Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 25.
“Doctors come from an array of specialties and backgrounds and may not fully understand the intricacies of cases across the profession. In Australia, for performance assessments, the national board selects an assessor whose scope of practice is similar to that of the practitioner being assessed. For example, a general practitioner who works in a rural and remote area might be assessed by a practitioner who is familiar with the particular challenges of rural practice. Moreover, in health and performance panels, at least one member must be a registered practitioner in the relevant or same health profession as the practitioners subject to the panel. Next, Sir, while the introduction of a statute of limitations of six years for complaints is a good step to allow for the referral of a late complaint to the President of the Disciplinary Commission, section 41 (6)(3) may appear to negate the whole point of a statute of limitations. The President of the Disciplinary Commission will then decide if it is still "in the public interest" to pursue the case. It is possible that the threshold is set very low, in which case, many late cases will be pursued contrary to the reasonableness of the statute of limitations. Can the legislation or subsidiary legislation be more specific in describing the scenarios in which it would be permissible for a late complaint to be investigated? Next, I raise the issue of ensuring sufficient training to members of the these DCs, in a way that is comprehensive and demonstrably. In the Lim Lian Arn and Soo Shuenn Chiang's cases, unjust outcomes were found by the Court of Three Judges to have arisen from ignorance of the Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines or ECEG and of medical ethics in general.”
“The Public Accountants Oversight Committee or PAOC, operating under ACRA, is authorised to oversee all matters related to the registration of public accountants in Singapore. To ensure independence, a majority of PAOC members are not public accountants. They comprise experienced professionals from the Public Service, the business community and the audit profession. Providing some degree of representation to patient advocacy groups on such DCs while medical practitioners remain in the majority may be worth considering. I would also suggest that legislation consider requiring that a public interest goal that encompasses a recognition of the need to balance all stakeholder interests, including those of patients, non-doctor medical staff and taxpayers be included in the mission statement of the SMC. After all, the SMA already exists as something akin to a union for medical practitioners and the SMC should be seen to reflect the broader interests and the greater good. In the same vein, I would also like to ask: the 2019 work group report, which provided the critical inputs for these amendments, largely drew on feedback from doctors. The report did mention that the work group spoke to patient advocacy groups, but did not specify which ones. I would like to ask for details of which patient advocacy groups were consulted. Next, Sir, I would like to ask if there will be a requirement for a minimum number of medical practitioners sitting on DCs from the same discipline as that of the medical practitioner who is the subject of a complaint or investigation. This would seem sensible, so as to inject relevant clinical expertise into the deliberative process.”
“Fourthly, it provides for clear separation or clearer separation between the investigation and adjudication arms with the establishment of a new Disciplinary Commission or DC. Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, these clarifications would tend to advance confidence and certainty amongst medical practitioners which may lessen any drift towards defensive medicine. Next, I will speak about potential gaps and issues in the Bills as it stands and make a number of suggestions. Before I begin, I declare my interest as the CEO of a research consultancy that there is some work in the healthcare services space. While some have seen these amendments as lending greater weight in the disciplinary process towards doctors and away from lawyers and while, if true, that would have its merits, as the process would be more akin to discipline being meted out by a jury of one's peers, I wonder if there should be a role for patient advocates, so that the outcomes from the disciplinary process may better balance the interests of different stakeholder groups and will be seen to be performing that role. This is not an idea that is without precedent. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, for example, overseas a regulatory regime which includes performance and professional standards panels that consists of at least three members selected from a list of people approved by the national board. The panel will include at least half but no more than two-thirds of registered practitioners in the same profession as the practitioners subject to the panel, and at least one person representing the community. Another interesting example to cite in this regard is Singapore's disciplinary process for accountants.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill represents the result of a process of review that was initiated in early 2019 and also saw the formation of the work group to review the taking of informed consent and SMC disciplinary process, which submitted its report in late 2019. Taken as a whole, the Bill represents an important step in the right direction and I do not oppose the Bill. However, there are gaps and issues on which I shall speak to suggest further areas for review and Improvement going forward. A furore on the medical community over the taking of informed consent emerged in early 2019 over the case of SMC vs Dr Lim Lian Arn. During the COS debates in 2019, I spoke about some of the issues raised by this and other recent cases in respect of the clarity around rules on consent taking and procedural issues with the SMC's disciplinary process, including the rules governing the composition of the SMC itself. Why is the Bill before us today a step in the right direction? These include firstly, it will enable the SMC to issue immediate interim orders against medical practitioners if there is imminent danger to the public. Second, it specifies the statute of limitations which would tend to enhance clarity and confidence amongst the medical profession. Thirdly, it specifies timelines for investigation and disciplinary deliberations such as, for example, that for the complaints panel to appoint an Inquiry Committee and for the Inquiry Committee to perform its filtering role. This addresses the unsatisfactory situation of complaints being deliberated for years while during that time, a cloud hangs over the head of the medical practitioner who is the complainant.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. One supplementary question for the Minister. Does the HDB monitor the extent of BTO flat defects associated with particular contractors in particular developments? And is that information then, given consideration in the decision-making process to award future contracts to that particular contractor? Is that information set analysed and given some weight in the decision-making process to award tenders to contractors?”
“Yes. My question is: how will the Government adapt to these changing realities? Would children who are offsprings of such marriages be asked to classify themselves as "Others", or how would that be approached?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just one point of clarification to the hon Minister, Mr Maliki Osman. He spoke about the continued relevance in the eyes of the Government of the CMIO framework that we are members of different ethnic groups in terms of how we are viewed by Government systems and processes and so on, and that it is important to keep that in mind. Over time we have seen more and more interracial marriages between Singaporeans of different ethnic groups. The Government has more recently allowed double-barrelled ethnic classification on the NRIC. I think that has become a process that has gained some momentum. As time goes by, we may even find more marriages between a Singaporean from an interracial marriage and another Singaporean from an interracial marriage.”
“I would like to ask Mr Nair would he acknowledge that other countries who have higher unemployment than Singapore, it may not be causally because they have a Minimum Wage; and if we have low unemployment than those countries, it may not causally be that it is because we do not have a Minimum Wage?”
