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 17 of 25.
“For the Deputy Prime Minister's question, I was not present in the House. I did not participate in this debate and, in my PQ, I did not make a suggestion or a new suggestion about how the total compensation or the monthly salary should be calculated.”
“I thank the hon Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. My PQ did not raise a suggestion with relation to the salary, the formulation for calculating the total compensation of the salary, and I have no disagreement with those broad principles, in response to the Deputy Prime Minister's question. I would also like to pose a question in relation to my original Written question filed in September. It was in relation to total Bonus Months. And I would like to ask the hon Deputy Prime Minister: has the figure for the National Bonus – which I acknowledge is the same for all Ministers – been previously published prior to when the Written question was filed in September? If not, then would that not have been an opportunity to also release that figure in September together with the average Performance Bonus figure?”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, would the hon Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that my original written PQ filed in September asked for total Bonus Months and not only Performance Bonus? Would that not have been an opportunity to, at that point, when the written PQ was answered, and also disclose and publish the National Bonus level, in addition to the Performance Bonus level, which I think was the point that Mr Pritam Singh was making? So, that is my first question. My second question is: would the Government be publishing the quantums of National Bonus and average highest and lowest Performance Bonus on an annual basis, going forward?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. The instances of NSFs who are charged for AWOL, who cite financial difficulties, are there also cases of those individuals who go on to re-offend, to commit AWOLs subsequently, and what proportion go on to re-offend and also citing financial hardships. Secondly, in cases of re-offenders who repeatedly offend for AWOL because of financial hardship, what action is taken to more decisively address the issue or to look into the concern. My third supplementary question is really on whether there are NSFs who are charged for taking up paid work in the hours when they are not on duty, when they are off duty as it were. Are there charges in such cases and how many of such cases will there be?”
“Would the Senior Minister of State be able to comment on roughly what proportion of documents actually make their way onto the NAS Online as opposed to documents that are withheld and are not available online, say, in the past five years?”
“I thank the Ministers for their Statements. Just one supplementary question for Minister Iswaran. After the conclusion of the COI process, will MCI or other relevant authorities attempt to reach out to cybersecurity and IT professionals across the whole-of-Government and, indeed, in the private sector, to apprise them of some of the findings, to educate them maybe about the signatures of some of these groups that have made the attacks so that they can be better alerted to detect and pre-empt them, and also educate them on some of the preventive measures that they should undertake, drawing on the learnings from not just this attack, but perhaps the one at NUS and NTU as well that happened previously?”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister and the two Senior Ministers of State for their explanations. I just have three supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat. Firstly, I think Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat, that the Committee will decide on how best to release information about the actuarial model to the public. I would just like to ask again if the Government will consider publishing the actuarial model in full, including details, such as the assumed medical loss ratio, the expected rate of payouts in the future, the capital adequacy ratio and so on, for the reason that such transparency may actually be more effective to get public buy-in and may actually interest more people to voluntarily come into the scheme if they are not mandated to do so because, from that disclosure, they will be able to see it is, in fact, a fair and a good scheme, presumably. So, that is the first supplementary question. The second one is, I believe the position is that the independent Council will have the discretion to decide on premium rebates. For ElderShield, I think there are some guidance given to the three insurers about when they give up premium rebates, and how much. So, will the Government consider instituting some guidelines that will be binding on the independent Council to guide them on how to give out premium rebates, when and to what extent? I think this point was made by some other Members as well. And the last one is really in terms of the way the funds will be managed. If this is going to be managed by CPF Board, will the funds be managed in the same way as the CPF monies where I believe the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation plays some role in managing CPF monies through the instrument of Singapore Government securities?”
“This contributes to a good universal long-term care network as it enables optimum caregiving in situ, as being close to home, and familiar neighbourhood social support networks can help to make for quality eldercare. In Singapore, one huge advantage we have on this front is the presence of Housing and Development Board (HDB) void decks, which can be used for day care centres that do not incur exorbitant private rental costs. I would like to ask what is the current status of our push to develop home care, day care and IHDC as viable and ubiquitous options within the elder-care ecosystem in Singapore. In particular, for day care, take-up may depend on the proximity of day care centres to homes. Are the number and availability of day care places trending in the right direction to make this a viable option in future? What have been the results thus far in terms of nudging Singaporeans to take up full-time or part-time employment in this sector, as well as to volunteer with the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) which provide many of such services? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to address the various problems and gaps in the current CareShield proposal, such as the gender imbalance that many Members have spoken of and the other points my colleagues and I have touched on. Doing so would make CareShield a meaningful part of this nation’s response to ageing and to the imperative to create a fairer and thus better society for all Singaporeans to call home.”
“It should also be about how we create an ecosystem rich with options for those who receive payouts to spend them with optimum effectiveness for themselves and society. Right now, the elderly disabled have various options for managing their condition. They can subsist based only on family care or self-care at home. They can hire an FDW. They can enter a nursing home. Or they can enrol in an integrated home and day care package. There could be other options as well. Of these, perhaps the one set of alternatives within the ecosystem that has the most room for further consideration and development is day care, home care, as well as integrated home and day care (IHDC). I know that various IHDC trial schemes and initiatives are underway and that the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) started IHDC pilots in 2016. But IHDC is as yet not widely prevalent. Home care, day care and IHDC have the potential to yield strong benefits in terms of: firstly, enabling the elderly to still live with their family in many cases, which is immensely meaningful; secondly, allowing family members who play some caregiving role to work during the day, thus enhancing our labour force participation rate; thirdly, limiting the growth in the foreign worker population, if local full-time and part-time employees and volunteers are optimally engaged; and fourthly, enabling the elderly disabled to remain within the communities to which they have grown attached. In Hong Kong, most people have an elder day care centre within a few kilometres of their home. The Hong Kong Social Welfare Department lists around 80 day care centres and units on its website.”
