRs at all, then they will just go away and, far from becoming citizens, they will not come to Singapore at all, which is counter-productive.”
“" It is up to them. But the signals will get clearer over time. Next, on pro-family measures. Mr Ahmad Khalis proposed that we educate the population on the consequences of lower TFR. We are trying to do that. It is not easy because it is not just a matter of understanding the big picture. It is a matter of persuading people that their own personal priorities and their own personal well-being are related to how they make their family arrangements. It is very hard because these are things which people want to decide for themselves. We had a long discussion over the last three days. So I do not want to belabour this point. We will continue to try to educate people. But it is not the full solution. On the issue of fourth child and above having the same benefits as the first three - this is an issue which we will have to study very carefully. It is a legitimate point to raise in this debate. But it is a change which will have quite far-reaching consequences and we have to consider very carefully. Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mr Steve Chia asked about PRs and citizenship. Mr Gan Kim Yong said that pride and loyalty are important. It is not just financial incentives. And he described how the young Indian people he met were proud of themselves and were out to do great things. I agree with him, and I have the same experience in January in India when I visited them. They are young, they are confident, they are ambitious, they have seen how their own lives have started changing and they are quite determined to press on and conquer the world. And some of them will come up with world beaters. Our people need some of that confidence too. The clouds may be greyer and we may hear the thunderstorm outside, but we have confidence to cope with that and the sun will shine again.”
“So it is easier in some ways for them to launch some activities. If you want to organise a big activity and you want many constituencies to help you, then it is better to do it at the CDC level and you involve a dozen constituencies at one time. But if it is only done at the CDCs, then there is a certain distancing of the relationship. Why? Because at the grassroots level, you are looking after your own little group of people. The warmth and rapport are easily developed at that level. It is not so easy when you are talking about a dozen constituencies. Sintercom, whether it is political or not, I do not think that is a big issue. We are not preventing the website from operating. We just say, register yourself as a political website so you take responsibility for what you are saying. The organisers decided not to, it is their prerogative. I think this is a game which will continue to be played, if I may be quite candid about it. Because we want civic society, we want public discourse, but we also need accountability and responsibility. And one of the games is: how do I participate in this and be able to have the maximum freedom to operate while exposing myself to the minimum extent to counter points, rejoinders and rebuttals? And the tactic is: I claim that I am not political, I am participating, please do not treat me as political. I have no intention to challenge you. But of course once in a while I will stick a pin when you are not looking. I think it is a process which we will manage, as I have explained. We are not going out narrowing the ground. We are prepared to allow some greyness at the edge. But it cannot be a complete free-for-all and some rules have to be established. And Sintercom, we asked them to register as a political site, they said, "No.”
“There have been mixed signals and she asked for clearer signals. I think our signals are getting clearer and clearer. An evolution is a gradual process and it is something where we have to feel our way forward, as Deng Xiao Ping said, "crossing the river one stone at a time and you feel for each stone as you cross the river." I have stated my position in a speech at the Harvard Club in January. I think the other Ministers have also stated their position in their own ways. We had the Remaking Singapore Committee which I think Dr Vivian will give an update on later. The position today is quite different from what it was five or ten years ago. It is continuing to evolve and we have to find our balance and progressively adjust. The role of the CDCs is one issue which we have to consider. The purpose of having the CDCs of course is to expand the space for civic society because we would like to bring in professionals who are not already in the grassroots organisations at the constituency level, and who are not part of the Government, in order to contribute at this intermediate level. They can organize activities and whether it is welfare programmes, scholarship programmes, or community work, the CDCs is another avenue where they can participate. But there is a balance, because a lot of things happen at the constituencies and the CDCs have to work together with the constituencies and if everything is put under the CDC's umbrella, then where does that leave the grassroots organisations, the CCCs, RCs and their advisors? So a balance has to be struck. This is something which the Government, the Mayors and the grassroots organizations are working on. The CDCs have certain advantage because they have scale, they have some resources, they have the PA's support.”