“The Minister of State and others have said that the Progressive Wage Models can be rolled out to more sectors but my question to Minister of State Zaqy would really be – what would you say to individuals earning less than $1,300 per month who are supporting a household which is below the average household expenditure on basic needs that the Government itself has specified. Does the Minister of State believe that there is no room for policy improvement for this group? Should this group wait until the Progressive Wage Model comes to them? How long will that take? How many years will that take? Is there no room for improvement and what would the Minister of State say to those individuals? That is my first point of clarification. My second point of clarification is to Minister of State Gan. I would like to invite the Minister of State to agree with, and I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did make some of these points earlier that there is a considerable body of academic research that suggests that if a Minimum Wage is set at a level that is not too high – and there are various definitions that had been postulated by academics, I know there is a figure of 40% of the median and so on – if the Minimum Wage is not set too high, will have a minimal or negligible impact on jobs. There is actually quite considerable academic evidence for this proposition. And I would like to ask the Minister of State Gan would she consider that actually the danger to jobs is not setting a Minimum Wage, but setting a Minimum Wage too high, which is definitely not what we are advocating. My third clarification is to Mr Vikram Nair who asked whether there is another country that has a Minimum Wage and has a lower unemployment than we have in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to seek some clarifications from Minister of State Zaqy, Minister of State Gan and Mr Vikram Nair about what they have said. So, I will start with Minister of State Zaqy. I would like to put it to the hon Minister of State that based on Parliamentary Questions that we have asked in the last term, if you take a wage level of say $1,300 per month, the number of people who are earning below that wage right now is approximately 100,000. It could be a bit more, it could be a bit less, but that is my inference from answers to Parliamentary Questions that we got earlier. Let us assume that it is 100,000 earning less than $1,300 per month. In response to a separate Parliamentary Question that we asked – what is the average household expenditure on basic needs – we asked this of the Government, I believe, in 2019 and the answer came back – $1,300 per month. When a similar question was asked by my colleague Mr Gerald Giam, the answer was $1,250 per month. If I recall correctly, that was a number of years back. So, $1,300 per month is the average household expenditure on basic needs. That excludes transport. There is no equivalence between the two. Of course, there could be dual-income, triple-income households. But for those earning $1,300 per month, I assume that not everyone will be covered by the Progressive Wage Model. I think that is a reasonable and fair assumption.”
“I thank the hon Minister for that explanation. And I think that the NTUC has certainly processed many cases and attempted to do well in very trying circumstances. I just have one point of clarification. The Minister spoke about how NTUC raised its hand. The Minister, if I heard her correctly, also alluded to how NTUC perhaps did not have the the resourcing necessary to take on this task. So, my question would really be: could the Minister shed some light on the Government's thinking why the administration of SIRS was given to NTUC rather than to a Ministry or a Statutory Board? One imagines that an organisation like the NTUC, being a collective, a union, has less experience and less resources when administering a national level policy likes SIRS, as compared to Ministries and Statutory Boards. I just like to ask for a little bit more clarity on the thinking behind that decision.”
“I thank the hon Minister for her clarification. I think she asked about specifically about the SIRS scheme. I am aware that it has provided help to a large number of people who are in need of help, who are self-employed. I will say in all candour that I am not aware specifically of any country that has a similar scheme. But having said that, I have not specifically researched into that issue. The point that I made in my speech was really about the process of application for SIRS and in fact, for other forms of aid and how we could improve on that process. For example, by applicants being able to make a declaration that they are not receiving family support rather than having members of their family interviewed for the degree to which they support them. So, that was one aspect of the speech that I made. But I think the point is well taken that in times like this, in times of crisis, forms of aid had been delivered by the Government to persons in need including those self-employed. And we have seen forms of aid being delivered by governments in other countries as well. There are eight packages that are certain percentage of GDP. The point that I made in my speech was not to take away or detract from the value of SIRS that has helped a number of applicants but really how that process could be improved. I should state since the Minister raised this point that perhaps one other area of improvement that I did not allude to, would be when cases are turned down, if there could be more specificity about the reason why they are being turned down, that may actually be helpful to make the appeal process or the follow-up process a little bit more efficient.”
“I thank the hon Member Ms Carrie Tan for her clarification. I said in my speech that self-employed persons who are receiving various forms of aid like SIRS have to go through multiple steps and there are different ways of thinking about the process that they have to follow to pursue those steps and to obtain the aid that they need. I spoke about this. I did not say that self-employed people are self-employed because they are made redundant or that self-employed people are somehow not worthy of help. So, I think perhaps also the Member may be alluding to my reference to redundancy insurance. My reference to the redundancy Insurance scheme, which we have proposed in the last term of Parliament in this House is not specifically about self-employed persons. It is about people who become involuntarily unemployed. I just hope that that serves as some clarification for the Member.”
“We must not educate our students to always be aiming to second-guess what the right answer is and provide that answer in a formulae fashion. That can easily translate into a future workplace attitude of second-guessing what the boss wants rather than figuring out the best solution for the customer of the company or the company to achieve the end goal. In the world they will grow up in, there will be no one right answer but rather different answers, approaches and strategies that could all be equally consistent with the facts. In conclusion, Sir, in the real life story of the Titanic, unlike in the movie, there were heroes but no real villains. Rather, the villain was a system that was as adaptable to every conceivable circumstance as the hubris of the designers led them to believe. It is up to us to do better from this crisis to equip our successes for the next.”
“Next, we should address the perception that NPOs who receive state funding, to some degree, risk that funding if they publish research or ideas that contradict Government policy or are seen to criticise Government policy to some degree. Anecdotally, that perception still exists. Actions like the Government's removal of a grant from cartoonist Sonny Liew’s award-winning comic book due to its interpretation of Singapore history do not help matters. Next, we can be more aggressive in providing matching grants to NPOs that aim to address issues of public policy with a proven track record of making good contributions to public debate. We must do more to reboot our notion of meritocracy as the President alluded to in her Address. To celebrate unorthodox pathways to success, redefining what success is. To be honest, this is not an easy undertaking and requires the whole-of-society effort. One suggestion I have would be to identify those who have succeeded in some way, making an impact in life by pursuing unconventional pathways and accord them the status of ambassadors of the unconventional as it were or some such term. These individuals could be engaged to speak to students in IHLs, to TACs in the professional groups. To promote unorthodox pathways, we also need to uncage unorthodox thinking. Here again, I would like to return to the education system. All of those who are parents are familiar with Primary school examination questions where extra points are awarded for expressing the right answer in the right way, rather than the right answer in an unconventional way. Can we not rethink practices like this? Habits and mental models ingraining from an early age tend to stick.”