“How do we ensure that the independent Council does not over-reserve funds from the current generation’s premiums for future generations, and makes the right determination on what is fair intergenerationally? Can transparent rules be adopted to guide them? Thirdly, on efficiency, the report recommends that the Government administer the scheme, unlike ElderShield which is operated by Aviva, Great Eastern and NTUC Income. There could be efficiencies in having the Government operate the scheme, as the profit motive is absent and there are greater potential economies of scale from administering the entire pot of funds centrally. On balance, this approach is sound. However, there are also risks since the returns on existing reserves and the cost of administration are not subjected to competitive market discipline. How will the Government ensure that the funds are managed efficiently and that administrative costs will be minimal? Will there be rigorous benchmarking of administrative costs of private insurers and those of other benchmark-worthy government schemes in developed countries? What strategies will be used to invest the funds accumulated in the reserves to earn a reasonable return while adopting low risk? The ElderShield report mentions that CPF Board should be engaged for administration of the scheme. Would the practice of investing reserves through the issuance of bonds to the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) be pursued for CareShield funds, as is currently undertaken, in part, for CPF monies? Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me speak on the subject of creating more options for the payouts to be spent for maximum effect. This debate should not only be about the quantum of premiums and payouts.”
“I would like to ask the Government to publish the actuarial model behind the setting of premiums such that Singaporeans can assess these assumptions and can be aware of how these assumptions track against future realities as the years go by. Milliman Limited and Deloitte Actuaries and Consultants, respected global professional firms, contributed to the report, the latter being the appointed actuary of the MediShield scheme. I do not expect the actuarial model used to be suspect. However, the assumptions and policy decisions behind any model can and should be subjected to reasonable public scrutiny and debate. Related to this is the question of what if payouts fall below assumptions? Premium rebates will no doubt be given. In the executive summary of the ElderShield report, it is stated: “An independent council should be set up to advise the Government on premium and payout adjustments in accordance with an actuarially sound adjustment framework.” According to page 88 of the ESRC Report, in the context of the existing ElderShield scheme, the premium rebate is a feature that provides for the three insurers that administer ElderShield to return 50% of any accumulated surplus to existing ElderShield policyholders, if the actual claims experience turns out to be better than what was projected. Premium rebates are considered once every five years. For CareShield Life, will premium rebates be discretionary or mandatory? From the report, it would appear that awarding such rebates will be up to the independent Council and there is no mandatory rule on awarding premium rebates.”
“" Were premiums set based on the assumption that one in two healthy Singaporeans aged 65 will become severely disabled in future? This would appear to be a pessimistic assumption given that, for example, in the United States (US), the comparable figure, based on one source, is 35.4%, based on a definition of disability that would appear to be far wider than the criteria specified for payouts under CareShield Life. Tied to this is another point: have premium rebates been factored into the calculations for premiums and payouts? Some long-term care schemes do actually build future premium rebates into the actuarial model that determines premiums and this practice is not necessarily wrong. However, how do we guard against the possibility that the calculations have over-reserved for future premium rebates and, hence, have set premiums too high for the current generation? Also, on affordability, the report states that those who cannot afford to pay premiums even after means-tested subsidies will be given additional help. Some individuals may have a per capita household income that disqualifies them from many financial assistance schemes but may also have a very high expenditure profile for reasons out of their control, such as their medical situation. How will such cases be evaluated for additional help? This leads me to my second broad point, which is transparency. What assumptions were made about how many residents will become disabled? What was the basis for these assumptions – data on chronic disease incidence coupled with data on demographic projections?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, CareShield Life represents an extension and qualitative shift in the old Eldercare scheme, towards lifelong care and protection using the principle of universal, mandatory risk-pooling to lower costs to everyone. Any one of us may be stricken with disability in old age. There are many of us who have been. Many more will be. We should not leave Singaporeans to bear the ravages of genetic roulette on their own. Risk-pooling is a sensible way to address the increasing incidence of chronic disease and disability that come with an ageing population. Risk-pooling stands alongside the other policy prong that is needed here, of course, which is prevention in the form of encouragement to living more healthily, health screening and so on. Sir, the Workers’ Party supports the principle of risk-pooling. On the whole, the merits of long-term care insurance far outweigh the downsides. I agree with the other points made by Workers’ Party Members, in particular, the point about gender equality made by Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh. I will focus my speech on a few themes – affordability, transparency, efficiency and creating more options for the payouts to be spent for maximum effect. Firstly, affordability. Are premiums set at the right level such that the capital adequacy and medical loss ratio for the scheme is aligned with similar government schemes elsewhere in the developed world? No doubt none of us has a crystal ball. But have premium levels been set such that we are not likely to accumulate unexpectedly high levels of reserves relative to payouts in future? One sentence in the Eldershield report read: "One in two healthy Singaporeans aged 65 could become severely disabled in their lifetime and may need long-term care.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Minister Chan for his explanation. Just one supplementary question. Would MTI consider measuring and publishing the CPI based on different demographic groups? I know it is published based on income groups, but there could be other demographic groups, such as the three groups where the Government has presented its measures, for example, young couples, parents with young children, and retirees. Would the Government consider publishing a CPI based on these groups because there could be certain factors, for instance, price of milk powder could be one example, which affect certain groups by demographic characteristics, rather than just by income characteristics, and that may enable us to have more well-informed debates about policy?”
“I thank the Minister for his responses. I just have two questions which I believe had not been addressed yet, unless I missed it. Firstly, is the ability of the DI and Policy Owners' Protection Fund to meet the obligations in respect of the coverage limits regularly reviewed or stress-tested either by MAS or required of MAS to be stress-tested by SDIC? Secondly, there was a change made in terms of the accounts of SDIC, it need not be audited by the AGO or any agency appointed in consultation with the AGO. I just want to know why that change was made.”