“PSD has discussed this issue with the PSA, and PSA's position, which we agree with, is that the PSA ex-staff who are now in the MPA will receive the ex-gratia payment at the same time that PSA Corporation pays its own staff. Because it is not tenable for the MPA staff to be paid before the PSA staff are paid. The people who were paid so far were retrenched. So we had to settle with them because they did not leave voluntarily, and PSA had to make a special arrangement for them. But the majority of the PSA staff who are working in the PSA have not been paid. And the basic reason, I think, goes back to how this payment got conceived in the first place. Our original arrangements were no payment. But when a statutory board got corporatised and when the shares were floated, employees were given shares at an employee price. And in some cases, there were big windfalls. So in order to reduce the windfall and control it, we introduce this scheme so that it is a finite amount. We pay you this, you can use it to buy shares at market rate, just like everybody else. So it is really linked to the privatisation and flotation of the company. If the company does not privatise and has not floated yet, then the question of the payment really, in principle, should not arise. In PSA's case, unfortunately, we were planning to privatise and then force majeure supervened and we were not able to follow through. So we postponed the privatisation for the time being. But the plans are still there. I am afraid Mdm Halimah may not be fully satisfied with this answer. But it is one of those disappointments which we have to live with and to manage and to explain. And I think that over time, this problem will be cleared. Ms Braema talked about opening more space for civic society.”
“So, generally speaking, five days are adequate and a joint cap does not seem to have affected people. In fact, I should say that, as a general backdrop to this request for more leave, the civil service has been very generous in its leave provision. We want to be pro-family, we want to cater to parents who have to look after children, or look after aged parents. We cannot just add more and more days of different kinds of leave. The basic principle which the civil service tries to adhere to is that the civil service salary and benefits should keep in line with, but should not lead, the private sector. So we have to study private sector practices and look at how the private sector manage their leave, to see whether we need to review the leave provisions, so that we can meet these new needs and, at the same time, not just balloon the leave entitlements. So that is the answer also to Ms Braema. I am sympathetic to her concern. I know many officers have aged parents at home and it is a considerable burden financially, of course, but also physically, because they got to look after the parents. If he or she is ill, you got to bring him or her to the polyclinic or hospital, or you got to visit her at the old folk's home, and some emergency pops up, you got to run down. These are exigencies which we all know. And I think that we have to make these adjustments. But how do we do this without having more and more days of leave and less and less days of work? So it is something which we have to consider. Mdm Halimah raised a question of whether the staff of Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) will be paid ex-gratia payment. This was paid to the staff who were retrenched from PSA.”
“But the three lady MPs (Ms Irene Ng, Mdm Halimah and Ms Braema) have given further cogent reasons why this matter should be studied, and I am quite sure that Mr Lim Hng Kiang's committee will take them into consideration and reach a sensible conclusion. I hope that August is not too long for Ms Braema to wait. 11.45 am Ms Irene Ng asked about child sick leave and she said that there should not be a cap of five days for both parents per child, because the cap should apply to individual employees. But I would say that the Government recognises that parenting is a joint responsibility of both parents and that is why we have extended the child sick leave provision to fathers. It used to be that only the mothers were allowed to take child sick leave and look after the children. But we said, no, let fathers and mothers be equal. And the fathers, if they are working in the civil service, are also entitled to five days. But if both parents are working in the civil service, actually our principle is to grant child sick leave not based on per parent but per child. So whether you have one parent who is a civil servant working or two parents who are civil servants working, the child probably would fall sick for about the same number of days. And so our principle is five days per child and if you have two parents, they have to decide among themselves which way to split it. I think that is logical. I would say that the unrecorded child sick leave, of course, has contradiction in terms - unrecorded, but five days. So there must be some record somewhere. But it is called that because it is over and above the normal vacation leave provision. And, on average, civil servants have been taking 3.3 days of child sick leave per year.”
“So the problem now is people may pretend to get angry just to get the real human being! But we will explore all these technologies. I would also say that the web interface on the Internet is important and all the Ministries have web pages. We have the e-Government websites, and a lot of business can be done on the Internet. Students can apply for universities, examinations, and so on from the Internet. Many of the transactions with HDB and CPF may take place on the Internet. So, it is very important to have a good Internet interface. As one of the "mystery customer" auditors for the Internet interface, once in a while when I have time, I visit it, and it is not always completely convenient. Because from the point of view of the agency doing it, they know where they want to go. So they know that you click down there, there, there, and then after five clicks, you arrive at where you want. But for the person going in for the first time, it may not be so easy to navigate. So when I find something not quite right, I give them some feedback and try and fix it. But I hope that other people who use the interfaces also do that. Then it will be easier for them to improve. Of course, the basic thing in a good customer service is there must be that motivation to serve and to look after the person, to solve his problem and to smile at him. And this is an on-going exercise and it will be continued to be a key area of focus under PS21. The next subject pertains to medical benefits for female civil servants. I stated our position yesterday which, I think, was after the cuts were filed.”