“A stronger civil society with a louder voice may bring that element of diversity in debate that can enhance resilience, rather than over depending on a strong state apparatus that is dominated by one political party. There is, Sir, a pragmatic case for pluralism, not only a philosophic one. Many Singaporeans have asked if the explosion of COVID-19 cases would have happened if we had heeded the warnings of civil society groups about our current system of housing foreign workers. Some groups had repeatedly warned of the risk of outbreaks of infectious diseases in these dormitories. Do we have a sufficiently strong civil society, meaning independent not-for-profit organisations, or NPOs, media academia and so on. In a speech in 1967 on how the intelligence here can make the contribution to society, Dr Goh Keng Swee attacked what he called a curious view that the Singapore Government’s disapproved or dissenting opinions. I quote from an intellectual biography of Dr Goh by Ooi Kee Beng which describes Dr Goh’s speech as saying that the marginality of open debate in Singapore was serious and had to stop. What was valuable was open debate unencumbered by timidity and carried out by intellectuals who linked abstract principles with experience of ground reality. How do we address these impulses? I will share a few ideas. We can do more to nudge and incentivise wealthy Singaporeans to set up philanthropic foundations that not only provide charity but engage in research on policy issues to provide alternative perspectives and ideas. We do have some. For example, I cite the Lien’s Foundation’s paper on pre-school education in 2012, which was impactful, but we need more.”
“Going back to the Titanic metaphor, despite the strict women-and-children-first policy, a greater proportion of men in first-class survived than of children in third-class. The COVID crisis is testing our fault lines of class. The gap will widen between those with plenty of future-ready skills, financial and social capital, versus those that have less. How do we deal with this as a nation? As our social fabric becomes increasingly tested by these powerful forces, we must ensure that our social contract, our political institutions, culture and norms will not crack under the pressure. COVID has illustrated how, in this new era, Singapore needs to build an overarching political social and economic eco-system that is not fragile. The writer, Nassim Taleb, who has studied this issue, writes and I quote, “It is far easier to figure out if something is fragile than to predict the occurrence of an event that may harm it.” And in a separate quote, “The classic example of something antifragile is Hydra, the Greek mythological creature that has numerous heads. When one is cut off, two grow back in its place”. That means the systems do not over concentrate power, thought leadership, social capital and initiative in one organisation, grouping or class, unless fragile. And in the new world that is dawn in Black Swan events, may be effectively unpredictable, and antifragility may become more important than efficiency. Singapore is characterised by a strong and well-resourced state, but a less strong civil society in a political landscape that is less plural than in almost all other developed countries.”
“Being ahead of the curve of these attributes can be a competitive advantage for Singapore firms. Our economic agencies should consider deploying relevant tools to incentivise and nudge our local firms to develop tangible programmes that ensure traceability of supply chains and sound practices in these respects. This will enable them to more competitively export to developed economies in North America, Europe, Japan and elsewhere. Over time, this can be expected to become a bigger advantage. Our companies could also be supported in their efforts to help their local suppliers and partners adopt such practices in ASEAN countries like Indonesia and Vietnam that will help ensure that Singapore FDI in ASEAN is welcome, and may even bolster our public diplomacy efforts, and the Singapore National brand in our ASEAN neighbourhood. Sir, before leaving the subject of our economy, let me touch on the need for good intelligence to support economic planning. On the Titanic, the lookouts had no binoculars, and the wireless operator dismissed the key iceberg warning. So, we collect unemployment data using the labour force survey every month and publish data every quarter. In times of crisis, more frequent data on how many people are losing their jobs would help inform decision-making and public debate. We should make retrenchment data reporting mandatory even for micro-SMEs employing less than 10 persons. With the data published every fortnight, during crises like the current one, this would provide a more comprehensive, sensitive and useful data set in times of crises, compared with current unemployment reporting or even the job situation report published on 11 August. Sir, finally I would like to speak on our social balance of solidarity as a nation.”
“That is deplorable and needs to be address. Indeed I and other Workers’ Party Members of Parliament have often spoken about this. There are many Singaporeans who have been incredibly successful as business leaders in MNCs and local firms. But can the Government consider engaging with employers to understand this kind of feedback where it exists? Assess if there is any basis to it and circle back, as it were, to our curriculum development in our school system to understand why locals with these skills are not being produced in sufficient numbers, if this is indeed the case. Fourthly, Sir, I would suggest that in the uncertain world that faces us, domestic entrepreneurship and innovation are going to be more important in driving growth, vis-à-vis FDI attraction. Are we doing as well as we could on entrepreneurship? How do we fare in global indices of entrepreneurial performance? In the global entrepreneurship monitors, Entrepreneurial Eco-system Quality Composite Index, for example, Singapore is simply not featured as a participating country. Do we have enough entrepreneurs, including, and especially, women entrepreneurs, who can start up and scale up? If not, why not? This is a subject that warrants serious study. If there are impediments to entrepreneurship as regards access to financing, for example, an unlevel playing field due to gaps in competition policy, for example, or any other such issues, these should be identified and addressed. And lastly, Sir, on the economy. Many developed country governments and MNCs are facing pressures to ensure traceability in their supply chains in respect of sustainability, fair labour and trade practices, food safety and so on – concerns given expression in the UN's SDGs.”
“With sufficient time for local firms to adapt and with strong support given to local companies to retool and invest to make that transition. Mr Speaker, Sir, lest anyone misunderstands my words here, I am certainly not advocating a sudden and radical reduction in the foreign worker population before local firms and other stakeholders have the opportunity to adapt. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our foreign workers. But having such a large population of foreign workers raises questions about longer term sustainability. As my colleague Ms He Ting Ru said in one of our panel discussions, the countries exporting foreign workers today may not remain poor forever. There may come a day when they do not want to come to Singapore to do such jobs or, at least, not at current rates of pay. What will we do then? Low cost today may not mean low-cost tomorrow. As my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, and ex-Non-constituency Member of Parliament Mr Yee Jenn Jong, spoke about on the same panel, there is scope to redesign some of these jobs in the construction sector, for example, for locals at higher rates of pay and higher levels of productivity to minimise the impact on costs. For decades, this has not been done. Thirdly, there are many foreigners who occupy senior corporate positions. Some employers anecdotally comment that it is not easy to find enough Singaporeans who have the higher-order skills to lead large teams at the local, regional or global levels. Skills like resilience, strong communication abilities, finding unconventional solutions to novel problems, and so on. Sir, in saying this I do not, for one minute, mean to say that this kind of feedback, when we hear it, is necessarily accurate. There are some employers who engage in discriminatory practises against Singaporeans.”