“And Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, lastly, on the website of SDIC, it is stated that MAS may exempt life or general insurers from being members of the PPF scheme. May we know how many insurers are so exempted and what measures are in place to protect policy holders in these cases?”
“For the DI Fund, it is stated on the SDIC’s website that “the DI Fund will be invested in safe and liquid assets, such as securities issued by the Singapore Government or MAS, deposits with MAS, any debenture or debt security issued by Singapore Sukuk Pte Ltd, and other assets approved by the Minister.” For the PPF Fund, it is stated that, “The PPF Life Fund and PPF General Fund will be invested in safe and liquid assets, such as securities issued by the Singapore Government or MAS, deposits with MAS, any debenture or debt security issued by Singapore Sukuk Pte Ltd and other assets approved by the Minister.” Does SDIC outsource the management of the Funds to asset management institutions to manage? And, if so, what is the mandate for these asset management institutions, given that the Minister can approve investment in assets other than Singapore Government instruments? Are there prescribed limits to the kinds of asset classes and asset characteristics that investments can be extended to, for example, weighted fixed income products with a specific high rating from independent credit rating agencies? Thirdly, is the ability of the DI and PPF Funds to meet their obligations in respect of the coverage limits regularly reviewed and stress-tested by MAS, or required to be self-reviewed and stress-tested? In an insolvency case involving a large bank or insurer or a number of these, this ability could be put to the test. Fourthly, on the change whereby the accounts of SDIC need not be audited by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) or an agency appointed in consultation with the AGO, I would like to ask why the AGO need no longer play a role with respect to the external audit for these Funds?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, SDIC is the administrator and manager of the DI Fund and Policy Owners Protection Fund that aim to ensure prompt compensation to depositors and policy owners in the event of a member bank or insurer failing. The aim of this Bill is largely to clarify technical issues and enhance the operational efficiency of the two schemes administered by SDIC. It also raises the DI coverage from $50,000 to $75,000 which would achieve 91% coverage of fully insured depositors. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not oppose these changes, which are a step in the right direction. However, I will pose some questions relating to the Bill’s provisions and the nature of these two schemes. At this point, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a market research and business consulting firm that works with various commercial and governmental entities in the financial services sector locally and globally. Firstly, the winding-up process should a member bank or insurer become insolvent can be time-consuming. How prompt would be the compensation to depositors and policy owners? Of course, this would vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the complexity of each case. But does SDIC aim for a specific timeframe within which the compensation should be paid, such as, for example, one month, three months or six months? The longer the process takes, of course, the higher the potential loss of interest income and, hence, the opportunity cost to depositors and policy owners. Secondly, how does SDIC manage the DI Fund and PPF Fund monies?”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the hon Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, for his comments and references. Just two points of clarification for the Minister. Firstly, in view of the likely future changes and the demographic make-up of Singapore, the size of our reserves, the needs of our society and our population, would the Government not, at some point in the future – I know that it is hard to specify when – consider evolving the position on the treatment of reserves in line with the changing of conditions? Or is it something that is set in stone and cannot be changed. That is my first point of clarification. The second point for the Minister: would the Minister acknowledge that there are other costs on the other side of the equation? The more future Governments are to raise things like GST, the more that raises economic pressure and, potentially, anxieties experienced by Singaporeans and the more that can affect other things which are important for the country and also important for economic growth, like TFR which, I think, has been said is an existential issue for Singapore, like entrepreneurship, risk-taking, long-termism, innovation and things like that. If we give more room to those things, might there also not be the possibility that these things could raise economic growth and, therefore, raise revenue further down the line?”
“To manage this, can we not consider a time bar for civil servants entering politics, as I have argued for earlier? And can scholars not only be given the option of serving part of their bond in the local small and medium enterprise (SME) sector or civil society sector, but also be encouraged to do so? If necessary, we can ramp up the scholar cohort size to ensure sufficient scholars remain to meet Public Service needs. In addition to these points, the other huge part of the equation is how to generate economic growth, to grow the size of the pie. I have not touched on that subject in this speech, but my colleagues and I have made many suggestions on this subject in the past, from harnessing ASEAN disruptive industry growth to a dedicated bank for SME globalisation, to name but two. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, none of these suggestions by itself is a silver bullet. But giving serious thought to such suggestions can contribute to a more liveable, more future-ready, more democratic and more diverse society that will be a stronger and better home, built to last. 3.26 pm”
“Can we not scale back the extent, if, indeed, there is any, of the "influence, resources and enforcement powers" of the Government being brought to bear on the way news is reported by mainstream media (MSM) outlets, such that MSM editors and journalists report the news as they see fit, within broad regulatory parameters pertaining to sensitive issues like race and religion, as I suspect most journalists would want to do? The quote that I used comes from a recent MSM newspaper editorial which called for "a state that does not use its considerable influence, resources and enforcement powers to box the local media into a corner." Can we not have an independent Ombudsman to review complaints about Executive decisions without the complainant being faced with the costs and limitations associated with the process of seeking judicial review? An Ombudsman may uncover policy gaps or institutional shortcomings that are not related purely to corruption or finances as dealt with by CPIB and AGO. And is our model of leadership future-ready? Traditionally, many national leaders have emerged from Government scholarship holders, some of whom go on to populate the top rungs of the Civil Service, GLCs and the Cabinet. This tends to reduce the pool of talent available to the private sector and civil society and it is important for both of these sectors to be strong in the future. Moreover, this pattern can produce political and GLC decision-makers who lack private or not-for-profit sector experience. Many Singaporeans were very surprised when the new incoming CEO of SMRT was another former General. Did our Pioneer Generation Cabinet have such a high proportion of ex-civil servants?”