“When we meet people at the meet-the-people session, they will often explain to us how they have had to see many departments and have to run around and maybe finally may not even get the problems solved. Sometimes we can help them solve the problem. But what we need to do is to solve the problem through direct interface with the civil servants. So that they can solve it and they do not want to depend on the MPs' intervention or even the Ministers' intervention to fix things. One of our initiatives to improve the service quality is to establish guidelines on the desired level of customer service for all public servants. Last year, we started and conducted what we call a "mystery customer" audit on all the Ministries and statutory boards to ensure that the guidelines are observed. Telephone service standards have been included in the audit and the results are currently being compiled. Another way is to make use of technology. Dr Tan complained about the automated system being unfriendly, but it is a fact of life that if you want a 24/7 service and you want to provide it on a mass basis, an automated phone system is of some help. And if the phone system cannot deal with your problem, then some person will deal with it. The Government, of course, has a jargon for this. We call this "interactive voice response (IVR)", or sometimes we use the Internet. There have been complaints, like Dr Tan's, but, overall, I think that they serve a good purpose and we will try to make the system more user-friendly. I read recently that there is some research going on in America where the computer system can recognise the tone of your voice. And if it hears that you are getting angry, then it will transfer you to a real human being.”
“One of the ways which we can make this meeting of minds takes place is to have people who have worked in the public sector, go out, and then eventually go into the private sector. And, hopefully, while they are there, they will retain some of their old perspectives and values, but now understand issues from a different position, and have a clearer idea how policies have to be modified or maybe give us valuable feedback. I know Mrs Lim herself is one such person. She used to be in the Administrative Service, and now she is with Temasek, which is in the private sector. And I am sure there are many others too who are out there, and this gives us valuable links. Dr Tan Boon Wan asked about service quality. He asked for an update on the state of public services, eg, interface with the general public, promptness in answering phone calls, quality of counter service, and so on. He specifically raised the question of the automated answering system being unfriendly, and he asked what we are doing to improve the service. We are quite committed to improve the service quality all the time - it is an unending task. We have what is called the Service Improvement Unit Political Supervisory Committee, which monitors the service quality very closely. One of the things they track is the feedback - brickbats and bouquets. For FY 2002, which is the latest data we have, we found that the ratio of compliments to complaints, ie, bouquets to brickbats, was 13:1. That means 13 bouquets for every brickbat. This shows that the quality of service is good, but I know there is always room for improvement.”
“We have been trying to do this for several years now. We have a few officers come in. The successes have not been many, because it is quite a difficult hurdle to cross. The officers who come in do not feel comfortable as they are in a different environment, they are used to a bottomline environment, chasing projects, closing deals, and getting things done. Here, you have to deal with policy papers and intangibles. You need a change of mindset, and yet you do not want them to change so much that they become just like all the other civil servants, and then their uniqueness is lost. So, it is a challenge. We will continue to do this, and when we bring people in, we make a special effort to look after them so that we foster their adjustment and integration into the civil service. The British also have the same preoccupation. Prime Minister Tony Blair recently addressed their civil service and set out all the things which they need to do to change. One of them is the need to have greater interchange and flow with the private sector. In their case, about one-quarter of the Director-Generals had come in from the private sector. So they seem to have had more success than we have had so far, but we will continue to learn and improve. I understand the difficulties which the private sector has in understanding the public sector's imperatives. I sympathise with them. I also thank Mrs Lim for being very polite in expressing them. I should say that it is both ways. The private sector sometimes feels that it would like this done and why can it not be done. And, often, there are good reasons. But, often, there are also good reasons why the public sector wants something done even though the private sector does not want it. It is necessary to have some meeting of minds.”