“Why Singaporeans who faced skill obsolescence and so-called sunset-industry jobs are not re-skilling fast enough to sunrise sectors? Many local SMEs have struggled to weather the storm. After years of schemes to support SMEs and start-ups. Do we have enough regionally and globally competitive companies to anchor this local pillar even as the external pillar becomes more challenging. Sir, I would like to share a few suggestions about these economic challenges. Firstly, as a policy making principle, we should relook at existing incentive schemes to slightly enhance incentives to our companies to hire workers specifically from industries that are likely to face obsolescence in the next decade to bring these workers into new and more future-ready industries, including Industry 4.0 sectors. There are several industries that are facing structural disruption. Many jobs in delivery and driving will be replaced by autonomous vehicles and drones in the decades to come. For example, the same can be said for jobs that involve pure coordination and narrow clerical functions which may be overtaken by AI-driven bots. For example, we could look at programmes like Scale-up Singapore, a programme to scale up promising local start-ups and incentivise them to hire locals specifically from such so-called sunset sectors and give them opportunities in fast-growing companies and industries. I am sure many of these workers would value the opportunity to prove themselves in such an environment. Secondly, we ought to take a serious look at the entire sector of workers on work permits and set long-term targets to substantially reduce, not eliminate, but reduce, our dependence on such foreign workers.”
“The dominant narrative holds that our economy has also been brilliantly engineered and painstakingly maintained through sound policy, but the post-COVID landscape is changing, with many of the deeper trends having been accelerated, but not fundamentally caused by the COVID crisis. It is a commonplace to say that economic nationalism is on the rise. There is globalisation in global trade growth. National governments are doing more to root economic activities like manufacturing and food production domestically. In time, foreign direct investment, or FDI, may be harder to win; but there are also more subtle changes taking place. Countries and companies are becoming more conscious of food safety, sustainability and unfair labour, trade and tax practices. The UN’s sustainable development goals, or SDGs, are a widely recognised attempt to address such concerns. National governments as well as multinational companies, or MNCs, will come under increasing pressure to address such things. The COVID crisis has crystallised a few key questions about our economic strategies. While unemployment and underemployment affect many Singaporeans, many foreign, special, and employment pass holders continue to hold jobs that many Singaporeans would see as desirable. To be sure, Singaporeans as a whole has never rejected a role for foreigners in the workforce throughout our history, and I certainly do not. Talent from abroad can augment our economic prospects. There are some jobs that Singaporeans are not attracted to – based on current job design. But have we thought hard enough about why not enough Singaporeans have the requisite skills for some of these desirable jobs?”
“Can we focus not only on social justice, which is paramount, but also pragmatism, a value much lauded in Singapore. Some applicants need help from society. But by helping them, society may actually benefit in the longer term. If they fail to get that help, they may, for example, not obtain timely medical interventions, which may lead to a worsening medical condition and more state and social cost downstream if they need a more costly medical intervention. For example, many such cases may raise MediShield premiums or the fiscal burden of state hospital subsidies, or the applicant may cut expenses for their children for meals and miscellaneous school-related costs, which could hurt their children’s prospects later in life, curtailing the future talent pool and tax base for our economy. When there are applications for financial aid, could we, for instance, ask applicants to make declarations that they do not receive family support, bearing the risk of penalties for false declarations? Could we ask applicants to provide permission to the agency to access financial or other records on a need-to-know basis, rather than requiring them to bring physical copies to a physical meeting? Could we handle more interviews remotely using now ubiquitous videocall technology? Next, Sir, I turn to the economy, and in doing so, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy. Coming back to the Titanic metaphor. The designers of the Titanic engineered it to be unsinkable, thanks to the latest fail-safes, and yet it failed.”
“Insufficient lifeboats will undermine the confidence and peace of mind of Singaporeans, not to mention desirable risk-taking and entrepreneurial behaviour. Many of us in this house would have been inundated by appeals from Singaporeans whose SIRS' applications have been turned down. Had we instituted a redundancy insurance scheme much earlier and given it time to build up funds, that would have acted as an automatic stabiliser kicking in during a crisis without Government discretion and reducing the need for executive disbursement surveyed. Some commentators have asked if now is the right time to introduce such a scheme, but that is precisely the point, should have been done earlier. And even now when we debate such issues, those debates should be guided by what we should do to meet the next crisis. Some would say that our system of social safety nets contains some sand in the system. Appealing for help when in distress for example, through schemes like SIRS, ComCare, MediFund and even a reduction in HDB resale levy when downgrading, involves multiple steps. One often needs to come down physically to a meeting, bringing multiple forms of the applicant may, or may not have – though to be fair, exceptions will be made for those with disabilities as clarified in an exchange I had in this House last term. Sometimes, the officers processing the claim will ask to interview relatives to ascertain if the applicant receives family support. This is a process that can be excruciatingly embarrassing to the applicant to the point where I know of people who withdrew their applications for that reason. These processes also consume the time and resources of social workers and public servants. Is there a better lens through which to think about such issues?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after a year of weak economic growth in 2019, a devastating pandemic starting in January, a global economic crisis not seen since the Second World War, four COVID-19 Budgets and a General Election, here we are – the Parliament that has to see off the crisis and deal with the post-COVID world, the Parliament that has to rise up to the next geopolitical and economic order, the next arena of national economic competitiveness, the next challenge of social solidarity, the next chapter in our history. This Parliament and one united people must and will rise to the challenge that will define our generation. We are all of one mind that the crisis should be a pivot towards emerging stronger. What should we pivot towards? I wonder, Mr Speaker, Sir, the example of the Titanic in 1912 can serve as a useful metaphor here. The Titanic was the engineering marvel of its time the product of all the best that capitalism and technology had to offer. It was deemed unsinkable and yet it struck an iceberg and sank, killing over 1,500 people. The disaster occasioned major reform of international maritime methods. The link between what went wrong and the lessons that were drawn is interesting. If you will, let us use the Titanic as a metaphor in considering Singapore's condition One sobering fact about the Titanic was that it did not carry enough functioning lifeboats for everyone on board, leading to a change in norms after the disaster. The civil servant who inspected the Titanic and recommended more lifeboats later revealed that he felt his job would be threatened if he did not give the ship the go-ahead to sail. Sir, Singapore social safety nets are our lifeboats.”