“Amidst the relentless advance of AI and robotics, as simple tasks become automated and a higher and higher premium falls on skillsets like creativity and leadership, the case for education reform in this respect grows. Can we not review our class size, to take advantage of falling enrolments while leaving the teacher population stable, as I argued in an earlier Motion? Smaller Learning Support Programme (LSP) classes for weaker pupils could stigmatise those pupils. Moreover, smaller general class sizes could reduce the number of pupils falling behind that necessitates those smaller LSP classes to begin with. There is evidence that smaller class sizes can yield significant education, non-cognitive skill and social mobility benefits. Our general class sizes are well above the OECD average. The question of class size at least warrants research in the form of a large-scale randomised trial to help quantify benefits versus costs, so that, as a country, we can debate this issue with all the facts on the table. And can we regularly measure and debate social mobility, as my Party Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim has eloquently argued for? Sir, the second basket of issues is institutional and political. Our system has many devices that favour stability. To be sure, stability is a good thing. But with such a framework, are we not sacrificing diversity? Does our institutional ecosystem do enough to promote diversity of ideas in the public square?”
“As our reserves grow and the need to promote confidence among Singaporeans grows, the case for reform to this basket of policies strengthens. The fact of HDB flat lease decay is rightly a part of this basket of issues. The possibility of HDB resale prices in the future performing poorly as more Build-To-Order (BTO) flats are built, resale demand remains soft and more flats get sold on the marketplaces pressure on the goal of monetising one’s own HDB flat for future retirement income or even emergency or supplementary income. This is a large and complex issue which the Workers’ Party intends to study in the months ahead, with a view to make constructive suggestions. At the same time, can we not review our education system, which was originally designed, we are told, such that tuition is unnecessary? Can we not review the balance between content mastery and time for non-cognitive skills development or even time for leisure, hobbies and family pursuits which aid healthy character formation? No doubt, content mastery has been pared down over the years, but do exams test the pared-down content taught in the standard curriculum or do exams test for content that goes beyond, thus acting as a sharper stratification instrument, whether intended or otherwise? One letter published in The Straits Times Forum said, "The textbooks recommended by the Ministry and used in schools offer basic information. Yet, when it comes to examinations, the questions asked are often way above the level of the information in the textbooks. This is the main reason students seek tuition". Is this a valid perspective? If so, is there room to re-balance further between developing cognitive skills on the one hand, which are important, and non-cognitive skills and leisure time on the other?”
“Such changes would not reduce the absolute size of the reserves per se but would slow down the rate of reserve growth. This question is not only a technical economic question but a deep, philosophic question about inter-generational equity. And on this question I would put it to this House that there are reasonable views on both sides of the issue. After all, there was a time in the past when suggestions like spending some of the NIR or adding Temasek Holdings to the NIR framework might perhaps have been labelled as irresponsible. Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin made an interesting speech which asked about our reserves, how much is enough. I would build on that and ask: no doubt we need emergency reserves, we absolutely need that, but what rate of reserve growth is enough? There are risks from reducing the rate of reserves growth. We gain additional security from a larger and larger emergency fund going forward. But there are also risks from allowing costs and economic pressures to rise in the future, inhibiting growth in other qualities we need to optimise among Singaporeans, like risk-taking, long-termism, entrepreneurism, TFR. In a word, confidence. Confidence that the future could be better than the past, confidence that the deck is not stacked against me, confidence that I need not run faster and faster just to stay in the same place. Spending more on the current generations and reducing the cost burden may affect TFR. As Mr Pritam Singh said, TFR is an existential issue facing Singapore. There is some evidence that anxiety about the cost of living and academic competition contributes to a low TFR and, indeed, our TFR is one of the lowest in the world.”
“Our education system has produced world-class PISA scores, but it has spawned a massive tuition industry that may erode social mobility and students who are substantially more stressed than the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. Going forward, as a country, we face a choice. Do we stick with the same policy and institutional ecosystem and merely apply a plaster or a bandage to control the bad effects? Or do we take the riskier approach of reforming the underlying policy, institution or practice, risking that the new approach, in seeking to reduce the downsides of the old policy, may wholly or partly lose the benefits of the old policy? One way to decide this lies in seeing if the deeper trends going on in Singapore and the world will make the downsides worse than the benefits over time. If so, then go for reform. If not, let us do incremental tweaks and plasters now. I was glad to hear references in the President's speech to an appetite for bold reform, which, of course, does not mean reckless reform. And in the spirit, I suggest reforms to two broad baskets of policies where longer-term trends argue for reform. Some of these ideas have been suggested by my colleagues and I on other occasions. Firstly, the basket of policies that relate to the cost of living, education, inequality and social mobility, which are closely tied to citizen confidence as expressed in risk-taking, entrepreneurship, innovation and, indeed, Total Fertility Rate (TFR). If and when a Budget funding gap is imminent, rather than raise taxes, is there more scope to review our policies towards the reserves, to tap more from the Net Investment Returns (NIR) and/or land sales, as my Party Secretary-General Mr Pritam Singh has eloquently argued?”