“Thirdly, we need people with commercial experience in the public sector. Mrs Lim is right that when officers come in, they are new, they do not have experience. But this experience can be acquired. One of the things we have done is to have a gap year for the people who are on the Management Associates Programme, who are on the track to join the Administrative Service. That means, when they graduate, before they start work, they are given six months or a year to spend either with an MNC or with a supernational corporation, like the IMF or the World Bank, or to be in an emerging economy like China or India, and gain some real experience to see how things are done, before they come in. I think it will change their mindset. It would not make them all into bankers and businessmen, but at least they will know how things are done and what it is like to be the receiving end of instructions and directives. That is a new programme, but I think it is going to help. Fourthly, we have schemes to second our civil servants out to the private sector and spend a year with a company, work there, and then come back to the public sector. We have officers who went to SIA and to Shell. MAS has officers gone out even to the financial institutions, some of them to the Wall Street investment banks. I think that also helps. Fifthly, we want to recruit people into the public sector from the private sector - mid-career, people who have spent time, who have established themselves, who have some feel for how things are done in the private sector, who can come in and will be able to contribute a different perspective. We do not hope to make them into bureaucrats. But we hope that by being different from the rest of the civil servants, they will contribute something valuable.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. Let me deal with the issues they have raised one by one. First, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua talked about a pro-enterprise civil service. I absolutely agree with her that it is very important that the public sector also understands what enterprises are about and is able to formulate and create a framework which fosters enterprise in the private sector. We need very able people who understand not just business but also policy. It is not easy to find such people. If we ask the public sector what is the problem, they will say the private sector does not understand policy. But, of course, if you ask the private sector what is the problem, they say the civil servants do not understand the business. And we need to find people who have some appreciation of both, or we need some private sector people within our organisation. First of all, I think we need able people in the public sector, that means, good quality people - talented, committed, imaginative, have drive, ideas, willing to take risk, willing to make decisions. It has to be a high quality public service where people are well-treated, they see career opportunities and personal fulfilment, and they want to go and do something for themselves and also for their country. That is what we have been trying to build in the public sector. Secondly, we have to make sure that it is a competitive career. Whether you are in the public sector or in the private sector, if you do well, the monetary rewards should not be too different, and that is why we have had a policy of competitive wages in the public sector and we will continue to maintain that policy, even though in the last two years, because of the downturn and the special circumstances, we have had to freeze and, in some cases, cut salaries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this question has been raised and will be answered in the Committee of Supply. We live within our means. Our means include tax collections, our other revenue collections and a proportion of the income from investments, which can go up and come down. On a long-term basis, our investments have performed creditably and comparable to benchmarks and other fund managers. The adjustments which we have to make are not because of our performance in investments. They are because we have to decide what sort of society we are going to be, whether we are going to be self-sustaining or whether we are going to be a welfare state. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2005.”
“As we connect ourselves to the global economy, as we build a cosmopolitan, open society that is more welcoming to diversity, we will preserve a cohesive society with strong social bonds, where the able and well-off care for and help the weak and the poor, and where the family unit remains as our foundation and our future. This Budget continues what we started off doing in the Economic Review Committee - to promote industries, to promote entrepreneurship and encourage restructuring; and to create a nimble and flexible economy, with enterprising people that can take advantage of the rise of Asia. And as we restructure our economy, we also focus on the long term social challenges. We must rise to these challenges to preserve the vitality of Singapore for many years to come. Conclusion So let us pull together as one to make Singapore a Land of Opportunity: opportunity for each person to be the best that he can be; the opportunity for businesses to start, grow and thrive; the opportunity for parents to raise their children in a safe and secure environment; and the opportunity for all Singaporeans to build a Singapore they can be proud of as a country and a home. [Applause.]”
“We have a good market catchment, especially the growing wealth in India and China. We have a safe, clean and green environment and a cosmopolitan culture which welcomes foreigners. Our arts, leisure and entertainment scene is now much livelier. Even our old Parliament House has become an Arts House. I am not sure we can achieve and sustain 7%-8% growth. We are past that stage of rapid expansion. Also, I do not think that reaching 8 million population in 15 years is realistic because it means growing our population by more than a quarter million per year. It is not possible. But we must do our utmost to grow our economy, and if we can make 3%-5% growth per year, and more in good years, then we will progressively change the face of Singapore. We should also work hard to grow our population so that we can come closer to Hong Kong or Switzerland which are both 7.3-7.4 million and have that critical mass and that verve. And we are a safe and peaceful oasis in a turbulent world, a special red dot that is a haven for Singaporeans and foreigners alike. Dr Wang described how Dubai is building Palm Island, a beautiful resort attracting foreigners from all over the world, buying beachfront properties and building homes. I think the PM on his recent Middle-eastern trip visited it. Dr Wang referred to Sentosa Cove, suggesting that we should do the same. In fact, we will do the same. We have decided to allow foreigners to buy landed properties at Sentosa Cove, for precisely the reasons that Dr Wang has argued. This is a special arrangement for Sentosa Cove. It does not apply to the rest of Singapore. BG George Yeo will tell you more about the plans in MTI's Committee of Supply. Our future is full of promise.”