“I thank Minister Josephine Teo for her heartfelt speech. Just one point of clarification as regard the treatment of employers found to be engaged in discriminatory practices. I think in discussing this issue, a number of Government spokespersons have talked about the process of curtailing work pass privileges as a penalty and that is certainly one lever in the Government's toolkit when it comes to employers who discriminate by nationality against Singaporeans. My question would really be: how does MOM handle cases where the axis of discrimination is in fact not nationality but something else, for example, gender? And where the employer may not necessarily depend on work passes or that is not a very important thing to that employer and therefore, as a lever of control or influence, that may not be so powerful. What else can be done and how does MOM handle those cases. This is really where, perhaps something like an anti-discrimination legislation could provide a solution. But how is that being addressed right now?”
“And so, in conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of this speech, I find myself returning to a theme in my very first speech in this House given in January 2016 – the Singapore glass is half full. Singaporeans bear a major two-fold responsibility to preserve what is good about our existing system but to change what should be changed to make it better.”
“Has the Government considered an alternative approach, which is to calibrate this a little less finely, but in a broader manner instead? This means allowing most businesses to open, perhaps with the exception of those which may pose the most extreme risks. At the same time, every business should be required to practise safe distancing, the wearing of masks and all other precautions. And for those industries where the risk is greater, these should be targeted for more enforcement and regular, preventive COVID-19 testing. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, has COVID-19 shown that our model of economics and politics is perfect? No. Neither is any countries'. The success achieved by other developed countries in the region against COVID-19 such as Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and New Zealand should give us pause that we, too, have things to learn. For example, if stronger independent voices had come out to say the precautionary reusable mask wearing was okay in the early days, it may have cut down on some asymptomatic transmission. Last year, I read an excellent book called "The Narrow Corridor" by academics Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. It uses extensive historical research spanning centuries to argue that the most successful societies are those that find the right balance between a strong, capable state and an equally strong non-state sector – meaning civil society, alternative parties and the private sector – to balance that state. The outcomes of such successful societies are able to obtain combined political stability and law and order on the one hand together with long-term innovation-driven economic development and social progress on the other hand.”
“COVID-19 will not put in an end to FDI for sure. But it is likely to result in more competition for perhaps less FDI, as some multi-national companies or MNCs migrate some operations back home and other MNCs try to diversify to less traditional FDI destinations, responding to the imperatives of supply chain resilience, political pressures and other imperatives. Sir, our GDP growth rate was a weak 0.7% in 2019 before COVID-19 and that 0.7% growth rate was one of the lowest rates of growth among major advanced economies in the world in that year. No doubt there are many schemes and programmes to stimulate entrepreneurship. Have these met with the desired results? Are we where we want to be? In this House my colleagues and I have mooted a number of ideas on this front in the past. For example, setting up a fund to support ex-civil servants who want to become entrepreneurs and demonstrating more flexibility in schemes based on results. Sir, NASA recently launched its first vehicle into space using private sector launch capacity provided by the company Space X. Uplifting our entrepreneurial sector is going to be a key national competitiveness challenge facing Singapore. I would argue for renewed soul searching and efforts on this front as an urgent priority. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government's approach to Phase One and beyond hinges on the demarcation of companies into either an essential or non-essential category for each phase. This is in spite of the fact that crowds have been observed to continue visiting a number of supermarkets in shopping centres and are not really practising safe distancing under current rules.”
“Would the Government consider a unified portal across the whole-of-Government where each citizen and company can log on, view and transact? Such a portal would show firstly, that the monies that have been credited from all schemes that automatically kick in; two, the schemes which that person or company is eligible to apply for; or where there is imperfect information where they may be eligible to apply for for those that need application with direct links to the application forms from respective Ministries, Statutory Boards and agencies; and thirdly, the money that has been credited to them in special accounts but which needs to be utilised by a certain date. The existence of such a portal would be a first step. The next step would be to streamline the schemes and curb the tendency to launch new schemes but attempt instead to channel support into existing schemes. Sir, sometimes less is more. And in saying this, for the elderly who are less IT-savvy, arrangements need to be made to facilitate their access to such a portal. Next, let me move to the economy. Minister Chan recently announced $13 billion in foreign direct investment commitments in the first four months of this year versus $15.2 billion for the whole of last year. This is good news indeed. I would like to ask MTI how much of this $13 billion is fixed asset investment versus total business spending. How many jobs is this expected to be translated into? And what incentives were used to secure these investments? It is important to continue to attract FDI and to refine and improve our strategies for doing so. But the economic challenge of developing home-grown entrepreneurship and our own world-beating companies is going to be greater than ever. World trade growth was already slowing own even before COVID-19.”
“Given the challenges in scaling up the PCR testing method, there is a need to concurrently explore scaling up of other testing methods to be able to roll out effective mass testing. The Tony Blair Institute in the UK has called for antibody tests to be more widely used in conjunction with the PCR test, even if it is less accurate. Could such antibody tests together with the current PCR test be used to triage testing of suspected cases to take the load off the PCR testing infrastructure. Next, Sir, a number of new schemes have been rolled out. For example, there is a $100 utilities rebate in this latest Fortitude Budget – $100. Previously, SIRS and JSS were rolled out. Before COVID-19 there were also many schemes. To cite some random examples – Workfare, Jobs Credit, Innovation Credit and SkillsFuture. Some schemes are automatically applied and money gets transferred into your bank account. That is it. Some schemes you have to apply for to get the money or support. For other schemes, the money exists in an account tagged to each citizen and you have to use it. Sir, the more schemes we have, the more there is risk of confusion leading to under-utilisation or other side effects. Also, the more complex the whole system becomes the more resources need to go into the work of explaining, sifting through and helping people or firms to apply for these schemes. Social workers and Family Service Centres and officers at economic agencies like Enterprise Singapore, for example, would have to meet this challenge by mastering all the minutiae of the schemes and then explaining them well. Sir, there are just too many schemes with distinct names and processes right now.”
“But every establishment would be tasked to practise safe distancing, masking and other precautions. This would mean that some establishments would, perhaps, not be able to optimise capacity to economically viable levels. But should we not that choice to business owners? Some business owners may prefer to restart with reduced capacity so as to generate some cashflow, refresh connections with customers, start to rotate staff back to work for the sake of morale and skills refreshing and so on. For those industries where the risk is greater, these should be targeted for more enforcement and regular preventive COVID-19 testing. In fact, the administration of rapid testing and swift isolation in a surgical manner, as opposed to only very severe lockdowns, has been seen as a key to Korea's success, which brings me to my next point on testing. Sir, our current main form of testing appears to be the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or RTPCR test. Some challenges of scaling up the current PCR test are that testing takes about three hours for results to be obtained. Laboratory staff operating the extractors must also wear personal protective equipment or PPE and most countries looking to exit lockdown have similar mass testing strategies – increasing demand for the same reagents and PPE. MOH has said that coronavirus test were conducted by 13 laboratories in Singapore, the majority of which are located at public healthcare institutions such as hospitals. There are private sector industrial testing labs that offer testing of COVID-19 on surfaces, not patient swabs. It is not clear if these labs currently also offer testing of human samples since this is not advertised. It would be good to know if these industrial labs can be co-opted to help with our testing.”