“We can also say that these problems are not unique to Singapore. Many are a consequence of global trends. That, too, is true. We can say that these people cannot always expect the Government to fix all their problems and there is truth in that as well. But if disruptive change is going to make such situations more and more common, is there more we can do for these Singaporeans, as a society? One private university graduate made an impassioned post on Facebook last month saying, and I quote, "I graduated in the top 15% of my cohort. Surely, that counted for something. It should have wiped out the disaster that was my "A" levels. Man plans; fate jests. I have sent out thousands, hundreds of resumes, every month, every week, every day. I applied for job after job after job, hoping that someone would notice. Until then, I crunched numbers and copy clauses from story after story and picked up whatever freelance jobs and short-term contract jobs I could find. I did this for eight years. In eight years, I received nothing." What else can we say to Singaporeans like these? Mr Speaker, Sir, in sketching these scenarios, I do not mean to argue that all is doom and gloom. Of course, Singapore and Singaporeans have achieved much in the past and there is much to be grateful for. The glass is half-full, as I have argued before in this House. But some of us would see it as half empty. As was famously said in a scene in the movie Star Wars Episode 6, much depends on our point of view. Not only that. Sometimes, both good and bad effects can come from the system-design source. Our approach to public finance has created huge reserves for emergency purposes which help fund Budgets, but also created the need to raise costs via tax increases that place pressure on our people.”
“Mr Speaker, the President's Address provides a consolidated view of established and recently announced Government policies. Sir, it is important that our policies speak to the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans in their most decisive moments. The world is changing, getting disrupted, becoming more complex and, hence, unpredictable. Amidst this change, do our policies speak well enough to everyone? I will cite a few hypothetical examples. Firstly, a young low-income couple contemplating the prospect of saving for retirement in the context of possibly an uncertain Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat price outlook in the distant future, will contemplate also the cost of tuition, amidst the rigours of academic competition and then decide to postpone their decision to have children indefinitely. Secondly, a 45-year-old man who has been retrenched and is anxiously scouring the job market for any kind of paid work, probably encountering ageist prejudice along the way that is hard to complain about because it is hard to prove. Thirdly – and this is actually a real person I met – a 25-year-old who is working in a full-time job but driving a private hire car at night, holding down two jobs so as to afford further part-time studies leading to a professional certification. And fourthly, a 35-year-old woman who has just obtained a degree from part-time study at great cost, time and money who finds that her employability in the salary she can command is not what she expected. In fact, a recent survey found 4.3% of graduates in full-time jobs being severely under-employed, earning less than $2,000 a month. We can say that there are already Government programmes in place to address the needs of these groups like Wage Credit, PCP, WIS and TAFEP which is true.”
“Secondly, it would give researchers in environmental policy and science the opportunity to access data to track Singapore's progress to meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement, and to scrutinise the effectiveness of the carbon tax and other green measures amongst other possibilities. The notion of publishing carbon emissions data is not novel. Many large global companies publish emissions data and this is a trend that is likely to grow. Publishing the data from large emitters may be in line with where global trends are heading anyway. In fact, it is possible that some of the global companies registering emissions data under the CP Bill would be publishing global submissions data in any case. If there are concerns about commercial sensitivity if individual company data is released, will the Government consider releasing emissions data for clusters of firms in specific sectors, such as oil refining and the manufacturing of specific categories of chemicals? For example, this goes beyond the datasets released by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) for broad sectors like transport industry, power generation and buildings at the moment. Such data would help the public to benchmark the carbon intensity of our economic activities against global norms.”
“Will the Government consider setting aside part of the funds from the carbon tax into a vehicle like a fund or even a green infrastructure bank offering low-interest loans that has a mission to fund the development, testing and deployment of green technologies in Singapore? This could, in the longer term, bring about new greener possibilities for the economy and help nudge economic actors towards adopting them. One criterion for funding projects could be that they testbed new technologies in Singapore, so that the knowhow from deploying and maintaining such technologies resides in Singapore and diffuses through our workers and companies, creating knowledge that will enhance our economic competitiveness. The economic benefits so derived, such as new investments and jobs, may even increase tax revenues and turn out to be revenue-positive in the longer term. Such broad economic measures could be coupled with administrative measures to nudge economic actors towards new technology adoption. For example, developers could be required to install a certain minimum capacity for solar panels on roofs, with exceptions given on a case-by-case basis, for those buildings with minimal rooftop sunlight or which have the case for setting aside some rooftop space for other uses like rooftop gardens. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Government consider making data on individual large emitters' emissions publicly available? The benefits of this are two-fold. Firstly, this may nudge large emitters to do better in their efforts to reduce emissions.”
“However, so as to nudge the economic ecosystem towards a smaller carbon footprint in the longer term, which is the goal of any CP regime, I have the following suggestions. Would the Government − and this is my second broad point − consider setting a goal for the share of renewable contribution to total energy production in the longer term? I have called for this in the House previously. Such a goal, even if expressed as arranged, has the effect of focusing minds both in the Government and in the private sector, and may nudge decisions to trial tests and, ultimately, adopt cleaner technologies knowing the tougher measures are inevitable. Note that this is not the same as arguing for subsidising renewable technologies using devices like feed-in tariffs. It is useful to announce a longer-term renewables target because that sends a signal that the regime for incentivising renewables and disincentivising carbon-intensive technologies will gradually and, over time, become more rigorous even if the timeframe is fairly long. This may embolden and encourage companies thinking of investing in new and innovative renewal projects, would-be entrepreneurs thinking of setting up startups in the field, and workers considering developing their skills and careers in the renewables field. Thirdly, the Finance Minister said that he is willing to invest even more than the revenue generated by this carbon tax in low carbon technologies and practices. Presumably, the goal here is to nudge the economy into lower world-class levels of carbon use per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, next, the carbon price for taxable emitters is now specified at $5 per tonne of GHG emission equivalent which the Government has said will last from 2019 to 2023, and the Government stated that it will review the carbon tax rate by 2023, with plans to increase it to between $10 and $15 per tonne of emissions by 2030. Other than the price, our CP plan would seem to have a number of parallels with the Australian CP plan that was enforced from 2011 to 2014. Some key similarities are using the device for paying for carbon units issued by the Government called "carbon credits" in our legislation rather than direct taxation on fuel sources, imposing this only on firms and excepting households and only taxing facilities with 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions. However, Australia had set its carbon price at A$23 at their plan's inception. Currently, many countries which practise CP set the price at around US$20 mark, though many countries running pilot schemes also price it much lower than that. It is, of course, necessary to balance the goal of disincentivising carbon emissions with the goal of ensuring that our economy has time and resources to adapt to the tax while remaining competitive. Therefore, it is prudent to set the price at a low level initially. Having said that, it is not clear if setting the carbon price at such a low level and the pass-through change in terms of end-user prices that that brings about will nudge end-users to substantially change their behaviour with regard to energy conservation or the deployment of carbon-lite energy-efficient technologies. I do not argue that we should set the carbon price higher at this stage to balance the effect on the economy and the people.”