“The challenge of parenthood is one where both husbands and wives must shoulder together. So, as Mr Tan Soo Khoon said - this year, I agree with most of Mr Tan Soo Khoon's speech - the question of whether to raise a family is one that every Singaporean will have to seriously ask himself or herself. And the answers that each one of us gives, taken together, will decide what kind of Singapore this is going to be. Is it going to be a young vibrant, forward-looking society, or an aging self-centred declining society? It is not just about building a critical mass of people to ensure the security and economic vitality of Singapore, or even a question of who is going to look after us when we grow old. It is about the values which will shape the society of the future, and what we ourselves will leave behind when we pass on. Because having children is believing in the future. It is about setting aside our own comforts and conveniences for their sake. It is the same values that make us good parents - sacrifice, selflessness, confidence, and resilience - that will also make us a strong society. And that, more than anything else, is why we must help Singaporeans to raise families for the future. Creating a future of opportunity Dr Wang Kai Yuen spoke passionately about how Singapore could be a land of opportunity. We must grow by 7%-8% per year, grow our population to 8 million, and exploit our strengths as a safe and peaceful oasis in a world of turbulence. He described how impressed he was by the United Arab Emirates - he did not say, but I think he was referring specifically to Dubai - doing this in the Gulf, and he asked: could Singapore do the same? I say, why not? Let us do it. We have many things going for us.”
“And then when the female employee becomes pregnant and applies for maternity leave, date applied, contract terminated. The women sign the letters because they need the work. But then they 'vote with their wombs' and forgo having more than one child. So that is why the challenge cannot be solved just by Government measures. We need the support of employers, unions, and society as a whole to help our fellow Singaporeans have children and to raise babies. The decisions to marry, have children, and raise a family are personal ones. We are guided by our values and attitudes towards life. Maternity leave, flexi-work arrangements, financial incentives and all the other measures, 50 or more, influence these decisions, but they are not the decisive factors. I agree with the many MPs who have said that this is an issue of the heart, of emotions, not one that can be solved by financial incentives alone. They spoke eloquently and with feeling about the joys of parenthood. As a father, I share their sentiments, because ultimately it is for the love of children that we have children. So our values and priorities in life will need to shift. Couples will need to realise that while it is important to pursue a career, it cannot be the only thing in life. It is good to go on holidays, three, four or five times a year, as some young people wrote in the Straits Times, but that is not the only thing in life. We become whole through our families, and society must not only recognise this but embrace it. Women are caught at the heart of the many difficult trade-offs involved in having children and raising families. The women MPs have all reminded us that what we need are mindset changes - in the home, the workplace, and society at large.”
“On this too, the Government has said "no" many times. In fact, my answer is already drafted for tomorrow's Committee of Supply. But in the spirit of leaving no stone unturned, and never saying never, I will also refer this to the Working Committee to consider. But I would like to add that couples wanting to have babies should not wait till the announcement of the package in August. I have heard of some women who are planning to have a baby, but have decided to hold off trying until the incentives are announced, in case the baby is born too early. Mr Iswaran has suggested that I backdate the procreation benefits. I do not think we need to go that far. August is not too long away, to be exact, it is less than nine months away. So the Government has decided that the procreation benefits will take effect once we settle and announce them in August. So, it is definitely not too early for all couples to start trying for babies now. But, ultimately, it is our attitudes and values that we need to reflect on and to shift. We can have the most family-friendly practices enshrined in law, but if social attitudes do not support parenthood and families, and if couples do not see having babies and bringing up families as one of their personal priorities, our birth rates will continue to languish. Mr Tan Soo Khoon mentioned how Italy has a generous maternity leave scheme. Well, we have studied Italy. I am told that although the legislation allows working women five months of maternity leave, many do not take it. Our study team went there and they were told by unions and academics that some companies require their employees to sign undated resignation letters when they join.”
“But, finally, at the end of the day, if somebody still says, "I have this unhappiness and you have not solved it. Therefore, I am unhappy; therefore I have no babies." Well, I will try my best, but I would not always be able to solve the problem. We should not focus exclusively on any single measure or solution. Different parents have very different needs. Different women have very different needs. That is one reason why there are so many different suggestions. So our package must take a balanced approach. I hesitate to go into all of these suggestions. As Ms Indranee Rajah reminded us, the more I speak on the suggestions put forward, the greater the risk that the women may hear me differently and, maybe, even the men! So Minister Lim Hng Kiang and his committee will carefully evaluate all of them, but let me just comment briefly on three of them. Firstly, citizenship by descent to children born overseas to women citizens. We will do this. We will amend the Constitution so that children born overseas to female Singaporeans will be of the same status as children born overseas to male Singaporeans. The Minister for Home Affairs will elaborate on this in the Committee of Supply. Secondly, the 5-day work week for the civil service. The Government has said "no" many times before. But many Members have argued that this is important to families. And I can tell you that many civil servants have told me that it is important to them. So the Working Committee on Population will study it carefully, taking all the other suggestions, and taking into consideration the need to maintain service standards in the civil service. Thirdly, equalisation of medical benefits for men and women in the civil service. This also has been raised in this House many times, especially by our women MPs.”