“The intent behind these finely calibrated and frequently revised rules was good. But in hindsight, could the technocratic zeal have been tempered by an appreciation that the capacity of society to adapt to so many frequently changing rules is not unlimited, while the capacity of any civil service to issue so many detailed and finely calibrated rules in a very short time is limited. Too frequent and unclear rules can lead to rules fatigue and cynicism towards rule compliance. Moreover, would it not have been more efficient for the exceptions and caveats to rules to have been announced at the same time as the rule. And could some rules that micro-manage what are permissible activities have been avoided in favour of making facility owners responsible for safe distancing, masking and so on? Sir, my colleague Mr Dennis Tan has also made some suggestions on the roll-out of Phase One, with which I agree. I would add one point. The Government's approach to Phase One and beyond hinges on demarcating companies into either an essential or non-essential category for each phase. So, for example, in Phase One most retail, cinemas, bars, restaurants, event-based activities and tuition centres remain shut. This is in spite of the fact that crowds and lack of safe distancing have been anecdotally observed in a number of supermarket outlets and shopping malls under current rules, and that safe distancing is no longer mandatory on public transport. We need to find the right balance between protecting livelihoods and protecting lives. Has the Government considered an alternative approach which is to calibrate this a little less finely and with a broader brush. This means allowing most establishments to open may be with the exception of those which pose the most extreme risk.”
“In hindsight, though, many Singaporeans, looking back on the rules and announcements issued since early April, would say that there were too many finely calibrated rules. These were often qualified or changed shortly after being announced and this led to confusion on the ground. Let me cite a few examples. On 21 April, when the tighter circuit breaker measures were announced, the press release said outlet-based confectionery operations had to be suspended from 2359 hours on 21 April, but those selling mainly bread could continue. What followed was some confusion as those selling mainly cakes try to find out what they could do. It was clarified that they could sell their inventory of cakes but not bake new ones. Some bakeries, such as one making mainly croissants, had to clarify how the rules apply to them. Car workshops were another example. Initially, when the circuit breaker was announced, motor workshops were told they could apply to stay open but only for emergency services. A Straits Times' report from 7 April said that motor workshop operators were confused initially by the phrase "emergency vehicle services" found in the GoBusiness COVID-19 site. Do they mean emergency vehicles like ambulances or do they mean emergency services for vehicles, one asked. Another example, in late April it was announced that exercising and dog walking were not permitted within the common areas of condominiums. One letter writer to TODAY on the 30 April mentioned that "to access public spaces, dogs would have to traverse the common condominium grounds thus rendering the rule moot in practice." Such a rule may also have had the effect of condominium dog owners then crowding in adjacent pathways by the road, HDB or landed common areas or parks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, across the world, governments, healthcare systems, companies, societies and families have been severely tested by a microscopic virus. We will continue to be tested. We will need to meet these tests as one united people, united by our love for our country and one another Looking back, for me, the past two months have been extraordinary, working with Party colleagues and volunteers to provide support to residents remotely, adapting corporate processes to work from home and making adjustments to family life with my two young children, aged 12 and 14, going through home-based learning. Now, our attention turns to the process of recovery. It is appropriate that an Emerging Stronger Task Force has been formed. I agree with the remarks made by my Party Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim on the composition and work of that task force. As a society, it is our collective responsibility to reflect, draw the right lessons and emerge stronger. After all, the world went through the cataclysm of the Spanish flu in 1918 but many lessons about preventing and controlling pandemics were not permanently and widely institutionalised after that trauma. We have a choice. Will we emerge stronger? What can we learn from this episode for this post-circuit breaker period and the post-COVID-19 future that Singapore will emerge into? I would like to speak about two areas – overall pandemic management and the economy. At the start of the pandemic, the Government quickly formed a whole-of-Government task force and issued regular communications. The challenge facing this task force was gargantuan. Our knowledge of COVID-19 was imperfect and evolving. There were many moving parts.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just one supplementary question. This question is in the context of our sovereign wealth funds when they provide a rescue package, be it through loans or other instruments, to help to support the viability of some companies but not others. That sometimes creates a question among some members of the public and they ask how are these decisions made that certain companies obtain this kind of support and other companies do not. So, as a general principle, given that these are public funds, is there any way that the public can have some transparency about the thinking behind these probably quite significant decisions which may continue to happen as this crisis winds its way forward?”
“I thank the hon Minister for his detailed explanation. I am sure we can all agree that it is important for the country to rally together to have a keynote that underlines our unity during this difficult time. I just have two supplementary questions. Firstly, when this funpack was announced, I did sense that many Singaporeans felt that at a time when public finances are stretched, and many citizens and micro businesses are facing a lot of difficulty and uncertainty, perhaps the resources to give a pack to every household could be diverted to those who are more in need at this particular time. The Minister has explained the plan with the funpack. But my question is, really, for something like a funpack to serve the purpose that it is intended for, consultation and buy-in from the public may be useful to understand whether most people would really want to have this and whether it would serve that purpose of banishing the despondency, raising the spirits, rallying and unifying everyone. So, learning from this experience, I wonder whether there could be a bigger role for consultation in future before a very large or elaborate logistical exercise, such as distributing packs for everyone, is undertaken. That would be my first question. My second question is, I understand that REACH set up an online poll to solicit views of Singaporeans about the funpack. I was wondering how long this poll was up for and what the results of this poll showed, if that is available.”