“This is worthwhile to do, given the importance of this issue to Singapore and the world, particularly the future generations of Singaporeans who will be the ones who really pay the price if the world gets climate change wrong. Emissions intensity is one relevant and important indicator. Other indicators of climate change contributions and resilience may include, firstly, our drainage capacity and technologies to withstand possibly higher levels of rainfall in future to avoid flooding and minimise ponding. Secondly, urban planning measures to reduce the impact of the urban heat island effect so as to maintain liveability in Singapore's highly urbanised environment. The urban heat island effect refers to how certain types of building materials, technologies and urban plans can inadvertently lead to significantly higher temperatures in particular areas of the city. Thirdly, the extent to which we maintain our terrestrial fresh water and marine biodiversity so that our nature reserves and marine parks can become sights for sustainable eco-tourism and research. Fourthly, the extent to which we improve and strengthen our local farming sector to better guard against the threat of unpredictable overseas weather patterns affecting our imported food supply. And, lastly, the extent to which we adopt or even use research and development (R&D) to develop solutions in the fight against vector-borne diseases like dengue that may be worsened by climate change.”
“Anthropogenic climate change could bring about great harm to many millions of human beings through practical consequences like rising sea levels, swamping coastal and inhabited areas, increasing frequency of freakish weather events and the spread of infectious diseases. Singapore, being a low-lying island nation, would be particularly vulnerable. Singapore's first intended nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement states that we intend to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030 and to stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. In starting the journey towards imposing a cost to carbon emissions in line with this commitment and in line with the long-term externalities that carbon creates, this Bill is a step in the right direction. In the rest of my speech, I will make a few suggestions in relation to this Bill. Firstly, will the Government consider creating a balanced scorecard for measuring the extent to which we are moving towards a society that mitigates the sources as well as the effects of climate change? Measuring our resilience to climate change recognises the possibility that the world may, indeed, get climate change wrong. And Singapore needs to plan for that eventuality by ensuring resilience. Indeed, the world was reminded of this possibility when President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on Carbon Emissions though one hopes that the US will eventually re-enter the agreement. Such a scorecard for broader climate change contributions and resilience could be populated with data and published at regular intervals for public debate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, excessive carbon emissions and climate change threaten to pose a grave danger to humanity. Those most endangered are young Singaporeans and future generations of Singaporeans yet unborn. The Paris Accord which Singapore supports represents what is best in the international community, namely, a determination to halt this dangerous slide towards anthropogenic climate change. Hence, as a nation, we need to set a good example to the world community. As a civilised country, Singapore should reject the unfortunate notion, fashionable in some quarters now, that carbon emissions do not cause climate change. The evidence that carbon emissions are causally related to climate change is overwhelming and represents far and away the consensus among scientists. Not only is the evidence of carbon emissions accelerating climate change overwhelming, history has shown that nations of the world can find the resolve to act in concert so as to reverse the negative effects of human activity. The best example of this was the damage to the ozone layer caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which was effectively halted by the global agreement on CFCs. The Montreal Protocol in 1987, which took effect in 1989, banned CFCs, halons and other ozone-depleting chemicals. Ozone levels began to stabilise in the mid-1990s and recover in the 2000s. Nations can find the political will to act in unison against the threat to the shared future of humanity. It is vital to keep in mind the prospect of success in facing important global challenges like climate change and not to give in to the kind of pessimism that guarantees defeat.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, how is the verification of compliance with conditions of incentives generally done? I would assume that there would be declarations made by the company and penalties attached to false declarations. So, is it generally going by declarations made or is there further verification that is attempted to be done by the agencies? Secondly, is there more that can be done by the auditors, because I assume, in most cases, companies which received these incentives are audited. Can some of the burden of checking be handled by auditors? One assumes the auditors do, actually, based on sample checks, check compliance with the Government's incentives, but they may not do so in all cases, I am supposing. So, is there more that can be done to require the auditors to flag out cases of non-compliance so that some of that burden of checking is outsourced, as it were?”