“In fact, Mr Inderjit Singh may accuse us of unfair competition one of these days. But the second reason is from SDU's and SDS' experience, people who are prepared to pay a fee are much more serious in wanting to look for a partner than those who use the services because they are free. So I think that this is quite a good thing going on and we should not disturb it. The Government's role is to foster a conducive environment and strengthen the support network to help Singaporeans fulfil their aspirations and to enjoy parenthood and family living. As I emphasised in my Budget Statement, the Government will take a holistic and coherent approach to this issue. At the same time, we have to be realistic in our expectations. Members have made many suggestions on how we can create a pro-natal environment. They cover everything under the sun: reduce stress in school; 5-day week in the civil service; different permutations of maternity or paternity leave; flexi-work arrangements; more subsidies for childcare; reduce foreign maid levy; reduce abortion rate; make adoption easier; ensure gender equality; equal medical benefits for men and women in the civil service; grant citizenship by descent to children born overseas to women citizens; make boys and girls spend time together through national service; and many more. And even this is not an exhaustive list. The Government will do its best to reduce the burden and anxieties which families face in having and bringing up children. But the Government cannot solve all of life's problems. The package will be holistic, but it must also be realistic. We would like people to get married and have families, even if we have not succeeded in making Singapore perfect in every respect.”
“The answer was: if you have a tuition grant, there is a three-year bond to work in Singapore. We do not give away our money for free and, least of all, do we give away money for foreigners at the expense of Singaporeans. Raising families for our future Holistic approach, realistic expectations Now, let me talk about babies. More than any other issue, the topic of marriage and parenthood has dominated the last three days of discussion in this House. I am heartened by this because it shows that Members understand the seriousness of the problem. They have applied their minds to it and, in many cases, obviously their hearts as well. Many spoke with passion on this subject, not only the parents, but also the grandparents. Some devoted large parts of their speeches to analysing the problem and to suggesting ideas to tackle it. So, over the next few months, the Working Committee on Population will carefully consider all the views that have been put forward. I understand that Mrs Yu-Foo has added them altogether, and counted 50, and has given the list to Mr Lim Hng Kiang. As Dr Amy Khor pointed out, most young Singaporeans want to get married. And most married couples want to have children. The trouble is not all the young Singaporeans get married and not all those who get married end up having children. But, anyway, they do want to and this is an important starting point. Hence, the SDU and SDS provide match-making services, which are very popular, despite the fees that Dr Teo Ho Pin complained about. I asked SDS and SDU what the explanation was and they gave me two very good explanations. First, the fees are very low compared to the private sector because they charge $30-$150, whereas the private sector charges $700-$1,000. So it is a real bargain.”
“We can consider this, although I am not absolutely sure Dr Chen would prefer it. MOE will study this problem carefully. We are not making any sudden changes. We have said, no adjustments this year, and even if we have adjustments next year and beyond, this will be phased in gradually over several years. This is a long-term problem, not an immediate one. We would ensure affordable financing arrangements. There will be scholarships, bursaries and loans available to all students. The loan repayments will be reasonable. We are not out to bankrupt you, to squeeze you, or to profit from you. We just need to recover the costs, and you have a whole working life to pay back, and we will work out repayment terms so that you can afford to get married early, have a flat, have your babies, and not have to say, "I have to pay back my study loans, I cannot afford two babies." Mr Low Thia Khiang, of course, made a political point of this and accused the Government of intending to treat foreign students better than our local students when we revise the university fees. He has made up a fictitious scenario and twisted the facts. The Government will always treat Singaporeans better than foreigners. In fact, that was one of the principles when we talked about the baby procreation incentives, and one of the things which we are going to study as to how we can make this distinction clearer. But as far as university education is concerned, the distinction is already there because under the Tuition Grant Scheme, foreign students pay 10% more than locals in school fees. If school fees go up for the locals, they are going to go up for the foreigners too. There are even a few foreigners who pay a 100% fee with no tuition grant. I asked why they did that.”