“It would probably increase the public knowledge of parliamentary proceedings of how debates turn and how issues are discussed and decided, based on arguments made. This, in turn, is likely to increase the public appetite for participating in the parliamentary process by providing feedback to Members of Parliament, by participating in public debate on issues that are close to their hearts, and so on and so forth. Of course, one could argue why can such engagement not happen by the public consuming delayed telecast clips. Well, for the same reason that there is an audience for live debates, an audience for live political speeches, an audience for live sports and an audience for other kinds of live events, as opposed to there being no audience for such live and real-time events. The sense of engagement that comes from watching something live and being the first to know is different from watching a delayed clip. It is different from first hearing about something through media reports before you even see the clip. To be sure, even if demand is low, and provided that the cost is not prohibitive, which it is unlikely to be, I would still argue that the members of the public have the right to see live stream of parliament, even if only a minority choose to exercise that right at any given point in time. Live streaming of parliament is common in other developed countries. But having said that, continuity arrangements would provide a good opportunity to proceed with this for the reasons that I have mentioned.”
“If Parliament adopts continuity arrangements and sits in more than one location, arrangements would need to be made to live stream the proceedings between two or more locations. The investment to do that would need to be made. One can assume that taking the additional step of then making that live stream between the locations available online would be relatively inexpensive. However, if cost is an impediment, these costs could and should be discussed. I recently had the privilege of moderating a webinar for the Workers' Party Youth Wing. Four panellists dialled in from their homes via a video-conferencing service. We were able to live stream the panel discussion on social media, namely Facebook, such that the people who did not sign up to the video-call were still able to watch the panel discussion live on Facebook. The whole process was relatively simple to run and very cost effective. Many groups and individuals with few resources have live streamed events in this way. If we adopt parliamentary continuity arrangements in future, my suggestion is that we could use that as an occasion to experiment with live streaming all parliamentary proceedings under continuity arrangements to the public to test this hypothesis about how much demand there is. Demand is not a static thing. Demand for live streaming may have been low on previous occasions when that was tried, like for certain debates and certain speeches. But if we adopt consistent live streaming of all proceedings, over time, there is the possibility that more people, knowing that this resource is available every time Parliament sits, would use it. If this happens, it would be a good thing for our democracy and our society.”
“The language of the new Article 64A(2) reads that continuity arrangements "may be made for Parliament and its committees to sit, meet and despatch business with Members of Parliament being present at two or more appointed places and in contemporaneous communication with one another." Notwithstanding the advice from the Leader of the House in her letter of 27 April that the Government does not wish to adopt this approach right now, would this Bill thus allow Parliament to adopt the UK's video-conferencing approach or something similar, if it deems necessary to do so, with members calling in from home? This practice would appear to be consistent with the language of the new Article 64A(2) since each Member's home could be deemed to be an appointed place and the video-call technology would allow Members to be in contemporaneous communication with one another. To be sure, I am not calling for this to be done now, but the possibility that our COVID-19 situation gets much worse cannot be ruled out. Also, we cannot rule out the future possibility of an even worse pandemic or some other national security crisis, which would necessitate Members of Parliament calling in from home or other locations. Next, I would like to revisit the issue of live streaming of parliamentary proceedings. When this was discussed in this House in November 2017, the answer given by the Government for why we do not have full live streaming for all Parliament sittings is that it is not in great demand, as based on past experience, only a small fraction of persons would watch certain parliamentary proceedings like the Budget speech live, compared to the number that watch delayed telecasts or clips online.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution Amendment Bill 2020 before the House today proposes to make changes to the Constitution, so as to allow Parliament to sit at two or more places rather than all in one location. This is what the Bill refers to as "continuity arrangements". The Bill empowers the majority of Members to give notice that "it is or will be impossible, unsafe or inexpedient for Parliament to sit and meet in one place". If that is the case – and this is the language used in what will be the new Article 64 – then such arrangements can take effect. The letter sent by the Leader of the House to Members on 27 April regarding this Bill makes clear that the Government believes that there is no immediate need for such continuity arrangements, but that it is appropriate to put this mechanism in place in case the need arises in the future. I agree with the Government that it is appropriate to do so now. The current COVID-19 pandemic could take a turn for the worse. It behoves us as Members of this House to prepare for that eventuality by putting in place a mechanism now. In that light, the Workers' Party supports the Bill. I will devote the remainder of my speech to clarifications and suggestions. Firstly, the Leader's letter made reference to the UK Parliament's experiment using video-conferencing, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing members to take part in Parliament sittings from home. I would like to clarify if the current Amendment would allow for that to happen in future, should that become necessary?”
“I thank the Minister for her reply and I do understand that we cannot go into the answer to the question based on the legal reason that the Minister has given. I would like to just raise, I suppose the question about whether the POFMA directive actually is going to meet the requirement of addressing an issue of public trust. If we take the approach that the POFMA directives are going to be issued every time a false figure is given for compensation of the top management of Sovereign Wealth Funds or the CEO of Temasek Holdings, and those POFMA directives are issued, but the real figure is not given, does that really meet the objective of reinforcing public trust in those institutions or does that actually potentially erode public trust because it will breed more speculation, to no constructive end. I think that will be my only supplementary question.”
“There is a logic to those rules, not to allow re-assignment. But would HDB consider allowing a micro business – rather than having to break the lease, give notice, vacate and reinstate the premises, which is time-consuming and costly – to re-assign to another business that might want to take it up, just as a short-term measure during this crisis period?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, just four questions for Minister Gan and one for the Minister for National Development. To Minister Gan, firstly, in terms of testing, is the Ministry looking at testing sewage? Apparently, this is something that is being looked at in Switzerland and Australia and is a way to determine where there could possibly be clusters of infection in a particular building or particular locality. Is that something that we will be looking at going forward? Secondly, the Minister mentioned that testing load is being ramped up from 8,000 moving towards a 40,000 target per day. As far as I understand, currently people with acute respiratory symptoms, not all of them currently are being tested for COVID-19. I am not sure if my understanding is correct. Is that something that the Ministry is looking to review? Thirdly, right now, when you have close contacts of a confirmed COVID-19 case in the community, some are given Stay-at-Home Notices. Is there going to be a commitment to test all of the people who are close contacts of a confirmed COVID-19 case going forward since our capacity is being ramped up? Fourthly, this is on vaccines. I think Minister Gan talked about vaccines in his speech. The developments in this space seem to be moving very rapidly and there is news coming from different teams around the world. What is MOH's thinking right now about when we might see a vaccine available? Are plans being made to push that out, roll that out to the population and prioritisation being given to seniors and so on? My last question is for Minister Lawrence Wong and it is on HDB commercial leases. There is feedback from some micro businesses and SMEs about the rules for re-assignment of HDB commercial leases.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just two questions for the Minister to follow up on that. One is in terms of processing times. So, there is still anecdotal feedback that the processing times are still quite considerable and there are some SMEs that are in distress and they need the credit to come in quickly. So, has the Government been tracking whether those processing times for the ESG loans have come down, is it trending in the right direction? The second question is really in terms of personal guarantees. I suppose just to clarify, would the extent to which banks deploying these ESG loans ask for personal guarantees, does that also – are you seeing that also being reduced because of the 90% Government risk-share?”