“Lest I be misunderstood, I do not advocate that Silver Towns be run by the Government, as some are in Korea, or come with 100% subsidies. The roadmap to this could be, after the concept has been studied, to issue a tender to invite master developers to build and operate a Silver Town. A pilot project could be used to test demand. Means-tested subsidies could perhaps be applied in some cases. The Government could also nudge Silver Towns to become testbeds for the trial of new, disruptive concepts catering to the senior community and make it convenient for non-government organisations (NGOs) to target and trial programmes aimed at seniors. Sir, Korean Silver Towns are not without their negative points, but I hope that the Government will study this idea further. Nursing Homes”
“I declare that I am the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an international research consultancy whose Korean arm has researched this subject. Mr Chairman, the Korean Silver Town model is worth a closer look since it is a roughly S$10 billion industry and it has had a long runway in Korea, evolving over the decades. In Korea, private sector Silver Towns emerged in the 1990s. Initially, they were driven by big conglomerates or chaebols, which developed a site for senior residences but also built in proximate facilities like retail, personal services, sports and recreation facilities and even, in some cases, childcare and play facilities for the grandchildren when children visit their parents. The Korean Silver Town model emphasises high-rise, high-density living, integrating smart technology, which is a little different from the assisted living and retirement community models seen elsewhere. Silver Towns in Korea have since evolved. There are different Silver Towns in Korea with different mixes of facilities catering to different price points. Silver Towns embody a balanced point between, on the one hand, personal independence and freedom to seniors and, on the other hand, the presence of medical staff, facilities and the most structured daily routine administered by professionals for those seniors who need it, such as those having dementia. I do not suggest Silver Towns as a substitute to seniors staying with their children. However, for some seniors, this is not possible while, for others, this is not desirable. So, Silver Towns could be part of the ecosystem, catering to the needs of our seniors, offering one option for living arrangements.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, some vaccines, like pneumococcal and human papillomavirus (HPV), are not subsidised but can be paid for using MediSave. Minister Gan said, in reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang at last year's COS, that Government MediSave top-ups can be used to pay for vaccines. However, many Singaporeans may not want to use MediSave for vaccines, preferring to keep the MediSave for bigger bills incurred later in life. The HPV vaccine, for instance, can prevent most cervical cancers, saving lives and cost, but only about one quarter of Singapore women are vaccinated. I have two suggestions. Firstly, can ECI consider studying and quantifying the marginal benefit in disease incidence and marginal long-term cost saving for the Government in healthcare subsidies, MediFund and so on from the increased vaccine take-up that a bigger subsidy for the vaccine price would bring? Secondly, can MOH study, by way of perhaps a trial, to what extent lowering vaccine prices through targeted Government subsidies for key vaccines would result in higher take-up of the vaccine? Based on these two actions and their results, my suggestion is that MOH can introduce targeted subsidies to greatly reduce the price of vaccines if there is evidence that this would stimulate higher take-up and not only reduce disease incidence later in life but reap long-term cost savings for the Government. Caregivers of Mentally Disabled Persons”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon. Just three questions for him. I may have missed this, but could he clarify how much the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) has been disbursed to date? Secondly, could he provide an update on MND's efforts to mitigate the risk of plankton blooms, oil spills and so on which may affect fish farmers? What are they doing on water quality issues? Thirdly, on the land tendering system, the Senior Minister of State talked about the changes to the system. Would the Ministry give some consideration to whether the tendering system, whether it is a fixed price tender or a more traditional tender, does that disadvantage startups and SMEs versus a large agri-business or corporation? We may have an interest to ensure that at least some of the land goes to startups or entrepreneurs. Because whether it is on track record or financial resources, large agri-business corporations may have an advantage. So, I just wanted to know the Senior Minister of State's thoughts on that going forward.”
“And, lastly, Sir, and specifically in relation to fish farmers, can MND provide an update on the efforts to reduce the risk of disasters like plankton bloom and oil spills which can potentially devastate the livelihoods of fish farmers, among other harmful effects?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an international research consultancy that does work in agri-food and other areas. Sir, nurturing the local farming sector is important for food security, which is a part of national defence, as well as for creating good jobs in what could be a high-tech, high value-added sector in future. I would like to ask MND what proportion of the Agricultural Productivity Fund has been disbursed to date. When I moved an Adjournment Motion on indoor farming in Parliament in 2016, only a small fraction of the fund had been disbursed. I suspect good companies and projects do exist, as some have been highlighted in the media and in the Minister’s speeches. Secondly, as I also touched on in my Motion, is MND looking into using underground space for indoor farming in the future, which London is doing, and which could bring certain food security benefits to Singapore? Thirdly, recently, AVA has begun to offer 20-year leases rather than the 10-year leases previously for farmland, which is a welcome move. Can AVA confirm if this will be the trend for future farmland tenders? Also, what measures are being taken to ensure that the tendering process is fair to entrepreneurial startups vis-à-vis large international agri-business firms, since we may want to nurture innovative startups in this sector with the potential to become globally competitive? Fourthly, around the world, a major trend is the increasing take-up of insurance and micro-insurance in the farming sector. However, our fish farmers have faced issues collecting insurance claims from natural disasters in the past. What has AVA done to help to educate farmers about insurance and the options they have?”
“Sir, firstly, I would like to thank Minister Masagos for his reference to the coastal adaptation study. I do not believe he touched on this particularly, but could he confirm if the study is also looking at parts of the coast, like intertidal coral reef zones, sands and mudflats and mangroves, as well as the islands like Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands? Look at the climate change impact on those areas as well. The second question is: are soft engineering approaches, such as planting coastal vegetation, if they do not exist right now, also being studied as part of MEWR's plans?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, in marine sediments and waters, microplastics have been detected in four beaches and in seven mangrove habitats in Singapore. They bear potential risks to marine life and human health by transferring persistent organic pollutants (POPs) up the food chains and into marine organisms which we may consume. Some argue that microplastics themselves should be considered POPs. Is the Government studying microplastic prevalence in locally-sourced and imported fish, and the extent to which coastal activities like recreational sports and shipping contribute to microplastic prevalence in coastal areas? Primary sources include microbeads used in the plastic industry and in care products like toothpaste and exfoliating facial washes. Will the Government consider imposing labelling requirements or a ban on industrially-produced microbeads as in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK)? What are the Government's plans to reduce overall plastic consumption, given that the secondary source of microplastics is the disintegration of larger plastics? Reducing and Recycling Plastic Waste”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, as a low-lying nation, Singapore is particularly susceptible to the effects of anthropogenic climate change, chief amongst which is sea level rise. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) commenced the Coastal Adaptation Study in 2013 and this was slated for completion in end-2017. But this has since been pushed to the second half of 2018. It is important to consider the impact of rising sea levels, not only beaches and sea walls but also (a) intertidal coral reef zones, (b) sand and mud flats, and (c) mangroves. These zones are not only bio-diverse, but also provide ecosystem services, such as buffering from sea level rise. Can the Government confirm whether the study is looking into protecting these parts of our coastal sea level rise which are, themselves, sensitive to sea level rise? In view of the fact that Singapore is not merely an island nation but also a nation of islands, is the study looking into coastal protection measures on our offshore islands, such as Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands? Are soft engineering approaches, such as planting coastal vegetation where they currently do not exist, being studied? According to the second National Climate Change study, models reveal that by the year 2100, monthly rainfall total during the northeast monsoon may increase, at worse, by 42.9% under the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario, and by 67.5% under the RCP 8.5 scenario. Given that rainfall is a major hydrological input, is the Government taking these projections into account in its plans to mitigate floods in coastal areas?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, during the debate on bribery probe at Keppel Offshore and Marine, Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah said "likewise, Temasek does not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies". Do Temasek and GIC not seek to share ideas and experience with their investee companies in ways that may enhance long-term shareholder value? Or are Temasek and GIC totally hands off, as it were? Are they not interfering in investment business decisions or operations at all? Not even offering insights, information or suggestions of any kind on any matter, be it commercial or corporate governance-related? If Temasek and GIC are totally hands off in this sense, would this not be a lost opportunity since they have the opportunity to share learnings where permissible across their portfolio companies and from their past experience as investors, not to mention connecting investees to agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB) which can generate win-win opportunities for investees and Singapore? Playing such a role, if kept within the boundaries of permissible information and idea dissemination, could be consistent with the Santiago Principle No 16 on operational independence while advancing Principle No 19 on commercial orientation.”
“Absolutely, yes. Just to clarify the answer that the hon Senior Minister of State gave. I have come across websites of schools which have chronologies of past events where the events describe an MP attending in their MP capacity before 2011 or thereabouts, and the grassroots adviser attending after 2011 or so. So, in the context of this sort of information, I would just like to confirm again ‒ and this is really my last point ‒ is it the case that that has always been the policy that MPs cannot attend in their MP capacity and only in their grassroots adviser capacity?”
“Yes, I did. I alluded to that in my cut speech. I attended one event in my private sector capacity. And in that capacity, I only spoke about one aspect of my private sector work, did not touch on anything to do with my role as an MP or perspectives on current affairs, public matters and so on.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary for responding to my cut. I just have four clarification questions. Firstly, can the hon Senior Minister of State confirm that Ministers and GRAs can actually officially attend events in schools and interact with students? He did not directly reply to me; so, again, I would just like to ask him if he could directly reply to confirm that point. Secondly, is it the case that in the past, MPs could attend events in schools in their MP capacity? I cited some facts that would seem to suggest that that is the case, but I am not sure. So, I am not making any assertion, I am just posing a question. Was it the case in the past that MPs could attend events in schools in their MP capacity and, if so, why was that then not deemed to be partisan politics? The third question is linked to the first two: if that was the case, then when was this policy changed, and why was it changed at the time it was changed? Lastly, I am just going to take another crack at this. If Ministers and GRAs can attend events in schools and interact with students as Ministers and GRAs, following a certain set of rules and that is not deemed to be partisan, why cannot Members of this House from other parties and also NMPs similarly interact with students following exactly the same rules? Why would the one set of interactions be deemed to be inherently and by definition non-partisan, the other inherently and by definition partisan?”
“I noted that on at least two schools' websites that prior to 2011 or thereabouts schools would acknowledge MPs but, after that, the schools referred only to Grassroots Advisers. Would the MOE confirm that this change was, indeed, made in 2011 and why was this change made at that time? In conclusion, Sir, firstly, would MOE consider allowing all MPs, including Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) into schools to be able to share their perspectives on public affairs in their role in the legislative process as MPs, all subject to the same strictures on speech and behaviour to keep out partisan politics? Secondly, can MOE clarify when was the apparently long-standing policy to allow MPs into schools changed and why was it changed at that time? Mr Chairman, Sir, we can pin labels that say "PAP is by definition okay"; "non-PAP is by definition partisan and hence not". But does that serve the best interest of our students who will become the citizens of tomorrow? Let us not make this a conversation about labels. That is a circular argument. Let us make this a conversation about what is best for our students.”
“Secondly, this blocks students from understanding the role played by elected MPs other than those from the PAP in our legislative process. MPs from all parties play a role in our legislative process that is enshrined in the Constitution which our students study in schools. Students should have the opportunity to hear directly from non-PAP Members of this House about their experience on the role they play in the national institution of Parliament and in the legislative work it undertakes. Surely, it cannot be argued that Ministers and GRAs are, by definition, non-political when they talk to students, but non-PAP MPs are, by definition, political. The same strictures on speech and behaviour can be applied to both groups when they go into schools. I believe that both groups should be allowed into schools but not to canvass for a party, not to engage in partisan discussion, not to wear party symbols and so on, that is, to be consistent with Education (Schools) Regulations, section 111. I know that non-PAP MPs can go into schools in their personal professional capacity. Indeed, I have done that before. But in that capacity, they cannot have dialogues about their role in the legislative process, whereas it would seem that PAP MPs can, wearing their Ministerial or GRA hats. I have a second question. It appears that in the past, MPs could go into schools in their MP capacity. There are public references online to MPs having officiated at school events in the past as MPs. I am told that there are many plaques in schools recording that a certain MP opened a particular school facility. In former PAP MP Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee's memoirs, he writes on page 18, and I quote, "I have made this call on many of the schools I spoke at during those early years as MP".”