“And in relation to the letter writer's last point, what we will have as a nation to weather the storm the next time a crisis hits, is not only our reserves but more importantly, the solidarity, the resolve and the ingenuity of our people." And this is where I end the quote from that reply and I believe Assoc Prof Theseira actually made a similar point on the last point that I just mentioned. I am sharing this now because to me such debate and disagreement is really how we get to real unity and real consensus formation. Let us look at the question of wearing masks out of doors. It now seems that the minority of naysayers who had called for that from an early stage onwards at a valid point – like the four doctors who signed an open letter to that effect in February. In noting this, I do not blame anyone. There is no playbook for a crisis like this. Many of us were wrong-footed on this question including the World Health Organization, but that points to the continuing value of openness, transparency, debate and accountability even in times of crisis. Let us debate big questions openly, rationally, sensibly, on the basis of transparency to define an agreed set of relevant facts. Let us accept that there can be different goals and strategies that are consistent with the same facts, not labelling those with different views about those goals and strategies. And if we can get to that we would be one United people who have built a democratic society and one built to last. 11.58 am”
“Our reserves have been estimated at over a trillion dollars. The best policies to govern reserves growth versus releasing more Budget funds should thus be different today from what they were in the past. To use an analogy from the business world, a start-up company may need to conserve cash to manage cash flow. But when it has grown to the point where there is tens of billions in cash, corporate leaders should think about how the cash should be invested for better long-term growth and to benefit stakeholders rather than growing the cash pile at the same rate as when the company was at the start-up stage. In fact, the Government introducing the current resource framework in 2008, and adding Temasek in 2015, implicitly recognised this point. There can be over saving just as there can be under saving. Moreover, releasing more Budget funds can mean investing more in our people and our companies in ways that if successful would enhance the long-term potential growth rate of GDP, productivity and innovation. If this happens, tax revenue would rise in tandem with GDP thus reducing the need to draw on the reserves and reserves returns. Singaporeans should have fact-based rational conversations on the right rate of reserves growth versus releasing more Budget funds. Such conversations need to address deep strategic and philosophic questions, like what the additional funds could be invested to do, balanced against what possible future emergencies could necessitate drawing down a massive percentage of those reserves. It is time to recognise that there can be reasonable viewpoints on both sides of this question.”
“How does our number of ICU beds per capita compare with other countries? Can we use this crisis to formulate plans to expand ICU beds at short notice at acute care facilities with plans to work with the private sector and retired professionals to augment the supply of equipment and personnel in a time of crisis? And lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to return to a theme I spoke about in February – slowing the slope of reserves growth. A letter appeared in The Straits Times Forum on 28 March. Let me read out a part of that letter. The full letter is available online; and I quote "The reason why robust fiscal measures such as the Resilience Budget are possible is due to financial discipline and prudence and growing Singapore's reserves at a the strong rate all this time. Had we for whatever reasons rested on our laurels and grown our reserves at a slower rate as was suggested before and" and in brackets, it says "grow reserves at a slower rate to invest in Singaporeans, Leon Perera, 28 February". "The Resilience Budget would not be possible and we would now be in economic dire straits due to the COVID-19 pandemic." I sent a reply to this letter on the same day, which The Straits Times Forum has not published to the best of my knowledge. Please allow me to read out a part of that reply. "In 2008, the Government introduced the Net Investment Returns Framework where half of the long-term expected real returns on relevant reserves asset classes can be used for Budget spending. In 2015, Temasek was added to this framework. Both of these changes effectively slowed down the reserves growth rate, but surely few of us today would argue that these changes were irresponsible because they slowed reserves growth. The funds released have been put to constructive use in the Budget.”
“When I asked Minister Lawrence Wong about this in the context of distributing surgical masks in February, he said self-collection was used to minimise wastage. Our healthcare professionals do not need reusable masks, or do not need them as much as they need surgical masks; and hence, one assumes there are fewer pressures on that stock. Moreover, not that many masks are needed per household since they are reusable. If the Government does not want to mail these masks out, can we at least arrange to mail reusable masks to those who prefer to receive them by mail. Those who click on an online site or an app using SingPass, for example, or calling a hotline. Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should focus about the lessons we can learn from this crisis to better prepare for the next one, whenever that may happen. Governments around the world are asking companies to shift R&D and production resources to make masks and ventilators. What powers does the Government have to compel domestic firms here to do the same? Even if legal powers are not deployed, is the government using its powers of persuasion and purchase to nudge domestic manufacturers to produce more of such critically needed items which may raise healthcare system capacity and scalability? Now might be a good time to test our ability to get such things done for when the next crisis hits. Of course, there are companies that are voluntarily doing this. It is commendable of these firms to be doing so. Next, there is also news of other countries calling back retired healthcare professionals to serve, to address the kinds of potential manpower shortages that Minister Gan spoke about in February. Is this being explored here? Next, what long-term lessons can we draw in dealing with future pandemics?”
“The Supplementary Budget has a host of measures for government risk-sharing in loans to SMEs. What if the loans do not get to our SMEs, in spite of risk-sharing. What if our banks simply do not lend. Our business eco-system does not have the deep historic ties between regional banks and SMEs seen in countries like Japan, Germany and Switzerland that are useful at times like this. Would the Government consider a scheme like what has been introduced in the UK – the Term Funding Scheme – under which participating banks that lend to SMEs get to access lower wholesale funding costs from the central bank. Of course, banks could still choose not to lend but at least this would tilt the balance towards our SMEs. Of course, many SMEs do not want to take on loans due to pessimism about their ability to repay after the crisis. And this is where job support and rental deferment play a role in preventing businesses from closing down, perhaps never to return. In cases where deferred rent cannot be paid back, will the Government provide clear assurances that it will consider providing very much extended deferment where there is evidence of the company's viability. Extended deferment could be made conditional on the company paying back at state, if and when it returns to decent sustained profitability. Next, on masks. Reusable masks are to be self-collected at RCs and CCs. Anecdotal and social media feedback suggests that some people are reluctant to collect these masks for various reasons including inertia and fears about potential exposure. Some wonder why self-collection was used when all are told to stay at home unless absolutely necessary.”